Thank you.

Well, hello. This is lecture #2, 2nd South African ACC. What is the date? 25? 24. What do you know? I have a hard time keeping up with Earth time with all the other things that are going on.

Well, today we have a talk about.... by the way, talking up against this silver screen up here will run out all your movies. We’re gonna get some light in there tomorrow.

Going to have a talk today about Presession 38. Never heard of it? All right. That’s good. Staff auditors go ‘duuh’.

Presession 38; the Dianetic assist.

Now this is why you’ve got to know about E-Meters. You got to make these things play Yankee Doodle, God Save the Queen, and Deutschland über Alles.

The difficulties of running an E-Meter are resident with the auditor. There is nothing very difficult about an E-Meter but there is a great deal of difficulty in overcoming one’s aversion to the invasion of privacy.

You see, you all run on a common agreement that you won’t get in each other’s heads. That’s why we use an E-Meter, so that it can get in peoples’ heads. But if you think I’m joking about the invasion of privacy, that country which least likes to invade privacy and considers it bad form and all that, has the most trouble with the E-Meter. It’s a direct coordination, a direct correlation between these two facts. You just might as well make up your mind to the fact, that this puts you into the realm and zones of high power. And if you realize this is what you’re flinching from... if you realize that the entire Hitlerian kingdom, empire and whatnot was run totally on police dossiers and blackmail.

I don’t know if you knew that, but that was the way those boys came to power, over there in Germany in about ‘33. They just got a little bit on everybody. And the way they governed was to have a full file on the whole town, the whole state. And they would say, “well, if you don’t go out and murder yourself a flock of Jews, then we’ll just have to expose the fact that you have nasty habits of making passes at your fellow man.”

This, by the way, is an oddity since it’s still carrying on and gives us government by perverts.

Now, I don’t mean to get into the seamier side of life, but after all, we’re all professionals here. Let’s take a look at this thing flatly. If they can find something on somebody and then keep it secret, and then tell the fellow that they’re going to let it loose unless..... You have the woof and warp of modern government.

Now communism learned its lesson from Hitler or Hitler learned its lesson from communism, Hitlerian government. But right this minute, the entire communist empire, the whole ruddy, cotton picking lot, is run not by skill in government, but by blackmail and nothing else. And if you have people in government who can be blackmailed, you will become a communist state.

It’s not that it’s a better political philosophy. But it’s one which remorselessly uses blackmail to ascend to power.

Now I’m not joking about this. After all, the old expert’s talking to you on this.

I was a B-3 of the Office of Naval Intelligence. I graduated from the Princeton School of Government, also, toward the end of the war.

This is a mechanism used by intelligence services. And has been for a very, very long time. And it’s just that intelligence services have become ascendent in this world of ours today. You’re not being governed any more by politics. You’re being governed by intelligence activities. It’s who they’ve got on what.

Intelligence dossiers pick up all the data that the people don’t want known and then they just let them in on it. And they say “well, if you don’t .... next time you go to your office in the State Department, if you don’t pick up document 613 that we’re so anxious to get and pass it on to Operative 5, we’re going to let your wife in on who you’ve been sleeping with.”

And the guy says “oh no, no, no, no.”

So he picks up document 613, hands it to Operative 5 and then they say, “look, we now have new data on you.” “You’re the person who picked up document 613 and handed it to Operative 5.”

Criminals operate this way and have since time immemorial. They get some fellow to stand as look-out and then they tell him he has stood his look-out for a crime. And then this really goes, “what?” “Yes, you can go to prison as an accessory to the fact. The next job we pull, you’re going to help us out.” Criminals are made by blackmail, and so on. So there’s a natural aversion of this.

Now I’m not telling you something you don’t know. I’m bringing to light something you probably have forgotten.

In your basic aversion to invading privacy and giving up little scripts of data on yourself, and so forth, are all founded in the data which I have just been giving you. Which is, of course, on the whole track. Liberally.

You think somebody is going to use this for blackmail. Well, blackmail only works in a society where everybody obsessively with-holds. If you could break the back of that, you would break the back of every Hitlerian, fascistic, Communist criminal government in the world.

