Thank you.

Now, you should be — cases should be moving pretty well now; they should be off the launching pad. Well it’s about time you got off the launching pad. If there’s one or two that aren’t waggling their tone arms hard, we’ll get them off the launching pad. We have a special booster that’s — particularly appeals to the space-opera-type case, you see? I have a special booster, and it’s the booster rocket which boosts the main rocket which carries the boosters.

Now, there’s always a few slowdowns — a few slowdowns in a class that aren’t taking off at any high velocity, and we got most of those moving.

For instance, you were twenty-five, five days ago, and you were five yesterday, and this is down now to maybe three. But you haven’t had the afternoon session yet, so by the end of today it should be zero. I like to cut them down; I like these gradients. Power dive! That’s called a power-dive-type gradient — twenty-five to three in six days. That’s pretty good. I wish D of Ps were this good. Most of them are.Now, it’s all very well to talk about the low-level cases. What about the high-level cases? What about the high-level case? What could you get there on, at a high level of action on a case?

Well, it’s a matter of speeding up the tone-arm action, and then loosening it up, and then getting it to sit null on whatever is being run. That’s the formula.

The formula of auditing today as read on an E-Meter is as follows: Case walks in, stuck wall, no meter action — see, stuck wall. They have to find the wall before they can get it unstuck. Got the idea? All right.

Now, you take it off of that I mean that literally. There is practically no E-Meter action on a very bad-off case. You understand?

Don’t ever let me hear you trying to assess or security check or something of this sort a case which has a total slug needle. The case could be reading low, the case could be reading high. It just doesn’t matter. But the needle itself is relatively unresponsive.

Now, you can read through this needle. You can read through it, you can make interesting guesstimates, you can pick out terminals, and so forth. But the basic thing wrong with such a case is just, “not response.”

Now, look, if the case is being a no-effect to this degree, what do you think auditing will be on the case but relatively a no-effect Don’t you see?

Security Checking on a case is almost foolish. But this is a pretty rough case — pretty rough case. This case very well may sit at 2.0 for a woman or 3.0 for a man with no needle action. That’s exactly the same as a dead body with no thetan present If you were to go down to the morgue and take a corpse, you would find out it would read somewhere in this range. Got it?

Now, it’s the needle action, then, which tells at first glance. Does this case have a loose needle? Is the needle moving around as you talk to the case? That’s all, does the needle drift around — drift up or drift down or does it stick around? When you say something to the person, your only needle reaction — the most active action — would be that it comes off and sticks again. Got the idea? Maybe moves one of those little tiny quarter of an inch gradients.

Now, the worse off a person is the less needle action there is. Now, just put that down as a stable datum. When you first get ahold of a case, the meaning of the tone arm is relatively uninformative — first get ahold of one.

Now, the case may very well read at 6.5 or may very well read at 1.5 or .5 on the tone arm. It doesn’t matter what this reads. This would be somewhat indicative.

Now, if you were doing a Security Check that… You see there’s double uses of this meter, and you’d better know both uses. If you were doing a Security Check, the mere fact that the needle was like glue and the tone arm was tremendously awry would cause you to look up the person’s background. Got that? (Reading 6.5 or reading .5 or reading 1.5 and needle glue and so forth.) This is going to take a lot of Security Checking; this is going to take Security Checking that sounds just like auditing. Looks like a presession going on, you know, just trying to get some freedom into the case so the case will talk and so forth.

But a withhold on this case can be fantastic. And what they’re withholding and what they consider they’ve done wrong is so awry compared to what the society at large agrees what is wrong that it’s relatively insignificant what the actions are. But put it down to this: It’s going to take a long time. And if you are blanket security checking a group and you found this particular very low, very high, very sticky needle reaction, and so forth, you would not trust your Security Check. You got it? You would just set that person aside as being doubtful; that should be looked up further. You got that? Just no more action on it with a Security Check than that.

In other words, you could look at a tone arm and look at a needle reaction and know where you had your liabilities, (snap) just like that.

Because this person no longer really knows the difference between — clearly and cleanly — right and wrong. They don’t have too much responsibility, don’t you see, for the rightness and wrongness of society or for the responsibility on the dynamics. These things all tend to be awry, you see?

So, you say, “This is a security liability,” whatever would fall out of it, see? You just check the person up further.

