(applause)

▼ All right.

▼ Well we have some new students, some new students. We have Bernie Pesco here from HASI Melbourne. Stand up. And Leon Bosworth, HASI Joberg. And we have two old students, Wing and Smokey Angel. Stand up.

Okay. What's the date?

Audience: 16th.

All right. 16th Jan. '62 - A.D. 12.

▼ Boy, they changed the acoustics around here.

Now, it's a moot question whether I lecture you today about 3D or 3D Criss Cross or Security Checking Twenty-Ten. It's a moot question because the difficulties of both are exceeding you enormously.

In fact, it's almost "Have you ever heard of them?" I don't mean to be sarcastic and I never lay it into people. I gave you a low-toned lecture the last time I gave you a lecture. Remember, last week, gave you a low-toned lecture - told you there was enormous gap between what you ought to be doing and what you are doing, as great as the gap between what you are doing and what is being done in the field. And that's a pretty wide gap. See, there's a big lot of stuff that you could be getting in there and pitching on.

Now, we have various things that would assist this. And these things are normally summed up in a subject of technology. Now, technology is what you ought to be studying.

Technology is divided into two parts. And these two parts are how you do it, what motions you go through, and what you do. How you do it and what you do. Don't try to wrap up technology under one heading of "Well, it's technical."

How do you run a session? And what do you run in the session? And these are two different subjects, and they are very broadly different subjects.

Now, actually, I am torn in several different directions in giving you a lecture today because I've got so much data to give you on Security Checking and on 3D Criss Cross and other things like this, and the anatomy of the Goals Problem Mass, which we have a lot more data on that you'll be very interested in, and so forth.

But it's very difficult for me to keep this in a very orderly groove, because there is just - how'd you get this stupid? I mean, you know, it's - you must have worked on it, you know? You must have worked on it. Somewhere or another on the track, you must have said to yourself "They shouldn't know, and that includes me." Somewhere here. But I wish you just hadn't done it so often. If you'd just done it less frequently.

Now, of course, it's a good thing that you do have withholds, some of you. That's a good thing. That's a good thing. Think of the cities that would be destroyed, the planets burst into pieces, if you hadn't withheld here and there. We're not trying to teach you to not have withholds - that if you have an impulse, just do it; we're not trying to teach you to do that. We're trying to get YOU out of the tangle you got yourself into. What do you mean having such terrible impulses? That's the tangle we're trying to solve in a pc. How come the pc has these impulses that he then has to withhold? See, now that's the problem. It isn't the problem of withholding.

Now, if you took all the withholds off of a born killer, see, and you didn't remedy the case in any other way at all - ha-ha-ha-ha-ha - ha-ha-ha. I could look at a few of you right now - I'm not mentioning any names. I don't want to be personal. But just supposing you didn't withhold some of the things you think of - just supposing.

Immediately we get a cough here.

All right. The withhold is, of course, that area of motionlessness which follows that area of doingness which you "shouldn't ought to have." And the whole study of withholds comes about from "shouldn't ought to have done it," you see? If you shouldn't ought to have done it, you then begin to withhold it, which of course classifies action under the headings of "things you should have done" and "things you shouldn't have done."

But what do you know? There's a whole bunch of things called "laudable withholds." Now, it was very laudable of you not to sink the battleship. This was very laudable. It's very laudable of you not to have gotten angry at the waitress. Yeah, it's laudable. But a laudable withhold, of course, is always something that society expects of you, providing you've got these other impulses which society has classified (whatever society you happen to belong to) as shouldn't-ought-to-have-done-it actions.

Now, it all depends on where you was brung up (some people were brought up and some people were brung up) and exactly what you shouldn't-ought-to-be-doneing. Now, the whole subject of that is not the subject of philosophy; it's a subject of mores. It's what is moral. To whom and where and what group, under what circumstances, is, a laudable action and an action that ought to be withheld?

Now, you have, then, all withholds divided and all actions divided into laudable actions and laudable withholds. And the laudable withhold goes along with the undesirable action, and the laudable action goes along with an undesirable withhold. Well, figure it out. That's true, isn't it?

So you is always horsed between two horses. See? Is it laudable to went and done it? All right. Well, then - it's not laudable to withhold it. All right. If it's laudable to withhold it, then it must be coupled with "You shouldn't ought to have done it. It shouldn't be done." You see?

So one of the pair of the overt or the withhold is always laudable and always desirable. And the other one is, it is undesirable. See, if you got a laudable withhold, you must have had a desirable action. In other words, a laudable withhold is an undesirable action. Get it straight: laudable withhold, undesirable action. Desirable action, on the other hand, of course: you have a bad withhold.

For instance, it is laudable in some societies to hand out money indiscriminately. See, that's very laudable. That means you're generous, you believe in Allah, all kinds of other actions. You must hand out money in all directions. And if you withhold it - if you withhold any money - you're of course a miser. See, you're a cheapskate. You're a miser, you see? Now, that is the punishment they assign in order to - you see, that's a derogatory withhold because the action is considered by the group to be desirable.

Take any given action. Let's take kissing a girl; just take that as an action. I don't know whether you're familiar with this action or not, but…

Kissing a girl. All right. Now, let's take a look at it, let's take a look at the various societies and their various regards of it, and you find out it'd be very interesting: the Marriage Counselors Society of Los Angeles - of course, this is a very laudable action and therefore you are a very evil man if you don't kiss a girl. If you're not the type of man who kisses girls, then you're an evil man. That's according to the mores of the marriage counselors. Because of course the more girls that get kissed, the more business they have. Elementary. Elementary.

All right. Now, let's take the Sex Is Evil Society of New York City. The Sex Is Evil Society. All right. Every time you kiss a girl, you see, you are evil. So you're an evil man because you kiss a girl.

Now, you go down to Hollywood, for instance, and kiss a girl, they think you're crazy. (I didn't mean to - as a crack, and so forth. I didn't mean it as a crack - a derogatory. In the first place, it couldn't be derogatory because you can always explain cracks about Hollywood on the same basis: "It isn't critical - it isn't a critical thought because it's true!" You hear that? How they say?)

Now, there's just one action. And the fellow who does it in one group is evil, and the fellow who doesn't do it in another group is evil. It's a case of you can't win. But there's another side to this game too, you see? The one action of withholding kissing girls in New York - then you're a good man, you see? And in California, you see, why, you're a - Marriage Counselors Association - why, you're a good man if you kiss girls. In New York - Anti-Sex Society, you see - you're a good man if you withhold kissing girls. Now, between these two things you get confused.

In a war there's nothing quite as upsetting to a company officer as a soldier who won't shoot enemy troops. This is very upsetting, very upsetting. The War Department in the United States, and I am sure in England, has often sat up all night long compiling statistics as to the number of unfired weapons or weapons fired in the air at no target during actions of World War II. It is a terrible worry to them, particularly when the figure gets above 50. When the figure gets above 50 percent, you see, why, look-it: the taxpayer has devoted his blood and treasure to manufacturing bullets, and there is this chuckleheaded soldier sitting on the front line who won't even pull the trigger, you see? So this is a bad withhold. Very bad business, you see? This is a rough thing here - a fellow shouldn't do it, you see? He shouldn't withhold that bullet.

All right. Now let's say he's even a member of the police force, and he goes down the middle of Main Street, and he fires off a gun - somebody fires off a gun. The same officer at a different period of time may then be sentencing him for having shot a gun, arresting and sentencing him for having done this action. So the time it is done has something to do with it. Not only the society, but the time this is done. The timing of the action tells you whether or not the withhold is desirable or the action is desirable. So it's no wonder you get confused.

You get it all straightened out, you see, that a certain society called the United States population considers it laudable if you fire a gun at a man in time of war and considers it evil if you refuse to fire a gun at a man at time of war, see? That's in time of war.

