FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

LEVEL 2 ACADEMY LECTURES 06/15

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

LEVEL 2 TAPES

CONTENTS:

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

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

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


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

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

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


DIRECTING ATTENTION

6202C14 SHSBC-117

SHSBC-117 ren 117 14 Feb Directing Attention

[Based on clearsound only, not checked against the old reels.]


BEGIN LECTURE
*************

Now, what date do we have? What date do you have?

Audience: 14th of February.

14th of February, Valentine's Day. Will you be my valentine?

I didn't hear any volunteers.

Audience: Yeah!

All right. All right.

(I didn't put the year on it. A.D. 12, Saint Hill Special Briefing 
Course.)

We just had a good example of distracting the pc out of session and 
collapsing the bank on the face. Did you notice that?

Audience: Hm-mm. Hm-mm.

Wasn't that an interesting example? And do you notice that it 
dropped the havingness right out. Hm? Interesting, isn't it? The 
pc's attention - flick, bang!

Of course, the patch-up is to get the ARC break off fast. If you 
can't get the ARC break off, run some havingness and get the ARC 
break off. Got it?

If you can't easily release an ARC break or easily get a rudiment 
in, it's always safe to assume that havingness is out. I don't know 
if you noticed that example. Just the flick of some paper and bang! 
- the pc's attention is out of session.

The gimmick you saw about illustration. I should mention something. 
about that. It'll probably be a part of your flows. You see, your 
3D Criss Cross - how you get a list and that sort of thing -
originally was designed before we had flows. So it'd be only a 
special gimmick for flows. But we could broaden it and say, well, 
you get the pc to define what you're going to get the list from so 
that the pc understands it. And that way you wouldn't run into the 
trouble you've run into earlier on "like and dislike" lists.

So you don't know whether the pc likes it or dislikes it or ... you 
know, and the pc finally says, "Well, I don't dislike anything 
actually. I hate everything!" you know?

And right away you say, "Well, let's have a hate list," see?

But let's be sure that the pc understands what we're going to list 
from as an additional step. We would do a Prehav assessment or a 
flows assessment or take an arbitrary item. And in any event, let's 
make sure that the pc understands thoroughly what we are listing 
from before we start to list. Okay?

Another sign that is very interesting is, if you have the right flow 
you will get some tone arm action. And when you have ceased to get 
tone arm action on the list, you don't have any more items. If you 
leave the pc on the meter during a listing, if you're on the right 
track you've got some tone arm action. It'll be anywhere up to 
about the one tone arm division - 3.0 to 4.0, 2.5 to 3.5, or 
something like that. It'll be at least that. You'll have that 
area. And the tone arm will wander around, and as long as you have 
tone arm motion your list is incomplete. I had to do some work on 
this because we needed some additional indicators. Slight change: 
leave the pc on while listing.

Now, if, you leave the pc on while listing and leave the pc on while 
differentiation, you will see the item itself discharge. And you 
hit the hot item on a list, you may get a discharge of two or three 
dial drops. The item which you will eventually assess, by the time 
you begin to null, has already been discharged. It's quite 
interesting, if the item is hot, that you will get a two or three-
dial drop. It'll just go zoooom, zoooom, zooom. And you all of a 
sudden - the way you'll probably notice it on differentiation is 
that your tone arm suddenly is way out. Your needle is hanging over 
here on the side of the meter; you possibly won't see it go at all, 
you see, and you - because you aren't watching the meter very 
heavily - and you'll suddenly notice that after we read that item, 
we'll have to move the tone arm down about a division or two.

You decide that the one you just did must have been a very, very hot 
item indeed if you don't see the needle go. You got the idea? 
Because nobody expects you to watch the needle, you know, like the 
cat to the mouse hole, while you're doing listing and 
differentiation. Just keep it centered. Try to keep your needle up 
to set. Keep a very low sensitivity setting, because it doesn't 
matter much.

See, the lower the sensitivity setting, the more your needle stays 
somewhere on the dial, the less adjustment you have to make of the 
tone arm. Of course, doing rudiments - oh man, that needle is just 
all over the place with rudiments, all over the place. Get that 
thing set at sensitivity 16, you know, and rrwow! I don't care how 
corny you sound. You notice that I'd rather you sound corny and 
careless or something, and be careful, than to be imprecise. Don't 
ever neglect to say the rudiment twice, see? Always be sure. 
Always be sure.

There's probably some characteristic in my auditing that you've been 
picking up, because there's a terrific amount of carefulness with 
regard to reads and that sort of thing. If I don't get them the 
first time, I'll ask them the second time. You never invite an ARC 
break, because you're interested in the pc's case, of course. And 
if you don't get them the second time - you're still not sure - why,
get it back there and ... Of course, at sensitivity 16 your needle
is flying at such a wild rate across the dial that it sometimes gets
to the left-hand side of the meter, you see, before you've finished
the question. And you're left with the great embarrassment of having 
uttered your question and come to the end of it, and your needle is 
sitting over there parked and unreadable.

Don't worry about things like that happening. Don't strain at that 
sort of thing. What I want you to strain at is being awful careful.

It looked like the thing did a slight acceleration. You know, it 
looked like right after you said it, there was a slight 
acceleration, but you couldn't quite tell, you know, it was so 
indefinable. Ask it again and see if there was something there.

Then you look at it, and the needle just is - you're asking on a fall 
or something like that. Work a flying needle - it's perfectly all 
right - but work it carefully.

One of the things is, please, as an auditor, don't put looking good 
ever above being a good auditor. Please. You know, you can make 
yourself look awful good sometimes, you know? Pc is very happy 
because you've found an item, and you haven't found one. Don't tell 
him you've got an item unless you've got one, you see? Don't give 
him any hope, because there must be something wrong. There must be 
something wrong there that needs patching up. And your pc will just 
ARC break on it, that's all. You say, "Oh, yes. Well, we're very 
happy. We got an item," and so forth.

But be very careful and always put accuracy above looking good. And 
ff you fumble, fumble, for God's sakes. I don't care how hard you 
fumble, but just do a good job. Do a good, thorough job on it. 
Don't try to look good. Because the only person who loses, you see, 
is the pc. The pc really loses.

You can err in several ways in auditing, all in the direction of 
reputation, of looking good, being kind - that is the main thing. 
There was a lecture last summer about being kind, which is as bitter 
as I think I'd care to state it. You can kill people with kindness, 
man, you can kill them dead.

Failure to direct the pc's attention, letting a pc run on and on and 
on - being kind, you know? "Let's be careful that we don't have any 
ARC break." Well, I'll tell you what causes an ARC break: It's no 
auditing. That's what causes the ARC break.

As long as you're interested, as long as you're doing your job and 
as long as you keep clearing up the should-have-knowns, you're not 
going to have any ARC breaks with the pc. But the way to have ARC 
breaks with the pc is to be kind and then not do your job because 
you might upset the pc or something like that.