Honest people have rights. If you’ll notice the laws of the lands these days, more and more police common behavior. The psychiatrist is there policing common behavior. You scratch your head, he describes to you how this demonstrates conclusively that you’re crazy. You have a habit of fingering the lapel of your jacket and this demonstrates that you’re crazy. You like wine with your women, this demonstrates that you’re crazy. You like men. This demonstrates that you’re crazy. Got the idea?

Today no country can afford moral laws. No country can afford laws which punish immoral activity. Because who’s to say what’s immoral?

There is no immoral act which is not moral in some ethnic group in the world. It’s fantastic, you know? But it’s very true. This is an ethnological fact and one that you would be very startled about, perhaps, if you weren’t down here in a country which has ethnic groups of strange moral practices already. The Bantu has quite a few interesting characteristics from tribe to tribe and area to area. In Arabia it is immoral to have one wife. In America it’s immoral to have two. You get how this is?

It’s very peculiar, tracing these various data. Well, for instance, you’re only supposed to have one husband in South Africa and you’re just selfish in Tibet if you don’t have ten.

No nation can afford to threaten with prison and punishment, fines and so forth, immoral conduct. No nation can afford it these days because it runs smack into the hands of the political monsters who use this intelligence activity in order to govern.

I would hate to think that my control of human beings was so bad that I had to govern them by blackmail. I should think it would be such a forceful self criticism that I was slipping. Yet most intelligence groups, if you have... as an intelligence officer, you have a hundred operatives operating in some area, you’re supposed to run them all by blackmail. Your operatives are supposed to be held in line by blackmail material. Well in handling operatives, I myself have never found it necessary.

And as a matter of fact, governed a ship of criminals one time. A whole ship. A hundred percent. They were on their way to Portsmouth Naval Prison and they took them off the prison train and shipped them to me. Combat vessel needed a crew. They didn’t have any crews. They had a lot of people in uniform, but didn’t have people they wanted to send out into the teeth of the North Atlantic in 1942.

A hundred percent criminals these fellows were. I governed them by throwing away their service record books. I just told them, “well, I’m not going to make any marks in your service records.”

I saw them come aboard with their braid dirty and their hammocks black with grime and they stood there slouched, and that was the first intimation I had that this was the crew. There they were. More than a hundred men lined up on the deck. And I said, “these fellows have had it.” And I asked the yeoman, “what’s this all about?”

“I don’t know, sir.”

I said, “well get their service record books. Let’s take a look.”

Second I did, they were all scheduled for Portsmouth Naval Prison. For years of imprisonment. And yet, they thought it would be better to send them to the war. It had never even occurred to me that the Navy Department might be mad at me. But they could have been.

So I took their service record books, enormous pile of them, took them out in front of them and I said, “do you see these books? I’m not going to make a mark in them. Whatever you do is between you and me. And if you’re willing to put up with what punishments I give you, if you’re willing to serve this ship, maybe we’ll survive the war. But as far as these service records are concerned, I care nothing about them.”

Dumped them a mailbag and dumped them in the safe and never looked at them from that time hence forward. I didn’t even know what crimes these men were assigned for. And they made a splendid crew. Took a lot of doing. But all of a sudden these men were standing sea watches in undressed blues, merely because they thought it would look better. They were quite remarkable.

All I had done was take the weight of super officialdom and dossiers off their back. I had set them free to that degree. I just wouldn’t want to govern anything any place on the basis that I could send men to jail if they didn’t do what I said.

Something staffs don’t even know. I never fire anybody in Scientology organizations, I never do. Been years since anybody was pushed out in any way. Some fellow’s been eased off the line for a week or two, but that’s about the end of it. He usually found himself back on the line quite promptly. No, the only people that leave are the people who’ve got overts and blow. That’s about all you can say about that.

Now this is very fascinating to you from one standpoint. As long as you have secrets, you get people departing from the human race. And as long as these various activities of blackmail, and so on, exist in politics, you’ll get an allergy to having one’s past investigated or giving up one’s past. Therefore, it isn’t enough in Scientology that we simply sit around and make a few people more able. We’ve got to take a further responsibility than that. And one of these fine days, I’m going to kick these laws about immorality in these various governments in the head before we have to pick up the machine guns to man the barricades. Because governments which have such laws go mad.

