Thank you.

Well, thank you. Thank you. We thought we'd have some props up here. And this is a good prop. It's a very good prop for the excellent reason that it's liable to become a billiard ball any time now. I just wanted to give you a nostalgic view of this planet. It's a nice planet. I know we used to take care of it in the biological survey. It was a park. It was a nice park at that time. It was well cared for, then the Republicans came along.

Well, we have a little bit of E-Metering to show you something about. Now, the E-Meter was developed in America. Then they forgot it. Actually, the E-Meter in Scientology is a very old instrument. Its based on the first — the first meter of this type was built over a century ago. Perhaps you didnt realize that. A century old. It was the Wheatstone bridge. It had the sensitivity that if you hit a cow hard with a baseball bat, the cow would fall down. And then they knew the meter was operative.

But we are not on a militant basis now of trying to prevent atomic warfare. We're not out on a "ban the bomb" proposition. We're not beating the drum in this particular line. I think they're too lazy to push the button. Give us another three years and we'll give them peace.

This meter — a meter — a psychogalvanometer is an integral part of the Keeler. I always get these two mixed up. Theres the Keeley cure, I think, and the Keeler lie detector. Its one or the other of those things. Anyhow, they use them with the police. The police fool with them.

And this very nice globe here is a nice piece of havingness and that's what this lecture is all about — havingness. Been a long time since you've heard about havingness and I thought it was opportune while we still had a planet to tell you about havingness.

And they have a Wheatstone bridge connected in a psychogalvanometer which sits along with the instrument. They basically depend upon the blood pressure gimmick. You know — did you ever go to a doctor and the doctor takes out this rubber tube or — I dont know — sack, and he wraps it round and round. And then he pumps up this thing and something goes up, and so on, and then your arm hurts like the devil. And then it goes down and then he looks at you fixedly to see if youre breathing and he says, "Fine." And he writes something down and then insurance company wont give you insurance. Well, that thing and a respiratory device — a respiratory device is the next item that they do. And they put it around the chest and they have an idea if the fellow breathes, "uh-huh-uh-huh-uh-huh-uh-huh," like that, hes crazy. And I always just thought he was out of breath.

Now those of you who are brand-new to Scientology and haven't been with us very long, make up your mind to one thing. You will either go away and we will pick you up next life or you will stay with us and be much happier this life.

Anyhow, this blood pressure indicator and this chest device and this onehundred-year-old psychogalvanometer, put together properly, brings a price of eighteen thousand dollars. Isnt that interesting? They have thousands of operators for these machines in the United States. There are thousands and thousands of operators in the police departments. And the machine is always suspect because it has a 9 percent error._

But one of the things you should know about is havingness. And this is so basic and elementary that all Scientologists forget it routinely and regularly.

When youre running one of these things you know nothing about past lives and you say to this criminal, "Did you steal the ladys handbag?" They never add the interesting question tagged to it, "in this life." And theyre liable to get any kind of a reaction. Let me assure you theyre liable to get any possible kind of a reaction. And they do. Men get hanged with this thing. Theyre operated by men who havent a clue about the human mind who are human bloodhounds with long flapping ears, and they claim out of these thousands and thousands of operators that there are only two hundred of them that are reliable. There are only two hundred of them thatll say they dont know.

Havingness has to go in fits and starts and fads so that every couple of years we have a big forward push to rehabilitate this subject — havingness. Every couple of years it has to be done all over again and then everybody forgets it. Why?

I know some of these operators and I have worked with police-lie-detector operators and I am quite, quite fascinated with the generality of their activity. Ive put a police-lie-detector operator on his own machine and I have made it do things that he never dreamed it could do. And he is one of the two hundred. And I showed him conclusively that he had murdered, raped, burned and slaughtered. That he was guilty of every crime on the book. But not in this lifetime. He was quite interested — he was quite interested in the fact that the machine was wrong.

Well, I don't know. I think their havingness must run down and mine too, you see. And then we have to go through it all over again. Now, there were thirty-six Havingness commands — thirty-six Havingness commands released by the First Saint Hill ACC. And they exist in HCO Bulletins and they're the pc's Havingness commands. And by walking through that thirtysix — just the Havingness commands for themselves — forget the Confront commands, just wipe those out — you can rehabilitate a pc's havingness. And havingness is a very marvelous thing to have a clue to in a pc.

Well, those are crude machines. Those are crude. Yet they hang men with them. But they have given electric detection or electronic detection of the human mind — they have given it a bad name. That is all that amounts to. Theres always the lower-scale mockery of the actual activity. And it gives it a bad name.

What does he consider havingness? Well, these thirty-six different auditing commands should be gone through at least to the distance that you findout they loosen the needle and give you a little tone arm action on a meter.That is very important because if you are running a Havingness Process which tightens the needle, it is not improving the pc's havingness. Quite the contrary. If you are running a Havingness Process which loosens the needle, you are improving the pc's havingness; and what auditors often forget is that their processes change the pc, and therefore the Havingness Process, particularly if it's an offbeat Havingness Process out of the thirty-six, is very susceptible to changing.

Unions are now passing rules saying that their union members must not be lie detectored. Naturally, naturally. I agree with them a hundred percent. Fellows dont know how. The reason the union gives is the operators are incompetent. Thats right! But they should give another reason. The machines stink. They might cost eighteen thousand dollars, but that is no index whatsoever of their accuracy. And their accuracy is poor. I think theyve even gotten sufficiently popular in the United States that they have been portrayed in the Dick Tracy comic strip. And that, of course, is a point of arrival for any police detection equipment.

And all during the first part of the week it works beautifully. And then they don't notice that during the last part of the week, it is simply tightening the needle. So you test the Havingness Process every time you use it. You test it at the beginning. You give a can squeeze. You tell the pc, "Squeeze the cans," and notice the looseness of the needle and then you say the Havingness command. We give him the Havingness command five, six times. And then once more, "Squeeze the cans," and notice whether or not the needle has in actual fact loosened.

Well, with all that one cannot expect anybody to have much respect for a little box that costs about a hundred and twenty-five dollars, and so on. Its too small; doesnt cost enough. But it has taken me and a lot of very fine electronics people ten years to build a machine that really could function. And it starts putting the older machines, of course, in the shade.

And if it has not loosened, find a new Havingness command out of the thirty-six. And those are tested exactly that way. You take command number one. They're stated in order of frequency that they occur in people so that your — the early commands of the list are more likely to be the command for your pc. And the ones late on the list are those that are only happening in freak instances.

That we did anything with the older types of equipment at all is surprising. That is all. It is just absolutely amazing that we did anything with them.

So you take the first command, and you give them the command a few times with this can squeeze test, and find out if it loosens the needle. If it doesn't loosen the needle, you don't even bridge out. You simply say, "All right. Thank you." And run the next command a few times between the can squeeze test. You just keep going down the list until you find one that loosens the needle. And that is the pc's Havingness command.

The physical response of the machine — let me show you a British Mark IV. The physical response of the machine has nothing whatsoever to do with its mental response. That is the first thing you have to know about these — that they can go through all of the physical response tests. This is very, very important to you — this factor. Its taken me a long time to find this. But theyll go through all the physical response tests without registering mental response.

And this is a very, very simple, easy thing to do. It's not very difficult and personally I don't think I would run a pc without his Havingness Process because his Havingness Process has the marvelous quality of being able to run out all of his PTPs and ARC breaks and everything else except his with-holds. And therefore — pc has an ARC break which is — a little bit upset. He gets upset somehow or another.

You can have a machine then that reacts to can squeeze, tone arm action, sensitivity, everything it reacts, except it doesnt read the mind. The reading of the mind is quite independent of the other and so you alter one of these circuits without knowing how they should read on the mind, and youve had it.

All right. You can pull the withhold or you can run his Havingness Process. But what about this particular circumstance? The pc gets so mired in to what he is in that he is going wog, wog, wog, wog and he doesn't seem to be able to come out the other side of it. And you're getting no change of tone arm and you're getting no change of needle. And the pc feels terrible and you probably are wrong.

Now, a 1957 American meter was a good meter. But it was altered and altered and altered because it was simply given physical response, physical response, physical response. You see? And nobody paid much attention to its mental response. So, let the meter that was made then take responsibility for the fact that there hasnt been any person audited in America for years with the rudiments in. You want to know why your case is moving slowly? Look at the meter and the quality of the auditor in the operation of the meter. Thats all. And this is the fundamental tool of the auditor.

Well, this is not any condition with which to reassess or anything else, so the best thing to do is to run the pc's Havingness Process. That is all. If you've got his Havingness Process, of course, you can run it, and he will come out. And he'll start feeling much better. The world will stop going around in a circle.