You haven't seen this yet in my demonstrations, but I have been 
known to tell pcs to "shut up - that is it."

Oh, you did see some. No, no, you didn't see this. No, because 
this was a demonstration that wasn't on the air. Got fooled for a 
second because I remember all the sets were on.

I turn all the sets on up there and get used to auditing under those 
circumstances. It's a little bit rough because the meter is never 
in the position I ordinarily use a meter, and so forth, and I'm 
having to adjust myself to exactly that auditing circumstance.

And the pc said, "You know, this goes back to a past life of ... and 
uh ... I know this has its foundation in a past life."

And we were looking for a withhold, see, in this lifetime.

And I said, "Good. You just leave that alone for the moment and 
we'll get around to that later. Come on now." And so forth.

And the pc cheered right up and smiled. Pc knew when she was 
getting away with something. And sure enough, there was a hot 
withhold right there. Boo-boo-boom! We had it practically in the 
next twenty words. But we were going to get all about this past 
life, you know?

You look up Sec Checks - old Sec Check forms - and at the point 
where the person just about connected, but the auditor didn't make 
him connect it, they immediately went into a past life. It is not a 
dodge mechanism so much as the fact that that withhold is connected, 
but it is restimulating the past life. So the closest thing 
available is the past life. You don't want it. All you wanted to 
do is key it out.

And you look it over, and it's very, very amusing. You look it over 
and you'll see the missed withhold, the question which you're now 
going to have to clean up with the withhold system, can be found on 
these old forms by just locating where the auditor. noted down the 
pc dived into a past life. You take that question and you clean it 
for this life, and you'll have the hottest firecracker withhold you 
ever wanted to meet. That's an interesting little trick of the 
trade.

Now, it is perfectly true that withholds in past lives are causing 
all the pc's real difficulties, see? So you don't want to 
invalidate this and come down on it with a crash and say, "We don't 
care about past lives. We're not auditing past lives. To hell with 
your past lives." That'd be the wrong way to go about this, you see?

The right way to go about it is to say to the pc, "All right. That 
in its place and this in thar [its] place. And what I'm looking for 
right now is what you did to the cat, now, in this life. We'll take 
the other up later in 3D Criss Cross. But right now we want to know 
what you did to the cat in this life, the cat named Joe - whatever 
it was."

All right. Now, that is what we're interested in. Now, if you can 
keep the pc from diving, you can control a pc's attention. If you 
can control a pc's attention, you can keep them from diving. And if 
you're controlling a pc's attention, the pc is uhrrr, crank, crank, 
hrrmm-hrrmm. And he's "No, no. I don't want to look over there."

And the auditor says, "There it is. There it is. Look."

And the pc says, "No, no! Really, it's w...

And the auditor says, "Uh-uh [no]."

And the pc says, "But that's much more attractive right now."

And the auditor says, "Hm-mm."

And the pc all of a sudden blows fifteen megatrons of charge on this 
thing, see?

And the pc never forgives you if you let his attention go out of it. 
It's not kind, it's suicidal! The pc never forgives you if you let 
him give up or let her give up.

I don't care what the pc says in the session. I don't care what 
argument the pc advances. It is read right at the bottom of your 
right-hand column on the auditor's report: Goals and Gains. And if 
you didn't direct the pc's attention, you'll see "Goals made: No. 
Gains: No." Every time. You've got to get the pc's attention 
directed.

Now, if you let the pc wander into a lot of overts... This sounds 
like a generalized lecture; it's not a generalized lecture. I'm 
telling you how to run a pc on Prepchecking, how to handle a pc's 
attention in pulling overts and so forth - what's expected of you.

You think that you're going to get an ARC break, you see, if you're 
mean to the pc. You actually would believe this on first inspection 
- that if you're mean to the pc, you'll geet an ARC break.

Now, listen. It has nothing to do with being nice to or mean to the 
pc. That does not have any monitor of the session. That does not 
monitor the gains of the session or the attitude after the session 
of the pc toward you. See? That has nothing to do with it. Just 
discount niceness and kindness, being mean to the pc, being kind to 
the pc, your attitude toward the pc - just pretty well cancel it out. 
See, you can't wipe it out entirely, but you can - whether you're mean 
or kind to the pc has nowhere near the bearing on the situation as 
whether or not you're effective with the pc. You can have that pc 
screaming at high C in the middle of a session, apparently all ARC 
broke, chewing you out like mad, and you're saying not, "Oh, well, 
I'm sorry we got into it." And you are saying, "All right. Now, 
what withhold did I miss?"

And the pc says, "Well, you're the lousiest auditor I ever had 
anything to do with!"

You say, "Come on now: What withhold did I miss? When?"

And the pc says, "Well, that's something else. You needn't be cross 
about it and so forth."

Well, you say, "Well, I'm not being cross about it. I want to 
know!. What withhold did I miss?"

"Oh, well, in the beginning of the session, of course, you failed to 
find out that I have an engagement at three o'clock and it's now 
three-thirty."

"Oh, all right. Let's continue with the session."

And that pc will go out and he'll just swear by you as an auditor. 
"Oh man, that - that's my auditor, you know? A terrific auditor.
Oh, terrific. Won't let me get away with a thing! Hm-hm-hm."

But the auditor who's nice and doesn't direct the pc's attention, 
the pc goes out of the session and says, "Natter, natter, natter, 
natter, natter, natter, natter, natter, natter, natter, natter, 
natter. Well, he's all right. He tries."

You'd be surprised. You could be the most gentlemanly or ladylike 
auditor in the world, you know, and never have a gain on the pc, 
because that isn't what makes the gain. It's whether or not you 
control that pc's attention.

Now, you'd just be amazed how far you would get. Now, I'm not 
asking you to overwhelm the pc, because you actually don't overwhelm 
the pc with mood. What you overwhelm the pc with is evaluation and 
invalidation: the fact of invalidation, the fact of evaluation.

You say, "Well, I don't think that's the list. I don't think that 
has anything to do with it. That item doesn't belong on the list. 
What your item is, actually, is 'a spendthrift.' I've watched you 
for days and I know that." And that overwhelms a pc, see?

And, "Well, you actually don't know what you're thinking about, 
actually. That's what's the trouble with the session. If you just 
knew what you were thinking about..." - you know, invalidation of 
some kind or another. That's what ruins a pc.

Mood doesn't ruin a pc. I've had a pc fly out of an auditing chair, 
and I've taken that pc and slammed that pc down into the auditing 
chair and say, "Damn it. Sit there and get audited."

Pc after the session: "Wonderful session." Didn't even clean it up 
as an ARC break. See, it's very fascinating. That's the one thing 
you should learn. Yeah, be nice, be your cheerful self and so 
forth, but direct the pc's attention. But I'm not teaching you to 
be a mean auditor - I'm teaching you not to pay any attention to that 
factor.