Now, in time of peace, the same society, the same people, consider it laudable to withhold firing the gun and evil to fire the gun. See? So you get confused. So your pc gets confused.

Your pc after a while doesn't know whether it is laudable to act or to withhold. And if you were to ask a pc bluntly, "Now, is it best to reach or to withhold yourself from reaching? Which is best? Which of these two actions would be the best action? Is it better to reach or better to restrain yourself from reaching? Now, what is the answer to that question?" Then if the person asked it, if he were really forced to solve it, would go around the bend because it all has to do with the mores and the time and place. What group would consider it, you see? When? That's the anatomy of the situation.

In other words, you've got a situation going here where you cannot say that at all times one certain action … Let's take one action. There is no action that at all times is good in all places. And there is no withhold that at all times should be in action or withheld, see? There is no one certain withhold that at all times must be withheld everywhere.

So you cannot say that there is a bad withhold or a good action, or a 100-percent-bad action or a 100-percent-bad withhold, see? It all depends on from what viewpoint do you view this?

Now, that's all viewed with a worm's-eye view of the wog. And if you ask a wog these questions, you've had it, because he can never answer this question. He will never answer it from one end of the world to the other if you say, "Tell me an action that is at all times good in all places. Tell me something that should be withheld in all places at all times by everything and everyone. Tell me such a withhold."

You can't, from a wog's-eye view.

Therefore, we must be dealing - and when we're security checking - with another factor. We must be dealing with something else. We can't, then, say "He has withholds" and feel cheerful about it or feel depressed about it, either way. Because good men probably have more withholds than bad men, which therefore makes everybody very puzzled. And they don't want to become good because they know that all good men never communicate. And by this definition, the "goodest" men there are, are out in the cemetery.

You see, so everybody gets in a ball-up about this. So we must do something else than pulling all withholds from all people at all times - all withholds. See, we must be doing something different. And we are: We are remedying the compulsion or obsession to commit actions which have to be withheld. In other words, we're remedying unreasonable action. And that's all we're doing. And that covers Security Checking like a blanket. You see, you're remedying unreasonable action. That's all.

Now, if we were fixing somebody up so that he would fit very well into the society of the Calakahoochie Indians, we would have to study up the Calakahoochie Indians and find out what they considered to be undesirable actions, remedy these in the pc, and he would be considered a very good man indeed amongst the Calakahoochie Indians. The only trouble is that we cannot guarantee that our pc is going to pick up a body with the Calakahoochie Indians. This we cannot guarantee. They probably, by the time they get around to it, will have been totally wiped out by the United Nations.

The United Nations hears about it these days, they exterminate it. This is the modus. The word is out these days. I don't mean to say anything bitter against the United Nations. Nobody is fonder of cooperative, coordinated action than I am. And of course, I don't see any of it in the United Nations, so I don't like them much, but that's all right. Let's just pass over that silently with a moment of bowed heads.

We can't guarantee that the United Nations will not have gotten there first, you see, or somebody else will have gotten there. We can make no guarantee where this pc is going to go next. There he sits in the pc's chair, or there he sits in the Academy for that matter, and well, times are uncertain, and the generals they got on this planet aren't up to my standards. And they're liable to blow the whole top off the place at any minute, or some auditor from Burbank, or something like that, is liable to get hold of this person next, and the person does a bunk and passes Arcturus and thinks one of its planets would be a good place to stop.

In other words, we cannot predict - we cannot predict - where our pc is going to land within the next century. Well, as he has two hundred trillion years behind him, the probabilities that he will land in different places in the next hundred years are rather certain. He's been landing in different places for two hundred trillion years, and to say that he is now never going to land in another place is idiocy.

He for sure is going to land in different places elsewhere. He's going to be in different societies than he is in now. Therefore there is only one thing that you can rehabilitate in the pc. There's just one thing that you can rehabilitate in the pc, and that is his ability to determine his own actions. And that's all you can rehabilitate. You can rehabilitate nothing else. Do you follow that?

All you can do is make him governor of his own deeds. And if he can be made to be governor of his own deeds, we have then done the job for all societies in all places. And we have also rehabilitated totally, 100 percent, communication for this person. Because communication isn't, as some people would like to think, one constant long blah which was started several thousand years ago and is still going on, you see - a lot of people have that; about 50 percent of the people have that - or on the other hand, one total silence that began a long time ago and will be silent for a long time to come.

You see, communication is neither one of these things. Communication is the ability to control an outflow or stop it. It is to run start, change and stop on outflowing and inflowing actions: control of communication.

Now, control of communication, of course, downgrades into heavier MEST as control of reach, so that you have the ability to start, change and stop outflowing and inflowing reach. And the ability to do this is, of course, the thing that you are rehabilitating.

What your pc is afraid of is that one fine day he will be in Piccadilly Circus or Times Square and take off all his clothes. Now, you recognize that it's perfectly all right to take off all one's clothes in one's bedroom, or even some other bedrooms; that is perfectly all right. But it is not all right to take off all one's clothes in the middle of Piccadilly Circus.

Now, one of the reverse mechanisms of the human mind is that a person can be so worried about doing this that he will begin to think about nothing but withholding this. So he goes around twenty - four hours a day, except when he's asleep - and he doesn't sleep much either because he might walk in his sleep; you could even take care of that, you see? - and he is afraid that one of these days he's going to go down in the underground of the subway, take a train and go to the exact center of the city, stand on the sidewalk and take off all his clothes. He's pretty sure that sooner or later he's liable to do this, and he becomes totally concentrated on doing all he can to not do it.

And you could devote a person's whole life to not performing that one action. You could actually train a person to a point - you could get him so worried, you could get him so obsessed, you could get him so upset, you could get him so concentrated on this one point that he would never think about anything else.

Of course, at that moment you would classify him as insane because he couldn't even remember to eat, he couldn't remember to go to bed. He would walk around all the time thinking to himself about "I must not go down to Times Square and take off all of my clothes." Do you see that?

Well now, what he is doing, then, is practicing a consistent withhold of, an undesirable action, and most of his attention is wrapped up in restraining himself from performing this undesirable action. And it's an attention trap to end all attention traps.

All right. The reverse of it is true, too. He must remember to do a desirable action. Now, you could get somebody and you could train him completely that he must never pass a beggar without putting a coin in the beggar's cup, and that terrible bad luck will ensue if he fails to put a coin in a beggar's cup.

All right. That's fine. That's fine. That's a very laudable outflow, isn't it? Only a cheapskate would not do that. Only a miser would fail to perform this very desirable action, you see?

All right. Now, let's multiply it. Let's multiply it. Let's make it so that he begins to believe that if he doesn't do this action at least once every day, that he will be ostracized and cauterized. He must do this in order to live. He must outflow this action. He must give to charity.

If you think I am being a little bit archaic here, just to this degree: that this particular obsession is most resident in the Middle East and was most prevalent about fifteen hundred years ago (well, fourteen hundred years ago, thirteen hundred years ago, twelve hundred years ago). They were really working on this hard, you see? "Alms for Allah," you know, and so on. And the Koran was all written around how thou must give in order to be lucky, you know? But anyway, it still exists today to some degree.

But let's - supposing that we trained this guy on an obsessive, compression basis, rickracked him up one way or the other, gave him electronic implants and made him implant others to do it (in other words, got him real set; and gave him a bunch of failures implanting others) so that he must put a coin in a beggars cup every day.

Now let's speed it up. He must put a coin in a beggar's cup every hour. Now let's really fix it up so that it must be a different beggar every hour, and he has to keep a map, then, and a roster of all the beggars in the city in order to perform this action. Otherwise, the sky will cave in or the muezzin will not hold up the minaret or something.

Well, you see, that's an obsessive action. That's an obsessive action.