Man that is governed by duress and blackmail goes bad. Man holding on to his overts and secrets goes bad. This is the basis of aberration. Secrets. They are the opposition to communication. And if we wanted to say the single aberrative factor of modern living, we would say it is simply the necessity to have secrets. Because so long as your preclear has secrets, he is not going to communicate to you. Your preclear is not going to get better. That’s a very flat statement, isn’t it?

As long as your preclear has secrets, he is not willing to communicate to you. He is not going to get better. And all of your skill, all of your ability, all of your tremendous élan, the way you hold your finger as you adjust the tone arm, all of these various things go for nothing. What you know about the reactive mind, the analytical mind, what you know about engrams, the time track. What you know about processes, what you know about model sessions, any of these things, they all are for nothing if your pc continues to have secrets from you.

That is an interesting fact, you know? And it’s something that we haven’t really faced up to. That can defeat us.

In the ARC triangle, C is the most important. C is the most important of affinity, reality and communication. It’s communication. And whatever blocks or dams communication stops the gain of the individual. Why? Because his gain is measured in his ability to reach or control his reach.

Now some fellow has to take a desperate choice. He has done something for which he could be sent to prison. In this lifetime. And if he’s done something that he could be sent to prison for in some past lifetime, of course he can easily give that up because nobody, according to present law, can shift this on him so that he can be sent to jail for something he did in his last life. So therefore, these become relatively unimportant. He’ll give these up when he finds out about them. And he always gives them up as fast as he finds out about them. He might be nervous sometime to give them up, but he’ll give them up.

But this lifetime, that’s a different proposition. He may have done things for which he could be put inside for.

There’d be several things you could do to make a society much saner if you put a three year amnesty on all crimes. Just that. It would even sound reasonable to legislators. Why are they tearing around in circles trying to solve crimes ten years ago when they can’t solve yesterday’s crimes, you see. Say well every three years wipe the record. All of the sudden the society would start looking saner. And all of a sudden all these little cliques with all of their blackmail would suddenly fold up. That would be an interesting thing. You would see blows in some of the most important parts of the government.

Then all of a sudden some fellow that’s really been somebody, you know, in the government, he all of a sudden just has no power. He’s lost all of his lines. He was controlling by blackmail. A very bad thing to do, but there it is.

Now this amnesty, however, doesn’t exist as yet. But the best part of a persons lifetime has been innocently spent. And very few preclears are withholding crimes. But the funny part of it is, if they withhold it, they think it’s important. Got that? If they withhold it they think it’s important.

Now, rather fortunately amongst us, we have always had an aversion to punishment.

You know when I first put out the Code of a Scientologist, the word punish was in there to punish people for messing up Scientology, you know? It’s in one of the Code of a Scientologist. And you know I got more protests from Scientologists about that word punish. They’re absolutely right. Punishment is the car of aberration. Punishment proves to somebody that anything he does will get him hurt. And the Axiom of aberration and the very center of the Reactive mind is ‘all doingness harms self.’ That is the basic core of the Reactive mind. All doingness harms self.

Therefore, the more aberrated a person gets, the less he can do. Because he becomes more and more convinced that he’s going to harm himself by doing. And punishment, as performed by the state, seeks to confirm this basic craziness. It says if you do so and so, we’re going to make sure that you realize you will be hurt.

You don’t have any governments on Earth today. You have dramatizations. Just dramatizations of the basic Axiom of aberration. Punish, punish, punish, punish. See how that would be?

Well, that’s a short term way of looking at it and I guess it was the best answer that anybody could turn up early on the track. So here it was later on the track, the thing to do, and so on, and there it is. But Scientologists don’t like punishment. They’ve always thought this was a bum show. They’re absolutely right. Their instinct is very good.

Punishment never did anything for anybody. They take some chap down here and make him a hangman. Well, wait a minute all he’s doing is stacking up overts. You try and run a hanging, being hanged out of a pc sometime. You’re not going to make it. What he’s upset about is hanging people. Anybody’s got a hanging in restimulation or a being hung in restimulation, being hanged, it’s because he hanged somebody else, not himself. And you can run his hanging of others out and he’ll feel much better because he’s sitting right on top of and confirming this Axiom of aberration.