If you're an effective auditor, and you do what has to be done, and 
you direct the pc's attention, you will get further by directing it 
crudely and badly and misemotionally than by not directing it at 
all. I assure you of this. Naturally, after a while, you get to be 
an old smoothie. You see that pc start out in session, go somewhere 
or the other - just go zing-bang, thud, and you do the effective thing 
and so forth, and there it is.

But even then, now and then, you will get caught out in a storm. 
You say, "Where the hell did this come from, you know?" And that's 
going to happen to you on this withhold system, Prepchecking, time 
and time again, because every time the pc comes close to the key 
withhold, the pc is apt to get cross with the auditor. Now, that's 
the liability of Prepchecking and this withhold system.

You start sailing down the line ... It's an indicator. It's an 
indicator. The pc, right there at that crucial moment, gets some 
kind of - it's the missed withhold mechanism, but it's a little bit in 
reverse. Just got a little more curve on it. And you say to the pc 
quite innocently - you say, "Well, who didn't know about that? Who 
should have known about it?"

Anything you're saying for that third question - you can, you know, 
you can say, "Who didn't know about it?" just to salt the thing 
down. You can say, "Who did you make sure wouldn't find out about 
it?" That puts it in the future, you see? You can play it on the 
three tenses if you want to. I'll give you a list of the 
permissibles, you see? Down at that end you can ask any one of 
these. The standard one is just "should have known" and "failed to 
find out," see? But you can vary this song anything you want to in 
the same breath, you know? And you'll just manage to pull it off.

But anyhow, you'll be sailing down along about the thing and you'll 
be getting to the "Well, is that all of it?"

"Oh, pity's sakes, it certainly is all of it. As a matter of fact, 
I am getting sick of it. Aren't you?"

Oh man, you're standing right on the threshold. You're getting 
right there. That's all that is. Doesn't mean ARC break; doesn't 
mean anything at all. Pc is going misemotional.

All right, got the pc headed right down that alley. And if you 
don't head the pc down that alley, the pc will wind up saying you're 
the worst, lousiest, bummest auditor he ever heard of, see?

Well, of course, you didn't torture him to death by ... He's got to 
be made to face that withhold, and that's your whole job.

Now, the pc is sitting there... Let me tell you some of the primary 
and early withhold flubs.

Pc said, "Well, I don't think very much of Joe. Joe ... Joe will 
never ... never has anything much to do with me and so forth, and uh 
.. I really don't think very much of him. Matter of fact, one day 
he dropped me out of his car and so forth. Didn't even ... didn't 
even accompany me to the door."

Auditor: "What else did Joe do to you?"

"Well, he was insulting. Often. Very insulting."

On and on, see? Buy a motivator, buy a motivator, buy a motivator. 
And by the time that session ends, your goals and gains - my God,
the poor pc is just plowed into the ground. What you've done is run
up a bunch of new overts, and the session was used just to run up
new overts. So that is the broad classification of a bad withhold-
pulling session. It's just permitting the pc to go on and run up 
brand-new overts on the thing. In other words, he's giving 
motivators, he's making damaging statements, or she is making 
damaging statements, and that sort of thing. He'll run up at the 
other end, you know? Well, that was a common thing.

Pulling other people's withholds. Now, that's the one you will face 
every time you try to train a Class II auditor. Sooner or later, as 
he starts into this thing, you will find him sitting there pulling 
other people's withholds off the pc: because it's so intriguing; 
it's so interesting; it's like reading a scandal sheet, you know? 
And "all so true."

And amongst those is running you down covertly, you see, by saying 
what they have heard about you, what the pc has heard about you. So 
that's other people's withholds, you see?

And the pc has heard from Pete about how you ... so forth. And 
that's a withhold from you - heh-heh-heh-heh-heh - and that's a
withhold from you. Brother, I just wouldn't spend three seconds' worth
of auditing time on it, you know? I just wouldn't spend any time on
it at all. Because if you permit the auditor to go on and pull other 
people's withholds, including withholds he has heard about the 
auditor, any brand of this, you wind up with that right-hand column 
right at the bottom: "Goals: None. Gains: None." Every time. It's 
just a wasted session. It's ineffective. So that is one of the 
old-time common errors.

And the other one - there's another one on this now - is the 
critical thought mechanism. Now, that was too thoroughly banished, 
because I will use critical thoughts - ho-ho-ho - in old-time style
Sec Checking. You give me a string of critical thoughts and I'll show 
you the prettiest array of overts you ever heard of.

It's just an indicator. So you say to somebody, "Now, have you had
.." It's a trap, you know? It's a great, big, dirty trap that you've 
laid right in the middle of the boulevard. And they're going down 
this boulevard at seventy miles an hour and they're going to go 
right on by and they're not going to get any goals and gains by 
session end.

Well, one of the ways to stop this is to ask them a leader, such as, 
"Have you ever had any critical thoughts about anyone?" And they 
merely tell you, at once, about all the critical thoughts they have 
had about Angela. And the only critical thought you listen to about 
Angela is enough to let them groove - get them grooved in on Angela. 
It's something on the order of about - I'd say fifteen to twenty 
seconds' worth is adequate. And you let them get grooved in well on 
Angela and then say calmly and coolly, "Well, what have you done to 
Angela?" And you'll find one every time. You'll find a withhold 
every time. You'll find an overt that is being withheld from you.

Now, this is not trickery that we're using particularly today, but 
you should know that. That's a good little piece of stuff. And it 
also should be known to you because in trying to train somebody on 
what is an overt and what is a withhold, they're going to run into 
critical thoughts and they're going to waste hours.

Now, listen. I have seen five hours of auditing time, pulling 
critical thoughts, go up in smoke - absolutely no goal, gain, nothing. 
No gain at all - just go up in smoke on pulling critical thoughts. 
That in one minute-five hours versus one minute, see? - the auditor 
said, "What did you do to ..." and here, this critical-thought 
channel just explodes at this point.

"Uh ... no! I've done nothing. Uh ... uhuuuuuuua!" Horrors. 
Caught. And they go right off the pavement into the trap. Oh, 
there we are. Oh, well. We didn't even know there was anything 
there. "Oh, they ... yeah, well, actually, I didn't do anything to 
him. Didn't really do anything to him. Stole his car and wrecked 
it and never told him. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-haha-ha-ha."

Now, with your present withhold system, it would probably turn down 
that his wife was also in it at the time, see? I mean, this would 
unveil further, you see? It'll go on and on and on and on and on 
with the withhold system, but you're pulling on real overts.