Now, what would happen to most of the citizens of Western society today if they failed to come to work in the morning? That's a desirable outflow, isn't it? They have to outflow a body from home and put it down at work, right? Correct? Hm? And on this we have accompanying economic disaster, social disgrace, denial of all things that go along with having a position and a salary in the society. You see?

All right. If we enforce that to that degree, and then we withheld it in that degree, we'd probably have the fellow - he wouldn't have any clothes, so he'd be in the middle of Piccadilly Circus without any on whether he liked it or not.

Now, if we educated the same man to never outflow any money and never to give any money - we've educated him both ways now, 100 percent - and we got this exactly and equally balanced, we'd have an insane ridge. And he'd have the glee of money or something.

Now, if we had this fellow totally educated to believe that he must never go away from home because he might go down to Piccadilly Circus and take off all his clothes, but that he must go away from home in order to have money to buy clothes, every time he went across the lintel he would not know whether he was heading for Piccadilly Circus or work. Which way was he going? Was he going to Piccadilly Circus to … ? Oh, no. He'd better not go to Piccadilly Circus. And after a while he forgets why he is leaving home. And he just doesn't leave home anymore. And you find a tremendous number of people who cannot leave their houses.

Well, you can run houses in vain on them without curing this phobia. You can remedy the havingness of houses and everything else. Why? Because the trouble with them is not the house, it's Piccadilly Circus. They don't know why they mustn't leave home because they've now forgotten that they might go down to Piccadilly Circus, you see, and take off all their clothes. And because they might do that, then they'd better not go out of the house. But they've forgotten why - what they're liable to do - and therefore you have a covered overt with a covered withhold, and you've got the present-time action of a motionless person.

See? There he sits; he's motionless. In some sphere he is not free to communicate. Why isn't he free to communicate? Because he cannot find out what is the desirable action and what is the desirable withhold, and what's the undesirable action and what is the undesirable withhold?

See, he doesn't know what these things are now. He cannot any longer differentiate amongst good actions and good withholds and bad actions and bad withholds, and he is no longer master of his own communication or his own reach. So therefore he has to be very careful to not reach and he has to be very careful to reach while he is being very careful not to reach. He must not reach, you see, because he might reach, but if he doesn't reach then he wouldn't reach. And you get your average wog - average person. This is not an insane person I'm talking about. This is just the average bank. That's what it's composed of.

The fellow doesn't know what he mustn't reach and he doesn't know what he must withhold, and he's forgotten that he must reach and he's forgotten that he must withhold. But the habit pattern stays with it as caution.

And it's interesting that all that psychoanalysis ever trained anybody to be was cautious. The longer they were psychoanalyzed, the more cautious they got. That's the difficulty.

Now, this other fellow who was trained obsessively to reach - he's trained obsessively to reach: he's got to reach, he's got to reach, he's got to reach, he's got to reach - he never has a chance to do anything else but reach, and he must never withhold on this subject, he must never stay home from work, see? Never stay home from work - never, never, never.

And now he hasn't got a job. And not having a job, what does he now have? He has compulsion to go, but he doesn't know what he's supposed to go to. He doesn't know where he's supposed to go or why he's supposed to go or what he's supposed to arrive at or anything else. He just knows that he must go, you see? He's got to leave home.

And you'll find that these leaving-homenesses and things like that are cyclic. For instance, an insane person is only insane sometimes between two and four o'clock in the afternoon. A person who has insomnia very often cannot sleep between one and four in the morning, see? Well, one and four in the morning, someplace along the line - one and four in the morning is a wakeful period of something or other. And might have been a night watchman sometime or another, you know, and they always had to be there at one o'clock. There is no telling why they had to be there but it was necessary that they reach at that particular time. So they feel agitated because they don't know where they're supposed to go, and they feel nervous. Wzzzzzzz!

Well, there isn't anybody you know that doesn't have a nervous period in the day sometime. If you sorted it out carefully, you would find that some period of the day they became very active, and another period of the day, at least one, they became very quiet. You don't know anybody who doesn't do this.

They get up in the morning, they have to get active. In the evening they go to bed and become inactive. Why? I don't know.

But a lot of people have a lot of trouble with sleep, because they're accustomed to sleep, or their sleeping hours compare with some other part of the planet, or some other time area somewhere on some other planet. And they're trying to go to sleep and wake up in the period that they're most accustomed to going to sleep and wake up because their training pattern of going to sleep and waking up is that training pattern of, let us say, Los Angeles. And they're now living in London. There's eight hours difference, you see? - eight hours difference.

So actually, in Los Angeles you ought to be getting up around seven or eight o'clock in the morning, but you see, there's an entirely different time in London for seven or eight o'clock in the morning, so one just about goes to bed and becomes very wakeful. The second they go to bed, they become wakeful. Well, it may be coinciding with some period when they should be getting up. You see how dizzy all this can be, see?

Well, what is all that? Let's characterize that with what it is: This is strictly, totally and only a confusion of a reach and a withhold, according to the time and place and action. They don't know whether to reach or withdraw, and why or when or something. In other words, they have lost knowingness over the action.

Now, in order to restore control over one's communication or not - communication, receiving communication or not receiving communication, control over one's reach or not-reach, be reached or not be reached, one must get these unknowingnesses out of the road or the person will appear nervous sometimes to a point of total apathy and collapse.

When you ask them to do something or other, suddenly they're not able. They just say, "I just feel very nervous about this." They're not quite sure why they feel nervous about this. Matter of fact, they don't go into it so deeply as saying, "I feel nervous about this." See, they're not that analytical.

They're supposed to go down to the grocery store, and they sit down on the porch and they stay there for two hours. But yet that's never happened to them before. But the next time they go down to the grocery store, they go down to the grocery store all right. They haven't any idea of lingering. It never occurred to them, you see, they were going down to the grocery store at the time they should have been going to bed in some other part of the world. You see how confused all this gets? How confused a person could be.

Now, in order to aberrate somebody on this subject, you establish compulsion to reach or a compulsion to withdraw or withhold - you establish this as an absolute necessity - and then shift them in time and place so as to bring about no necessity for this of any kind whatsoever, so that they forget it and so that they don't remember what they are supposed to do. In other words, make an unknowingness out of the whole thing. Bury it. Somehow or another cloud the thing over, and after that, why, they've, to some degree, had it.

But doing this once wouldn't aberrate anybody very much. After it had been done several hundred thousand times, though, it would begin to tell - begin to tell. The person would begin to get the idea that they didn't quite know what they were doing. That would become rather apparent even to them.

Have you ever seen anybody that knew exactly what he should have been doing, knew exactly what he ought to be doing, gets all geared up to do it, gets out all the equipment to do it, and then doesn't touch anything? Did you ever see anybody do that? See?

Well, his now-I'm-supposed-to worked right up to the point where it restimulated the hidden withhold. See? He goes right straight up. He's going into action. Now he's supposed to withhold it, you see?

Did you ever see anybody sit down, decide to relax - decide to relax, sit down, take it easy, have a good rest - turn around and they're tearing all over the house, you know, and the walls are caving in practically from the amount of running and fussing and scattering and changing the furniture and so forth? You ever notice anybody do anything like that?

Well, they've just hit the wrong side of things, see? Their compulsions to withhold or to reach are not in agreement, so that they sit down to withhold - in other words, they're going to withhold themselves from action, they're going to rest now - and they've hit so close to a borderline, some kind of a restimulator causes them to go into action. Having decided to withhold causes them to go into action.

Now, when a person gets very bad off, any decision to act causes them to withhold. They have no differentiation at all. Any decision to act causes them to withhold. You've seen them. They get elected to office all the time.