This is a British Mark IV. Its a very pretty little machine. Its very simple, but oddly enough consumes the same amount of current whether it is turned on or turned off, or nearly so. In other words, the shelf life of the batteries in here — how long they last on a shelf — is how long they last turned on in the meter. Its quite interesting, isnt it? In other words, its current consumption is about as close to zero as you could get. I dont know how many microamperes or whatever this thing has. I dont know how small amount of current this thing throws particularly. I havent measured this particular machine. But it has the characteristic of measuring mental response. And if your pc has a withhold, or if you have one, it will find one.

You can always make a pc feel better if you know his Havingness Process, so it's a good thing to have a pc's Havingness Process. We don't have any campaign in progress at the moment — get rid of the pc at all costs.

Now, when — one might say that one is terribly interested in withholds because he is interested in everybody being good — and that is probably the first idea that came into your mind when you first heard that Ron was interested in withholds. Then everybody will be good. This is a disciplinary action. That possibly was it. But that isnt true at all.

Therefore, havingness is quite an important subject. A few years ago, I could have told you in just so many words that I could have listed — and I did tell you — that I could list at least forty-three reasons why Havingness worked, why Havingness influenced the mind to the degree that it influenced it. I could give you forty-three reasons. And today I can give you just one. There is only one reason Havingness works.

This picture I have shown you of the reactive bank is just this: The more withholds a person has, the more solidly the bank stays keyed-in. And if you want to key out the bank and make the pc easy, you pick the withholds off. And it is simply technical. It has nothing to do with moral values. Unless you get the withholds off, the bank stays keyed-in and you get nothing done. And that is all there is to it. The bank simply becomes in a solid, agglutinous mass and nothing can be done with the bank in the presence of withholds.

This is quite historic because I've been telling you we didn't know what

So the fellow who is sitting there not getting his withholds off or not giving his withholds to the auditor is only cutting his own throat. He may be getting even with his valences and this may be — this may be all very well; but in truth, it is under that heading of, it simply loosens up the bank.

Havingness did and why Havingness worked for all the years since we've had it, which is seven years. Earliest Havingness activities were seven years ago. And all that time we've just been using it because it worked. We did not know why it worked.

Now, this little machine is deadly, absolutely deadly in that you could find out anything about anybody with the machine. Now, that as much as anything else, is a liability for the machine because people look at it, you see, as a police instrument. And its not a police instrument at all. Well, the police wouldnt know what to do with this instrument. They really wouldnt. This doll — you put this in the hands of a cop, and he would say, "Well, did you ever rob a bank?" And it would tell him whether or not the guy robbed a bank two trillion years ago, you see? Bang! He wouldnt know what to do with that. You dont believe it? Put yourself on it and find out how many men youve killed, Miss.

But today, knowing about withholds, we know why Havingness works. And the reason Havingness works is very elementary.

Now, this machine, this little E-Meter, doesnt have moral connotations. It has case connotations. And the very fact that people are afraid to get off their withholds gives you a good reason why people stay aberrated. A mores which forces people to have withholds is a mores which keeps people crazy.

Havingness can be defined as the ability to reach. Ability to reach equals the ability to have. If the pc feels he can reach something — I know this is so elementary. That very nice little boy that was sitting down in front here a moment ago, he could tell me. That's right. Everybody knows that. If you can reach an apple, you can have it. If you can reach a cookie, you can have it. That's elementary, isn't it? Everybody knows that. Well, why didn't you tell me?

So there is the long and short of why we use an E-Meter and what an E-Meter is all about. And it is dangerous to use a bad E-Meter. And it is a bad thing for an auditor not to know these things perfectly and not to have a Class II classification. An auditor certainly should be able to get that.

Now, the pc has to have the idea he can reach before he can have. Now, it's the idea that he can reach, not the possession. The idea that he can reach, not the action of reaching, which remedies havingness.

Well, it takes about two months of standing a person on his head and shooting him down and getting him up before dawn and putting him over the paces and Mary Sue sticking her head into the session once in a while and saying, "Tsk tsk tsk tsk." Only she really doesnt just say that. "What is that response? What is that needle response? What do you call it? What — what is that? What is that — that right there? What is that response?" Fellow says, "Thats a rock slam. Ha-ha." Its rising, you see.

Now, of course, you could make him practice reaching until he gets the idea that he can reach. Or you can get him to get the idea that he can reach, and then he can reach. But he doesn't have to reach in order to get the idea that he can have.

This is the basic tool of the auditor. Dont take it lightly. But it has a limiter. If an auditor has tremendous withholds himself, he does not want to know how to run the machine and he does not want to get any withholds off his pc.

All right. This planet here is a very, very good example — an excellent example of all kinds of wild misconcepts on the subject of havingness.

So it requires clean hands to audit with enthusiasm. Hence this campaign. Its just a betterment of technology that were interested in, not a betterment of your goodness. The day when you are totally good, I will sneer because Ill know that somebody overwhelmed you and pulled none of the withholds. You are entitled to a little wickedness. Of course, I think you went too far when you blew up that planet. And you may have some realization that they are still after you in that army. But one is not interested in goodness.

How many times in the last couple of hundred years has somebody set out to have the world? Our last casualty in this line — a fellow by the name of Schicklgruber, a house painter. Very interesting. His idea of being able to have was in direct ratio to the number of people killed. And I think he got rid of some 30 million human beings trying to reach Earth. But he knew that he couldn't have Earth so he had to actively reach with an overt.

Youll find that man is basically good, and he will do the basic and best thing unless he is totally aberrated. If you wanted a society to be totally criminal, you would have it have total withholds and provide no means whatsoever for getting them off. And then you would have a totally criminal society. And it could elect anybody.

His only method of reaching was an overt: war. Many of his intelligence officers and political officers could have told him that Germany had rehabilitated herself by about 1936 and all she had to do was sit there and make cameras and putter with the chemicals, and she would have practically conquered Earth because nobody else was interested. But what did he do?

Societies are as sane as they are in communication with one another and as insane as they have withholds. I can take one look at an organization and I can tell you whether or not the members of that organization have with-holds from one another because its a direct index of their efficiency.

He had to get armed men to plunge out against the German borders to wind up — I think it was a — five gallons of gasoline and a small square of earth that he finally had. Quite interesting, wasn't it? His idea of reach was an overt. Why?

Do you realize that because of valences and withholds that practically — there isnt a person on Earth who isnt himself an odd man out. Individuation. Cant belong. Cant participate. That is the keynote of this planet. And if we are able to attain an "all withholds off" — just that, not even fancy clearing on up the line, in Scientology — we will be the first true group on Earth. And I think thats worth working for.

Because when one has withholds, one can't reach, so therefore when one has withholds, one can't have. So one's only possible reach when one has withholds is by an overt.

Now, we have a little program here that were going to put on, and were going to show you something about this. We unfortunately are using — I think — an old 1958 meter and it has a projector. And its a very sluggish meter and its not a Mark IV. Nevertheless, you can still make these things work.

Why do people commit overts? Because they can't have. Why can't they have? Because they have the idea they can't reach. All you have to do is get some house painter named Schicklgruber and get him to get the total idea that he cannot have any part of Earth and that Germany cannot have any part of Earth. And then, of course, you get somebody who can only reach with an overt.

And now Reg is going to do a little bit of auditing here.

So he knew how to reach Earth: with guns and men and armies. Sort of stupid, but he did it. And you right here, all of you, even you little kids — weren't born yet — you had your share of that war, one way or the other, even though you were just pushing a jackhammer in some shipyard. All because one man couldn't reach and one nation thought it couldn't reach.

Male voice: Now its coming on.

One Scientologist, knowing what I am telling you in this lecture — working for two hours with Schicklgruber, the house painter — could have prevented in its entirety World War II. That's why I say give us another three years and we'll give them peace. Interesting, huh?

All right. Now, can anybody see that meter?

All he would have had to have done was run his Havingness Process. And if they'd run enough Havingness on him and gotten off his withholds at the same time — if they had done those two things, his major withholds, and if they hadn't missed one ... It isn't that you could have gotten all SchickLgruber's withholds off in two hours. You merely could have eased his case. He wouldn't have been quite so certain he was doing the right thing.

Audience: Yes.

Psychosis is a very easy thing to unsettle because it is a very hard thing for a thetan to maintain it.

All right. And now Id like to introduce to you how it is that a session should run and what is really important about a session.

A neurosis — I don't know why a neurosis gave Freud as much trouble as it gave him because I have difficulty getting a pc to hold on to a neurosis long enough to inspect it.