Now, the reason that isn't as important today is you're every now 
and then going to get a critical. And we've already taken care of 
it in the mechanism of the withhold system. So you know now that it 
will do no good - this is a good indicator; this is just a piece of 
something you should know that it will do no good to go on and pull 
all these critical thoughts, but it's perfectly all right to accept 
it for your number-one What.

"Well ..." (You're pulling something or other; half-revealed 
withholds or something.) "Well, I thought a critical thought about 
the auditor and the auditor didn't pull it."

You'd say, "All right." And you got what auditor it is. And "What a 
out thinking a critical thought about the auditor and not pulling 
it?" is your One question, see?

Now, you're going to go to town with this because you're going to 
say, "When?" And then you're going to say, "Is that all of it?" And 
of course that is the trap inside the trap on this highway because 
the ...

"Well, is that all of it? Of course, it's perfectly justified, me 
thinking a critical thought of the auditor, after all the auditor 
has done to me," and so forth.

Well, you should remember at this stage of the game that nobody has 
told you in the withhold system that you mustn't coax the pc to give 
all, see? You can do it by just sitting there and practically 
saying nothing to the pc, but at what expenditure of time.

So all these little tricks fit into the system, too, you see?

You say, "Well, is that all of it? Did you do anything else to 
him?"

See, that's a good one to slide in on the end of that thing. "Did 
you do anything else to him?"

"Hmmmmmm. (Do anything else to him?) Hm. No. I mean, no..." (Needle 
is falling off the pin.) "Well, I wrecked his - took his car without 
his permission."

And you say, "Good. All right. You took his car without his per-. 
Very good. Fine. Fine. Fine. And who didn't find out about it?"

"Well, he didn't find out about it, of course. Heh-heh-heh-heh."

"All right. Very good."

And why test it? Why test it? You're going to town here. And you 
just say, "Well ..." (just form's sake, you know), "Well, what about 
thinking that critical thought about the auditor?" and so forth.

"Well, I..."

And "When was it?"

"(sigh) Well, it was ... not 1954, it was 1958."

"Oh, all right. Well, is that all of it?" and so forth. "You said 
you did something to him again?"

"Well, yes. There's something about ... more about the car. I 
didn't tell you about the car. But ... I wrecked it. Ha-ha."

Now, if you want to keep your Two-Three-Four going on some allied 
thing, where you set it up with a One with a critical thought, then 
that critical-thought thing is not really going to clear until 
you've got the other material from it. Do you see the difficulty 
which you've set up? It's an internal difficulty. Now having 
pulled the critical thought, you get a real withhold.

All right. Your Two-Three-Four is actually working on the real 
withhold, and your critical-thought One is working on a critical 
thought. But actually, your critical-thought One will not totally 
clear until you've cleared the other one.

So you have to be smart enough to realize that you're really not 
working on the critical-thought One. You're really not working on 
it. It's simply a test item. You really are never working too 
thoroughly on One. One is your tester. But other material will 
come up after One, and if One is of the variation or variety of a 
critical thought, you should know that there's a real overt behind 
it. And when you get to "all of it," throw the "done" on the end of 
it.

Well, that's the commonest waste of time. But the failure to direct 
the pc's attention can come out along something like this: The pc 
goes on and on and on, and they tell you, so on, and you go into a 
stenographic audit - totally stenographic audit. If you don't direct 
the pc's attention during a Sec Check at all, he just winds up with 
no goals and gains, because he's talked all of his havingness down, 
he's upset, he's upset with you. You've talked him into a hole, 
that's all. And you've let the pc run up a bunch of new overts of 
one kind or another. The pc has actually probably damaged someone 
in the session.

You have to really sit there and control that pc's attention; you 
have to control it hard.

Now, your withhold system does that to a marked degree for you: That 
controls the pc's attention by putting the pc's attention on what 
the pc's attention ought to be on. Now, that's your Two-Three-Four. 
Your pc's attention is on this withhold and it didn't clear, it 
continues to fall: Therefore, your Two-Three-Four situation on the 
thing is the right order of questions, see? You don't have to go 
out into a bunch of other random things. But these questions still 
have to be asked intelligently.

You can't just say, "Well, stole Joe's car. All right. When was 
that? All right. Is that all of it? All right. All right. When 
didn't ... who didn't find out about that?"

"Joe."

"Okay. You stole Joe's car. Good. When? Good. Is that all of 
it? Good. Who didn't find out about it?"

"Joe."

"Good. All right."

"Did you steal Joe's car?"

You know, it will almost work that way. What is fascinating is, it 
almost works that way, see? But you're working here where there's a 
little more bonus to be gotten on the thing, see?

Now, if you're paying not much attention to the E-Meter, except to 
see out of the corner of your eye if it starts to surge like mad, or 
something like this, on your Two-Three-Four, well, you know you're 
working something hot, and your interest is on the pc and you're 
looking at the pc, you're talking to the pc - you're not squinted over 
a meter, you see? You're asking the pc. Well, please, put a little 
bit of invitation in it to give, huh? Put a little bit of coax, a 
little assist. And add to that a little insistence that he look at 
it.

I have been known to say "It's perfectly all right to sit here the 
rest of the night, because, of course, until we get this particular 
withhold, we're not going home. But that's perfectly all right. 
But I think it would be much faster if you simply looked and tried 
to see what it was."

The person says, "Sitting here all night ..." And they look at me 
and they say, "By George, he would be willing to sit there, the b-. 
He would be willing to sit there all night until I spilled this 
withhold."

"Well ..." in desperation, you know, "Well, let's get working on it! 
Let's get working on it!"

"All right. I'll look. Hey!"

But you can let any session go to sleep, see? You can let any 
session go to sleep, so that it's just daw-na-nah-nah. See, 
everybody went to sleep in the session. And I don't advocate this 
as good auditing.

What you want to do is you've got your What and you're trying to 
clear that What, and when you come to Two, well, "When was it? Just 
about when was that?" Well, get interested! "When was it?"

This is the difference, you see? If you want to know when it was -
that's what we're asking you to do, you see? You want to know when 
it was. Don't just ask it because of a form.

Decide you want to know when it was, you know? Well, let's find out 
when it was. Hasn't cleared up with two runs on Two-Three-Four, 
well, there must be something wrong with the date. There was 
something here unknown someplace, and so forth.

Well, let's get awful interested by that time. Let's date it down 
to a fraction of a second on a meter. Oh, I haven't showed you how 
to do that? Well, just go ahead and learn it. People have known 
how to do it for years. Don't expect me to teach you everything.

It's the over-and-under system, actually. "Was it before 1936 or 
after 1936? All right. It was after 1936" - biggest needle
reaction: you know, the tracedown.

Pc all of a sudden finds out that things which happened in 1936, he 
has thought happened in 1957. And they tend to get their track 
scrambled because withholds group the track. So you're apt to get 
almost any date out of one.

