FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

LEVEL 2 ACADEMY LECTURES 02/15

**************************************************

LEVEL 2 TAPES

CONTENTS:

01 SHSBC-62 ren 66 4 Oct 61 Moral Codes: What is a Withhold? 
02 SHSBC-63 ren 67 5 Oct 61 Sec Checking: Types of Withholds 
03 SHSBC-72 ren 76 26 Oct 61 Security Checking: Auditing Errors
04 SHSBC-75 ren 79 2 Nov 61 How to Security Check 
05 SHSBC-100 ren 104 16 Jan 62 Nature of Withholds 
06 SHSBC-117 ren 117 14 Feb 62 Directing Attention
07 SHSBC-113 ren 119 20 Feb 62 What Is a Withhold?
08 SHSBC-131 ren 135 3 Apr 62 The Overt-Motivator Sequence
09 TVD-4A ren 149 2 May 62 TV Demo: Prepchecking, Part I
10 TVD-4B ren 150 2 May 62 TV Demo: Prepchecking, Part II
11 SHSBC-142 ren 151 3 May 62 Craftsmanship: Fundamentals 
12 SHSBC-151 ren 159 22 May 62 Missed Withholds 
13 TVD-7 ren 161 23 May 62 TV Demo:Fish & Fumble-Checking Dirty Needles
14 SHSBC-206 ren 235 1 Nov 62 The Missed Missed Withhold 
15 SHSpec-26 ren 389 2 Jul 64 O/W Modernized and Reviewed 

Like most levels tapes, these are SHSBC (St. Hill Special Briefing
Course) lectures. The original numbering has the TV demos (TVD)
numbered independently and restarts the numbering from 1 again
in 1964 (designated SH Special instead of SHSBC). The clearsound
renumbering combines these (SHSBC + TVD + SHSpec) into one
continuous set of numbers shown as "ren" above.

These are based on clearsound and were checked against the
old reels in most cases (as noted). Omissions are marked ">".
Most omissions are of introducing new students etc. but there
were significant omissions of technical material in item 07
"What is a Withhold". Also, item 13 (TVD-7) had significant
omissions in the old reels, marked "#", which were restored in
the clearsound version.


**************************************************

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists. It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heritics. By their standards, all Christians, 
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old 
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion. 

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight. Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

**************************************************

SHSBC-63 ren 67 5 Oct 61 Sec Checking: Types of Withholds

SEC CHECKING - TYPES OF WITHHOLDS

A lecture given on the

5 October 1961

[Clearsound. Checked against the old reels.]

(90 min)


> We have a new student in our midts - Ellen Carter.
> Stand up, Ellen!
> 
> How long ago were you supposed to be dead, Ellen?
> 
> Ellen: Well 1936, they had to strighten me ... (unintelligible)
> ... and lied about what they found.
> 
> You're still with us.
> 
> Okay. This is the 6th of October.
> 
> Audience: 5th.
> 
> 5th. It isn't! By George it is. (laughter)


Okay. This is the 5th of October, 1961, Special Briefing
Course, Saint Hill. And I'm going to talk to you today
about Security Checking. And boy, do you need a talk about
Security Checking. Because what you don't know about
Security Checking would fill volumes.

Now, of course, I am a very bad authority on Security
Checking from a subjective point of view, because you
realize that if anybody went into my crimes it would just
be too grim! No auditor would be able to stand up to that.
We realize that you see? These crimes are so innumerable
because they cover such a long period of time. That's the
main thing.

So I'm not talking to you from the viewpoint of
sinlessness. And you must get your point of view oriented
there. If I were talking to you from the point of view of
total sinlessness ...

This is an optimum state which, religiously, people get
into. They somehow or another lay the right pennies on the
right altar and at that moment they become totally sinless.
Then they can condemn everyone. And this gives them the
right to condemn everyone, you see? And they can't approach
this subject objectively. Unlike various people of the past
who have said "Repent ye. Repent ye. Ye Kingdom of Heaven
is at ye hand," something of that sort, people who do have
sins, you see, find it much easier to talk about the
subject. They have some reality on the subject. And let me
assure you that from my point of view, if I had it all to
do all over again, I would probably do the same things.

So I don't want to give you the false impression that I
give you any lecture on the subject of Security Checking
from the basis that my security, unlike yours, has been
pure for two hundred trillion years. That would make a very
great unreality. No, amongst us boys, us girls, what we
have all been up to only could not bear the light of day
because we think it couldn't bear the light of day.

Now, it's funny that every group that has sought to enforce
sinlessness on one and all, with the stake, vast punishment,
condemnation, assignment to hell-that is the primary
mechanism: they give you a ticket straight to hell.

Doesn't work sometimes, by the way. There was a rash of
murders - I've told you this story before, I'm sure but there
was a rash of murders up in the Eskimo tribes. And the
Royal Northwest Mounted Police went up there to get their
man, and they found out that there had been a missionary in
the area. And the missionary had told all the Eskimos what
was right and what was wrong and had convinced them, of
course, that if they murdered anyone, they would go
straight to hell and burn forever. And the idea of being
warm enough for any length of time ...

So, you see, lecturing from the high platform of
sinlessness, you very often run into the creation of more
sin than you get rid of. And what's interesting is that any
group which wishes to blow itself to flinders simply has to
engage upon an activity of making everybody guilty of their
sins. It'll hang together for a little while, and everybody
will be miserable while it does, but it'll eventually blow up.

Why? Because it now gives people a complete map on how to
accumulate withholds. The group mores defines what is a
withhold. It says you must not be guilty of such sins and
such sins and such sins, and therefore and thereby blows
itself to pieces, of course, because it says everybody that
has committed these sins should withhold them, even though
they are saying at the same time "You must confess them."
But they make confession, you see, rather rigorous.

Now, we have to understand this at the outset of Security
Checking. Thou, the auditor, are not sinless. That's what
we have to understand about it. And thou art not an
enforcer of a public mores while thou art being an auditor.
Thou art simply a Security Checker, period. You got it?

You're not the avenging angels of the Mormon church or
something like this, see, while you're security checking.
You're simply a person who is skilled in certain technology
to attain a better frame of mind and actually a much
greater honesty and decency on the part of somebody else.

You have the weapon in your hands with which to attain a
greater decency, a greater state of health, a greater
efficiency, a greater ability, higher ability for ARC.
You've got the weapon in your hands with which to do this.
There is the E-Meter and there is the Security Check, and
there is you and your technology. So you are going to be
able to accomplish what groups have been trying to
accomplish for a long time. You are going to be able to
make an honest man or an honest woman. You have the weapon
with which to do this. That's very important for you to
realize, because all of these other mechanisms - such as
"make the person guilty," "show the person the right way,"
you see, "and the error of his ways," and frowning upon him
and punishing him in some fashion or other because he's
just gotten off a withhold are mechanisms of older groups
by which they sought to enforce their mores. Because they
had no way to make honest people that was positive and
lasting, then they used these very poor mechanisms of "make
them good and guilty," "punish them" "show them what will
happen to them if they do that again." - All of these other
things are added in. But what are those?