You see when you punish somebody, you’re in a non-duplicative situation. You don’t want to be that person; you’re punishing that person. You have found fault with that beingness and having found fault with that beingness, you were trying to alter the beingness by duress. Well, do you want to be a person whose beingness is being found fault with to such a degree that it must be altered by duress? No, you don’t want to be that person. Therefore all these punishing situations give you engrams that tend to hang up on the track.

Now, that’s not far afield from an E-Meter. It’s just giving you some of your data which gets tripped and gets excited when you start plumbing in somebody’s psyche. When you start looking over somebody and you have a slight aversion to this, mostly trained into you on the whole track. You’ve probably been operator BX9 of the Intergalactic Empire, you know? You know what you can do with a dossier. You know you’d certainly better not have any dossiers. That will keep it all safe. Got the idea?

Reorient yourself. Reorient yourself to this degree: Recognize that to set man free you must free his communication. If you’re going to free his communication, you had better find out what he won’t communicate. You’d better discover what that is and free it. And if you do that, then he can communicate. Interesting, isn't it?

So that is the first building block of case gain. In-Session-ness. PC willing to talk to Auditor and interested in own case. And that’s all there is to being in session. There’s no other factors of in-session. It isn’t even the pc sitting in a chair because I’ve seen pcs in session in milk bars and all kinds of wild, weird places. Driving along in automobiles and all this sort of thing. Auditors are always coffee-shopping. Coffee shop auditing. Irregular, illegal session. And if it didn’t do so many people good, I’d have long since said something about it. Funny part of it is, amongst Scientology, usually your aches and pains are gotten rid of, or your states of mind are gotten rid of much more often with coffee shop auditing then with regular sessions. You just get more of them.

You turn up, “I don’t feel so good this morning”, man you’ve had it if you’ve opened your mouth to that degree. Scientologist around he says, “well, when did you start feeling bad?” You know? Here we go. He’ll put you through a half a dozen or two dozen auditing commands, and although he never started the session, he’ll end it. It’s quite remarkable. Been doing this for years. There’s no reason to do anything about it, it’s perfectly all right. Once in a while, somebody gets stuck in a hot engram in the middle of the milk bar, but so what.

The whole idea of in-session consists of just those two things, you see? It’s not the pc sitting in a chair. It’s not the pc with you with an E-Meter on your lap, or anything like that. There are no doodle-daddles or conditions. It’s just willing to talk to the auditor and interested in own case. Just those two things.

Now these withholds violate the willing to talk to the auditor. And a person never goes into session. He’s always out here around the perimeter of the session. He’s never in session. Might even get slightly interested in his own case, but he’s not in session. And you just plain can’t audit a pc who isn’t in session! That’s all! You’ve got to put him in session before you can audit him!

So the first and foremost condition of getting a gain on a pc is to get off his withholds. Because he won’t get in session until he’s in communication with the auditor. Got that?

Now those withholds, then, which take him out of communication with the auditor are therefore the most important withholds to get off the case. Now past life withholds rarely keep somebody from communicating with the auditor. They just keep somebody from communicating. You know, that’s different. He’s not intentionally not communicating.

Now there’s a thing called judgment required in auditing. I hate to have to say this. You can’t drop a ticky in your left ear and go on full automatic and audit. It can’t be done. You have to be awake. You have to be alert. And you have to be able to observe what the pc is doing and saying.

And there’s two errors you can make about these things called withholds. And the first error is to audit a pc who is not in session. And the other error is trying to get a pc in session who is in session. They’re almost equally serious because he gets upset after a while. He’s perfectly willing to talk to the auditor and the auditor keeps insisting he isn’t.

“What else are you withholding from me?” oh hwwww. Guy’s perfectly willing to talk to you, you know? And the guy sitting there ready to roll, and perfectly interested, you know? He’s more or less got his attention on the fact that he’s had a headache for three days, and would kind of like to get rid of it, and so forth. And the auditor says, “what else are you withholding from me?”

And the guy says, “I’m not withholding anything from you really. Oh there are a few things I might tell you about- so and so and so and so, I’m perfectly willing to tell you these things.” And tells him and so forth.

“Ah, well what else are you withholding from me?”