But if this is also done in the spirit of helping the pc to look, 
you'll find that you'll get a lot further. And your rancor ought to 
be only directed in the direction (if you ever employ it at all) of 
making the pc look. Don't ever direct with the idea of "Damn it, 
you better tell me or I'm going to be real upset with you!" No. The 
pc doesn't know, you see?

You can say that perfectly well. You say, "Well, damn it. Will you 
please look and find out?" See? And you get away with that.

But the other one, you see, is untruthful. There's a lie connected 
with it. Frankly, the meter is reacting but the pc doesn't know. 
Now, you can bung the pc right out of a session into a games 
condition at a heck of a rate of speed by insisting he tell you 
something that he doesn't know. And he winds up in apathy.

No, what you use the withhold system for is to get him to look. And 
any spare chatter that you handle there should be in the direction 
of directing his attention so that he will find out more. Persuade 
his attention there. Direct it with an ax, direct it with honey, 
direct it with gypsy music. But damn it, direct it! I don't care 
how you do it. Particularly some of you girls have enormous skill 
on the direction of attention. Terrific skill. Employ every bit of 
it.

Well, there might be some little salacious bit there that might be 
interesting to hear. "Why don't you see if there's something a 
little more interesting there?"

Pc says, "You know, that's true. There might be something 
interesting in this."

I don't care what trickery you use. You can use any trickery that 
anybody has ever employed. You can use any persuasion anybody ever 
employed. But don't let me catch you not directing a pc's 
attention.

If I see reams of withholds written out, not sequitur, not one after 
the other that have to do with the same thing, I know definitely the 
auditor is not directing the pc's attention. You want to clean up 
what you want to clean up. That's what you want to clean up. And 
you better decide the thing is cleaned up or is not cleaned up, and 
you better continue to direct the pc's attention till you decide the 
thing is clean. Keep directing his attention.

You're still getting a reaction on the meter. Well, I check every 
once in a while to find out if there's an ARC break. That's about 
the only time I ever use an ARC break or the phrase "ARC break" 
anymore, you know? Just ask the pc, "All right. Is a repetition of 
this question causing an ARC break?" I use that fairly often when I 
see an irregular bang on the needle and I can't get anyplace with 
it. And I'll ask the pc, "Is this question causing an ARC break?"

In 3D Criss Cross, use it the same way as this: "I've asked you for 
more items, is that causing an ARC break?" I don't get the same 
response. Then I don't get any response at all on the ARC break 
question, I must assume, you see? But the E-Meter can confuse those 
two things. It can confuse data in the bank with an ARC break. And 
it does have a confusion point, so you must straighten out that 
confusion point.

You ask for more about the withhold, and you actually can be so 
insistent on it - get a pc half out of session - that an ARC break is 
created, and you get a fall or a rock slam or something starts up. 
And you say, "Oh well, on this third question here, he hasn't told 
me all of it." And yes, he has. That's just the trouble. He has 
told you all of it and you haven't bought it. So you actually are 
building in a missed knowingness, you know? So that's what you get 
as your ARC break. It's just your missed knowingness.

So you say, "All right. Have I failed to find out something here?" 
And you get the same reaction that you were getting on "Is there any 
more to this withhold?"

And the pc says, "Oh well, yes, there is."

"Well, when did I miss that?"

"Well, several minutes ago," and so forth.

And you say, "That's fine. All right. Do we have an ARC break?" 
and now there's no reaction on the thing, and so on.

Now, you ask the same question. You say, "You don't mind if I ask 
it again just to make sure if it's clear? Is that all of it?"

You're getting to - there's no reaction on it at all. Just be clean 
as a wolf 's tooth. More people ran terminals and goals lists up to 
the hundreds and thousands mark because by the time they ask "Is 
there another goal or is there another terminal?" don't you see, the 
pc was so ARC broke and so out of session on it that you'd get a 
needle reaction. And so they'd say, "Well, of course there's more 
items."

So we learned that one the hard way. If you think there is any 
suspicion at all that your question itself - it's always a repeated 
question, by the way, a demand of more - has created an ARC break, 
you always try to clear that up, just drrrrrr. Just rapidly clear 
it up just to make sure that your reaction is not an ARC-break 
reaction. And then you get a true reaction.

The usual thing about it is that the ARC break shows up, blows off 
and then there is more of it. Now, that's more to the point. 
That's far, far, far more to the point in this withhold system.

Pc has an ARC break and more data too. Because there's where you 
get over this little hump. The pc becomes misemotional when 
approaching a real hot spot in the bank. Has nothing to do with the 
goodness of the auditing. As a matter of fact, the better the 
auditing is, the more certain it is that the pc is going to hit an 
ARC-break attitude - not an ARC-break attitude, it's a misemotional 
attitude.

He starts to get cross with the auditor, because the auditor at that 
moment is a substitute for all the people who should have known 
about it and didn't. Of course, you're asking for a should-have-
known-about-it and you'll see that rekindle. And it won't be much. 
It'll just be a little bit of "Myngmyng-my-mu-mu-m-m-mo-on," and so 
on and so on, and there it is. Everything is beautiful and shining, 
you see?

It'll be there somewhat, even if terribly faintly. And it can come 
up to a roaring storm. You've asked for the thing. You've said, 
"All right. What don't I know?" or "What haven't I found out about 
you in this session?" - you ask this perfectly innocently - and the pc 
says, "Roooo-ow, rooo-oo. Clack!"

And you say, "Now, what don't I know about you? What did I fail to 
find out about you? What anything? What went on here? What part 
of the session ...?" And just cut through somehow all of this chop 
and get that question answered.

And you'll find out that that will become a sign of a routine action 
in doing the withhold system. So you might as well learn to buck up 
to it and do it well. Don't ever back off from it.

Pc is upset with you: pull the withhold. Pull the missed withhold. 
Pull the should-have-known. That would be ordinarily. But in the 
withhold system, just be sure that you just better go right on doing 
the withhold system, because in the next question or two it's going 
to drop out of the hamper.

And the pc, "Well, I don't see why you're asking that. You've 
covered that. You've covered it and gone over it and over it. No, 
I can't think of any more of it. There's nothing more to it. I knew 
the guy! So what? So what? I knew the guy. I told you several 
times I - I knew him! Isn't that enough? (sigh) Of course I omitted 
to tell you that also I lived with him for five years without 
marrying him. You know, I never realized that?"

You watch this, and you'll find that it's a fairly patterned curve 
for the pc. If it didn't happen at all I'd become worried about the 
pc. You know? Say, well, we're getting no place with this pc. 
Couldn't possibly be getting anyplace with the pc. Why aren't we 
getting anyplace with the pc? Well, we couldn't possibly be getting 
anyplace with the pc because the pc has never gotten mad at us once 
during the entire session, so we have never gotten anywhere near 
anything the pc never found out before.