Those are the security mechanisms of yesteryear. Those
are yesterday's tools. So you don't combine Scientology with 
other therapies. And that is all that you would be doing if 
you were trying to make somebody guilty and so forth, and 
doing something else with a Security Check rather than just 
getting off withholds.

So let us get down to a simplicity. You, the auditor, may
have successfully waded through innumerable Sec Checks and
be in good shape, and so forth. That doesn't necessarily
mean that "thou hast been without sin all the days of thy
life." That hasn't anything to do with it, you see? It
simply means that technically you've gotten up on the step.
You were lucky. You came two hundred trillion years along
the track with red hands and black heads, and finally got
out anyhow.

Well, that's beside the point. This point is important
because if you, the auditor, are still worried about your
own withholds, or if you are trying to put up the presence
of being because you are a Scientologist and an auditor
and maybe a Release or something like that - if you're trying
to put up the attitude, you see, that you yourself are
sinless, then you will sometimes Q-and-A and avoid the
other fellow's withholds.

In other words, you let the public sell you the idea that
because you are a Scientologist, you should never have any
sins. You get the idea? What have they done, in essence?
They have managed to bottle you up just like putting a cork
in a bottle. Now you don't ever dare get off any withholds,
you think, maybe, you see?

You can get into all kinds of odd cull-de-sacs, because we
are still crossed up with the older therapy of condemnation
and punishment. And that was unworkable. Let me point out
that there are several people in prisons in the world.
There are lots of people still doing penance in religious
groups in the world. And if we add this up and recognize it
clearly, we won't put ourselves in the same category. The
old processes haven't worked. So don't let them work on you
in reverse.

Don't ever get into a state where, because you are in a
district or an area where you are holding the fort and
keeping the torches burning, you never dare get off any
withholds. You've permitted yourself to be sent on the road
to hell. Do you see that? And your Security Checking would
deteriorate. Inevitably your Security Checking would
deteriorate. You would be afraid to ask people questions.
You would start tacit consent. You'd start mutual avoidance
of certain subjects. You get what I'm talking about, don't you?

The most serious barrier that an auditor has to overcome in
Security Checking is not necessarily his own case, but a
courage to ask the questions. You know, that's kind of a
raw, mean, brassy sort of a thing to do.

You sit down: Here's this nice young girl. Everybody knows
she's a virgin - everybody knows this. And you're in very
good ARC with her, and everything is going to go along fine.

And then you say to her, crassly and meanly, "Have you ever
committed any carnal sins of any character or another? Have
you ever been to bed in the wrong place at the wrong time
with the wrong man?" And put it mildly, this is a startling
question. But since I've started Security Checking, I
haven't found any virgins.

Well now, it requires a certain amount of brass, it
requires a certain amount of nerve, to sit there and ask
all these fantastic questions, you know? "Have you ever:
rob, murder, burn, slain, gutted, lied?" You see? And yet
it sounds like you must be sitting there running off a
catalog of the penal codes of French Guyana or something,
you know? And here you go! Well, that's rough enough. If
all of your withholds are off, that's rough enough. You sit
down - perfectly inoffensive person and you all of a sudden
start asking him this sort of thing, you know?

Well, if you've got a whole bunch of withholds that you
yourself are very afraid somebody is going to get next to,
you will back straight off of the whole subject of Security
Checking. And that is the only thing I see in the future of
Scientology that could happen: is all auditors become
"without sin" - they have never had any sin-and because they
are Releases or Scientologists or something, you see, then
they never dare get off their withholds because the
students in the Academy might hear about it and all sorts
of catastrophic actions might occur, and their reputation
is utterly smashed and ruined, you see? So therefore, the
best thing to do, you know, is just kind of avoid the whole
subject. And that's what they'll finish up doing, too - 
avoiding the whole subject.

They won't have that additional elan necessary to ask this
poor little innocent girl "Have you ever raped your baby
brother?" you see? You know, it's just something that they
would not bring themselves to be able to do, providing they
themselves were actually withholding withholds. Do you see
the point I'm trying to make with you here?

So you could get a broad and general disintegration if you
permitted the public at large to insist that because a
person was a skilled Scientologist and in good case shape, 
he had never done anything wrong. You see how that could be 
added up on you?

Now, you'll find some instructor in an Academy here and
there, and he's thinking to himself, "Uuughh, if the
students ever heard about this ..." And you think somebody 
in the HGC, and he's saying, "Well, I don't know. I don't 
know. I don't know. Last year ... Here here's this whole 
subject of Security Checking coming up again, and if they 
found out last year that after I audited that girl, why, 
that happened ..." And he sits there and he starts sweating 
over this thing: "What would the D of P think? What would 
other auditors think? What would the organization think?" 
So on. And the nest thing you know, he's sitting in session 
and the question comes up. He has too make the decision 
whether to security check this person or go on running the 
level. Oh, he will go on running the level every time. 
He'll avoid Security Checking.

That person who is avoiding Security Checking in his own
life will avoid Security Checking of other people. And you
can just mark it down that if you find somebody who is
ducking Security Checks in all direction, you have somebody
who will not Security Check.

You would be amazed how your Security Checking improves to
the degree that you yourself have gotten through the
Security Checks. It is absolutely fabulous. You can almost
tell whether an auditor has withholds to the degree of
skill that he security checks. And the worse his Security
Checking is, the more certain you become that he has
withholds. That's an interesting coordination, isn't it?
And yet it's a visible one.

So that going up the line and on the long haul in Scientology, 
you actually could get to a point where the public insists that 
those people who are carrying along - because Scientology is 
getting more and more important, more and more important -
you could actually get people running an operation on you:
They just start running this old therapy, you see? Because
you're the leading auditor in an area, or something of the
sort, you therefore must never have done anything in your
whole life. Doesn't follow. But what it operates as is an
ought-to-be. And you could surrender to this ought-to-be
and therefore never permit yourself to be security checked
because somebody might talk.

Do you realize that that action alone would slow down the
whole forward impulse of Scientology by putting in lousy
case shape every important auditor and person in
Scientology? It could be done. And that is the Achilles'
heel of Scientology. That is it. That we become so
important that we must therefore - it follows in some
peculiar way - be without sin, without mishap, without ever
taking our finger off our number in life, and without ever
forgiving it if somebody has. If we ever got into that
state, we'd be finished. We'd be finished.

But we don't have to get into that state because we've got
the tools which keeps a group together without the whip.
See, the whip has become a useless and antiquated object.
Like the electric-shock machine, it can be dedicated to the
museums of tomorrow. Someday we're going to take one of
these prisons here and set it up with dummies just as a
showpiece of what man used to do. That's the only use
you'll have for it.

> By the way, we did have a use for Washington one time.
> This is completely non-sequitur.

You know, I think I ought to at this moment probably make
you all members of a very secret society. Speaking of
withholds, there is a very secret society. It doesn't do
much withholding, but it is very secret, mostly because
nobody recognizes it as an actual society. They all think
it's a joke, see?

The society is the SPG. And the SPG. And I'm now going to
make you all members of the SPG. It's the Society for the
Prevention of Government. An interesting society. All you
have to do to be a member of it is say you are. You know, I
don't think a single revolutionary charge of any kind
whatsoever could be filed against a member of this
organization, because everybody prevents government to some 
degree, you see? It'd just be to what degree are we preventing 
government? The only thing governments get upset about is 
the overthrow of government by force, which means, of course, 
the setting up of another government on top of an existing 
government. And we aren't interested in doing that. We're 
just interested in preventing government.