Well the preclear is liable to say “ah nuts, Joe, nuts! I got a headache! Let’s get the show on the road!” “What else are you withholding from me?”

That’s as bad a blunder as not getting any withholds off at all. Presession 37 runs for, that’s the “What question shouldn’t I ask you?” Runs very well for 30 minutes to two hours, just to shake a case down, square it up and get it running. Works fine then. But if you haven’t got the withholds off by the end of that time it’s not the process to do it with. It’s not a good process. It’s not a process anyhow. It’s a presession. You can vary the wordings of presessions. You can vary the questions all over the place because it’s not a regular session. “What question shouldn’t I ask you?” “Is there anything that would embarrass you if I demanded that you tell me?” You know, that kind of thing. Variation of question, Presession 37. But it’s supposed to just get the withholds off.

Well now if you haven’t gotten the withholds off in a relatively short space of time, absolute limit 2 hours, that’s the outer most limit. It’s a shame to even write it down in a notebook. If I can’t get a pc’s withholds off in about 7 minutes, I quit. I look down their gullet and say, “a ha, whoohool. Well you tell me about that and we’ll get the show on the road.”

And the person, “Oh, I don’t want to.”

And you say, “yes, you’re going to.”

That’s the end of that. Presession 37 is now completed. He tells me. Presession 37 complete. Now we get on with the session. Got the idea?

All right. They’re two errors. One is to not get them off and the other is to beat them to death. And they’re equally serious. Because they both violate in-sessionness. You put the pc in session, then you drive him out. So, he’s not in session so your auditing isn’t going to be effective, right? Or if he doesn’t go into session, if he has withholds and he doesn’t go into session if you won’t let him go into session. Because in session is interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor. And if you start knocking around a case or condition that isn’t there, he of course, ceases to be interested in his own case. You lay in an ARC break.

And that’s what I mean by judgment. You have to have enough judgment to tell when somebody is in session. Is he interested in his own case? Is he willing to talk to the auditor? And you have to figure out whether he is or isn’t. And it requires judgment because there is a degree of it. There is a degree of interest in own case. Well, you want enough interest in own case in order to receive auditing. And you want enough communication so that whatever is coming up, he’s willing to talk to you about. And there isn’t anything, really, going to tell you exactly what that’s all about. But you can cross check it. I mean no meter or gimmick or so forth is going to tell you. You have to look!

But there is a cross check. You’ve been pounding somebody for withholds for 45 minutes and you suddenly think, “well, I don’t know now.” Ask him if he has an ARC break. If he has an ARC break, you’ve gone too far. And the ARC break will show up on the meter. You got it? You’re going to have to run the ARC break now and that’s going to slow you down, too.

And the other thing is “do you have any withholds from me and things that you’re not willing to talk to me about?” And that registers on the meter too. Actually if a person has no withholds from you, and sensitivity is at 16, and a request for withholds gets not even a quiver on the needle, with sensitivity at 16, that would be a case that has totally given up all withholds. That’s how flat withholds should be. But you’re not going to accomplish this in the first part of your auditing of the pc.

Well, why aren’t you going to accomplish it? Because he’s forgotten most of them, that’s why! His case isn’t up high enough now, yet, for him to recognize that he still has withholds from you! He just isn’t that high up yet! He’s forgotten all about throwing the knife at his grandmother. He’s just forgotten all about it. It is so withheld, it is withheld from him.

Now past track occlusion is simply withhold from self. Occlusion is just withhold from self. And you get that condition in the present lifetime as well as in the past. There’s nothing peculiarly different about the present lifetime, except you can be hanged for it. It’s the only thing (that) is different about the present lifetime as opposed to the past lifetime.

Well, of course, a later life time, walking around in a later lifetime, you can look at the graves where your bodies of earlier lifetimes are buried. That’s an interesting activity, by the way.

We went on a grave hunt a few years ago. Well not even a few years ago, about a year ago. We were grave hunting like mad. It was rather ghoulish of us. But we found more graves. We’d find when the pc died, you know? Find a recent death. You know? Name, rank and serial number and when he died and where he died and where he’s buried and everything else all about it. And then take the pc over and locate the place. And it’d be right there. Bang. You know? Places the pc, this lifetime, had never even been near. Quite interesting.