Government program: That's a very, very good one, a government program. They're going to do this, and then the letter sits in the out-basket, you see, for six weeks and then it goes into another in - basket and sits there for seven months, and then it goes over to appropriations, and appropriations dawdles with it for a year or two. And that's just from the fact that the government is guilty, collectively, of overt acts. You never have an effective government where you have tremendous numbers of overt acts mixed up in the government that are being withheld.

All right. Do you see, then, that the whole subject of withholds and Security Checking is intimately wound up with the action and inaction of people and the determinism of people and their failure to be self-determined, and so forth.

You take some bird, and he's in a total hypnotic trance. He comes in and you say, "Well, close the door," and the door is closed. And you tell him, "Close the door." And they go over and they pick up an imaginary door knob and shut the imaginary door so that they will comply with what you've said.

You've set them down in a chair and they're in a chair. If you stood them up, they'll stand up.

In insane asylums they stretch them out, they lie down - they lie down there fine. You pick up one arm, put it in the air; it'll just stay there - catatonic schizophrenia. It's marvelous. They're just like tallow or clay or something. It's anything you can do to them, you know?

You'll get pcs like this. You want to watch it. They have eye - flutter and various things. And you, if you were to suggest anything - this isn't why we suggest things to people on assessing - but if you were to suggest to this person that a battleship was his terminal, a battleship, yeah, boy, you're going to get a battleship registering. Because you shoved a battleship right into his skull, and he's got the battleship registering, and that's it and that's all that's there. You said it, so therefore it's it.

I have trouble with that. I sometimes assess people's terminals and so forth, and you can't get them away from them with shotguns - sometimes, sometimes. That doesn't mean those people are hypnotic. They know it was probably right. Oddly enough, it usually is right.

Good thing to do is take all invalidations and evaluations and all overts off it, and strip it down to where nothing registers with regard to it and still see if it's it. That's the only way you would recover that. But this gives trouble every once in a while; where an auditor has suggested a terminal or where an auditor with altitude has found a terminal, the pc isn't about to give it up.

Now, you're not in that range right now with 3D Criss Cross. It isn't as hard as that. Somewhat amusing to me to see some of the terminals I have assessed coming up again on 3D Criss Cross. There they are. They were there all the time, of course.

But here's your action. This person is totally susceptible to any restimulation. Now, get off the idea the person is totally susceptible to suggestion and how nice that is, because that's for the birds. The person is totally susceptible to any inflowing action of any kind. The person is totally susceptible.

In other words, they restimulate - bang! Their bank is so rigged that they see a spotted wall, they get measles, see? And anything that happens to them in society, they are instantly reaction [their instant reaction] is to have that with them. They restimulate at once. And they are very, very bad off.

Now, a gradient scale of that is the average person. He sees a few things and they restimulate him where he's on a total-effect basis.

Now, what's the matter with that total-effect basis? There's only one thing wrong with that basis, only one thing. And that is a person has no command over his reach and withdraw. He has lost this. He cannot, then, be master of his own actions. He of course, then, is never governor of his own fate and of course he cannot be sensible about what he does.

IQ is the degree that a person can observe, understand actions, that's all, and then the withholding of actions - a person's grip of this situation. You say, "Well, it could have a lot more ramifications, a lot more prettinesses about it, and so forth, and it'd be very much more complicated than that," but it isn't, really. It's one's government of one's environment.

Now, we are strange, as - if we considered Scientology a philosophy, which it is not - we would find ourselves almost alone in this one idea: that man should have any self-determinism. Because others, falling short of this, have looked on this point - and it's an important point. They've fallen short of it. They have seen that a criminal has a compulsion to commit crimes. And then being unable to pick up any part of the overt act of committing crimes, or doing anything for the criminal, they say there is only one further answer, and that is to make the criminal withhold his crimes harder.

Now, that is peculiar as a philosophy because it doesn't work, and that philosophy hasn't worked on this planet since I don't know how long.

You can compel a fellow to not go down to Times Square and take his clothes off to a point where he can't do anything else! Every time we see him, why, he's on his way to Times Square.

"Well, hello, Joe. Where are you going?"

"Well, I'm going down to Times Square to take my clothes off."

And you say, "Well, all right. I'll be down at four o'clock at the police station, bail you out."

And he'll say, "Well, thank you very much." Much relieved now, he goes down to Times Square and takes his clothes off. It's because he's withheld it so far that the withhold has failed. And it becomes a compulsion.

So, the action which is severely withheld very often reverses and becomes a compulsive action. A person knows he cannot withhold the action and therefore has to do it. And that is the danger of this philosophy that the more good, total withholds we have around, the better off we all are.

If you don't know this mechanism of overts and withholds, and you don't know why people act this way, of course you're liable to fall into this other philosophy as the only possible remedy. It's not a very good remedy.

Now, there is your basis of action. There is your basis of action and human beings. One, he does not know what his compulsive actions are or his must-dos are - he doesn't know what these things are - therefore he doesn't know what he is withholding. And not - knowingness is the common denominator of all withholds and overts which are operative on the individual.

Those things which are operative on the individual are always unknown to the individual.

I might even teach you that someday. I keep telling you, and so forth. You're still always willing to look in a known area.

I know of some pcs that have been audited on their mother-in-law for years and years and years and years and are still having trouble with the mother-in-law, and it's never occurred to any auditor that the trouble couldn't possibly be the mother-in-law if the pc knew all about it. See? Pc knows about it: can't be the trouble.

Now, that gets in your road in Security Checking, that fact. Because the pc can know about it without you knowing about it. But that's half a know. And that isn't a good enough know, see? That's just half a know. So you don't know about it, but he knows about it. And he'll get upset if you don't let yourself in on it.

And you get the missed-withhold phenomena, which is the most serious phenomena that stands in the road of Security Checking.

Might teach you that someday, too. I taught FCDC recently. Man. I got a dispatch this morning. Boy - wild, man, absolutely wild. They've been going around tearing people's missed withholds. That's all they've been doing. They haven't been getting people's withholds off, they've been taking people's missed withholds off. Takes them one or two sessions per staff member. It's going gorgeously. All of a sudden, people are going back and straightening up their departments and fur is flying in all directions and so forth.

They're even getting cocky, you know? They don't say they don't care whether you people are coming back from Saint Hill or not, but they say, well, even if you don't, they could probably make it. You've been gone too long. They've forgotten you. Well, anyhow, have to go home pretty quick and reestablish your altitude.

The difficulties we have are that a missed withhold is a half a know. And evidently there is nothing more painful to somebody who has got to withhold something he no longer has to withhold. You don't know about it, so he has to withhold it, but now he knows he has to withhold it because you don't know about it.

You see, the mechanics of this are very logical. They actually are very logical. You see, he has to go on withholding it because you don't know about it yet, and it's very arduous to have to go on withholding it because that's a half a know, see?

See, you don't know yet, and you didn't find out, and he found out, only he wasn't able to communicate it, so now you've got a knowing withhold, and the individual just practically goes to pieces on this basis, see, on a half a know.

You know, he's got to walk around and knowingly withhold this now. Nobody to tell it to, nobody else can be let in on it, so therefore there is no other know to compare. So it won't duplicate, so obviously won't blow. It's a single terminal at that moment, so there is no duplication of it in any other terminal. So as there is no duplication in any other terminal … Of course, he knows by perfect duplication, that nothing will blow unless it is duplicated, and other mechanisms which thetans have been very, very clever… very, very clever in working out. So a missed withhold is upsetting to the pc.

Up to the moment, however, that you yourself don't run into it, you won't know it. One day you'll be sitting there as the auditor, and the pc will be going, "Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, and you've done this and you've done that." You will get smart enough to look for the missed withhold. And then all of a sudden the pc gets that off and, "Well, what were you mad about? What was I mad about? What was it all about? There isn't anything here. Nothing disturbing."