But anyway, the mechanisms by which man has been governed
had in it the idea that man was evil and therefore had to
be held in line by evil practices. And if man was evil,
then he had to be held in line with evil. And they never
noticed that the evil in the world stemmed totally from
holding man in line. That was the fascinating part of it.

You have to have been a member of a police force to
recognize that the police create crime.

They do it quite unintentionally, but they do create crime.
They get a game called cops and robbers going. And this
game - every criminal busily plays this game. If there
wasn't that much to it, why, there they'd be.

Well, for instance, there's some young fellow was walking
down the street one day, and be suddenly read his name in
the newspapers and reported to the police. And for the next
six or eight days he was sitting under the hot lights, and
they were questioning him and throwing him into cells and
being mean to him and so forth. Actually, he hadn't done a
thing. He hadn't even been there. He hadn't even been
present. And they turned him loose after a while. He's very
relieved to have been turned loose.

What do you think his ideas are going to be on the subject
of police now? Now, we start building it up from there. A
society without ARC is a society which inevitably will have
crime. Man is good, but he is only good to the degree that
he's in ARC with existence. And when you throw him out of
ARC with sections of society or whole governments at one fell 
swoop, he gives the appearance of being very bad. Actually, 
all he's trying to do is survive and protect himself and keep 
the thing from going all to hell. He has his own peculiar 
notions about how he does this, and the primary mechanism he 
uses is withhold.

That's how he thinks he can hold everything together - by
withholding everything. The primary mechanism.

So the police are dedicated to making everybody withhold,
till the mores of the criminal mainly consists of "You must
not talk to the police." Well, that's quite interesting.
"You mustn't talk to the forces of law and order." - Ah,
well, that's interesting. Well, that necessarily forces
somebody further out of communication with law and order.

And if you think criminals are without government, you're
mistaken. They have their own government. And a very wild,
gruesome government it is, too.

But the society is forced apart to the degree that people
are made guilty.

Now, why does a man wind up as a murderer? Well, he has
long since resigned from the human race. Long since. If you
want to prevent a murder, you don't hang murderers. You
make it unnecessary to resign from the human race. That's easy.

I'll give you a murder where the law was definitely at
fault. Washington, D.C., a taxicab driver - if I remember the
story right - had a wife and this wife kept going off with
another man. And he had a hard time of it because he tried
to take the matter to court, he tried to get a divorce, he
tried to quiet it down, he tried to hold the home
together - he took every measure he could possibly take, but
of course there was no law that would back him up. You see,
he didn't have any "evidence," and he didn't have vast
slims of money, you see, to buy detectives to accumulate
this and that, you know? And there was nobody he could go
to. And he got more and more and more seething about this,
because he was basically out of communication, and he
finally killed both of them.

But what was interesting to me about this particular case
is that for two years this fellow had had some sort of a
grievance, and there was no agency in society to remedy any
part of that grievance. There was nothing he could do about
it. So he finally did the last desperate jump.

Now, of course, he himself had various withholds, but were
these withholds actual or unintentional? And now we get to
a very interesting subject: the unintentional withhold.

This is where you get your new ARC break process, by the
way, in the rudiments - is the unintentional withhold. So
it's quite important, this unintentional withhold. I
mentioned to you yesterday that a person very often finds
himself in a position and then considers he's guilty
because he's in that position. He finds himself outside the
group, so therefore he feels he must have done something to
be expelled from the group, which is quite remarkable.

Well, this unintentional withhold is the same thing. The
person is not able to tell anybody.

Now, it might be that there is nobody there to tell it to.
He's not able to tell anybody. It's not that he wouldn't
tell anybody if he could, but he can't tell anybody because
there isn't anybody to tell it to or nobody will listen.
And you'll find these all over insane asylums. You'll find
people sitting around with unintentional withholds because
nobody will listen to them.

They say, "Well, these bugs, they just keep crawling all
over me," and the psychiatrist and everybody says, "Yes,
yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. We know, we know, we know. Yes,
yes, yes, yes, yes, yes " And the person just knows he
isn't reaching anybody, and he just gets more and more
fined and obsessed with his idea of these bugs crawling
over him, because it's an unintentional withhold. He
doesn't intend to withhold it, but he finds himself in the
position of doing so because nobody will listen. - So
you must take into account this as a factor. It is a very
important factor or I wouldn't have put it in your rudiments
processes. "What weren't you able to tell an auditor?"
Well, that makes a withhold. Well, you weren't unwilling to
tell the auditor you see? You were trying desperately to tell 
the auditor, but the auditor never listened.

And when you run this ARC break process, you are really
knocking out unintentional withholds. And the results that
you get from that particular ARC break process are quite
similar to the results of a Security Check. But in this
we're addressing some other subject. The Security Check is
addressed to the more or less intentional withhold. But
that ARC break process is addressed to an unintentional
withhold. It is a withhold.

Now, there's many a criminal has walked in and said, "I've
just murdered my wife," and the desk sergeant has swatted a
couple of more flies and paid no attention to him. And he's
walked outside, and he's gone up to the cop on the beat and
he said, "I just murdered my wife," and so forth. And
nobody paid any attention to him and nobody ever found the
wife. And he was perfectly willing to take the penalties of
society, but nobody believed him. And you get the most
peculiar kind of withhold there is. You mustn't overlook
this as a withhold in Security Checking. The unintentional
withhold.

So that is, you might say, about the lowest rung of
withholds. It's unintentional, he- didn't mean to withhold
it, but nobody will listen.

All right Now we get the intentional withhold, which is a
withhold because he would be punished if he admitted it. 
And we get a different type of withhold, although it has 
the same mechanism and produces the same actions.

And then there is another withhold: He must withhold it
because it will damage his beingness - in other words, his
reputation. Those are reputational withholds. He's got an
idea of what people think his beingness should be, and he's
upholding his beingness by not admitting to certain
withholds because other people might get another notion of
him than the notion which he is trying to broadcast. So 
therefore he mustn't have reputational rumors and gossips 
and things of this character. So therefore and thereby it's 
a reputational withhold. He hasn't really done anything.

Well, actually, his family came from the lower marshlands
of the Thames or something, down in the mud flats of
Southampton or something. you know? And he just - well, he
just wouldn't rather this be known, you know? His family,
by advertisement, always came from Upper Berkshire. It's
quite interesting.

Now a - familial connections aren't the least of it, you see?
People are always trying to represent themselves as a
little bit better. Well, that's fine. There's nothing wrong
with that, but it results in a bunch of reputational withholds.

Now, between the last two categories there's a borderline
category of things which, if they were out, people would
think much less of him - you know, that kind of thing. He
really wouldn't be punished, he isn't worried about it on
account of beingness; he's just thinking, well, people
wouldn't talk to him or something like that if they knew
this sort of thing.

Well, if you'll notice, all these things add up to cut
communication. And a group is based basically on
communication. So a group falls apart to the degree that
there is no communication, and these are the three broad
categories: the unintentional withhold, the withhold for
fear of punishment, and the withhold in its various grades
that protect beingness.