Auditor: All right now. Is it all right if I just give you a little check-over on some of your auditing?

But the entirety of neurosis and psychosis is insufficiently magnitudinous to constitute an individual study from the mind. It is a tremendously tiny fragment of the entirety of mental technology and knowledge. It is so minor and so fragmentary that it's hardly even worth studying because almost any process you have today will work on a madman. And it is so difficult for him to maintain his madness that you can unsettle it very easily. All you have to do is security check him.

PC: Mm-hm.

Insanity, the feeling of insanity, is the feeling that one must reach but one can't reach. One must withdraw but one can't withdraw. If you want somebody to feel how it is to be insane, have him get the idea that he must reach but he can't reach.

Auditor: Okay. All right now. Will you give the cans a squeeze? Good. Have you had some auditing recently?

And if you tell him to get that idea very good and very well, he all of a sudden for a moment will feel the glee of insanity. That's how insane people feel. It is as elementary as that.

PC: Yes.

Well, what makes this condition? If one must reach but one can't reach, what is it that makes them feel they can't reach? Well, they must then have withholds. Because nobody else is telling them they can't reach, so they must be telling themselves. Well, how are they telling themselves they can't reach? By having withholds, of course.

Auditor: All right. And whos been auditing you?

And the surest way in the world to run one's havingness out the bottom is to have a nice, handsome pack of withholds. Go out and commit a bit of a flub and then don't tell anybody about it and you have just a little less of this planet. And then go out and commit another flub and then carefully don't tell anybody about that. And you have just a little bit less of this planet.

PC: Stanley.

And then commit another flub and don't tell anybody about that and then have a little bit less of this planet. And finally you live in Moscow. Where is it? It's a small town here someplace — Moskva, yeah. That's it. Gorki, Gorki is one of its suburbs.

Auditor: Okay. All right. Now, where was he auditing you?

And you get pulled down to the Kremlin. And then you commit another flub. You have ten thousand Georgians murdered or ten million or whatever it was that Stalin the Great did. He had a withered arm, by the way. Wonder how he got it.

PC: In New York.

And after you've knocked off ten million of your fellow countrymen, of course, you can't reach any further than the Mausoleum and the Kremlin in the Red Square. That's all the further you can reach — is the confines of a glass coffin.

Female voice: Cant see the meter.

And then because you haven't had anything anyhow, your successor gets you removed. That is simply based on a cycle done of overts and withholds. Now, we see the overts so they appear to be very spectacular because they're quite visible. Actually, they're not as serious in deranging the mind as the withholds which follow them. So the fellow has the overt and every-body can see the overt, but then some part of it he withholds.

Male voice: Ron ...

Now it isn't that the overts are unaberrative because it's the overts and the shame of them and the overt act mechanism and all of that which then brings about the feeling that they just have to withhold themselves from doing that again. But it's the feeling they've got to withhold themselves from doing it again that drives them around the bend. Not that they knocked Uncle George over the head with a baseball bat, but it's the feeling they must never again touch a baseball bat because they might knock Uncle George over the head.

Auditor: All right. Now, what house was he auditing you in?

Well, of course, there were withholds that preceded knocking Uncle George over the head with a baseball bat because that, of course, was an overt action so it must have been preceded by withholds.

PC: Seventy-seventh Street and Third Avenue.

So criminal actions always follow a sequence of withholds. A gradient scale of withholds becoming larger and larger and larger eventually result in a criminal action. And that has filled the prisons of Earth. The criminal can only have by committing an overt. And we have carefully educated them into that and followed it along the line.

Auditor: All right. Thats fine. Now, how did you like being audited in that room?

Now let's look at Germany again and its 1939 effort to take over planet Earth.

PC: It was fine.

Do you know that Germany — Now this, I said, "Havingness is the ability to reach." Now let me tell you what no havingness is because that is where the trick comes in.

Auditor: All right. Now, theres something there. Whats — something you didnt like about that room? That. Oh, whats that?

Let's take a third dynamic example here and we have Germany, country of forests. I know, I was there and some of you were, too.

PC: Just just ... He ...

And these characters kept trying to come out of these forests. It was damp in there, you know, and all you had was mud huts and it was kind of blooey. And they kept trying to come out of the forests and go down into the Roman Empire. And it was a very interesting cycle, see?

Auditor: just.

They'd come out of these forests here and they had originally come in from Poland's — Polish and Russian plains. And they got into these forests and they tried to come across the Rhine and get some sunshine.

PC: All kind of block to the right-hand side of the ceiling.

And there was an outfit called Rome. And they had some armies and they were pretty good — we were pretty good. And we just made sure these characters could never cross the Rhine. We just made sure they never could cross the Rhine.

Auditor: A big ... ?

Every time they started to cross the Rhine, we knocked them back across the Rhine. We used to have punitive expeditions go in and burn a bunch of villages just to teach them that they shouldn't cross the Rhine. And they mustn't cross the Danube, and they mustn't cross the Rhine and they mustn't cross the Danube.

PC: Block.

The whole reason Paris was built was just to rehabilitate troops that were keeping Germans from crossing the Rhine. And it doesn't perform any other function to this day but rehabilitate troops if they .. .

Auditor: A big block. Uh-huh. On the right hand side of the ceiling. Uh-huh. All right.

Now, down through the centuries, this action continued. They mustn't cross the Rhine. So when they finally did cross the Rhine, they actually did want Christianity. They did want the civilization of the Roman Empire. They did want culture and they were perfectly willing to join up with Rome, but they — when they finally were able to cross the Rhine, they had to cross it with an overt. See, they had to cross it by conquering and destroying Rome. That was the one thing that they never had in mind at the first time.

PC: It was a beam of some kind.

But the prevented reach carried on as an engram. The prevented reach of the German areas of Europe. The prevented reach. And the German gradually became totally convinced that he mustn't reach Earth. And so he goes to war, 1870, 1914, 1939. And right now England and the United States are in contest with each other as to which one will sell the most arms to Germany. And everybody seems bound and determined to rearm Germany. Why?

Auditor: Mm-hm. Okay. Now, anything else in that room?

Well, obviously, "the engram must go forward." That isn't intended as any criticism of the United States and England. But I consider it fascinating. We have carefully prevented them from reaching over a long period of time and some of you were there, too.

PC: No. I thought of a blue — a blue package that you keep paper in.

Those marks that itch on your shins were probably greaves. The difficulties one has had with the Germans was restraining the Germans from reaching. And you always have trouble with anybody that you have prevented too thoroughly from reaching. Why? Because that's no havingness.

Auditor: Uh-huh. All right. Did you tell your auditor that?

The way you create the condition of no havingness is the prevention of reach. All you have to do is prevent a reach and you have brought about the condition of no havingness. Therefore, you have brought about a condition where an enforced withhold has been put in and the person will then get other withholds on their own, which are much more aberrative to them, you see — the "must reach" — the "must be prevented from reaching," you see. And you have run the other side of the withhold. And the other side of the withhold is prevention of reaching. You could almost run this on a pc. Whom have you prevented from reaching? You ever prevent anybody from reaching? Have you?

PC: No. I said I could have it.

Audience: Yes.

Auditor: You said you could have it. All right. Well now, lets ask you this again. Howd you like being audited in that room? Okay. All right. Thats all right now. Now, howd you get on with your auditor?

Then you set yourself up to have withholds, that's all.

PC: Fine.

When I ask you that question, "Have you ever prevented anybody from reaching?" here and there through the audience, you got a brrrrrrrrrr automaticity of it. Oh, no, you know.

Auditor: All right. A little reaction there. What was it?

Did you ever prevent a child from reaching? And you husbands, have you ever prevented another male from reaching? And you girls, have you ever prevented a man from reaching? Have you?

PC: Nothing.

Audience: Yes.

Auditor: Nothing. All right. Lets just check it.

Now don't come around and tell me it's a mystery to you why you have withholds, because that's the overt which brings about the withhold. There-fore, the withhold ties directly into havingness. Why does havingness deteriorate? Let me tell you this phenomenon about havingness. The thirty-six processes? You must have them. You must be able to do something about these thirty-six processes and get the pc's havingness and so forth.

Auditor: When he was auditing you, did you have a present time problem while you were being audited?

But there is this characteristic to havingness which you should be very interested in. You can run Havingness for a hundred hours on a pc and he will slump. All Havingness does is make somebody feel good and boost the case and make him easier to process.

PC: Not really.