Now, a person like that, not knowing too much about right and wrong and that sort of thing, tends to get into trouble. It isn’t that their current-life trouble, you see, is what’s got the needle seized up, and so forth, but they just tend to get into trouble. And another thing is, they have trouble with communication. They have trouble with relaying communication, and their answers, for no good reason at all known to them or anybody else, are liable to be awry. You give them a list to fill out — and, “Where were you bom?” And they give you the wrong year. And, “Where did you go to school?” And they give you the wrong school or put more school or less school down. You see, the information is not terribly reliable because they are well departed from ARC with the society.

Now, this case is already badly ARC broke. And in the current lifetime if they’d just had a very rough lifetime — in the current lifetime — why, they have at least a lot of key-ins of that character just casewise. And they are a security risk.

Therefore, this case would take a great deal more time to security check. And if you were just security checking in a row, brrmrrr, on down the line, you could almost security check by the tone arm and the needle action.

You got a loose needle action and your tone arm is somewhere reasonable, and so forth, well, you could run down a few null questions, a few other questions — bang. See, you’ve got it.

Now all of a sudden, you say — as you say in the world today with all the newspaper publicity, and so forth, that it’s getting — if you say, “Communism,” and the needle falls, that doesn’t mean they’re a communist — put that in passing. Doesn’t mean they’re a communist It means that they react to communism, and that’s all a needle reaction means. It means they react to this thing.

Now, if you go ahead and ask a lot more questions about communism, who they heard about it or what it was all about you find the needle frees up and goes null, and that’s what’s known as a dean needle. And you dean the needle up to that point and the needle goes null.

Well, what does this mean? It means by two-way comm you can dean a needle on this guy.

But if the needle didn’t dear and he’s telling you a lie, see, there is something there. There is something there on whatever you were talking to him about on a security level.

But the case has to be in some kind of shape before you get a needle reaction; that’s why I am talking to you about Security Checking. And it has to be in some kind of shape before you get a cleaning up of the needle. You know, it was diving on communism let us say, or something like this. And then the guy finally said, “Well actually, my sister’s brother’s grandaunt’s grandfather was in correspondence once with Stalin,” or something of this sort And you find, it frees up, see?

But if he is telling you lies, it won’t free up. You keep getting the dive, keep getting the dive, and probably the dive will, a bit, worsen. It’ll get less and it’ll get more and it’ll get less and get more, but nothing is changing here, don’t you see? You haven’t got the combination on this thing, so you just simply set it down. “Security risk.” “Tch.” Bang! Got it?

If after fifteen, twenty minutes you can’t get this thing to dear up no matter what you ask this fellow on Straightwire, and so forth, well, you just got a security risk on your hands, that’s all. It doesn’t prove the fellow is or isn’t But it does prove that all is not told; it proves that he isn’t being factual or honest whenever you get one of these falls of this character. But it does dean up.

Now, a meter, then, in auditing — I’m just giving you a Security Check reaction so you see what happens in auditing. If you’re auditing a case on a process and the tone arm doesn’t shift and the needle doesn’t free up or change characteristic, it’s not washing out, is it? Nothing is happening. That’s it.

But what tells you if nothing is happening? It’s the waggle of the tone arm and it’s the shift of the needle.

Now, you can expea a needle, maybe, to go into a theta bop and come off of a theta bop, and the tone arm to shift a quarter of a tone because the meter goes out of adjustment or something. But if nothing is happening on that, you’re getting no place with this case. Just mark it down that that is what is occurring; you’re not getting anyplace with the case. What you are probing at is not freeing the needle.

Now, on a Security Check, you’d free the needle. Don’t you see? That’s an easy one, by the way, and you ought to security check some people just for a gag. You know, just to look at and see how this happens and see how long you sometimes have to talk, to talk them out of something. You sometimes have to go on for fifteen, twenty minutes on one drop. You know? “Have you got an overt against a Scientologist?” You know? And it goes drop, you know, and you talk to them. And you finally get it out of them; you see the needle go free because you’ll always get it out of them.

But if you didn’t for some reason or other — let’s say it dropped on crime, “Have you ever committed a crime?” See? And it dropped.

And the fellow said, “Oh no.” Drop! “Oh no.”

“Now, did you ever have any trouble in your youth with policemen?” Anything you could think up, you see, that has to do with crime. And you keep asking him and asking him and asking. You still get drop, drop. Just bank your money on the fact that this boy is not telling all. Got the idea?

If you keep this up and if you ran the presession, “What have you done?” and ‘What have you withheld?” or “Think of something you’ve done.” ‘Think of something you withheld,” it’ll eventually occur to him that — “Well, I’d better give all. See, I’d better tell about it,” and so forth. And you’ll see the needle go free at that moment.