And these three things, of course, are all shattering to
groups. They knock a group apart in a hurry, but in fact,
up to a certain point, appear to cohese a group.

I don't know if you've ever been on Fifth Avenue or upper
Fifth Avenue or in Hollywood or something like that and
listened to what went on in lieu of reputation. It runs on
something on the order of fifteen or twenty lies a minute
when they're talking, you see? It's almost impossible to
keep up with. And there's the most fantastic unreality
about those particular groups. They are very unreal. And
you get near those people, you see, and around in those
groups, and you think, "Ooooooooo, I don't know," you know?
It's... You don't quite know what's going on. You're just
not quite sure what is wrong there. But there just is something
wrong. Well, what is wrong is that it's a group with
totally cut communication lines.

Well, how can you have a group with totally cut
communication lines? Well, I guess they're the only people
who will listen to each other's lies, so they stay
together. Something on this order.

Now, a Security Check, or any method by which you are
overcoming withholds, is dedicated to the restoration of
communication. And it happens that if communication is
totally restored, you see - if man knew what he was doing
when he made people withhold slightly - with communications
totally restored in any past group of which the fellow is
no longer part, he will no longer be hung up in that group.
See, if you just restore his communication - it's just the
ability to communicate; that's all you're restoring - why,
you'll get this phenomenon of him no longer being parked on
the track with that group. And that's the only thing you're
basically doing. And those things, which exist in present
time of course, prevent him from becoming a part of any
group to which he is attached and so give him a basic
isolation.

And, of course, the basic group with which you are working
is not necessarily the group called Scientologists - which in
itself is a powerful enough group and it has enough group
to it, by far. But the group in which you are doing the
withhold is a group called a session: auditor and PC. You
see, now, that is a group.

And when the individual is too individuated and when he
develops an unintentional withhold in that group, or the
auditor conducts himself in such a way as to bring about
punishment because of a withhold or a crime, or the auditor
demands specious reactions from the PC, the auditor has
shot the group. It is a group. It's a group of two. Auditing 
is a third-dynamic activity - even though sometimes it 
deteriorates into a second. And now and then deteriorates 
into a first.

You burn your finger, and there's nobody around and you
stand there and run it out.

Now, there, all three of these things must be pretty well
patched up before you get a good group called a session.
You've got to have the unintentional withholds off, that's
for sure.

Do you know, the only thing that can deteriorate a profile,
in twenty-five hours, is ARC breaks? Now, if you're
interpreting profiles - you find a profile and here it is,
there it is, and the profile has dropped. Now, it is true
that profiles move and they are pictures of valences, and
they do come on at the bottom and go to the top - all of that
is also true. But the particularity we're speaking of now
is, where the person didn't do well and dropped, you can
assume the PC was being operated with an ARC break.

Now, the basis of an ARC break is being made to have an
unintentional withhold from that immediate group. And that,
actually, apparently, from the immediate empirical results
which one observes, is more serious than an actual
withhold, intentional. An unintentional withhold in an
auditing session reflects more seriously on the auditing
group and on the results of processing than an intentional
withhold. This is very interesting.

And now we move into another category. I hardly dignify
the person with the title of auditor who pulled this one,
but we have an enforced withhold on the basis of improved
state. And you'll find this happens every once in a while.
Some person who is pretending to audit gets no results
whatsoever, and then he shakes his finger in the PC's face
and seeks to convince the PC that the PC has been much
bettered by it all and is now Clear or something. And the PC
thinks he had better not say anything to the contrary of
this, and you've got that third grade of withhold. You've
got something there which is protecting beingness.

You see, he's now got a withhold. His withhold is he really
didn't get any improvement, and yet the auditor has forced
him to admit that he got improvement. But actually what
he's withholding is the fact that he didn't get any
improvement, and if he said he didn't get any improvement,
this would hurt his new status.

Well, you just finish auditing the fellow, and you take him
out in front of the PE and you say, "He's Clear." So now
the fellow doesn't dare break down and say he's aberrated as
hell, and so you get one of these reputational withholds.

So all three kinds of withholds can occur in an auditing
session. The unintentional, the intentional and the
reputational. These three things can all occur as a result
of an auditing session.

You very, very seldom find the third one occurring, because
very few auditors are that bad.

But you sometimes find a PC who is trying to propitiate,
and who is trying to tell the auditor that he feels much
better now - while his head is falling off - because he doesn't
want to make the auditor feel bad. You know the mechanism.
So, they don't want to make the auditor feel bad so they
say they feel better, and they don't. Well, now they're
sort of protecting their beingness in some fashion or other
by a projection. They're protecting the auditor's beingness
by not feeling any worse.

You'll find all of these mechanisms can be present in an
auditing session. So where you get the idea of Security
Checking - and very odd, we very often develop a word in one
field, you see, in one field of endeavor; and then we,
because we have an agreement on that word, we develop a
special term which is thereafter more or less meaningless
to one and all. But we all know what a Security Check is. A
Security Check is something you do in processing to make
the PC better.

Well now, how did that happen? Well, basically a Security
Check was developed in order to weed out personnel and keep
randomity from occurring in Central Organizations. And then
Area Secretaries and Association Secretaries began to find
that this made people much better.

And the Area Secretary would be busy spending morning, noon
and night and all the weekend trying to catch up with his
Security Checking, because sometimes they took, for one
Security Check, twenty hours - that we'd get down to the
reductio ad absurdum that Smokey told me about the other
day: somebody actually turned in a whole bunch of overts,
on a written questionnaire, against the Area Secretary in
order to get another Security Check.

So I would say that at that point the idea of creating
security with a Security Check was a - not a very useful nor
workable activity. And yet we have this word. And I've two
or three times halfheartedly started to change it over to
the idea of "processing check," and started to call it a
processing check, and so forth. But it still remains a
Security Check.

Now we do have a Security Check, which is Form 7. There is
an actual Security Check now in existence. So what do we
call this Security Check? And l find myself, in writing a
bulletin, getting into the interesting state of - I write:
"Now, you should security check all ..." "The Area Sec
should security check..." And then, well, how do I say
this? So, the best way to say it is underscore security. So
you have a Security Check and you have a Security Check. So
anyway, we'll let it ride, let it ride. Won't pull anything
down if it stays that way.

So here we have - here we have this thing called a Security
Check. Well, basically, it's trying to establish a group
which is engage in assistance. And no assistance can occur
if there is no group there on the auditor to PC. So you
have right in your rudiments there a method of getting
around this. And you are asking the PC for all of his
unintentional withholds when you say, "Is there something
that you haven't been able to tell an auditor?" And you are
really running a Security Check right at that point.

Now, of course the basic reply to it is "What didn't an
auditor do?" which would be the games-condition response
that occurred at that moment. So these two questions go
together rather powerfully. One of them is asking for an
unintentional withhold, and the other is asking for an
auditor in a games condition. And they go bing, bing, bing,
bing. And I think you'll find that since I dreamed up these
new rudiments and tested them out, that you're doing much
better.

I'll make a remark in passing about those new rudiments.
There is an assessment that has to be done for the present
time problem. l never bothered to remark on it. I thought
you'd latch that as you went by.