But Havingness itself run on the pc just as havingness — "Look around here and find something you can have." "Point out something." "Where is that room object?" — "Where is the room object?" rather. Any one of those commands can be run and run and run and run and run and they are not therapeutic or — on a lasting basis. They are a very temporary basis. Why? Because the no-have condition is the condition of withhold and therefore as you have these withholds and as you get more withholds — as fast as your havingness is run up, it, of course, is pulled right back down again onto the Goals Problem Mass by the existence of withholds.

Auditor: Mm?

So you could run the Havingness on somebody forever without removing a single withhold if you're very, very careful, you see, never to remove a with-hold. Use a squirrel meter and it doesn't register anything but can squeeze. Put a cricket in the potentiometer so that you get needle action.

PC: Maybe, but not really.

You know, any kind of idiocy like this. Don't find any withholds on the pc and then audit him like blue blazes. Just audit and audit but never find a with-hold. Be very careful never to find a withhold, see. Audit and audit and audit and find things and audit him and find things and run Havingness and run Havingness and run Havingness and audit him, but don't take a withhold off.

Auditor: Something you thought of just then, was that?

And the case goes creak, creak, creak, creak, whooooom, boomp! Creak, creak, creak, booooom, boomp! The guy's pulling his havingness down faster than you can pull it up. You've got the frog, the traditional frog who is climbing up out of the well; and in the story he climbs up three inches all night and falls back two during the day, or vice versa. Only you are doing it now on the basis of three inches up and three inches down and three inches up and three inches down and three inches up and three inches down. And after you've audited him for ten thousand hours, you will conclude that you have gotten nowhere. And I'm giving you the sole reason for long auditing without lasting gain.

PC: Well...

If you don't pull the withholds, nothing is permanent. Everything slumps because the havingness runs down. And the Goals Problem Mass continues to be pulled in on the pc. See? Isn't that an interesting mechanism?

Auditor: Yes?

Well, more graphically, you stand back of the guy and you kick him and you say, "Go forward." And then you have a big, strong elastic belt around his waist and you kick him and he goes forward; and then, of course, the belt tightens up and he flies backwards.

PC: I keep thinking of nothing.

And you say, "What are you doing back here?" And you feel very upset with this fellow for not having gone forward and you kick him again, this time harder. And he goes forward a few feet and then he springs back in your lap again, so you say something has got to be done about this.

PC: Do I have to tell you ...

And you get somebody else to kick him harder. And then by the time you've brought in baseball bats and you've dreamed up large pneumatic motors that put out pneumatic hammers that push him forward and keep him out to the extreme end of the belt, you have now invented psychiatry. That's right.

Male voice: She wants to tell you later.

I'm not hard on psychiatry. I actually take it much easier than I should. But there — there's pure idiocy, of course. The fellow's withholds are going to bring him back. It doesn't matter how hard or violently you process him. He's going to go no further than those withholds remain unpulled. And that's it because his havingness goes down because the withhold tells him he can't have anything. And he can't have the gain he's making. He can't have the — a forward life. He can't have more in life. He can't have a better view of things. Don't you see?

PC: Do I have to tell you now?

He can't even see better. How many people have you worried over — you auditors — how many people have you worried over trying to improve their eyesight? Well, you keep trying to improve their eyesight and trying to improve their eyesight and trying to improve their eyesight and trying to improve their eyesight, and so forth.

All right. Now, have you withheld anything from your auditor? Okay. Thats all right now. All right. Now, was he auditing you over a present time problem?

Well, the guy can't have a brighter physical universe. How can he have a better eyesight? He can have that exact, dim blur that is out in front of him. Why? Because he prevents himself from reaching. He knows better than to touch a baseball bat because he'll hit Uncle George over the head with it. So he knows better than to see well. No telling what he will do.

PC: A few times.

If this could be done and it can't, fortunately — if you could take a criminal and improve his abilities a thousand percent, he could then be a very, very effective criminal. Couldn't he? Unfortunately, that can't be done. This is the booby trap in all efforts to go forward while remaining very evil. This is why the mystic begins to believe after a while that a person will never achieve more power than he can be trusted with. It's a built-in mechanism and it doesn't have anything to do with mysticism or anything else. That is an observation of the mystic.

Auditor: A few times? Okay. All right. Now, was there anything else that you withheld from your auditor?

The truth of the matter is that the individual cannot have a greater ability as long as he is withholding. One of the most pathetic cases — although he didn't look pathetic — that I ever processed was on an experimental run of a fellow who made his living by grabbing fellows off the street, taking him up a dark alley and hitting them over the jaw and robbing them of their pocketbook — or getting them into a hotel room, hitting them in the jaw and taking their pocketbook and leaving.

PC: I dont even know what it is myself.

And he had a withered arm. And I tried to cure his withered arm just with straight processing. Oddly enough, I did it a little bit of good. His mother had awakened him suddenly when he was a little boy — and a newspaper boy he was — and they were quite poor; and he used to be beat up every day by the boys in the streets, and they'd take his paper money away from him — and he was lying in bed and his mother woke him up suddenly and he pulled back his fist and almost struck her. And from that moment forward in his life, for the next thirty-five years, that fellow was still holding his arm back. That was the overt. Interesting?

Auditor: You dont know what it is yourself. All right. Well, what did you think of when I asked you the question?

But he dramatized hitting people in the jaw and taking their money. That's also interesting, isn't it? I find it very interesting. His disability was his criminality.

We tried to clear this. It was a big right.

I got a little bit of this off and he felt better and he felt he might not have to do it anymore. He told me. So maybe I've saved a lot of guys' broken jaws. But anyhow, I might not have lived in vain.

PC: Something to do with his wife.

But you see how that sequence went? An interesting sequence. He couldn't have except with an overt after that, of course, because he was so withheld that he couldn't reach. So if he couldn't reach, of course, he couldn't have. That's all there is to that. A fellow wears glasses; he'd like to get rid of his glasses. Well, he's got withholds, not necessarily this lifetime's withholds, but he's got enough withholds to last him. He's been busy on the whole track. He's been real busy.

Auditor: Something to do with his wife. Something you withheld? You withheld that?

But basically, today, he's become afraid that he will get busy again.

Okay. Did you tell him?

It's very interesting. You see a pc and this pc says to you his goal for the session.

PC: What time? No. did you? That. Come on, you tell me.

"Well, I'd like to get more active in life."

Auditor: Wheres it gone?

Well, that's fine. Of course, if you were running an average, routine session, you would not question this in any way, shape or form; but I'm talking about experimentally now. And we were to examine this: He wants to get more active in life.

PC: I love him.

If you were to ask him, "Are you active in life?"_ "No."

Auditor: You love him. All right. Tell him that?

"Are you active in life?"

Auditor: All right. You want to tell me later do you?

He'd say, "No."

PC: Yeah. A few times.

"All right. Now, what would you be liable to do if you became more active in life than you are?"

Auditor: Mm?

You practically will have keyed him in across the boards. Ooh. He can't tell you offhand what he'd be more likely to do. He suddenly feels this thing that he had better not. And then if you said — because this would be experimental auditing, and certainly not auditing — then you were to say to him, "Well, now how do you feel about becoming more active in life?"

PC: I choose to.

And he would simply sigh and give you another goal such as, "I want to be able to live with myself," or something like that, you know. Just a very rapid one-two.

Auditor: All right. Well, apart from that problem . . . All right. Now, was he auditing you over — oops. Apart from that problem was he auditing you over a present time problem? Okay.

Now you could do this trick. Now, this goes a little further than that. It goes a little further. We could do this trick. These, of course, are not auditing processes. These are simply experimental demonstration actions. We know all about that.

Auditor: Keep thinking of nothing? What is it?

But if we were to take somebody and take an offbeat chord on a violin intermittently and not rhythmically played, and we were simply to play that sporadically and oddly and peculiarly, note after note after note, and we did it like this: we'd say, "All right. Look around here and find something you can have."

PC: The word — the word "nothing" comes All right. So thats fine. Now, tell me, was there any — any auditing question that you left unanswered?

And the fellow looks around and says, "Well, I can have the far wall."

Little one up there?

And then we took our violin and we played some horrible, screeching chords on it one way or the other and then we said to him, "Look around here and find something you can have." And he'd probably say, "Well, I could have uh — I could have that chair in the middle of the room." And then we played some horrible, screeching chords on the violin and we said, "Look around here and find something you can have."

Auditor: The word "nothing." All right. Lets check it once more then. What have you done to Scientology?

And he'd look at you rather grimly. And not — you could rationalize it all out. Actually, it's going out on a mechanical basis.

PC: Who have you something. No, its still kicking. Whats this one now?