You feel, "You idiot." Of course, the thing you feel most idiotic about is the caliber of the withhold you miss. You're still looking for quality. The missed withhold might be that the pc thought the E-Meter was shiny and didn't tell you, and the rudiments went out. And that's a missed withhold. And the next thing you know, you've got an ARC break.

Remember I told you long, long, long ago that it took about an hour and a half for an ARC break to build up to magnitude in a session. Well, we find out why that is now, is usually the missed withholds, the first missed withholds, are at the beginning of the session - not in withhold rudiment at the beginning of a session - but the pc sits down and says, "Well, I hope this will be all right," and doesn't tell the auditor.

See, he has a misgiving about the session and doesn't mention it to the auditor and the auditor doesn't pick it up. And then a half an hour, an hour or an hour and a half later, you have a pc who is in a blowing, screaming mess, because that withhold, you see, adds to a next withhold, and they don't have to be serious withholds. The pc sat there and said, "Well, I wish I had a cigarette," and he doesn't tell the auditor. That is a withhold. Pc knows he's supposed to be in communication with the auditor, and he's not in communication with the auditor on that point.

And the next point is, he wonders how late it is and he doesn't tell the auditor. He wonders what the next command is and he doesn't tell the auditor. And all these little grains of sand add up to a Sahara Desert with the pc on one side of it and the auditor on the other and cannon going in both directions.

You see how this multiplies? It isn't the quality of the withhold, it's the fact that it exists.

Now, the pc, oddly enough, doesn't know about these withholds when he thinks them. You have to make him think for a moment to remember them. In other words, they've drifted by and they're relatively unknown to him. If you keep those picked up - just those alone while you're assessing a list - the rudiments will stay in.

Now, an invalidation usually betokens a withhold. So you can ask for invalidations and then ask for withholds. That's a very fruitful method of getting both sides of the thing.

If you want to keep a session clean and the needle reading throughout a Security Check activity, you're in just a constant lookover of this one point: Has the pc invalidated anything and is the pc withholding anything? And those are the Gemini twins of Security Checking and assessing and nulling. Invalidation and withholding: these are the two things which go glove in hand, hand in glove. Invalidation, withhold.

Now, the common denominator of every out rudiment is withhold. That is the common denominator of every rudiment out.

Present time problem? All right. Well, he has withholds from somebody or he wouldn't be having a problem with them. You can ask, "Well, what withholds do you have from your wife?" and watch the present time problem evaporate in smoke. See?

All right. The pc has an ARC break with you; well, the pc must be withholding something from you, no matter how tiny it is. So therefore that's the common denominator of all these rudiments. No matter what rudiment is out, a withhold is the basis of it, including, of course, the rudiments about withholds. That is more seriously concerned with withholds. But it's still the missed withhold that causes you the trouble in a session.

The missed withhold is back of the ARC break. The missed withhold is back of all auditor upsets - save one, which I should mention to you. Save one: where you are running the session for form's sake and not for the pc. You're not auditing the pc who is in front of you and you are running a session just for form's sake. You have disobeyed the Auditor's Code to not being in communication with the pc and have set up an unintentional withhold for the pc throughout the whole session.

Do you remember I classified withholds from you - the unintentional and the intentional, and so forth? Well, you see, the pc who cannot talk to the auditor is on an unintentional withhold, but it is nevertheless a withhold and causes an ARC break with the auditor. And that is why difficulties in talking to the auditor cause ARC breaks. Because it makes an unintentional withhold on the part of the pc.

There sits the pc. He is trying to tell the auditor something. And in trying to tell the auditor something, he finds he's unable to tell the auditor something, because the auditor will not listen, will not acknowledge, will not stop doing what he is doing obsessively, whatever it is, will not listen to anything the pc has to say. And the pc suddenly, dimly - well, he doesn't really, knowingly ever counter this point - nevertheless recognizes reactively and goes into reaction because of a withhold, because the pc is unintentionally withholding.

Well, I'll give you an idea of an unintentional withhold. Have any of you ever unintentionally withheld anything? See? It's unintentional. Could be there. Well, just think of not being home for Christmas because you had to work. Well, you had to work or something like that. Therefore, it was unintentional.

Now, when somebody will not listen to what you are telling them, you of course are put on an unintentional withhold.

Little kids ARC break and become teenagers along one curve - of unintentional withholds. My little kids do pretty well on the basis that I'll knock anybody's head off that won't acknowledge them. See, let's not put the kids on an unintentional withhold. As a matter of fact, I think you've seen them around. They're very outspoken and quite polite, usually. And they're not ARC broke with people, that's for sure.

Well, get this idea (I'm not setting them up as paragons of virtue, but I will say, I will say that my children are superior in one respect. I will say that my two little boys can dig more worms than any other!) A little kid comes up and he says, "Mama, Mama, can I go outside? Mama, can I go outside?"

And Mama just goes on knitting the dishes or whatever she's doing, and doesn't say a blessed word to the kid, you know? And pretty soon the kid gets the sensation of being mad at his mother and breaks her favorite teapot in the middle of the floor.

Almost all breakage by children is totally occasioned by the fact they've been put on an unintentional withhold. And that's your ARC break mechanism amongst children. I imagine the Steiner schools and some other things would be very happy to know that.

You've got this - you got this point, then, where the pc is on an unintentional withhold and then does react as an ARC break. See, the basis of an ARC break is a noncommunication.

Well, it's more serious than just a noncommunication because you can sit and ignore a tree for hours and have a tree sit and ignore you for hours without getting mad at it.

The intention to communicate must be present for a withhold to occur, which is another thing you must recognize about all withholds: an intention to reach before the person has to restrain it. In other words, an intention to communicate must exist before an ARC break can result.

All right. If that is the case - if that is the case - then a pc who is being audited by somebody who is out of communication with the pc is on a perpetual unintentional withhold, but it's nevertheless a withhold and will ARC break.

Now, it isn't that an auditor has to turn himself wrong side out just for the pc, but I want to call something to your attention. This is also under the head of Security Checking and withholding, and so forth. And that is: every session you run is for the pc by the auditor. The session you run is for that pc and for nobody else in the whole world. It is not for the instructors, not for the persons who are going to read this auditor's reports or the D of P or anybody else. The session is not for anybody else in the whole world than the pc who is sitting in that chair. It is his session.

And some of you, training auditors over in D.C. and down in South Africa and in Australia, can clobber them with just exactly that remark, because you will find every time you're having a lot of trouble - every time you're having lots of trouble with some pc in the shop - the pc doesn't have any idea that the session is for him, and you may have an auditor who isn't running any kind of a session for that pc.

The auditor is running it for some other reason. He is running it to run a ritual. He was running it to please the D of P. He is running it because he was told to. He was running it because he was taught at the Academy to do this.

One of the things you could do in training auditors is just ask them to make a long list of all of the things, why they were running a session, see?

Now, why are you doing that session? They're liable to give you some fabulous long list, and it never occurs anyplace in it, you see, that they're running the session for the pc and because the pc is there to be audited, you see? That is liable not to occur to them. The auditors that are having trouble will always miss that point, see? They always will.

And actually, if an auditor masters just that one point - that one point - the can be an awful crock with his technology, and pcs will get well and think he's wonderful and send telegrams to the organization to reserve that auditor. And you say, "Oh, no. You know, we were just about to send him back to the Academy." But this person does run a session for the pc. See?

It is the pc's session, nobody else's. It is run by the auditor, a session is, but it's run for the pc. And the ownership of the session is the pc's. It is not the auditor's session. It is the pc's session.

If you can just master that point - as oddly peculiar, as simple as the point may seem - you will master most of your difficulties in auditing, and also, by the way, most of your distaste for auditing, whenever that occurs. There is nothing more satisfactory than running a session for the pc you are auditing at that moment. And that is, it keeps you from getting very strained up and … Oh, your attention is on the pc. Pc is usually very happy and pc is puttin' right along - pocketa, pocketa, pocketa, pocketa. And you're making hay in all directions, and so forth. And you say, "Boy, that was a good session, you know?"