It says, "What is unknown about that..." (or some such
wording) " ... problem with (blank)?" Now, you can't run
a condition as the blank.

The PC says, "Oh well, I'm terribly worried. I'm terribly
worried about the airiness of everything."

Well now, the auditor then can't put the thing together as
"What is unknown about that problem with the airiness of
everything?" You'll find this is non-functional.

What you've got to do is do a little assessment and get him
to state the problem more exactly.

And you do the assessment on the meter. And you try to find
the terminal that is airy or the terminal that is
everything. And you shake that down and you do a little bit
of a terminal assessment, and he suddenly comes up and he
says, Well, "the airiness of the room" or something of that
sort, or "The airiness of any car. It hasn't any hood
anymore." And you would run it - if you had to, by that time
.. You see, you only run those things which you can't
get rid of with two-way comm or assessment. You realize
that, don't you - that running is the way you take care of
the things that didn't blow. So you always be prepared to
have an ARC break, a present time problem or anything else
blow before you had to run it.

You just start doing an assessment on one of these
undifferentiated problems, and you'll find it doesn't react
anymore.

You repeat the question, "Well, do you have a present time
problem now?" you see? You had some enormous surges on the
meter and so forth. And you say, "Well, do you have a
present time problem now?" before you settle down to run
the thing and you can't even get a quiver on it, see?
You've blown it by assessment.

All right. Now, the PC who has a present time problem that
the auditor will not take up is being given a withhold. So
there is another source of withholds that cross at the
present time problem level. But at the same time, the PC
will very often try to withhold present time problems
because he's afraid the auditor will take them up and waste
session time. Because auditing is very valuable. All PCs
consider auditing time very, very, very, very, very, very
valuable.

There just isn't enough auditing. That's it.

And this gets so catastrophic that a PC will force auditing
where it shouldn't occur in some direction: He wants the
auditing that is necessary to resolve his case, not the
auditing which is just fooling around with those fool
rudiments, you see, and will actually sometimes attempt to
withhold a present time problem for fear that the auditor
will take it up.

All right. Now, the action of running a Security Check is a
relatively simple action. It requires a high degree of
familiarity with the meter so that you aren't fumbling with
the meter. It requires a very definite, positive knowledge
of the E-Meter. It requires, in addition to that, a
knowledge of whether or not the needle is reacting on the
question or on the parts of the question. You have to know
how to compartment a question. You have to know how to make
the E-Meter tell the truth. And that is sort of high-school
E-Metering.

People who didn't know much about E-Meters ... I think
there was somebody in - I think it was almost into Canada
(someplace in the United States; they were just about as
close to not being in the United States as they could be),
got the idea that everybody had been PDHed throughout the
United States by everybody else. And this became ridiculous
in the extreme.

And they were going all over telling everybody how
everybody was PDHing everybody, and they were just having a
marvelous time. And they were getting out magazines about
the subject, and so on.

And the most awful quiet ensued. There was a quiet where
you could have heard an engram drop, you know? Because
after I explained compartmentation in an article in Ability
magazine, you know, we've never heard another word. It is
the most profound silence. It is a sort of a negative silence. 
It has texture.

Well, that's because of this. That whole nonsense took
place because somebody couldn't really handle an E-Meter,
they didn't know how to compartment questions. So if you
ask anybody if he had ever been the victim of
pain-drug-hypnosis, well, of course you were going to get a
fall, a fall, a fall and a fall, because you get falls on
just the word victim, you get falls on just the word pain,
you get falls on just the word drug, and you will
occasionally get falls on just the word hypnosis. And if a
person has withholds on somebody else, you will get a fall
on that other person's name if you got withholds and overts
on some particular line. So there's a source of five falls
in one question..

"Have you ever been a victim of pain-drug-hypnosis from
President Eisenhower?" Five falls.

You see, it's falling on the words of the question. It
isn't falling on the question. And the way you do that is
you take the question apart. You knock out - just say the
word, "Victim," and you get a fall. You say, "What was
that?" "Well, victim. Well, what not?"

"Well," you say, "what about victim?"

"Well, I always hate to be a victim."

"Well, what the heck? Have you ever made any victims? Have
you ever accused anybody of being a victim?"

"Oh, yes, my wife. She's being a victim all the time, all
the time, all the time. Always a victim. Yes, yes, yes, yes, 
always a victim. And she says so, what's more."

"Oh, is that so? Victim." No reaction. Ah, we got that word
cooled. "All right. Pain." Clang! goes the needle, you see?
You say, "Well, what about pain?"

"Oh, I've always been afraid of pain."

"Well, what about the word pain?"

"Well, oh, the word pain. Oh-ho. Oh, you mean the word pain."

"Yeah. Well, what about the word pain?" No reaction. Okay.
Drug. Have you ever taken drugs? You ever give anybody
drugs? Are you afraid of drugs? Anything wrong with drugs?
Have you ever given anybody any drugs illegally?" Clang!
"When did that happen?" "Oh, well. My mother was very sick
and I forged a prescription."

"Oh, is that so? Oh, how interesting. All right. Now, when
was that?"

"Oh, such and such a time."

"All right. Thank you very much. Drug." No reaction. See?

"President Eisenhower." Clang, clang, clang, clang, clang.
What about President Eisenhower?"

"Oh, nothing. I was part of a ban-the-bomb march, and we
said we'd dance on his grave. Yeah. That's what that was. 
Yeah."

"Is that all there is to that?"

"Well, yes. I've been violently opposed to that particular
activity. Oh, yeah."

"All right. How often have you done that?"

"Oh, lots of times. Lots of times."

"All right. How about President Eisenhower? Okay." No fall.

"Now, have you ever been the victim of pain-drug-hypnosis
from President Eisenhower?" Now, if the person has, you
will now get a fall on the question. And if you want to be
absolutely sure, go back all through all the words again
and compartment them.

Now, there is more to it than this on compartmentation. I
noticed the other day one of the boys didn't have it quite
straight. And that is, you compartment the phrases in
addition to the words.

You take the words and get the charge off them. And then
you take the phrases and read the phrases out and see if
each phrase is clean. And then when you read the whole
question, let me assure you that if there is a fall, it is
true. There is no withhold or charge on it unless it is true.

And there won't be a single needle quiver. And that is the
proper way of compartmenting a Security Check question. And
you'll find you very often have to compartment them quite
painfully. Otherwise you'll make some fantastic error.

Now, the first and foremost method of preventing yourself
from making an error is to forget all about two needle
phenomena. One of the needle phenomena you should forget
about is the latent read. Just ignore all latent reads.
Have nothing to do with a latent read. If the read occurred
more than half a second after you finished the question
read, ignore it. Just ignore it.

Just drop it. Because it'll be on somebody else or is on
another Security Check question. It isn't on the same
question or it didn't happen to them.

Now, that's how come you sometimes wind up getting off
other people's withholds. Other people's withholds will
give you a latent read. So you are buying latent reads. You
ask somebody, "Well, did you ever drown a cat?"

"Well, my aunt Mamie drowned a cat once."

This would be the response. Now, that would be a latent
read. You would get that as a latent read. And every time
you pick up a latent read on a Security Check question, you
can expect that you haven't got a withhold, you've got a
red herring. And you can go chasing all over the bank
looking for this red herring. And you waste more time on
latent reads than any other single action in auditing.