And he'd say, "Well, now I could uh — uh — uh — I could have the end of the violin there, the head of the violin."

Auditor: Who have you something? Who have you something what?

All right. And you played some more horrible, screeching chords one way or the other.

PC: I just — well — the phrase came to my mind — several things — I really dont

And you say, "Well, look around here and find something you can have." He'd say, "I could have the end of my nose."

PC: Murdered? Raped? have anything particularly there.

And the more horrible, screeching chords on the violin and you say, "Look around here and find something you can have."

Auditor: Mm-hm. That one — that one was

And he says, "Well, I could have this black mass inside my head."

Auditor: Mm-hm. Well, what did you think of missed, at that point?

And then some more horrible, screeching chords on the violin. "Look around here and find something you can have."

PC: I know it was the first thing that came to my mind.

No response. Because you are preventing his attention from reaching by giving him a sensory perception against him.

PC: Just "several things." That was the thing that came to mind. "Several

Those machines which make the loudest and most sporadic noise will bring about the greatest number of accidents in industry. Because, of course, they're preventing the fellow from having them. So therefore, the machine becomes randomity and also, under the care of management will be those which are broke down most often by the workmen. Interesting.

Auditor: Mm-hm. All right. Now, what was thethings" — the words, no pictures.

You could actually draw up a coordination. You could walk through a plant with all the machines running. And you could look them over and pick up the one that has the intermittent, loudest, noisiest action. And you could say, "Well, that one and that one and that one. Those machines break down more often than others, don't they?" And the management would say, "Yes, how do you know?" "Elementary, my dear Watson," or "My dear Ron."

Auditor: All right. Well, have you e — have you question then? PC: Hm. I thought of something else. ever spoken bad things about Scientology? Mm?

They prevent people from having them — prevention of havingness, you see. Quite interesting. So therefore, in a noisy or an enturbulated environment, a person's havingness is reduced. This is, by the way — was known on the whole track empirically. It was known in this wise. It was simply known that if you set up enough drumming and screaming and howling around an individual, he might go mad. He didn't inevitably go mad but he could be driven mad; and just enough random motion and action, and everybody pressing the motion and action in on him, he would eventually snap, you might say. He would get into a condition where he couldn't reach at all. His havingness would be out the bottom.

Auditor: Pardon? What did you think of?

Now a thetan is as well off as he can reach. He is no better off than he can reach. That is it. The character of his reach is monitored or the quality of his reach is monitored or established or becomes the belief, the limit of the belief of reach.

PC: I thought of something else, "WhatPC: Not really.

In other words, as we go down scale — as a person is unable to reach — the savageness of his reach increases. And then below that level, the covertness of the reach sets in and increases. And this ability to reach, oddly enough, suddenly becomes our old Tone Scale. And what do you know? The thing's right. Quite amazing. It is in its proper perspective, but it is the index of reach. There might be some things that could be adjusted slightly in it to make it absolutely on the button; but the thing was right from the start, which is quite a triumphant extrapolation way in advance of an actual datum. The ability to reach or the quality of the reach — these two things are monitored one way or the other.

have you done to Scientology?"

As a person has an ability to reach, as the ability to reach improves, the quality or tone of the reach improves. And as the reach deteriorates and the ability of the reach deteriorates, the quality of the reach deteriorates.

Auditor: A little reaction there. All right. Ever

So there is no such thing of beating a worker until he works better. That cannot be done. You can beat a worker until he creates the low-scale action one way or the other, but he'll start building in booby traps into what he creates. And all of his work will be booby-trapped.

Auditor: What have you done to Scientology.run it down at all? All right. Now, what was this first

I can see a car built by some factory where everybody feels they are driven with whips. Well, a Russian car, something of that sort. Man, I wouldn't want to go ac — much less go down the road — I wouldn't want to go across the running board and get into the thing because the quality of their reach is monitored by this fact: that a thetan never gives up. A thetan really never quits. He only can seem to so as to reach another way.

one? Who have you murdered?PC: No. Ive been unsure about how to — how to tell somebody about it.

I tell you, a thetan is an awful insistent bunny. I congratulate you. I never saw such an insistence. It doesn't matter how much the reach has been blunted. He will still try, even by making an impression of apathy. He is still trying to reach.

PC: Murdered. Who have I raped?

Did you ever see a very apathetic person putting up one awful show of being very apathetic? Well, they're simply trying to reach, for heaven's sakes, with apathy. They do, too. Look at the number of do-gooders in the United Nations. All they've got to find is some part of the world where everybody is sitting in apathy and they start saying, "Those poor people. Those poor people. Where can we borrow another six bombers?" That's not — not — not the way they've done it. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We've got to be careful of them because they're on a war of conquest.

Auditor: Who have you murdered? Who haveAuditor: Been unsure how to tell somebody

Now those people are the next people who will be trying it. Not the United States or Russia. Count them out. You've got a Frankenstein monster going. You've got a government without a people and they have no reason to reach. The people are sent there; they have no interest in it. You've got a low-quality reach. Well, Lord knows how it'll reach. Be the last way in the world I would ever try to get anybody to reach with a high tone. Just tell them they were not responsible for anything and that they could only bring peace and that they must never reach in anger and you — they'd lead you into a shooting war every time. And the UN has just led into a shooting war. I mean, another interesting war.

: you raped? All right. Now, what haveabout it.

They've had nothing but trouble ever since they've been around. America lost more in the Korean war — I think 365,000 casualties — wasn't it that way? More casualties than in World War I. Wasn't even our war.

you done to Scientology? All right. A

But this country now — the quality of this country's reach is lying propaganda at the present time. I don't mean to malign Russia. I don't think you could. But they're reaching. They're still trying to reach. They're still trying to reach.

little reaction on that. What was that?PC: Yeah. I felt really that I didnt do a very good job in explaining it.

And the Chinese. They're trying to reach like mad and everybody is still trying to reach. Well, the quality of the reach is what we're interested in. And the quality and length of the reach is totally dependent upon the lack of withholds. It's a direct index. The less withholds, the more quality of the reach and the further the reach. Isn't that — isn't that elementary?

PC: I thought I havent done enough.

Well, am I talking about the dissemination of Scientology? See?

Auditor: Mm-hm. All right. Well, just lets

You want to sell Joe Blow on Scientology and he's been down the street. And he's been falling on his head every time he turns around and you think it might be a good thing to his family because their screams late at night are keeping you awake. You think it might be a good thing if somebody did some-thing for this boy.

Auditor: You havent done enough. All right.check this question again. What have

Well, I assure you that you're not going to do much for him as long as you've got withholds, because you're too individuated. You cannot get up to a pan-determinism. See, you're being you. You're so convinced yourself of being you while he is being him that you then have to talk to him persuasively and sometimes sort of, well, "Scientology doesn't amount to much. And it's probably not much of an idea but possibly, sometimes by accident — something — you know and . . ." You could get down to a low-tone sell of this particular type, you see. I don't say that you would. Somebody could run it out afterwards.

So what is it there, that you — anyou done to Scientology? All right.

But you're sitting here and he's sitting there. Well, that isn't the way you reach. You also don't reach over and pick him up by the scruff of the collar and hit him in the jaw and say, "Now there, go to the nearest auditor." That's not the way to do it. You don't call for the boys in white coats the way the psychiatrists — I didn't mean to mention a nasty word. After all, children are present. Those things are not quality reaches of any kind whatsoever, you see. Those are very low-toned reaches.

omission?Thats clean now. Okay. All right.

You actually, if you had — well, look, look — just supposing you had — supposing you were over here at the Central Organization's HGC and you had 75 hours of nothing but a Joburg. And all he did was plow along and, "Did you ever cook a company's books?" You see. And "Did you ever take any change when you thought you shouldn't have?" And on and on.

Now, is there any other question that PC: Mm? your auditor missed on you? Ooh!

Of course, it might stick in you that somebody was getting evidence on you. No, that's what you used to do. We're just trying to get off your with-holds. And it's just get off your withholds and get off your withholds. And all of a sudden, why, you'll reach further and you'll reach further. And the quality of your reach, of course, is better and the quality of your reach is better. And your tone comes up and you can reach further. And there it is. And that's all the explanation there is to it.

Auditor: Is that an omission youre telling me?pC: I — Its ...-

I mean, it has no moral values or immoral values or anything else. But you find out a fellow with all the withholds off, of course, becomes a very dangerous person — extremely dangerous — because he has a high-toned reach and his intentions are good. And he does reach. And he's very dangerous to people who wish to mess everybody up. See how dangerous he is? Because he reaches them and they can't mess people up, he actually prevents their reach.