You ought to do that, just to show that the reaction of an E-Meter depends utterly upon, not necessarily a conscious withhold on the part of a case (although in a Security Check it’s on a conscious withhold), but depends on whether or not the person moves on the time track.

Now, if they’re obsessively resisting the auditor, they don’t move on the time track. And of course, a fellow who has done a crime and says he hasn’t done a crime is obsessively resisting the auditor, isn’t he? All right.

Now, knowingly or unknowingly, he’s obsessively resisting the auditor when you get no action in auditing on the tone arm or the needle. Got that?

So, the first and foremost thing that is happening is that he is not doing the auditing command. The process has nothing to do with it.

Now, please believe me. That sounds so extraordinary. He just is not doing the auditing command. That’s the first thing you know. It isn’t whether it’s the right process or not. Now, you got that? It isn’t that. That isn’t the criterion. He’s just not doing the auditing command.

If you were to ask him very carefully after you’ve been slamming into presessioning or so forth for a while, you know — ordinarily you would simply attack a case just on the basis of “This case is going to run” and prepare to be surprised when it doesn’t Don’t you see?

Just audit the case just usually and generally and calmly and evenly just as you would with presessions, you see? And go over these points and go into a Model Session and assess it or not assess it and just run motion or something of this sort And you would run straight on through — just would be running an average session.

But if you’ve gone through presession and nothing is happening to that needle and it’s still gummy and the tone arm isn’t shifting, go over presessioning again with him. And you still don’t get any shift? Oh, presession — my God, this is something like standing and throwing house-size boulders at a case, don’t you see? I mean, its’s — it’s — there s nothing light about the buttons of presessioning because they”re the only buttons that go wrong in a case.

So, if he doesn’t get any reaction at all to presessioning, then you must assume at this moment that he isn’t answering in some fashion anything you’re asking him. So, what you’re asking him has no bearing on what he’s doing. You got that?

Now, for years and years — although I would say this and know this occasionally — I blamed processes. And it’s a very good thing that I did because we have arrived with processes and we might not have otherwise, don’t you see? But this sneak factor was always along with us. Now that we’ve arrived with processes and we know we’re there, this is the other factor — this factor is still with us: For a process to operate it has to be executed.

Now, how is this pc that doesn’t come free a bit or change in aspect in presessioning — particularly the presessioning you get in HCOB 25 August ’60 — the one you will just see or you will — you have or you are about to get.

Now, how does he — how does he — what happens there? If he doesn’t come free, there’s something going on here which has nothing whatsoever to do with the basic relationship of auditing. And therefore the thing to establish is the basic relationship of auditing. You got it?

If you couldn’t establish the basic relationship of auditing smoothly and easily by running up presession and if you didn’t get a wider swing of the tone arm and the needle didn’t free up and change pattern to some degree, ah, there’s something going on here. You’re saying, “fish,” and he’s saying, “cats.”

Basically a person whose tone arm is awry and who — which tone arm doesn’t shift, the needle is sticky, and so forth, is out of agreement with life. So don’t be surprised when he’s out of agreement with what you are saying because communication is part of ARC, remember. And he’s disagreeing with what you’re saying to the degree that it may be — oh, there’s any — there’s an infinite number of combinations because a case which is having a rough time, it specializes in complexity, never simplicity. And you may be saying, ‘‘Now, have you ever met a helpful person?” You know, any variety of presessioning, you see? “Have you ever met a helpful person?”

And the person is saying, “Yes. Yes. Unde George.”

Now, you sit there, knucklehead, and you think that he thought of George as a helpful person and told you, “Yes.” But that is not what happened. He’s saying to you that you remind him of his Unde George whom he detests. Something like this went oa.

All right. You ask this very elementary question, you say, “How could you help me?” And he says, “By shining your shoes.”

Ah! You, the auditor, sitting there in your unsuspicious state think that shining shoes has to do with help. He probably didn’t do the auditing command — possibly. I should say, an infinite number of things could have happened, but I’ll just give you something — an idea of what might have happened.

He received the auditing command all right in some part of his makeup and relayed the auditing command to another part of his makeup and asked “it,” what it would like to do. And “it” said, “I shine shoes.” So, he didn’t even duplicate that but told you that the probable answer to your auditing question was “shining shoes.”

So, because you didn’t hear all that background music, you then ask him, “How could I help you?”

And he says, “By getting me a stovepipe.” Sounds so good, it sounds just as though something went on. And you, knucklehead, you fall for it, see?