That read - if the person has a withhold on it, let me assure
you the question does not wear out.

If the person is still holding on to a withhold on that
question, and it's not on one of the words of the question,
it's not on one of the phrases of the question - nothing of
that sort - but is on the question, the more you ask it and
the more he withholds, the more instant the read. It gets
so that he just realizes you're going to ask the question
again, you get the read. There isn't a tenth of a second lag.

You read the question - pang! It's acting. You read the
question - bang! It's acting. Read the question - bang! It's
acting. You see, the reactive mind is an instantaneous
mind. All time is now. And if it's a really reactive mind,
of course, the closer it is to reactivity, the more rapid
and instant the read will be. And it's as simple as that.
It is very simple. And if it is not reactive, the read will
be latent. It will wait before it falls. It'll wait for
half a second. It'll wait for a second.

And an auditor who sits there and asks the question "Have
you ever drowned a cat?" watching the E-Meter, and then
gets a reaction, and then says "What was that?." is going
to find Aunt Mamie drowning a cat. And it was something the
PC didn't do, and it was something the PC never has
withheld. You can just count on that.

One of the tricks of reading - one of the bad tricks of
reading - on latent reads, is to look at the meter, then look
at the question, then read the question, then look at the
PC, then look at the meter. You'll catch more latent reads 
that way, and boy, will you miss more instant reads. You will 
just miss them left and right. Why? Because your eye isn't 
on the E-Meter at the moment you ended the question. And your 
eye must be on the meter needle the instant that you end that 
question. Otherwise, you're going to miss the twitch. So what 
you do is, the sequence is always: question, look at the meter 
and speak the question, and then look at the PC. Paper, meter, 
PC.

Paper: you see that the question is about rape. You don't
care whether the question is exact or not. That is to say,
Have you ever raped anybody?" - you can ask that in a
thousand different ways. "Have you ever contemplated rape?"
"Have you ever had ideas of rape?" "Have you ever
remembered anything odd about rape as something odd to you
like this?" And you're going to get down to some kind of a
withhold if there is one. So you look at the question, and
then you look at the meter and you say the question, and
then you can look at the PC all you care to. And you won't
get into this nonsense about latent reads.

The way I see auditors doing this is they look at the paper
and they read the question, and then they look over at the
E-Meter and then they wait, and they wait, and they wait,
and they wait, and they wait, and they wait, and they wait.

And the question is, what the hell are they waiting for?
Because it would have occurred in a tenth of a second. If
you're going to follow it through, it would have occurred
in a tenth of a second. And that's the way you security
check. Man, you can really tear down the line if you do
that. Yeah. You can really rip up a Security Check - whammity, 
whammity, whammity, wham. PC doesn't even have to speak. 
You look at the paper: "Have you ever raped anybody?" 
Nothing. That's all.

Now, if you want to go at this a little more academically,
you never look at the meter at all until the PC says no.
The Security Check can be totally without the meter right
up to the point where - he says no, at which time you repeat
the question looking at the meter. And that makes for very
good sessioning. When you find you're doing this easily, oh
man, it just goes on and on and on.

Why are you looking at the meter if you're not trying to
catch him out? See? You're trying to find out if something
is reactive. That's why you're looking at the meter. Well,
if the guy is going to tell you his withholds, why are you
looking at the meter? That's what it amounts to.

You say, "Well, have you ever robbed a bank?"

And the PC says, "Well, if you put it that way, yes. I uh
.. uugh, yes, I robbed a bank," and so forth.

And you say, "When was that?" and so on, so on, so on, so
on, so on. You can go a little further. "Who you been
withholding it from?"

"Oh, I've been withholding it from everybody and so
forth. "My fellow bank robbers. I didn't want them to know
that and so forth, and then, et cetera, yap-yap, and so on.
They got it all - they get it squared around. Good.

You say, "All right. Now, have you ever robbed any other banks?"

"Uh ... yes, I did," and so forth. "And that was pretty
bad," and uh ... and so forth, and et cetera.

And you say, "Okay. Well, have you ever robbed a bank?"

PC says, "Aside from those, no."

You say, "Good. Have you ever robbed a bank? Yes, what's
that? What's that nest one?"

"Oh, well, that's just that little old bank down in Joliet.
That'd hardly count." Got the idea? Then you finally ask
him again, "All right. Have you ever robbed any other
banks?"

"No."

You look back at the meter, you say, "Well, have you ever
robbed any other banks?" Meter's quiet. Go on to the nest
question.

You never look at the meter until he says no. You'll find
out that really holds them in session, man. That's very
good sessioning when you can do it this way.

Now, the only bug that occurs when you do this is that
you're repeating the question and apparently calling him a
liar slightly. But you'll find out this isn't very
damaging. He's already told you no, and so you confirm it.

Now, leaving a question hot is another very damaging action
on an E-Meter. That's a very damaging thing to a session.
Oh, that is something you mustn't do - leave a question with
reaction on it. Don't ever go to the nest question as long
as a question is reacting. And don't ever go on to the next
question unless you're absolutely sure that the question
you are on has no further instant actions in it. Remember,
we care nothing about the latent action.

If there's no instant action left in a question, you can go
on. And if there is, don't you dare! Because if anything is
calculated to throw a PC out of session from there on out,
man, let me tell you, it is leaving a question hot.

You know, there's been considerable randomity occurred
because of this occasionally. HGC PC, and end of session
comes along and... One girl ran all over town telling
everybody bow Scientologists were all frauds and they were
bums, and bow they were all trying to rape her and shoot
her and so forth. And she actually blew the HGC, and wrote 
letters to everybody that night before they could finally 
get bold of her. And finally they trailed her down. And they 
heard the rumors going around, and they wondered what all 
this was about, so they traced them back down and they found 
this one girl. And they got her down, and the question was
something like "Have you ever committed adultery?" And boy,
it was just falling off the pin. It wasn't an instant read.
It was just - it was blowing up before the auditor could open
his mouth, you know? Bang! Bang! And they got these
fantastic withholds off of her, and that was it.

"Oh," she said, "I guess I committed an awful series of
overts," and she hurriedly did a volte-vis and tried to
straighten up everything she'd been doing.

But look at that. Isn't that interesting? It just - one
question, and I think it was an end-of-intensive question.
And the auditor just foolishly said, "Well, it's the end of
the intensive, and that's it." Never flattened the
question. I haven't got that particular particularity, but
I do know that the rest of it did happen. They had about
ten people running all around trying to round up what all
this was about. It was just an unflat Security Check
question. And you just mustn't leave questions unflat.
Sure, take them up in the next session - you've got to
sometimes, because one question can go five hours - has 
done so.

The fellow is the father of eight children. And you ask him
the question "Have you ever spanked a child?" And he
already feels awfully guilty about this, and he's left his
family, and this is a great point of disturbance with him,
and the punishment of children is a very hot subject and so
forth. And, man, you can just go on and on and on and on
with this particular subject.