PC: An omission? Yes, think so.

So in order to keep from committing the overt, you then — after you've improved your reach — have the responsibility of improving the other fellow's reach. Don't you? That's right. Otherwise, you'd always be guilty of an overt.

Auditor: Yes?

All right. I'll run that out in my next auditing session.

Auditor: All right. Okay. Lets ask this — clear

No. Actually, a high-toned reach doesn't aberrate or upset anybody. I'm just joking with you.

this question again. What have youPC: I — the thing that came to my mind is

But all right. We have this fellow down the street and every night, why, we've been coming to pieces because of the screams of his family and so forth. And we got all our withholds off and we're in pretty good shape. And we go down and we say, "Hey, Mr. Smithers, so-and-so and so-and-so, and why don't you go over and see an auditor," or something like that. That wouldn't be a real good reason to have anybody audited, but you just tell him this, you know.

done to Scientology? Still kickingyou just asked me what Im nervous

And he looks at you with high hostility and snarls and the next day asks you what the fellow's address is. And you give it to him and he goes over.

here a bit. What is it?about.

In other words, he recognizes your command value through your ability to reach. See, your command value is totally dependent upon your ability to reach. Factually, altitude is totally dependent upon the ability to reach. It's worked out that way. It's basically the ability to reach. It's quite curious but you could land on a planet, total stranger; and if your ability to reach was excellent, you would have both altitude and command value. Not through your reputation. A reputation and an identity is a substitute for command value.

Auditor: Yes? Oh, I see. That. All right. Do we have a little mutual agreement here?

I go out and talk to people out in the sticks someplace — never heard of me, nothing like this and — just turn around and ask me what to do. Why? I don't have any overts on them or withholds. And you'd do the same thing. It's not even any trick involved to it. You talk about dissemination. Wow!

Auditor: All right. Okay.

You have failed to disseminate and pass on ideas and betterment to people to the exact degree that you had withholds. Isn't that horrible? That's accusative, isn't it? Makes everybody guilty, doesn't it? Well, there should have been somebody else around a long time ago making people guilty along the same line instead of saying, "Don't reach. Don't reach, ye, because the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Oh, you sinners. Oh, you'd better not do any reaching around here. Stop reaching. Repent. Repent. Stop reaching. You recognize you're a sinner. You're all evil, that's what."

All right. Now.[To LRH] All right Ron. Do you want some more?

I can hear it now rolling around the chautauqua circuits and rolling across the land — an educated, prevented reaching which would reduce havingness down to a criminality. And the end product of a great civilization is a criminal civilization because it has taught one another too well not to reach. It's very simple. Very simple. There's nothing much to it. Once you know about it. Once you know about it.

PC: Mutual agreement on what?

It's all very easy once you know about it but when you first look over the ocean, it is full of drops of water. And the only trick is to pick out the right drop of water. That's all. There's just an ocean full of drops of water and that happens to be the drop of water which describes havingness — it's reachingness.

LRH: Yeah, go ahead. You still havent

Now, for instance, you could have me — not to the degree that I have roughed you up or yapped at you or screamed at you — but to the degree that you believe you can communicate to me. See? The degree you can communicate. And you'll be very interested that over the years it has been the amount of traffic and mail which I have — of course, it's utterly impossible to individually answer nearly everything that comes in. It would be a twenty-four hour a day job because the mail has never stopped rolling since the first and early days. It has never stopped rolling. Until a Scientologist has gotten eventually a built-in mechanism to the effect that you — "Ron is very busy, and he can't see you, and you mustn't communicate to him." Heard that before?

Auditor: Thats all, what we said. I still didntcleaned up what shed done on feel . . . Do you consider that okay? Scientology.

Audience: Yes.

All right, now.Auditor: All right. Well, thats clean now, Ron. Thats clean now.

That's a prevented reach, isn't it?

this a question that he missed onLRH: All right.

Audience: Yes.

you?

And you know, every person on my staff knows that he ought to do it because he feels guilty as the devil. I mean any staff in the world. They feel guilty as the devil occupying any of — more of my time than is being occupied because they know very well that if you just add another thirteen and a half seconds to my day, my back will snap. And they go around saying, "Well, you can't talk to Ron," and "He's very busy," and "I'm awfully sorry." And they hate like the devil to do it.

Auditor: All right, now. Just this question —

So when I put out Standing Order No. 1, Standing Order No. 2, and Standing Order No. 3 and Standing Order No. 4 HCO Policy Letters as of last month, the people in the immediate vicinity of Saint Hill started throwing a horrible sigh of relief even though they felt it was a horrible overt. Because these orders simply consist of this one fact: That you must not stop a communication to Ron. It must go to Ron and be received by Ron and read by Ron and answered by Ron.

PC: Ive never even been asked it before.oops. Now, what have you done to

So let's forget the other old philosophy of "Ron is too busy to be communicated with" because, frankly, I never have been. If I need a couple of more hours in the day, I can always fit them in. It's just as easy to make thirty hours as twenty-eight.

Scientology? All right. Theres still a

Now, disabuse yourself of that idea because it's factually true that the bulk of your communications I do see. And now I can guarantee you that I will see all of them.

Auditor: You havent been asked it before.reaction there now.

That is all into the subject of reach, prevent reach and havingness, but it isn't for that reason. It isn't for that reason only. It's, I'm over the bumps now. I'm over the jumps. I've got the administrative lines pretty well nailed. I've got things pretty well squared down. The research work is pretty well taped. We know exactly where we're going and I think you will see exactly where we are going. It's very easy. There is no bad pitch or curve on our future intentions. It's quite inevitable what will occur. It's all for the good. The bulk of my work is done along this particular line and there would actually be no reason to keep up such barriers. That would be all there was to that because I do have more time.

Okay. All right. Now, is there any other question he always missed on that?

1950, I said Scientology, Dianetics, would go as far as it worked. Well, it's working — working very nicely, thank you.

PC: Ive helped all these people by coming

Havingness — havingness could then be tackled by an auditor — just reverting to the subject for a moment — could be tackled by an auditor in several ways. If he knows the definitions of it, then he could handle it by definition. Instead of, "Look around here and find something you could have," to find out if something was wrong with the room — although that will remain the standard rudiment — you could also say, "Is there anything around here that would prevent you from reaching the room?" And the person will almost at once spot anything that is there that would give you a needle tick on the room rudiment. Be another way to say the same thing, right?

you? Theres a little reaction. Whatsup here.

Male voice: Yes.

Auditor: Yes. All right. Okay. Well, is there .. .

Now horribly enough, you — it doesn't run well to say to a person, "What prevents you from reaching? Thank you very much. What prevents you from reaching? Thank you very much," because that's the motivator side of it. You'd have to say, "Whom have you prevented from reaching? Thank you. Whom have you prevented from reaching? Thank you."

PC: Nothing. I was given a Joburg.Check this again. What have you done to Scientology?

And that would just be another Security Check question, wouldn't it? So we come right back to Joburgs and withholds and any trick methods we've got but with the understanding of why a withhold is so deadly: because it cuts down the person's havingness and will never let the havingness restore.

Auditor: Mm-hm.

When you were young, the world was bright. What has happened since? Same world. You've got the same eyeballs. Must have been that between then and now, you have accumulated some withholds and prevented a few people from reaching. And that is about all there is to it. It's as simple as that.

PC: Havent done enough.

Havingness is an interesting subject. It's a subject that has been a very complex subject. It is not very complex now, but just because it drops into such an easy category, for heaven's sakes, don't forget it. Because if you security check and then run Havingness and security check and then run Havingness, the Havingness stirs up withholds and the Security Check takes them off. And you can play one against the other and you can increase the velocity, of course, of a Joburg madly. That makes it a very interesting, fast, much faster, action to run the two that way.

PC: And a .. .

Perhaps you didn't suspect before this hour that the withhold was connected with the Havingness and I must confess to you that neither did I until a couple of days ago. I didn't know that they were intimately related. They are sufficiently intimately related, however, to be practically the same thing. A no-have equals a withhold. A withhold equals a no-have. A no-have equals aberration. A no-have or quality of no-have equals the quality of reach or the lack of it and gives you the tone of the person. It's as easy as that.

Auditor: Well, all right. You havent done

So it turns out to be a very simple subject just like all of Scientology is. Turns out to be very elementary. But the trick is to understand it well enough to know what is elementary and what isn't. I'll leave that up to you or maybe we'll settle it in the lectures tomorrow.

Auditor: Oh, given a Joburg?enough. All right. Once again, what have you done to Scientology?

Thank you very much.