What really went on? Well, probably something like this happened: You says, “How could I help you?”

And he says … I know, I’m calling you knucklehead right out of my own experience because I’ve been a knucklehead in this too, see, plenty of times — I mean, caught off base with pcs in spite of altitude and everything else. Some goofball thing would go on like this, and normally I’d say, “There’s something not going anywhere here,” and I’d start to find out And that’s where I get the data I’m giving you.

You say, “Now, how could I help you?”

And he says … (He’s waiting, see?) And eventually a picture of a stovepipe appears in the middle of your head. And so he says, ‘Why, by giving me a stovepipe.” Hasn’t anything to do with the auditing question. You got that?

Now, you have to start to take cases apart then from this basis, from this fundamental The fundamental of that case is that it will not respond cleanly or clearly — and by the way, this is true of everybody — everybody’s got some misintention scattered around. They’ve been human. And we’ve looked this over carefully, and we find out that you cannot be human and be right It’s not possible. So, he’s always got some misattention and misorders and mis-this and mis-that scattered around. So it’s not an accusation whether the process has ever been run or used by him.

But this is direct and immediate. Bang. See? “What orders have you disobeyed?” Because there’s where he’s hanging up.

Now, if you can just get anything about orders answered, if you can get anything about intentions answered, you’ve got about — why, I don’t know, it must be a 70 or 80 percent chance of busting through, and then you will see a reaction on the needle and the arm. Got that? You got to free up what he’s hung up on and that is control. “Orders are dangerous! And therefore I must resist all orders that come my way. I must do something else with them. If you take an order cleanly, it ruins you!”

Now, people get this idea on such things as a battlefield. An order of an arrow tells him to die. And if he’s busily resisting an arrow on a battlefield, there’ll also be something wrong with orders. You see, the intention of the enemy was that he should die; the intention of the arrow is that he should die. And if everything gets identified with this point — you, the auditor, saying, “How are you today? Sit down in the chair” — you just told him very clearly, “Well, there you are fellow, die!” You gave him an order, didn’t you? You told him to sit down in the chair. Well therefore, obviously, you’re trying to kill him. So therefore the best thing to do, reactively, is defend himself. So you give him an order, he defends. You give him an order, he defends. You give him an order, he defends. You give him an order, he avoids. You give him an order, he avoids.

Ah! What the hell is this? The auditing question, whatever its character, would have met the same thing So it has to be exactly what the fellow is doing. Got that? It has to be exactly what the fellow is doing.

If you can parallel exactly what the mind is doing you’ll win every time. So an auditing session will eventually begin, you will eventually get a shift of the tone arm and you’ll eventually get a shift of the needle. And then you know that some question is being answered. We know something is now occurring; we know that the pc will go in through the session and will answer auditing commands.

Now, it’s necessary to establish that point if you don’t get action. Don’t try to find another process. You got the idea? Hit the point of control. And hitting the point of control, get it loosened up. You see that?

Female mice: Yes.

All right Now what about this other 20 percent? They don’t respond to that Why? Because a case can be hung up in the following fashion: A case can be hung up in intentions or hung up in motions — one or the other is so uppermost that the other has no reality.

Now, you’re looking at questionable necessity for CCHs, particularly CCH 3 and 4. And if you were doing this out in the public, this would probably be very smart of you. This would be the easy way to handle this, you know, without much contest of wits. You can still do it verbally. It can still be done verbally; you can still unlock that thing.

Start chanting at the fellow, “Define motion,” — just repetitive command sort of thing, “Define motioa” “Define motioa’’ You see, you already went through your gag on intention, you still couldn’t get him to obey an order. Well, let’s define motioa Let’s find out one more. See, it’ll either be he’s hung on intention or he is either hung on motioa.

Now, motion is also control, so he’s looking at your motions as the mechanism that controls him, not what you’re saying. But you’ve got to get sayingness in there and get it to work. But it will be a little tougher to do to get sayingness to work if intentions mean nothing to him, because your intention to get him to answer this thing is not going to go across. You got it?

So therefore CCH 3 and 4, containing as they do, motion, mimicry, duplication, and so forth, naturally are motion auditing with motion, see? You’re auditing motion with motion. So, you’d stand a very good chance of getting across this way. Bang see? But you can still do it this other way.

You can get clever if you know the principle. You couldn’t get through using intention. That’s the best one to get through on, see? “What orders have you disobeyed?” ‘What intentions have not been followed?” something of this sort That’s the better one — the broader one.