And you check it over: You missed three of the end rudiments, you see, and you goofed up. You didn't even find an item. It's been three sessions, and you haven't found the item yet.

You couldn't find any good reason at all, if you were to examine it technologically, why this is such a satisfactory session. Well, you see there, you could just set all technology and form aside and keep that one point, and you'd find it was very fascinating how well that one point would operate.

Now if you move in, on that, good technology, you see, and good form - wow! see? You just - wham! Pcs go up the line like startled gazelles, you know, just right on up the Tone Scale.

But there is the anatomy of a session. If you want to make it smooth technically, is you just keep those withholds off, and then you don't give the pc a restimulation of all the undesirable actions.

Now here's what happens: The pc feels he is withholding something. It doesn't matter whether it's an unintentional or an intentional withhold. That he is withholding something now restimulates the fact that he is withholding something, you see? It's not the withhold he's doing, it is the withhold back of the withhold he's doing that gets restimulated. And that withhold, of course, is a withhold of undesirable action. So, the fact that he is withholding anything causes a withhold to go into restimulation.

That withhold, being in restimulation, may be a failed withhold, which is so close to the borderline that it brings about obsessive action at once. And the pc finds himself in this God-awful position of engaging in actions he knows are reprehensible and is incapable of stopping himself from acting. And he wonders how in the hell he got in this condition.

There he is, saying to this perfectly nice auditor - he's saying, "Well, you rat, you-you-you-you bum, uh… when did you ever learn to audit? You ought to be shot. You ought to be hanged. You ought to be stood up against the wall and electrocuted." He gets confused, you see? And… See? And he hears himself saying these things, and he is unable to stop saying them.

Well, how did he ever get into this position where he's doing these things? Because he feels very bad that he is doing these things while he is doing them, you see?

Now, he's in the position - you've hit on something which is very hot on the bank - and he's in the position of having to go down to Times Square and take all his clothes off, see? And he doesn't want to do that. But you have inadvertently restimulated the fact that he must withhold going down to Times Square and taking all of his clothes off, so that means he must go down to Times Square and take all of his clothes off, see?

He doesn't want to do that. So his power of choice is overwhelmed. And you, by letting him have a withhold in the session, or by missing a withhold on him - I'm talking about a session withhold now, not a life withhold, you see - by letting him have a session withhold and not keeping those cleaned up, you're liable to kick back into this other channel. And you get into this, and he's got to go down to Times Square and take his clothes off. He just can't stop himself from doing it, you see? And he's amazed at himself!

You know, it's a very funny thing. People who do things like that are the most amazed people around, you know? They're much more amazed than anybody else. You know, they're saying, "What am I doing?" as they go right on and do it.

It's fantastic.

So you see, the fact that you put a pc on an unintentional withhold of being unable to communicate to you as the auditor… See, it isn't his session - he's just an outsider. He just dropped in while you were running a session. See, he's just an outsider to the whole thing. He is probably there to make a report to Inland Revenue or something. Or he's holding down the chair so gravity won't make it skid. But he hasn't anything to do with the session, see? Nothing to do with him. Whatever the auditor is saying has nothing to do with the pc, you see? And the pc finds himself quite startled occasionally: he suddenly wakes up and he says something to the auditor. He doesn't recognize this condition exists till he tries to say something to the auditor. And he's saying something to the auditor like, "It's warm in here," he tries to say, you know. "It's awfully warm in here, you know?"

And the auditor is nulling a list, you know, and says, "A category analyzer. A category analyzer. A category analyzer," you know?

And the pc says, "It's awfully warm in here."

And the auditor goes on and he says, "A mica shifter. A mica shifter. A mica shifter."

And the pc says, "It's warm in here, you know? It's warm in here."

And the auditor goes on and says, "All right. Waterbuck. Waterbuck. Waterbuck"

And what happens is, the mechanic is that the pc becomes aware of the fact that he can't communicate to the auditor. And this equates to this fact that he must then be withholding from the auditor. See how silly this is? But it nevertheless equates to that. Because remember, you're dealing with a whole reactive bank that is totally constructed on the obsessive action and the withhold, see?

So the fact that he isn't communicating says he must be withholding, which rekindles a withhold in the reactive bank, and God help the auditor if that withhold in the reactive bank triggers the undesirable action. Because the pc is liable to do anything, just anything.

And there's how you get blows; there's how you get scolds; there's how you get upsets; there's how you get pcs saying remarkable things to you. See? That's how you get the lot, see? Unintentional withhold.

So you see, you avoid the whole mechanism if it never enters the pc's mind that he is withholding anything. See? Now, if that's thoroughly enough established, actually, he could withhold a little bit, you see, without rekindling anything. Because it's his session, see, and he is in communication with the auditor. He realizes if he said it, the auditor would hear it.

TR 4, from a standpoint of holding somebody in session, is of course the most important of the TRs. TR 0 is the most important from the auditor's viewpoint, and TR 4 is most important from the pc's viewpoint. You can't run a session at all without TR 0, but a pc sees TR 4 out like rockets, barrels of tar being burned and Parliament exploding, see? TR 4 - "Oh, this auditor can't handle TR 4."

Well, the way to handle TR 4 is handle it in advance and just give the pc the session, see? Because it's his session. It's his session. This is peculiarly for the pc.

All right. Now, in the field of Security Checking - in the field of Security Checking - what you're trying to do, fundamentally, is release or discover both the undesirable actions considered undesirable by the pc and the withholds which restrain them. So you get off the withhold by blowing the prior confusion. And when you're doing Security Checking, you're on the business of the prior confusion, you see, and the motionless point: the problem.

But the problem in this case is only half there. It's the withhold, so it blows very easily. So the prior confusion and the withhold, you see? And all you got to do is reach underneath the withhold to get the prior confusion to it. "What did you do?" you say. "What did you do?" It must be some impulse from the pc because the pc is the only one there. Some people who listen to what the college did to the pc or what the pc is told, have not noticed something. The college is not present in the auditing room. It really isn't there, so therefore it can't be audited. It's what the pc is doing, you see, that you're auditing.

So the pc, what the pc outflowed that he didn't want to outflow, and what the pc withheld that he didn't want to withhold, these things are your main points of action and interest.

And "What have you done?" you see, releases the not-do.

But the anatomy of a withhold is the done undesirable action, stop the undesirable action, natter, see? So the fellow says, "Oh, I am upset. I mustn't say anything to anybody. I mustn't talk about it, and so on. That bastard is a dog. I mustn't say anything to them. They're a bunch of hound dogs and so forth. And they're really no good, and I mustn't say anything about it because I might have some undesirable actions. Because if they found something where I was wrong… Because if I said anything it would be terrible, and then it would screw everything up. So I'd better be very careful not to say anything, and so forth. And I'm not saying anything."

And most people, when they're giving you gossip, are always prefacing it with "I don't mean to be critical" or "I don't wish to say anything bad" or "I don't want to get John in trouble," or something like this. They're always being preface about the thing, and then "Natter, natter, natter, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak." And you get a generation - actually, you get a generation - of the outflow undesirable, which underlies it all, pinned against this other, just operates something like a motor battery. And floating off the top of it you get all this entheta.

Guy can't reach and he can't withhold, but he can natter. So you find what is the good formula, see? You had. a bulletin the other day which has a correction in it. It says, "Ignore all unkind thoughts." That's not actually accurate. There is one little point about it: You use the unkind thought, the critical statement and so forth to find the overt. They're a sure indicator.

You say, "Well." You say to this person, "Well, what - what's your unkind thought?" They give you the unkind thought. "Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about Joe?"

"All right. I got unkind thoughts about Joe."

