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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?"

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.-

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.

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.

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."

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?"

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.

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."

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

"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.

"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."

"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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?"

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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!"

"Oh."

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."

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.

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.