You could go over into it this way: You could go, “Now what did my finger just do?” See, this is a shadow of the CCHs, you know? “What did my finger just do?”

Well, he could look at your finger, and after a while he might be able to tolerate the motion of your finger. Got the idea? The nice slow motion of the finger. For an instant — I can tell you that a case who was in that shape — you’ll become almost intolerably real to him, and he not-ises you quick. But you can bring it back in again, see?

Another thing you could do with this case: You could get this case to say, “What motion around here isn’t dangerous?” A negative question. Same question — “What motion around here could you tolerate?” Same question. And get him to looking at some of these motions.

Now, you’re liable to get a wild whir going on doing this. This is not a slow process; it doesn’t require the grind of the CCHs, but you’re liable to get a wild whir. The fellow for the first time sees some motion. Ughhhhhhhhh. It’s moving!

Maybe he’s stuck on the track so thoroughly, somewhere, that just the thought of moving — see, he’s probably at a rest point between two points of intolerable action. And you get him to just consider the idea of motion, and he starts to go out of that rest point And he will start to go out and clutch it back. And start to go out and clutch it back. And start to go out and dutch it back. And all of a sudden, he can’t stand it anymore and he’s sent And he’ll go out of that rest point and change position on the time track.

Now, don’t be upset if the fellow starts to scream or something at that point because it’s very probable that he might do such a thing. Because this is a rough way to go about it But you’ve still got him to pay some attention to something besides stopping the motion of the atomic explosion which occurred eight trillion years ago. Got the idea?

He’s going to pay some attention to something else for a moment.

All right Now, I’ve just been talking about getting cases moving. When a case is moving, the two points of a case under attack are the sixth and seventh dynamics, and those are best attacked through any gradient of motion and any gradient of intention — other-determinism, in other words — intention, other-determinism. One becomes aware of it because of its intentions or orders or expressions or mock-ups. Don’t you see? So it’s the — it’s the sixth and seventh dynamic You just play these two things together, one after the other, any way you want to play them together, and the case continues to soar.

The most fruitful of these is motion, by the way, as you run on up the line. You’ll see the case changing all over the place on any process which is immediately dedicated and directed at motion. You can combine motion with running assessed terminals, you can run straight motion, you can run any parts of MEST, which of course add up to motion, graduating the fellow up the line. But that’s actually less successful than merely getting it so that you can attack the phenomenon of motion.

Now, a case that is whirring then and that is moving, you want to get that case very well cleaned up on the subject of tolerating motions of all sorts and descriptions and tolerating intentions of all sorts and descriptions or other-determinisms — other-determinisms, intention, more or less same package. And the case will wheel and go right on up the lot.

Don’t waste time with a case that is moving. If you can get that case moving, keep it moving as long as you can keep it moving on what you got it moving on. You got it? And then when that stops giving you immediate and direct results, and so on, well, shift onto a little tougher gradient of it, which would be usually a little greater simplicity of it.

Well, that’s how to get them moving and keep them moving. There’s a large percentage of people here are going to make it providing their auditors knock the living bejabbers out of Help and motion in a single process and knock to pieces other-determinism and Help as a single process. Both things are necessary in some package before the fellow will run all the way out You got it?

The buttons you are hitting then are intentions and motion. If you can get either one of those running, you got it made. And if you can get either one of them running, you can carry it straight on up the line to a totally free needle and a perfectly correct tone arm.

And, of course, you got a Clear. And that’s what you’re making, so you might as well gird up your mental loins to get in there and pitch and get this thing done and not waste any time about it. Get in the most effective possible auditing. Along this particular line, get motion cleaned up, and we’ll get intention cleaned up, too.

If you’re working on motion right now successfully with the pc or if the pc at any time has run successfully on motion, well, for heaven’s sakes get him back onto it and get him to soar. Got it?

Because you want to get the number of auditing commands per unit of time, and you want to get the thing run, and you want to keep the case going once you’ve got it off the launching pad.

Now, somebody who got off the launching pad with intentions will unfortunately stay on other-determinisms and intention and so on, but you could combine that up with motion, as we have done here this morning, and you’ll have somebody going along even faster. Got it?

Audience: Yes.

Now, there’s no reason to get lost or to feel bad if the case isn’t running. There’s no reason to feel bad if the case isn’t running, the tone arm isn’t — it’s just that you haven’t been listening to me. Got it?

Audience: Mm-mm.

Okay, apply what you know. Let’s have some Clears around here.

Thank you.