He's just getting off withholds and getting off withholds
and getting off withholds. No one cares how long it takes
to clear a question as long as the auditor is working on
the clearance of a question, not getting off somebody
else's withholds through the PC, not trying to find out
what the PC thought or heard or did about somebody else.
We're interested in the PC's withholds. And as long as the
auditor is getting actual withholds off the PC on instant
reads, continue with the question.

The only way you can waste auditing time on the thing is to
just wait there for the latent read and then take that
latent read. Read occurs two and a half, three seconds
after you've read the question. You read the question ...
fall. You say, "What was that?" You knucklehead! You're
immediately going to get something like this: "Well, I just
thought it was getting awfully late." That's true. That's
what it fell on. Didn't have anything to do with the question.

Or, "Oh well, yes. That made me think of a book I read once
that I wasn't supposed to read." Look, this is a question
about stealing, see? "Have you ever stolen anything?" See?
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait - clang. "Well, what was that?"
you say on the latent read.

"Oh, well, that was a book, I guess. I - I was thinking about
this book."

"What about this book?"

"Well, I read this book. Uh ... well, it would ... it
talked about stealing." 

"Uh ... well, what about that?"

Well, look, knucklehead, nothing about that, you see? I
mean, there just isn't anything. It doesn't have anything
to do with - it except the PC's mind was out of gear for the
moment. It's like finding the gear wheels disengaged, you
see? And you sit there and wait, and eventually the PC is
going to think about something, isn't he? And if you wait
long enough, you'll always get a reaction, even if it's
just on the ARC break of "Why are you so damn quiet?"

It's factual, and it follows through. Serious withholds or
withholds that should be gotten off the case, or that have
anything to do with a case, and all the things that the
person himself have done, are as a result of an instant
read. And you must follow through on that particular basis.

All right. The next thing that you should pay attention to,
besides clearing every question as it goes on down the
line - the next thing you should pay attention to is
selecting the type of Security Check. This is very important.

There is no sense in security checking somebody on
something he has nothing to do with. That is rather
frightful. Let's say that we have a special Security Check
on the subject of boilermakers, see? So we get this girl
who is a milliner. And we run a Security Check on
boilermakers on this milliner. And we say, "Well, she's got
clean hands because she didn't have a single fall." Well,
that's for sure.

Similarly, it is equally an error to take a generalized
Security Check when you know very well your PC has a
particularized professional or action area. If this PC is
living by some particular framework of mores... Well, let's
say you're security checking a person who professionally,
this life, right now, is a bank teller. Well, all right.
That might go along all right and so forth.

But you just never seem to get around to writing up some
additional questions to give him as a Security Check. And,
of course, you'll miss it every time. You just give him the
generalized form of the check, and it only hits banks on
about three questions.

Nov. you yourself have to be able to project your
imagination and initiative with regard to that situation.
You'd say, "What would be the withholds of a bank teller?
What would they be?" And, of course, it turns up at once
what they would be. We're liable to find something like
this: he has to stand in back of this cage all the time and
he hates people. And the word of the bank is that you must
be pleasant to all the customers as you take in the money.
And you must stand there with a smile on your face, you see, 
and take in the money and pay out the money. You just can't 
figure out what's wrong with this guy's job, see? He's unhappy 
and he isn't doing well and nothing is going on and so we give 
him a general Security Check and it goes on and on, but it
never takes into account what the man does in life. You get
the idea? That is a boob.

That is - comes under the classification of a boob.

We do put one together around what we think a bank teller
might possibly have as withholds, and we find all sorts of
very interesting things. He has held a deposit for twenty
minutes so one of his customers, you see, wouldn't be
overdrawn. Interesting thing. Nothing very much, but it was
something to him, because, man, are you supposed to have
those deposits right into the drawer, and they're supposed
to pass down the endless belt and go into the machines and
so forth, and so on.

And he actually has, on his own initiative, which is
just - that's pretty adventurous - has actually put his fist
into the machinery of the bank, and he has held it for
twenty minutes. And that is a withhold to him.

And then you find maybe he's standing there with all kinds
every time a customer comes up he has a game that he plays
on - something on the order of an unkind thought. And he just
has nothing but long streams of unkind thoughts. Every time
somebody comes up - bzzzzzzz, got this long thing.

And you ask him the right question - you say, bank teller.
Well, all right, bank teller - he must have customers. And
you say, "Well, have you ever had an unkind thought about a
bank customer?" And you're liable to run into an avalanche.

And it'd just sit on that case till the end of time unless
you yourself security checked against the reality of the
PC. That you must always do.

Whatever else you do with Security Checks, also security
check against the reality of the PC.

And that takes into account the moral codes by which he 
lives.

Now, you security check a Catholic sometime, or you
security check a Baptist, and you'd have two different
Security Checks. They'd be different. You security check an
Afrikaner and security check a Zulu. You're going to have
two different Security Checks, man. And they're almost
vis-a-vis different Security Checks. Almost everything one
thinks is right, the other thinks is wrong.

Who's to say who's right or who's wrong? That hasn't
anything to do with it, which is why I gave you a little
bit about the moral note at the beginning of it. The rights
and wrongnesses of things are what groups have determined
on in order to perpetuate survival. And that's the
rightnesses and wrongnesses of things. It's what is
survival to the group, not whether you are enforcing the
mores of a group because you are so sinless. So you have to
actually be able to security check both sides of the fence.

Now, security checking a cop would be quite different than
security checking a criminal, of course. Security checking
a soldier would be quite different than security checking a
chambermaid. It would be different.

So if you omit specialized Security Checking and putting
together a list of questions that concern the activities of
the person - if you omit this entirely - you've boobed.

Another thing that you do, that you mustn't do, is read a
Security Check as a repetitive question. "Have you ever
raped anybody? Good. Have you ever raped anybody? Go Have
you ever raped anybody? Good Have you ever raped anybody?
Goods Have you ever raped anybody? Good. Have you ever
raped anybody? Good. Ever raped ...?" Who are you auditing?

Your job is not to run a repetitive question at all, but to
get off withholds. The auditing consists of getting off 
withholds.

Well, how do you get off withholds on the subject of rape?
Well, some fellow says, "Well now, I just don't want to
answer any questions about that at all. No, I just don't
think you'd better be asking me any question. Let's go on
to the next one. We'll still be friends. But we'd better go
on to the next question."

Well, how are you going to get around that? You can still
ask the question "What have you got against rape?"

"Oh," he'll say, "well, it isn't what I have against rape,
it's what other people have against rape."

"Well, who has things against rape?"

"Well! My mother and my father and the public and the
preacher and the parson and - and the state," and so forth.

"Well, when did all these come down on you on the subject 
of rape?"

"Well, that was when I got in the newspapers on the subject."

"Oh, when was that?"

That is what is known by pulling a withhold from the back door.

Now, the nest thing you must remember is that a withhold is
generally a withhold of an overt act against the mores of
the group. Now, actually, the enforcement of the mores of
the group to make other people withhold is the overt act of
withholds. You get the idea? You're enforcing the mores of
the group against another person to make them withhold.
It's the overt act of making people withhold, see? So you
err whenever you don't ask the make-guilty question.

You can take every Security Check you've got and simply add
an additional question below each level on "Well, have you
ever made anybody guilty of rape?"