So that’s a difference with the present lifetime, because your body isn’t buried yet. Because actually a withhold is a withhold and it can be withheld from self just as thoroughly as a past death can be withheld from self. A withhold is a withhold.

Therefore, we use this line in the Model Session: “Are you withholding anything? Is it all right for me to audit you? Are you withholding anything?” You know? I mean....put that sense in there right after getting a green light to audit him, see? You put it in there anyhow, whether or not he says it is all right for you to audit him. See, that’s put in there anyway. It’s just something that you pick up in passing.

You do different things about it. You sort of Presession 37 it only if he doesn’t instantly give up the withhold.

Now this meter has a peculiarity you must know about. Although it is used basically to find out what the pc is doing, that you detect something with the meter will often discharge it. And you’ve asked him a question about whether or not he is afraid of brooms. And it goes brrrrrroooomms. You know? And you say, “well how do you feel about brooms?” and it goes zooom. “Now, what is this about brooms?”

And he says, “oh, it isn’t anything about brooms. I used to fall over brooms once in a while.”

And there’s no, there’s not a tick on the meter. It’s gone! Because you’ve discharged it.

Now, there are two ways something could disappear on this meter dial. One, by discharging the actual charge on it and the other is, and they’re both actually the same thing, discharging the association the item has with something bad, which is both discharging. ‘Broom’ up to this time has been associated with ‘mother’. You’re looking for something around the house to get a fall on because he can never leave home. So you, so you say ‘broom’, you know? And ‘broom’ falls out. But ‘broom’ is just a lock on ‘mother’ and you still get a deep dive on ‘mother’.

But here’s a rule with this meter, here’s a rule: You don’t audit what blows.

You’ll be doing dynamic assessments on pcs and you will be... you’d probably be getting upset. You’ll find several items during the dynamic assessment that you are just absolutely certain are just the right terminal to run 75 hours worth of help on. Yes, sir! By the third time you ask the question, it no longer shows up on the meter. You say, “oh shucks!”

Why say “oh shucks”? You did some auditing there. You blew something that had charge on it. It blew just like that. You blow things on this meter all the time. Why are you auditing somebody if you don’t expect some release to take place? And you can see this release take place. The item itself blows. You can say that as a perfect truth. Whether it blows as itself or blows because it ceases to be associated with some other thing that isn’t going to release as easily is beside the point. You can discharge the bank and no longer get falls.

But of course you can be fooled by this. And the pc, the pc by the way is not capable of thinking about something else and throwing a red herring across the path, this is not possible. But he pc can do this, the pc can be so doggone low-toned that knifing a policeman would not be considered anything criminal or anything unusual. “Ah well. Had breakfast this morning and knifed the policeman, patted the dog on the head.” All have equal charge. I mean they’re all... no charge to them at all. I mean that’s it. Trala trala trala.

You’re going to have people in your, in your pc’s chair, you’re going to have people that will sit there and give you what you’re absolutely sure are withholds. You say “boy! boy!” because you know you would withhold them. And you’re going to make a mistake. You’re going to make a mistake just to that degree. You know you would withhold them, so you think you’re getting off withholds.

Fellow says, “oh well. I went to prison. And I was on board a ship one day, one night and I didn’t like the first mate and threw him overboard. And uh, I uh stole uh, I stole a cash box out of a theatre marquis once. And uh, I remember hitting a baby over the head one time; I think it died. And uh, so forth.” And he goes on and on and on. Hey, watch this meter, man! This..... is that needle acting up while he’s talking about these things? Well, if it’s not acting up, it’s not doing a thing. You’re just wasting your time. Because he’s fulfilling the condition of “willing to talk to the auditor.” Don’t get it so mixed up with whether or not it is moral, immoral or otherwise. He’s willing to talk to the auditor even though the auditor’s hair’s standing on end.

And you will find that this is one of the conditions of the lower aberrations of criminality. I mean, the more aberrated criminal has this as one of his conditions because he has no idea of rightness and wrongness anymore. That idea is missing. So these aren’t withholds. As a matter of fact the only reason he’s never told the police is they’ve never asked him.