"All right. What have you done to Joe'?"

Bang! They got it. See?

It's a leader. It'll go right straight down the line. So you don't pull them. Don't spend five hours pulling unkind thoughts, you idiot - that's usually the phrase that goes through an Instructor's mind when he sees somebody doing something like that. Person's spent five hours working and sweating and so forth to get all the unkind thoughts off about their wife, you see? Instructor kind of obsessively thinks "You - unkind… you idiot!" on the end line, because that's four hours and fifty-nine minutes completely wasted.

One minute of natter about the wife, see, is all you want. That is a whole fish basket full. You have no more room on the truck. What you do after that one minute is conclude that the pc has done something. If the natter is there, then the underlying done must have been present, which is being withheld. Otherwise you don't get this motor action going.

And so you just say … The person says, "And… and actually - actually… (It doesn't have to be motivatorish.) "Actually, uh… my wife… uh… uh… my wife actually uses false… uh… false hair all the time. Just uses false hair all the time and I just go into the house, I'm always falling over this false hair, you know. Get it in my… if you have a drink of beer - false hair. You eat dinner - all through my teeth, you know? It's a hell of a thing. And false hair…"

He'll kind of state it as a motivatorish, but it could be overt and it could be motivatorish; the natter, you see, is not necessarily motivatorish. It's just either way, see? It's that it's natter, that it's critical, is all you want, and so forth.

And you say, "False hair. Well, good. Thank you. All right. Now, what have you done to your wife?" And the needle falls off the pin.

And he tells you something or other. And then he says, "Well, it's the false hair that really worries me, though. It gets into the - it's… I had a wedding cake. I remember it goes clear, far back to the wedding. She baked the wedding cake, you know? And we couldn't even eat the stuff; it was all full of false hair. And so…"

So you figure that it must have something, then, to do with the exact thing he's complaining about.

So you say, "Well, what have you done to your wife's hair?"

"Well, I haven't done anything to my wife's hair. I held her down on the bed one day and cut it all off with the scissors."

"Well, have you done it since?"

"No! Ha-ha."

And you'll see him brighten up at once. Blow the withhold off the overt, see?

Actually, if you're a master of the anatomy of this kind of thing, you can do some of the trickiest things for the pc you ever heard of. You'll leave the pc just gasping, you know? "How did you know?"

"Oh, a little bird told me."

It's just a matter of, if there's a natter, then there must have been an overt. And if there's an overt, there must have been a withhold, see?

You got a big, juicy done off the line, see? And just ask the pc, "Well, have you ever done that since?"

The pc has to recognize that he's withholding the action - is liable to give you the rest of the overt. There might be more overt there after you release that much withhold off the thing.

In other words, it's an action followed by a withhold. Well, of course. mostly you're counting on the fact that they both blow by his telling you, and this is usually true. And this is safe enough, and you don't have to know all the facts of life, you see? But the other point is that if you ask, "Have you done it since?" or "Did you ever do that again?" he'll think you're looking for another overt, see?

And he'll look it over very carefully, and you blow the withhold. And you'll suddenly see the pc look very relieved. See, he's been holding back with ten-ton-truck motor, see? It's going perpetually, keeping him from holding his wife down on the bed and cutting all her hair off again, see? Zzzuh! Zzuh! And he hasn't noticed that there's no reason to have the truck motor.

So he tells you he did it. Now, this should explain to you the mystery of why you sometimes see a withhold blow and sometimes not see one blow, and sometimes see a pc very relieved and sometimes not see the pc relieved.

All right. The anatomy is this: You find a withhold in the pc, see? The pc is withholding and you find out that the pc is withholding, see? You find out he hasn't told anybody about something or other, see? He hasn't told anybody about that sex in college or something, see? He hasn't told anybody. You've just triggered the withhold, see?

And the pc at that moment could feel uneasy. He sometimes will feel relieved at having told you, but he also could feel very uneasy at that moment. Because you've sort of taken some of the straps off, and he's liable to do it again. And he knows it's an undesirable action, so he's not happy about having given up that withhold. Do you see that?

He's not happy about giving it up at all, because you've taken away some of the means by which he's keeping himself compressed as a jack-in-a-box, see, and somebody is liable to press the catch on the lid at any moment, see? And he's liable to do that again, you see? You see what he's worried about.

So you triggered some of the ways he was restraining himself without finding out what it was. And you'll see an unhappy pc. He doesn't get the session very well, and it doesn't finish up too good.

"Well, he was security checked for two hours," see?

You read the auditor's report: Did you make any goals for the session? No, or partly. These are all very sad remarks.

Well, you can just count on some of this mechanism having gone on this way. You triggered the withhold, got the withhold slightly off, he didn't dare let it come all the way off because if he let it come all the way off, then he might do it again.

There he is, down there at Times Square taking off his clothes, see? Hm-hm-huh-huh-hhuh! He's almost conquered that, you see? He's withheld it, and he knows he can withhold it if he keeps his head in this exact position and goes to his psychoanalyst regularly. See, he-he-he-he-he-he knows he can live with that. Only he doesn't really know about it, you know, but he knows he might do something and ooouuuoo. And you take the withhold off and you got the restraint.

So if you made it a rule, an operating rule, that every time you got a withhold off, "Well, I've never told anybody or they don't know this about me," or something of the sort, that you try to find the overt under it. And then you'll blow the rest of it. And that every time, including that time, that you have blown a heavy overt that the person has done, you ask him if he's done it again, or did he ever do it another time - he'll tell you another time and another time, and then so on.

And if you ask him, also, when he'd not done it, the rest of the thing would go phooft! and all of a sudden the pc would look very relieved.

So if you pulled just purely a withhold without the fellow telling you what the overt was, you've actually goofed a little bit by not asking him, well, what did he do. See, "What have you done, done, done?"

"Well, I've just never told anybody about my conduct in college."

"All right. Fine. Good. We'll go to the next question."

Now you see why the guy is upset with you? You've released some of the straps by which he holds himself down without permitting him to let go of it. So you've - he thinks maybe you've damaged him somehow.

No, you've got that far, you must go on from there and you must say, "Well, what did you do in college?" See? "What did you do?"

"Uh, well, I woo-woom-mm. I'd forgotten all about the-ooo-mm-ahuh. Well, actually it wasn't very much. There was just some of us boys, and it wasn't very much. Um… it was just kind of a joke. We laughed it all off, uh…"

"Well," you say. "Well, you laughed it all off, what is the needle doing falling off of the pin here? What's that? What's the part you didn't laugh off?" (Only you wouldn't talk that way to a pc.) And if he all of a sudden comes clean, then your needle clears up.

And then having told you all that dirt, and he's got all the overts off, remember there may be some residual withholds. And the residual withholds, of course, come off best if you ask for them.

You say, "Well, did you ever do it again?" Heh-heh.

"Ooo, well, no, except that - uh oo well, there - hoom-mm Miami Beach Hotel, I mean the mmm-hm. Yeah. Well, no, we didn't… Ha! Yeah, I didn't do it at the Miami Beach Hotel. I mrr-r-raw and didn't do it in Los Angeles, and didn't do it up there when I was at Canada, and then brroo. What do you know? Didn't do it during the whole war. Life is wonderful. Isn't that great? Except after the war."

"Well, what about that one?" … "All right. Well, did you ever do that one again?"

Zoom-zoom, and so forth. All of a sudden the guy feels like fresh air has been ventilated through the reactive carcass.