You get this girl. She keeps telling you, "I have been
raped. It isn't that I am withholding raping somebody; I
have been raped." And the question is still hot.

And you say, "How in the name of common sense am I ever
going to clear this question? How am l going to clear this
question? How could I possibly clear the question? Because
she just says - and of course she's an offended member - no,
she hasn't raped anybody. She's been raped." Well, if you
Q-and-A and just go off and say, "Well, we're not security
checking now."

She has a bad engram, and vie might as well run this engram
and find out all about all of this rape, and when she was
raped and so forth," are you still security checking or are
you doing something else? You're doing something else. You
are auditing processes, you are running engrams, but you're
doing something else. You're not security checking.

So you don't stop security checking and start doing
something else. You go on security checking. In other
words, get off the withholds. But, of course, the overt act
of a withhold is making somebody else withhold. And, of
course, the moment you ask the question "Well, whom have
you made guilty of rape?"

"Oh, well," you get a nice big meter reaction, and "Him, of
course, and him and him, and them and them and them, and
them and them and them, and them and them," and so forth.

"Well, have you made anybody else guilty of rape?"

"Yes. Well, them and them and them."

"All right. Anybody else you made guilty of rape?"

"Uh ... well, no."

"Anybody else you made guilty of rape? What was that?"

"Well, it's just - I'm just restimulated by the whole thing."

"Well, have you - have you ever raped anybody?"

"Yes."

In other words, the make-guilties all lay on top of an
actual fact; She been raped all right, but Shakespeare's
statement "Methinks the lady protest too much" can be
Hobson-Jobsoned over: "Methinks the PC protest too much."
And whenever the PC "protest too much," you are looking at
the boiling broth. And you might as well pick the pot up
and look under it, because you're going to find fire.

"You shouldn't be asking me that question. It is
insulting." Oh, man. Why don't they run up a signal halyard
and fly fifteen flags from it, you know; get blinking lights
going in your face? Because that is the one question that
is hot.

And of course a person who has fantastic motivators which
just keep rocking and rocking and rocking... The person
says "Well, I haven't ever raped anybody; I have been
raped. And that is why it is falling."

No, remember your original question was "Have you ever
raped anybody?" and you got an instant read. And the facts
of the case are that the PC has, but the PC has tried to
make other people guilty to such an extent that this lies
on the top of it as the overt from the withhold motivator.
You see? So there's what you got.

So you ask the made-guilty questions any way you want to
phrase it. "Have you ever protested against ... ?" "Have
you ever accused ... ?" Do you see? This type of
questioning for each subject matter of a Security Check
will be found to be very, very beneficial in freeing up a
whole security question. Because, of course, it is making
other people withhold, and when you get the overt off, then
the PC gives up his withhold. It's not actually, you see,
an additional question. It is another way of asking the
same question.

And then you come back and you always leave a Security
Check question that has fell [fallen] - you always leave it
with the same wording that you ask it in the first place
that produced the fall. Never miss that. And that is
usually, for your ease, the way it is written on the paper.

You've been asking all sorts of things about rape. You
said, "Well, have you ever made anybody guilty of rape?
Have you ever ... rape?" and so forth and so on. And "All
right. Have you ever bad unkind thoughts about rapists? What 
have you done? Have you ever wished you were raped?" It doesn't
matter, whatever you were asking, you see? What produced
the reaction - the reason you're asking these questions - is
"Have you ever been raped?" And the question you're trying
to clear is the one that produced the reaction. So you
always repeat that question in the same wording to see if
there's any additional reaction before you leave it. And
then you're sure that that question is clean. No matter how
many other variations you ask - and you should ask variations
in order to get the thing cleaned up - you go back to the
same question again before you leave it.

In other words, always go out by the same door you entered.
Don't go ducking out the side door. You've cleared up "Have
they ever made anybody guilty of rape?" see? So you say,
"Well, that's it. We'll go on to the next question."

Oh, you missed, and you will leave a question hot if you do 
that.

All right. I've tried to cover here some of the elements of
Security Checking. You can tailor up Security Checks any
way you want to. You can always add to a Security Check.
You can always add to a Security Check. You may never
subtract from one. The reason why we lay that injunction
down is that somebody who has a withhold on a subject who
runs into it on a list will then not be tempted to avoid it.

And you would be fascinated at some of the Security Check
questions being made up by people who have buttons on the
subject. You never quite read as much of an avoidance as
you get when you do that. You take somebody who's sitting
down here in Dartmoor Scrubs and have him write a Security
Check up on the subject of criminals, and you get a
three-question check. But you ask him to write - he has never
been a soldier, and you ask him to write a Security Check
question on the subject of soldiers, and he writes you
eighteen pages. It's quite interesting.

But people subtract from Security Checks where they have
withholds. So you lay down this injunction; you say,
"Always give the standard Security Check; add anything to
it you please. Write up any special check you care to, as 
long as you give a standard check too." And then that keeps 
anybody from ever indulging in tacit consent and avoiding 
a question because "We know, of course, that this person has 
never stolen anything from the organization. Of course we know
that, so we just won't ask that question." And sometimes a
person does this in all innocence. It just seems to him
like the question would not produce any particular result.
That's all there is to it. And then somebody asks him the
question and it goes hotter than a pistol.

And he says, "But I never have! I just never have." And you
go tracing it down, and he has.

He actually doesn't remember having done so. But the meter 
knows.

And the one final injunction on this is please believe the
instant read of the meter. A person who is telling you a
lie, a person who has a withhold, gets an instant read on
the question. And if they're getting a read, a needle
reaction, there is a withhold. And never buy anything else.

I have seen a slug of hours of duration with the needle
continuing to react and the PC saying no and almost in
tears over it, because the PC cannot remember, the PC
cannot differentiate it, the PC cannot tell what that
withhold is. It just doesn't seem to elude anybody. And for
the auditor to leave it is a serious error, because at the
end of those hours, so help me Pete, it was found, and it
did clear.

Now, I've had people with some pretty nasty withholds, on
the meter. And I've never failed to have the meter react
when the question was charged, so long as it was against
the moral code of the person I was checking. That was the
important point. And it's quite interesting to watch it. It
will not wear out. The question will not wear it out. That
is what is fascinating. You can ask it, and ask it, and ask
it, and ask it, and ask it, and ask it, and ask it - and it
won't wear out. It'll just produce, if anything, a little
faster reaction. Until the withhold is given up, the action
occurs.

So don't ever think your meter is busted. Make sure that
your meter isn't, before you start the session. That's the
time to make sure the meter is all right, not in the middle
of the session, thinking, "Well, it's just reacting. This
rock slam must be because some dust has gotten into it."
No, the rock slam is coming from a withhold if you're on a
Security Check. Okay? 

Audience: Right.

All right. Well, I hope this clarifies a few points for you
on the subject of Security Checking, because you're going
to find this is a very, very important subject. It's going
to be with us for a very, very long time. It's one of the
basic skills of the auditor and is the first thing that an
auditor should know how to do very, very well. He should
know how to security check well.

Because you can do anything under the sun, moon and stars
with a Security Check. You can do anything with it. And the 
better you are at handling the basics and fundamentals of 
Security Checks, then the better you will be at making them 
work.

Thank you.

[end of tape.]