We must be mining a mine that was mined out several hundred auditing 
sessions ago. And that mine must have been completely mined out to 
the bottom. The pc will sit there; they give you all the withholds, 
they would let you publish them in the newspaper - they're perfectly 
all right. Withholds, who cares about withholds? What's this? All 
right. They give them to you. They tell them all to you again. Pc 
never gets mad at you, pc is perfectly happy with you, pc doesn't 
change, tone arm doesn't shift.

You could go on like that, you see, for hundreds of hours probably.
That means you must, be mining a mine which has been dug up. There 
couldn't possibly be another speck of nothing in the bottom of it.

But that is not the state of a pc that does have something at the 
bottom of the mine, you know? That pc is "Rrrrrrrr." He feels 
"Uuuuhhhh." And the pc is starting to get gray, the, pc is starting 
to get hollows under their eyes. They're starting to waste away in 
the auditing chair. They look it over, they finally come near it, 
they finally look at you, decide you must be the withhold or 
something. And they finally say, "Well, I was the usual girl and 
.. Zzaahh, I know nothing about it. Zzaahh, I know nothing about 
it at all. Huuuuhhh. Zt-zt. Damn. And, of course, um ... had five 
children by him. Never mentioned to anybody - and by God, I never 
thought of that either!"

Well, that would be a pretty obscured withhold, but ... All of a 
sudden they brighten up and, "Heh-heh! What do you know," you know? 
"Heh-heh. Heh-heh-heh. Well, you know, I never thought of that. 
You know, that's the most amazing thing. Known it all the time, you 
know? But I was sure I knew it, but I-I didn't know it. (deep sigh) 
Well, that's pretty clever of you. Ha-ha-haha. That's pretty clever 
of you. You're an awful clever auditor. My God, that was real 
smart of you to find that. How did you find that? Ah ... pretty 
darn smart. Ha-ha."

You look at them: the hollows are gone, the circles are missing, 
their skin texture changes, their eye color shifts, the gauntness 
which they inherited all of a sudden pads out very mysteriously. 
You watch it. And they suddenly get a cognition.

"You know - say, I wonder. I wonder if losing all of my teeth, which 
I had forgotten-ha!-I wonder if knocking all of his teeth down his 
throat had anything to do with my dental trouble. Say, do you know, 
I think it does. You know?"

And they just start cogniting all over the place. And of course you 
can milk these cognitions down just by running more withhold system 
on them. You just run some more on the same thing and all of a 
sudden they'll blow some more off, because their intense interest 
means that there's just a little speck or two.

That will bleed off usually, if they come up to that state, in the 
next twenty-four hours. They'll think of it as they go to bed that 
night or something of the sort, but you can actually take it all off 
with this withhold system. It's quite amusing to watch. But if you 
don't see that kind of a cycle going on, you know the withhold 
system isn't working or something's going on.

Pc is sitting there: pc is bright colored, everything is fine, there 
isn't anything wrong, you as the auditor are wonderful, they're 
answering the questions, they're very happy to do anything, there's 
no change of the tone arm.

They get to the end of the thing, in the right-hand column they 
write "Goals: No. No goals. Didn't make any of them. Heh-heh-heh. 
Huuh." And their ARC break comes after the session. After you've 
said end of session they go out in the hall and they say, "Well, 
that was a wasted mess."

It must be that the auditor had never directed their attention 
during the entire session, see?

You can actually have a very happy pc who, four hours after the 
session, is liable to go get a shotgun and shoot you. You know? Pc 
was not disturbed by the session at all. It's just something about 
the mechanics of what you're doing, you see?

Now, you should not expect, in doing the withhold system - you should 
not expect for a moment - that your pc goes on a gradient scale of 
getting better. Your pc does not go on a gradient scale of getting 
better. Your pc goes on a gradient scale of getting worse. They 
look worse. They look grayer. They are more worried. Things are 
grimmer. Life has suddenly started to loom as a serious 
proposition, not to be trifled with by amateurs. Life is grim.

And they may go into that curve and come out of it with a fast 
cognition, or they may go into it for three or four consecutive 
sessions. They may go into it and out of it in twenty minutes. 
They may go into it and out of it over this cycle of four sessions. 
It all depends on what you're shooting for.

And if you do the withhold system using your Zero question - your Zero 
question is well chosen - and if that is a very beefy question, very 
ornery sort of question on the subject of ... You've all of a sudden 
connected with something there that is a very hot button of some 
kind or another, and it fell off the pin, and your Zero question as 
a whole question has been very much avoided by the pc, then it's 
some one of these four session propositions.

In other words, the hotter the question, the longer the cycle of 
action of the run, see? The hotter the question, the longer the 
cycle of action of the run. That's, of course, there's that much 
more charge to be bled off the thing before they come to grips with 
it. Now, the milder the charge, the shorter the cycle of action.

Now, the cycle of action is not our cycle of action. It's a 
different cycle of action for the withhold system. And that is: is 
alerted, slowly perishes, goes to the bottom for the third time, and 
then on no graph curve but total verticalsee, it comes down like 
this and down and down, and then just total vertical and goes way up 
above it. Goes way higher than the beginning of the cycle. It's a 
funny-looking curve, but that is the response of a pc who is having 
his withholds properly pulled.

They don't get cheerfuller and cheerfuller and cheerfuller and 
better and better and better. And if the pc is sitting there 
looking cheerfuller and cheerfuller and you're not getting any tone 
arm action or anything, you know that at the end of the session 
it'll be "Gains: No. Goals: No. Nothing. Ha-ha. That's it. What a 
lousy auditor you are." Be the truth, too, once you got that low. 
Because the pc's attention has not been directed into anything the 
pc's attention should have been directed to.

Now, the entire force of an aberration is devoted to pulling the 
attention in while buffing it off. You actually haven't got to pull 
the pc's attention into the middle of any aberration because it's 
fixed there. But every aberration has a buffer. And that is to 
say, while the pc has his attention fixed on A, the last thing in 
the world he'll admit to is having his attention on A.

In other words, he's looking both ways at once. To look is to 
bounce, you see? The reason the tennis ball is on the ground is 
because it's in the tree. You know, that sort of thing. The reason 
the bomb is falling down is because it is rising. See? It's a 
fixed thing.

In other words, he hasn't got an inflow or an outflow on this point. 
It's not a clean outflow; it's not a clean inflow. But he'll bounce 
off of this thing. And you get into those things, you get into the 
zone areas, and the pc will go bouncy, bouncy, bouncy. And if you 
don't keep him pushed on in to that, you're not doing what the mind 
is doing, which is concentrating on that 100 percent.

Actually, the mind is totally, 100 percent concentrated on it. The 
closer gets to it, the paler he's liable to look. That's one of 
your maxims. The more ARC breaky he's liable to look.