But if you know this as the anatomy of a withhold, and you know that the person, after you've gotten the overt off, may still be withholding obsessively, and it may not all be gone, and you know that if you get some of the withhold off without getting the overt, why, you know the person will get nervous. If you know that where there is a critical thought, there is a withhold and an overt underlying it, and if you know all of these things and keep the PC from going on little session withholds - keep those little session withholds and invalidations cleaned up as you go - and don't run the PC for the wall, run a session for the PC…

You see, there's various things that you could get confused on. It's the pc's session, and it's his session exclusively, and run it for that PC. And the auditor runs it, but it's for the PC. Don't let your control go down particularly, but also, man, don't let the PC get the idea it's for somebody else.

And if you follow through on the two-way comm - your TR 4 is good - you never have any trouble, and, boy, you can just blow somebody up through the roof. Oh yeah, they can just go up, up, up, up. Terrific. Bangity-bangity bangity-bang.

But the points which are generally missed is, sessions are not for the pc - that's missed. See, sessions are run for the piece of paper or the E-Meter, or something. I'm not being sarcastic. I mean, people treat a PC sometimes like a piece of driftwood. The PC doesn't exist in the session. If the PC thinks something, why, you don't have anything to do with it. He doesn't know what's going on. It's true, he doesn't know what's going on in his bank. True, you know better than he does, but at the same timeb - ha-ha-ha-ha - at the same time, you're there to straighten this out. And if you don't pay attention to what the PC is saying, you of course go out of communication with the PC, the PC goes on an unintentional withhold and so forth and there you've had it.

Also you could let the PC talk too much and not shut the PC off, but the way to shut a PC off, of course - the best way to shut the PC off - is just shift his attention on to what you're doing.

Not "Well, let's stop talking about that now, and start doing something else." That might appear a little bit crude. But just refer the pc's attention over on to some other part of the session and carry on with it. You can do those things very smoothly.

If you can learn to do those things, my God, how you will carry somebody up through the Tone Scale. I mean, zoooom!

Now, this is on just Security Checking, Twenty-Ten. And every time you've run twenty minutes worth of this stuff, why, run ten minutes of havingness, and residual impulses to withhold blow in the havingness, of course, and other things happen, and up they go.

But there is something else that you should know about Security Checking and running Security Check sessions, something that you should know very well. And that's another one of these, of "run it for the PC" in the mechanics of the withholds. And that's this. That's this: You try to null rudiments. "You takes them as you finds them, and youse tries to null them without shoving the PC around in any other zone or area than he is in." You don't go looking for withholds and present time problems and ARC breaks and down havingness while you're running rudiments - end rudiments or beginning rudiments.

In other words, you try to null the needle. Just overtly and directly try to null the needle. You takes the PC as you finds him, and you tries to null the needle. That's what you does. And that's all you does. That's rudiments.

But you're the world's worst - maybe not the world's worst, but a close candidate; let me put it that way: you're a candidate for the world's worst - if you carry this action of the rudiments over into the session body. Now if you carry the spirit of taking the PC as you find him and try to null the needle on things you ask the PC, and only try to null the needle on things you ask the PC, the way you handle rudiments, you are not going to get any gain on that PC to worth a nickel. Because nothing is going to happen in the session, and sometimes you accidentally find something. And if you null the needle real good, why, you'll end up the session, the pc feels a little bit better, he makes his goals partly or no. And it's all about here.

Now, there's a vast difference between running rudiments - a vast, vast, vast difference between running rudiments and the body of a session. You're trying to null the needle on rudiments, but in the body of the session you are trying to find data and clean it up, and it's an entirely different activity.

In other words, you find the data, and then you null the needle on the data. And you find the data, and you null the needle on the data. One of the reasons some of you very well might have rudiments out so often is because you put them out.

Rudiments are simply there to be nulled. The pc is accidentally sitting in something, you null it. See, if he's accidentally sitting in something, you null it. Good. That's it. Bang!

You might be looking around and have these two things reversed. You might be trying to run the rudiments so as to find things and then null them, at which time you would do nothing but run rudiments, and in the body of the session just trying to be nulling the needle - see, these things here could be completely reversed - and you'd get no reaction at all from the pc, you'd get no real gain on the part of the pc from any auditing.

Now, the body of a session is devoted to finding data and nulling the needle on it. And it's another action, it's the additional action. And that action must be done. And if it is not done by the auditor, what has he got? He has got a pc who is sitting there in the chair, he is calm, cool and collected, he is getting a session, he is happy, he is in a room, he is miles away from any trouble.

Isn't it sweet? He doesn't have a present time problem, he doesn't have an ARC break, he doesn't have anything. And so he has nothing in restimulation of any kind whatsoever, and now you're simply going to read him some questions, one after the other, and null the needle on them.

You have an unrestimulated pc. Now, listen. You have to restimulate the pc in order to clean it up, because it won't come to the surface of the bank unless you pull it up to the surface of the bank, I assure you.

See, your rudiments smoothed him all out, didn't they? Now, supposing you ran the body of the session just to null the needle. Well, of course, you're not going to get anything done at all.

How do you get the pc restimulated so as to run something off? Well, I've given you other systems of doing that, and that's not part of the lecture. That is very pertinent to the lecture, however, that you null the needle in the rudiments, and in the body of a session looking for withholds, or auditing the pc on anything else, you've got to find what you are looking for, and you've got to persuade the pc to look for it. You've got to get the pc in there digging. And you've got to dig. And the body of the session is done with a pick and a shovel and dynamite and all kinds of digging tools, oil-well-drilling rigs - anything you can think of. And you keep stirring this stuff up and clearing it off the top of the mound, and - you're busy, man! Busy! Get busy in the session. Don't just sit there and say, "Dadadadadadadadadadad-pooh! Dudududududududududu-pooh. Dadadadadadadadadadu-pooh. Dadadadadada - well, I ran a good session today. Pc didn't have an ARC break the whole session." Nothing happened either.

No, you gotta dig it up to clear it away. Otherwise, it's just there, see? And you look at sessions from that point of view - that you've got to dig them up before you find anything and then you've got to clear it up, having dug it up - you all of a sudden will see what a session is all about and why you've got to have rudiments nicely [in]. Because you don't want the pc digging things up accidentally. You only want the pc to dig up what you want the pc to dig up.

And if the rudiments are out, of course he's digging things up accidentally all the time and he's sitting over there, a busy little beaver. Dig, dig, dig, dig, dig, dig, dig. Chop down trees. Dig, dig, dig. Make a dam. Grout up the dam. Dadaroom-dadeedada - dadadaroom. Boom. Boom. Boom. Boom. There he is. Dig, dig, dig, dig, so on.

You're sitting over there mining coal, and he's - hasn't anything to do with him; he's drilling for oil. And that's the secret of it all.

Of course, if you know the anatomy of the reactive bank, that it consists of overts and withholds, and that you're trying to restore his knowingness first, and then his self-determinism over these actions, and so forth, and if you know those things you could almost audit by definition. Just audit by definition.

Say, "Well, the pc isn't there. Why did he blow?"

Just ask the pc, "Well, has he blown from anyplace lately?"

Guy will say, "Yes, I left a cafe before I finished dinner last night."

You say, "Good. Now, what are you withholding about that?"

"Oh, well, I didn't realize I was withholding anything about it, but as a matter of fact I am."

"All right. Good. Thank you. What is it?"

"Well, it's so-and-so."

"All right. What overt did you pull just before that?"

"Oh, well, we don't want to go into that, do we?"

"Yes, we do. We're going into it right now. All right. Good enough. There it is. Well, then, you going to do that again, and so forth?"

"Well, I decided I wouldn't. Ha-ha!"

And you say, "Well, that's good. Now, where else have you blown from in the last two hundred trillion years, son?" And you will see the depth and distance to which a Security Check can reach.

[The old reel sounds like the tape is cut off here, and the "Thank you" below is spliced in. The tone quality changes. The clearsound version has the lines marked "■" instead, but that might also be a more skillful splice. There might be something here that was cut out in both versions.]

▼ Thank you very much.

■ Do you see how it is?

■ All right.