You might be startled once in a while to hear of somebody who’s been singing like a couple of canary birds to the police. They arrest him. They arrest him for banging an old lady in the head and he says, “well,” he says, “yes, so and so and so and so and so and last week I shot a man. Killed him dead. An old man.” And he just gives them everything. He just never happened to be talking to the police before, that was all.

He has no idea of self preservation. As a matter of fact he’s actually trying to commit suicide in some dim way. But they ask him a little bit about some little tiny crime and he comes out and gives them some real hair raisers. And then, of course, there’s a complete alter-is of this.

There’s the fellow who will confess to anything. And you’ll get him, too, as a pc and he’ll fool you too, unless you pay attention to this. He’ll confess to anything. He will tell you the most fantastic withholds you ever heard of. Only they don’t ever happen to have happened. All that’s wrong with that case is it’s in an obsessive compulsive alter-is. It alter-ises everything. That’s all that’s wrong with it. Confess to anything. Be very, very helpful, you know? Say, “well what do you want me to confess to?”

You say, “well, tell me about the time you murdered somebody.” They’d tell you about a time they murdered somebody, only they never did. If they never did, it’d show up on the meter, providing you ask the right questions. You say, “well did you murder somebody or didn’t you, really?” You’ll find out. The meter will register. They didn’t murder anybody.

Now, what the person considers is bad and is withholding registers on the meter at his level of case. See? At his level of case, what he considers bad and necessary to withhold registers on the meter and nothing else does. Now isn’t that a happy state of affairs?

Later on this fellow, who was killing babies and so on, is going to tell you all about the fact that he feels damn bad about it. He’s got to come up through the band of recognizing that he’s done something. But that’s a long way in advance of him. He’ll get too it one fine day. He’ll unlessen the overts. Look at him with some pity, though, when he does this because when those overts unlessen, he’s on an inversion of it. He’s got everything not-ised. You see? Everything’s not-is. And when it’s isness starts to set in here, woooow! It’s like being caught in the middle of a vise with five blow torches playing on you. You know? Awooohl.

I’ve seen a case like that very recently and it was very grim. As a matter of fact the case didn’t get all the way up through it. Just.... it will eventually, get some more auditing. But did get up through, more or less, the worst part of it. Got up to being able to blow. How do you like that? It’s about how high the case went. But he had all overts lessened. See? Everything was lessened. Everybody was no good so it was all right to shoot anybody. You know, this kind of thing. And when all of a sudden he found out through auditing that you know, they were, they did exist, he had to own up to the fact that he’d been shooting these people, see? Rough! Rough!

But if it is going to be audited or is auditable, it registers on the meter. It hasn’t anything to do with the condition, significance, or text. The text of the withhold has nothing to do with whether or not it’s a withhold.

You can very well say to yourself, “well, if I were this person, I certainly would be withholding this!” Or you can say to yourself, “if I were this person, I certainly wouldn’t bother to withhold that for two seconds. That’s nonsense! Why should I bother to withhold that?” Yet this person is desperately withholding this thing.

Now, in-sessionness then, just to give you that... to hit that once more, it is what the person thinks it is necessary to withhold that is important. Not what the withhold is. It’s the person’s consideration of the withhold, not the withhold.

All you’re trying to get rid of is the consideration that he should withhold from the auditor. That’s basically your only target. And whenever that comes up, and it does routinely as his case advances, he will run into more things he thinks he’d better withhold and you’re going to get them every time you start a session because you’ve got it in your Model Session now, you see?

Now the conditions of in-session are: Willing to communicate to the auditor and interested in own case. And you’re going to get somebody who has done something between sessions. They don’t just sit in nirvana or some place between sessions. They breathe and beget and shoot and run up overts and collect motivators and so forth, between sessions.

And you’re auditing some girl and she was perfectly all right at the end of the last session. And you pick her up in the next session and you make the automatic assumption that she isn’t withholding anything because you got that, you know, you cleared that up last week. And she’s interested in her own case, of course, because she was yesterday. Ahhh, these are not justified assumptions, man. A session is a session. Each session is itself. And each session is a whole pc. Not a pc that is half completed.

I had an auditor in ACC once, one of the early ones- about the 5th ACC, tell me, “well, we only had 35 minutes left so we didn’t bother to do any more auditing because you couldn’t do anything in 35 minutes, see?” Oh? 35 minutes has made or broken lots of cases.