PC: Yeah.PC: Oh, I probably said it was no good in Auditor: Uh-huh. All right.

the beginning.

Auditor: Uh-huh. All right. Okay. Once more. PC: Or a Sec Check or something.What have you done to Scientology?

Auditor: Yes?Cleaned it nearly.

PC: And I kind of — one stage put a blockAll right. Okay. Now, what have you

on — on getting anything from anydone to an auditor? That. Mm-hm. past lives because I wanted it to be for

this life.PC: Can I tell you later?

Auditor: Yes?Auditor: That bad? Mm?

PC: And I guess I felt guilty about that,PC: Ill whisper in your ear.

because I cleared it with the auditorAuditor: All right. You tell me fast. and never went past life.

Auditor: Mm-hm. All right. Now, was there aOkay. Thank you. All right. Now,

question on that Security Check thatwhat have you done to an auditor?

was missed?Get a little kick there. Something else?

PC: Cant think of anything.PC: Doris.

Auditor: No. Okay. Its cleaned up here now.Auditor: Mm?

PC: Mm-hm.PC: Doris. Shes an auditor.

Auditor: Mm-hm. Well, what have you done toLRH: There it is.

her?

Auditor: Mm. Really.

PC: Nothing.

PC: I dont think its to do with this life. Auditor: No. All right. Any other auditor?

PC: No.Auditor: You dont think its to do with this

life? All right. So what is it to do Auditor: Mm?with? Tell me something there.

LRH: What have you done to Ron?PC: I thought of masturbating.

Auditor: And what have you done to Ron?Auditor: Masturbating. All right. Okay, well,

Mm-hm. That one.lets check this again. What have you

done to Ron?

PC: When he came in with a plaster on

his finger, I thought, Hm, hes gotPC: Well, I had a picture of kind of

plaster on his finger. Then I thoughtpushing a knife through his belly. he did it on purpose.

Auditor: All right. When was this?

Auditor: Okay. All right. That was the thought

you had, was it?PC: A.D. something.

PC: Mm-hm.Auditor: A.D. something. Okay. All right. Now, lets clean it up again. What have you

Auditor: All right. Well, what did you do todone to Ron?

him?

PC: I sent him a Christmas card.All right. Ive got it set, Ron.

Auditor: Mm-hm. All right. Now, about thisLRH: Thats all, thanks.

unkind thought. Did you tell anybody

else this thought?Auditor: Mm?

PC: No.LRH: Thats all.

Auditor: Mm?Auditor: All right? Shall I end off here?

PC: No.LRH: Yeah. Give her the end rudiments.

Auditor: No. All right.Auditor: All right.

Lets just check this again.Now, have I missed a question on you? Whats that?

What have you done to Ron? No, its

still there.PC: Having to do with being Clear?

PC: I dont know.Auditor: Something to do with being Clear. All

Auditor: [To LRH] Except that wasnt whatright. What was the question on this?

you experienced.PC: Why arent you Clear? [To pc] What have you done to Ron?

Thats clean, Ron.Auditor: Why arent I Clear.

?

LRH: Shes got a little tick there.PC: Why arent I Clear?

Auditor: [To LRH] You want me to pull it?Auditor: Why arent you clear. All right. Okay. Now, have I missed a question on

[To pc] Come on, whats this tick?you?

PC: No.PC: No.

Auditor: All right. Im just going to ask itAuditor: Okay. All right. Well, just look around,

again. Have I missed a question onhere and see if you can have

you?something.

PC: Uh-uh.PC: All these faces.

Auditor: Okay. All right. Have you withheld

anything from me? A little reactionAuditor: Mm-hm. All right. Something else

there.

PC: Theyre all pink.

PC: I was so nervous backstage, I thought

I was going to pee all over the placeAuditor: Okay. All right. Now, is it all right

when I came on.end this check now?

Auditor: All right. Okay. All right. Now, have

you withheld anything from me?PC: Fine.

PC: No.Auditor: Okay. End of check. Thank you.

Auditor: Okay.PC: Thank you.

Now, how do you feel about myLRH: Thank you very much, Reg. Than]

having given you this check?lot.

PC: Okay.

Auditor: Thank you, Ron.

Auditor: All right. Have we got an ARC break at all?

LRH: And thank you, Maureen.

Well, now you see it — it looked simple, didnt it? Looked very simple, didnt it, huh? Well, it is very simple. You simply have to know exactly what you are doing. But you can know what you are doing.

Now, let me mention something here. Now, let me mention something here thats very important. This young lady has just been audited and the rudiments are that far out. Ohhhhh, what was her auditor doing? Whistling Dixie? Now look, ladies and gentlemen, she would have been absolutely parked in her processing from there on out!

Anybody who knows his business will know I speak right and I am not trying to exaggerate this. I just want you to do a good job. My entire concern about these things is simply the concern of efficiency and effectiveness. That is all.

Now, what was this auditor using for an E-Meter? An old tin pot of some kind or another?

But now look. If I can build into your consciousness during this congress just this one thing — that that is a serious goof! That that is not, "Well it — you know — it doesnt matter. Its all very crowded so it doesnt matter, anyhow, and so forth. You know. Nothing matters anyway because all that matters, and so forth." To hell with that attitude! That is a serious flub! This girl was audited with her rudiments out. This girl was audited with withholds on Scientology. Whether she did or did not have an overt on me has nothing to do with the price of fish. But let me assure you, if you have lots of overts on me, the horror of the thing is simply that your case doesnt advance. And I dont give a damn if you have overts on me! But I do care if your case advances.

Now, perhaps that is an unreasonable attitude. The better and more stylized attitude about it all is — probably youre more used to this on the whole track, you see? — "Now, dont take my name in vain, and we will all have a nice temple."

It is true that people who have overts of one kind or another on Scientology, Scientology organizations, Scientologists, auditors, the auditor who is auditing them, me or other principal personnel in Scientology, park their cases. Im not trying to just sell you on the idea that all that hierarchy should be regarded with deep reverence. Your crime is not cursing out loud or putting it right when you feel there is something that should be put right. But when you get big withholds of one kind or another it just parks the case. Clank!

The way to play this — if I wanted to overwhelm you completely and entirely as a person — the way to play this would never let you get your overts off but would rig it so that you felt very guilty any time you ever thought anything bad about me. And if I could just rig it so that this was the highest crime in Scientology and if everybody would stand around and go, "Tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk," your case wouldnt make any advances either. But youd sure be overwhelmed. And nobodys interested in overwhelming you.

You stack up a lot of overts and withholds on what comprises the last two pages of the Joburg, and what do you wind up with? You wind up with no case gain. You wind up with the fact that you feel the only thing that will let you out doesnt work. And therefore, it doesnt matter what you do to it. And out the bottom you go.

Now, I have a sufficient level of responsibility to be able to tell you very bluntly that I want you to get out of the sump. I want you to get Clear. I want you to be happy yourself. My only reward is simply that. Now, do you think I would tell you anything that would turn you around and put you deeper in?

And when I tell you, "God, please dont audit people with their rudiments out, please, please," believe me, will you? Just believe me. And dont leave withhold questions uncleared. Clear them all. Because youre going to leave somebody with ARC breaks. Youre going to make the auditing sessions very rough. Youre going to make it so nobody gets a gain. And you have trapped somebody in the mire. And that is not a small thing to do. Withholds are that important.

Why are they that important? Theyre that important because as a person withholds more and more on top of the reactive bank, the reactive bank keys in more and more and more and more. And the more withholds, the more key-in. And while youre busy stirring up this reactive bank with very powerful processes in Scientology, you have fixed it so nothing releases by letting the person have uncleared withholds while being audited. Thats sort of a dirty trick. Its like putting somebody in a — an iron turret and clamping down the door and then turning fire hoses loose inside. Ah, the iron turret is the withholds. He cant move off of that point. He cant progress on that track. He cant go anyplace from there. And yet youre running processes that stir up all the energy in the mess and turn it all over and go round and round and round. But he cant get out of it. And he will become a very unhappy person. And he will then begin to believe that the only thing that can let him out doesnt work. And that its no good. And that is an overt. I think you will agree with me that thats an overt.

Now, if we didnt know what this was all about and if we were ignorant of it, oh, well, thats one thing. But if were not ignorant of it and we still continue to do it, Id say that was nearly criminal.

How can anybody be audited today and wind up at the end of an intensive with a meter reacting on rudiments and withholds, uncleared and missed auditing questions and overts? And that wasnt very much. This little girl had done nothing. She had unkind thoughts because she had an overt. By the way, that is the mechanism. They think they have a terrific overt, or they do have a terrific actual overt, and then they go on thinking unkind thoughts. The unkind thoughts are not the overt. See, its the earlier overt that makes the unkind thoughts come up.