I don't want your expectancy to measure up to "You pull withholds, 
and the person has a little withhold pulled and they feel a little 
better. And they have another little withhold pulled and they feel 
a little better. And then they have a big withhold pulled and they 
feel a lot better. And they have another withhold pulled and they 
feel a lot better." And it is not that cycle at all.

But you get a hot question, they instantly start to get sick. And 
it just gets worse and worse and worse. And then they really ... 
I've seen a pc sit there in the most baffled stage on something - I 
knew all about the pc.

You know? "But could this have been me, you know? I mean, but 
there couldn't have been anything about it. See, we lived at 
Fordham and we ... All right. When was it? and so on. It was at 
Fordham, and so on. No. No. No. Man, nothing happened at Fordham. 
Just nothing. I could have ... Nothing could have happened at 
Fordham. I didn't know anybody at Fordham. In fact, I don't 
remember anybody at Fordham. There wasn't anybody at Fordham."

And this is all out of something. The fellow says, "Well, I ... I 
stole a cricket bat once, you know?"

And, "Well, when was it?"

"Well, it was when we lived at Fordham."

"Well, is that all there is to it?"

And you're liable to get some fantastic - "Well, look - who could I 
.. I ... I stole a cricket bat, but from whom? Fordham, Fordham, 
Fordham. Who? No, it couldn't have been at Fordham. Couldn't have 
been. (sigh) Oh well, this doesn't amount to anything."

You run into the not-is, you know? "It doesn't amount to any ... 
cricket bat is very cheap, and so forth. And it's very ridiculous 
of me to do so, and I undoubtedly gave it back the next day." Dub-
in, dub-in, dub-in, dub-in. "No, no. That's not right either. 
Fordham. It must have happened at Fordham.

"But nothing could have happened at Fordham. Look, I only lived at 
Fordham between the ages of seven and eight. And I couldn't 
possibly have. See?"

Get an answer. You got to get an answer to your auditing question. 
That's one of your basic maxims of the auditor. But your pc starts 
to go into these things ... Oh, no! Well, help him out all that you 
can. Don't suggest things to him - don't be that helpful. But ask 
him pertinent questions about it.

"Well, was it a big bat or a little bat?" you know? "What kind of a 
cricket bat? A cricket cricket bat?"

"Well ... Well, it was a ... just a little cricket bat. I mean, it 
was just ... it was a toy cricket bat, you know?"

And you'd say, "All right. Good."

Well, that's enough. See, don't beat him to death at that stage. 
Keep the withhold system rolling.

"All right. Well, who didn't find out about that?"

"Well, I ... I didn't. I completely forgot it was a little cricket 
bat. It wasn't a big cricket bat at all."

"All right. That's fine. Good enough. Good enough." Don't bother 
to do anything about it. "Well, how about stealing this? What about 
stealing this cricket bat?" and so on, you know?

"I really can't tell you. It's ... it's very funny. It's very hazy 
because it must have been at ... Fordham? Fordham? It couldn't 
have been at Fordham. It must have been at South Chichester, but at 
South Chichester ... It couldn't have been at Fordham," and so 
forth.

Well, help him out. And you say, "Well, when was it? When was it? 
When was it?"

"Well, it was in 1957. But it couldn't have been in 1957 because it 
must have been in 1932. No, I wasn't alive in 1932. It must have 
been 1941. Well, that would have been during the war, and they 
limited the cricket bats," and so forth.

And you say, "Well, just give me an approximation of when it was."

"I really can't tell."

"All right. Well, you just sit there for a moment; we'll date this 
thing on the meter, see if we can zero it in a little closer." And 
you get the idea? Help him out. Help him out. Help him out. Lead 
that withhold to its doom. Help it out of existence. And then "All 
right. Now, is that all of it?"

"All of it? I don't know anything about it at all. We've now dated 
the thing as having happened in 1945 and I was in the armed services 
in 1945 ... Oh, my God! Oh, yes! Heh-heh." And you hit something - 
"Oh, no! No. Well, no. No." And then you're liable to get a 
resurge.

Well, when you start down that steep trail toward those last few 
fragments, you really got to help the pc out because he's stonied. 
He just can't force his own attention into it.

So letting the pc's attention ride all over the place, you see, is 
actually letting the pc be the effect of this withhold and this 
charge. And he never forgives you. See? You've got to get the 
pc's attention and you got to hold it in there, and you got to hold 
it in there harder. But he says, "Well, can't we take up something 
else? There are a lot of nice juicy withholds. I've got some on 
sexy ... I've got a couple of sexy withholds here that are very 
good. Let's get over on to those. I was a mermaid once. I could 
give you a withhold from that." You know, anything. You know, 
anything - "Oh, this cricket bat..." you know? "Oh, me."

He gets to the "Oh, my God!" stage. The closer he gets to the "Oh, 
my God! Oh, not that!" or "That'd be terrible!" or "What do you 
know, you know? I never remembered that." Any time that this - the 
cognition stage is approached, attention is harder to get in.

And he finally finds out that it was a cricket bat that he carved 
personally for a little Italian boy in an Italian village, and then 
that was all that was left of the village was the cricket bat. 
Because he failed to order his platoon out of there, and the Germans 
shelled it to bits and killed every inhabitant in it. And he'd hold 
himself responsible for this, and all ever since, he's had this all 
figured out that it must have happened to him in his youth. And the 
only tag he's got is a cricket bat, see?

But a cricket bat, of course, fits with "when one was young." So 
he's logicalized this. He hasn't remembered any part of it. He's 
got a beautiful script here. It has nothing to do with reality.

And of course, he just can't face that because he couldn't face it 
at the time, so he just occluded it, just like that. And he said, 
"Well, that's it! (sigh)" Now he can live. See?

He's been figuring ever since down someplace in his mind, though, 
"If I'd just ordered the platoon out of the village that morning; 
the Germans came in the next morning, they would never have 
bombarded and they would have left them alive. As a matter of fact, 
I should have left the old area there earlier. I shouldn't have 
dragged anybody into it because there was no sense in it. There was 
no point in it. The Germans retreated the next day anyhow. It was 
all in a day. And I couldn't possibly have pulled an overt like 
that. It must have been due to the high command and it must have 
been due ... And it must have been a cricket bat in childhood." See?

He just backs out of all responsibility for it, and of course there 
isn't anything left there. He can't face having caused the death of 
150 noncombatants, and fzzz. Something he doesn't look into.

You see how it is? So as his attention comes in, his attention 
comes off. And a part of that coming off is getting mad at the 
auditor, looking ARC breaky, being upset and that sort of thing.

But you must differentiate between a pc who is really ARC broken 
because you've gone into a games condition with him and a pc who is 
simply introvertedly ARC broke and is snapping at everything. They 
look different, by the way. They look quite different, one from the 
other.