But whether it’s... the session is 35 minutes long or 8 or 9 hours long as they sometimes are, rarely, which ever it is, it’s still a whole pc. You see? It’s a pc who may or may not be in session. A pc who may or may not have ARC breaks. A pc who may or may not have withholds. A pc who may or may not have a present time problem. Got the idea? A person, it’s a pc who may or may not have a high affinity or a high reality or a high communication. It’s a pc. It’s a pc for that session. And a pc is a pc for each session. A pc isn’t a pc for an intensive because you can miss it.

This young girl can leave the session, perfectly good condition. Interested, still interested in own case. Not withholding anything from the auditor. Come back in the next morning having got drunk as a skunk and having done something very reprehensible and sit there totally out of session, going through all the motions and you’re just wasting time. That’s because you didn’t look at the pc. You have to look at them every time.

This, by the way, is up-possibly even upsetting to people around me. But I can always tell, regardless of sessions, whether people have withholds from me or not. You know, I can always tell if they’re nerved up or tensed up or something of this sort. I’ll usually, in some oblique way, will speak to them about it. And those that aren’t too familiar with me go through the nonsense of saying, “Oh no, no, no! There’s nothing.... everything’s fine, fine.”

So I say, “ah the hell with that. What is it?”

You know, well we have to get this thing straight.

Now there’s one organization, a rather interesting organization since it’s closely connected with Scientology. And there are several organizations which are throughout the world. They’re not officially connected with Scientology, you know? They’re Scientologists who have gone to work in some area and something has happened, and so forth, and they run on Scientology principles. This company pushes the communication formula to its ne plus ultra. They won’t let, in this group where they’re doing research and engineering and doing some fantastic things, they won’t let one another have withholds. They notice that Joe has a withhold just by the fact that he’s sort of stiff and standoffish. Well, they play it the rough way. They instantly will put him on a meter.

In view of the fact that a lot of things they are dealing with are secret in their classification, and so on, this is quite amazing. But they do. They won’t let anybody in that group withhold from them. And they always acknowledge a communication. If somebody says something to them, they always signify that they’ve heard and understood it. Or if they haven’t understood it, they get it clarified and then signify that they received and understood it before anything else happens. They let people finish communication cycles of action, as in auditing. And now they push these two things to the complete, uttermost limit and they’re being very successful.

Of course this is a group of men that are dealing with very, well, actually I suppose for humanity they’re either very great or very dangerous advances. They’re well in advance of atomic fission as she is practiced on the Manhattan idiocies. And that’s the way they operate. You’d think they have to work at it all the time. Well, actually they don’t have to work at it all the time or anything like that. It only happens once every few days. They’ll suddenly notice somebody’s fallen on his silly head, you know? And, uh, it’s very interesting. The guy says, “yap yap, so on, so on, so on, so on,” and another one of them will stand there and let him finish. Say, “that’s it! What is it? Is that all of it?”

“Yeah, that’s all of it.”

“All right. I understand that. Thank you.”

Before they say another thing that attaches to it. Quite remarkable.

You know when you listen to a couple of people out here on the street. One says, “oh say, Mamie, I was just down to....”

“Oh, I was there also... and I bought...”

And you just don’t know...is.... what is this, a conversation or a combined valence?

But you have to carry this in-sessionness to an extreme with a pc and you have to do it every session and you have to depend, to a very marked degree, on this meter to find out what is happening that is going wrong. Of course you can tell when somebody’s withholding something from you without putting them on a meter. But to find out what it is, successfully every time, that meter’s an awful good thing to have. And today I don’t know how Scientologists could operate without one.

Now the next step of interested in own case is something else again. That is something else. And that is another day and another story. But in-sessionness begins with the pc willing to talk to the auditor. Therefore it is what the pc considers is a withhold that is holding up the case. Got it?

You’re going to be into this hand over fist. You should know your Model Sessions, cold. You should be able to roll these things off, cold, and so forth.

Now, the Dianetic assist, Presession 38 requires an in-sessionness to be successful. All you’re trying to do is knock out what’s wrong with case. And we’ll take that up again, too.

Thank you.