The only reason you tick anybodys unkind thoughts is to find out if theyve got an overt. You dont pull the unkind thoughts. That could take you hours. You pull the overts and that takes you, if youre good at it, seconds.

The way you trap somebody up against something is to cause him to have a problem with it. And the way a person has a problem with it is not be responsible for it. And if a person withholds thoroughly enough from the other side — A and B as I showed you earlier — if he withholds at all, he is then being one-sidedly irresponsible for the other side of the problem and it doesnt blow. Purely technical.

But it crosses, of course, the mores of life. It crosses existence as it is today, because there have been a lot of slave-makers around. There have been a lot of people around who were very, very, very anxious to have the rest of everyone in a trap. These people were afraid.

This is the same rationale that if we put — if one man in a city can put the rest of the city in cages, then none of them are going to attack him. And it requires the rather interesting idea that everyone in the city is going to attack him before he wishes to put himself in a position where he is the only one in the city who can walk around. And how long do you think that person is going to feel free after he puts the rest of the people in jail? He isnt going to feel very free. Hes going to be awful stacked up on the track.

But it takes that kind of psychosis to put everybody else in cages, just so self can be safe. I dont feel that insecure. And most of you dont feel that insecure. What about a fellow like Hitler? My God! What level of insecurity the man must have had. He wasnt trying to conquer the rest of the world. He was trying to get his hands on it so he could put it in a concentration camp, so Mr. Hitler would be safe. Im sure that was all it amounted to. Im sure it upset him to have all those people free.

Well, if Ive got nerve enough to let you free, for Gods sakes, have nerve enough to do it right. Very simple. You saw an auditing session. Didnt look very complicated, did it? Actually, it wasnt a very easy session to pull off. It takes a good auditor to pull off a demonstration session like that, and dont kid yourself otherwise. Because the pc is jumpy and the pc doesnt react properly. And you got to carry it out and you got to pull things in front of a crowd; and youre actually releasing withholds not just an auditor in a small auditing room, you see? Youre setting up these public address systems throughout the world, the way it seems to the pc, you see? And make the pc give up ..on anything, thats pretty rough.

But thats a very standard session. Thats just a little patch-up session, but nevertheless, it had all the elements of a proper session. Only when he was trying to clean up the withholds in the middle of the thing, and so forth — ordinarily the process would have fitted in there. Or the Security Check would have fitted in there. Thats what would have fitted there.

But let me — let me assure you of this one point. If we can conquer this one idea — that it is worth doing very well and it is worth doing very thoroughly — it is actually very simple. But if we can just get the one idea that its worth doing well, well have won all the way because what we know now will carry it all the way. And its very well worth doing.

Ill give you an idea. We have somebody and weve taught him to do what we call a Joburg — a Form 3 Joburg. The reason its called a Joburg is because it originated in Johannesburg, South Africa, taken out of the laws of the South African courts which list quite a few crimes. And it was dreamed up there and it didnt have any name.

We had things we called "Security Checks" and this is, of course, a misnomer. These things have been used for security in the past and it graduated over into processing and hardly anybody has started calling it a processing check. Nobody has called it that, basically because every time they came to America they would have to say processing. And every time they went to England they would have to say processing. And "security" is "security" in both countries. Joke.

Anyway, this is a "Joburg" — is the slang phrase for it, and its page after page of, "Have you raped, murdered, burned, shot, stolen, cut the throats of, betrayed, dissected, practiced psychiatry, been a newspaper reporter?" Any crime in the book is listed on this Joburg. The last two pages of it are devoted to Scientology crimes.

You just saw some pulled just now. Those are the high crimes that — well, listen, a pc could have raped, murdered, burned, shot, slain, skinned alive and so forth and still get through. But they cant have run around their neighborhood telling everybody that the Central Organization was no good and get that much of a case gain. That happens to be fact, not advertising or propaganda. Why? Because they have overts on the thing that will help them, so they cant take responsibility for the very session they are in. That is the mechanism.

So the last two pages of the Joburg is a trite phrase, a cliché, when you talk of sci — of Security Checks. Theres the Joburg and theres the last two pages of the Joburg. And an ordinary sentence for an auditor who wont get withholds off — because we know if he wont get withholds off, the first thing we know about him is that he has withholds, see, with magnitude. See, obviously he cant take responsibility for both sides of the auditing session because hes sitting there, you see, withholding, and the pc is over here and so he cant be responsible for the pc. See how simple that is?

So we make sure that when he gets processed that he gets himself — and this is the exact sentence — the last two pages of the Joburg and a Form 6. Whats a Form 6? Its all the mis — horrible handling he has done to pcs any-place, anywhere. And the last two pages of the Joburg is all of his overts off Scientology. If we do those two things for somebody, hes all straightened out. Once in a while, we have to go to extremis and we say, "The last two pages of the Joburg and a Form 6 with guilty version — with a make guilty version." Now, thats sort of extremis. Make guilty version._

You find out every once in a while some auditor goes in for the fact, pc gives up a withhold, auditor makes the pc guilty of the withhold. So a Form 6, guilty version, simply is a basis, "Have you ever made a pc guilty of ..." not "Have you ever done . . ." and thats for every question in it.

You could also run the Joburg with this. You could say, "Have you ever burned down a house?" is the question, you see. And you could say, "Have you ever made anybody guilty of burning down a house?" You get almost equal magnitude response.

It isnt a withhold but it is the setup to have a withhold about burning down houses. And peculiarly in Scientology, here and there, an auditor has set out to make it his business to enforce the morals and mores of the razzle-dazzle temple group of the Marcab Confederacy or something of the sort. And every time a pc gets off a withhold saying he murdered, burned, shot down, didnt give the right change to the streetcar conductor, why the auditor would sit there and say, "Oh? You realize, dont you, that that is a crime?"

"Oh, yes, yes."

Its just kind of a joke because the fellow is a fine auditor now.

The one lovely thing about Scientology is nobody ever holds your past against you. The past is our business and so nobody holds your past against you. That makes us one of the oddest groups that ever existed because the only reason groups exist here on Earth at the present time is somebody has a record of your past and might be able to hold it against you. So, therefore, you had better stay in line. That is the single mechanism of keeping people in line used here on Earth today.

You dont want to commit a crime because then you will have a police record and then you wont be able to get a job. Do you get that rationale? Well, thats holding your past against you. And, of course, some of these fellows fall from grace.

But this particular chap — he isnt here today and I shouldnt be telling stories of school because hes a fine auditor — he has become since a very fine auditor. The only reason we made way — made a dent in his case was to get the "make guilty" on the — on the Form 6. And this "make guilty" on the Form 6 — you see, thats what youve done to pcs — thats the whole of the Form 6. And "have you made guilty, have you made guilty, have you made guilty . . ." on every question — was just bang! bang! bang! crash! crash! crash! You know? And instead of, "Have you ever upset the pcs chair — have you ever kicked a pcs chair intentionally in a session?" you see, or something like that. "Have you ever made a pc guilty of kicking a chair in a session?" You see. Any-thing like this, you know. Crash! Crash! Crash! We finally traced it back.

We found out that it wasnt attributable to Scientology. It was because he had apparently been one of the high officials of the French government during the Terror. Hed evidently been one of Robespierres boys. And, of course, he was just carrying it over as a habit pattern. Soon as we got rid of that, bang! Fine auditor. See, he knew what to do. He knew the best thing to do. To enforce the mores of the society, of course, all you had to do was make everybody guilty, then everybody would be good and then everything would run fine.

Except let me call it to your attention that that philosophy has been going forward now for two hundred trillion years and has yet to work well. And I think its time somebody held it to question.

Now, if I can — if I can coax you forward into the realization (1) that it requires an instrument that will read in order to find, and (2) that it requires a great alertness and a perfection of training in order to do a thorough job, and (3) that it is the highest crime in the world to leave a Sec Check question missed — if I could just leave you those, do you know that Scientology in the United States would go at a much higher velocity than ever before? You would almost not recognize it with the speed forward that it would make. It is that important.

He who hath withhold will not take responsibility for nothing, including him. We dont even want you to take responsibility. All we want you to do is relax and be yourself. You know really, youre quite a guy, and wed like to meet you. But were not liable to find you back of all those withholds.

No, that is our program. It has nothing to do with morals. It has every-thing to do with upward and onward and freedom. If you can just be brave enough to be good enough to get the job done, you will be free.

Thank you.