Direction of the pc's attention. And if you use this withhold 
system, you direct his - you help him to direct his attention; if 
you're on a hot subject, why, you'll get yourself some fantastic 
resurgences. Nobody has ever put their fingers on buttons like this 
in this fellow's mind. Nobody has ever freed up attention off it 
the way you have.

But reversely, reversely, if you don't direct his attention, he's 
being put into misery because his whole bank is kicking him in the 
head because there's nobody there helping him hold it down, don't 
you see?

Well, you've got to work hard on this particular basis. And you 
actually don't have to slave over it or sweat over it. What you 
have to keep your eye out for is the tendency of the pc to go 
general on the whole thing - generalize things and never come up with 
anything specific and never give you any kind of data, and just keep 
glossing over the top of everything and so forth.

After a while, why, wake up and say, "Well, see here. There's 
apparently something here. We keep going over this ground. Let's 
look, shall we? Heh-heh. Let's look. Let's look. Now, I said, is 
that all of it? Now, that's what I mean. I mean, is there any more 
to this at all? Just look at it and see if there isn't."

No, the only thing we've missed here is a Bedford truck. You know, 
something of that size. Because as sure as he gets in toward one of 
these things he starts to go - generalize, sweep on the thing. And 
you start crowding him to it; he gets kind of "Hrrrr. Well, I don't 
know if I'd like the look of this Bedford truck. I don't know right 
now." That works out with any withhold. "Well, you needn't be so 
cross about it. You needn't be so insistent about it. I'll look. 
I'm a perfectly cooperative pc. Hm. No. No. Hr-psss-sst-ssst ... 
there's nothing there. But there's nothing there. There's no ... 
there's nothing more. That is all there is to it. That is all 
there is to it" - needle falling off the pin - "That is all there
is to it."

And you say, "Good. Good. What more is there to the all?"

"Nothing here but the Second Army Corps."

Some little detail like this just slipped his mind, you know? You 
got to get him to look.

The job of the auditor is not to get the pc to tell. Yes, the pc 
will talk to you and the pc better be talking to you. And don't 
misinterpret that to this effect: that the auditor doesn't have to 
be told the withhold by the pc. Don't misinterpret that. But just 
frankly and overtly and directly, if the pc knows about it, the pc 
will tell you. And that is what you must realize and make up your 
mind to.

The reluctance of the pc to tell you all stems from his not knowing 
about it. And your pc will have a very easy time of it if you grasp 
this one point of the withhold system, because after that you will 
assist him to find out and you will help him find out things.

If he says, "Well, I just don't know," you say, "Well, let's find 
out."

See, he says, "Well, I just don't know."

Don't say, "Well, tell me." See, that's the wrong response. Get 
your responses different. He says, "I just don't know." You say - 
the wrong response - "Well, tell me about it," see?

The right response is: He says, "Well, I just don't know and there 
doesn't seem to be any more," and so forth, and you say, "Well, 
look. Let's look at it. Come on, let's dig it up a little bit more. 
There must be some pieces showing someplace. Aren't there an old 
pair of winged-foot heels showing out of this rubble here someplace? 
Where is this? Let's dig it up. Come on, now. Dig it up."

And he says, "Oh, yeah, there's a couple of very nice people there. 
I didn't realize that. Yeah, well, there's some."

Well, I take that as an answer. Buy the pc's data and keep the 
system going. See?

Now, the mistakes that you can make is thinking the pc isn't going 
to tell you. The pe is going to tell you. If the pc knows, he will 
tell you.

And the other mistake you can make is thinking that the pc is really 
upset with you when he starts getting upset with the bank, and start 
chopping the pc.

Another mistake that you can make is failure to handle the pc's 
attention - to cut off the pc. The pc is going on and on and on and 
saying, "I had this dog, and his ... his name was Rover. And the 
dog used to run up and down the street all the time and he used to 
jump on and off the hedge, and so forth. And I used to teach him to 
jump on and off the hedge, and he had a big collar. Uh ... and he 
had a wonderful collar and uh ... so forth. And one day one of the 
boys stole the collar, and I beat him up. And I got the collar back 
and we put it back on this dog Rover. Well, as I was telling you, 
this dog Rover, uh ... we used to keep him in the garage because 
he's such a big dog. We had a big garage there, so we'd keep him 
in. the big ga- big dog in the big garage, you see? - and we had 
this thing ..."

Oh, man! If you want a pc to get upset with you, let him do that -
let him go on and on and on. How do you shut a pc off? Well, if 
you can't think of anything else, say, "Shut up." I mean, that will 
upset him less, see? That will upset him less.

If you learn that, if you learn those little points and you put 
those points into practice, your Security Checking will become a 
song. I guarantee it.

There's nothing much to this. Now, we're calling it Security 
Checking loosely. It's actually Prepchecking now. You're going to 
get the rest of your materials for this - the little checks and so 
forth that you run for your Zero questions. Right now, as I've said 
before, the most fruitful source is to find - if you get any old form, 
any old form anyplace, the pc has been sec checked on, you find one 
of its items is loaded (there's one question on there was loaded), 
use that for your Zero and just go over that and over it and over 
it.

And if you haven't got the. form from the pc, because you're 
auditing a field pc and so forth, and you haven't got the records, 
you can say, "What withhold did you keep telling an auditor? What 
withhold have you continued to tell an auditor for a long time?" And 
then try to find out what question got this withhold and try to 
rephrase that question. And then you've got your Zero and you can 
take off from there. And, of course, you'll just mine the mine, 
because it'll go from there on out. And that's one when you're 
operating on HGC pcs that have been audited by a field auditor and 
you don't know quite where to start on something like this, you 
could start there very fruitfully if you didn't have a standard 
check form.

But this person had received a lot of auditing and appeared to be 
very ARC breaky and so forth. Well, somebody has headed him into 
one of these things and they haven't gotten him off of it. So the 
most profit that you could make on the whole transaction would be to 
say, "What withhold have you told several auditors?" or "What 
withhold have you told auditors several times? That's a good one. 
All right. That's fine. Now, what question would elicit this 
withhold? What question had been asked that did it?" And try to put 
some kind of a question together that would have gotten that 
withhold, and then mine this question.

And boy, oh boy, you'll see the bank roar. Because people have sec 
checked this person straight into the middle of a dead stop. They 
got him right there. They've restimulated something and they 
haven't pulled it. And that's what's known as your recurrent 
withholds. Your recurring withhold.

And a recurring withhold is very, very, very well plowed because 
it's already as though somebody has just set up a radar screen and a 
couple of compasses and some geophysical markers and the American 
flag with the eagle on top of it ten feet tall, see, and saying 
"Under this is an item the pc does not know anything about." And 
that's your recurring withhold as a sign or a symptom.

The other one is a recurring complaint. You know, "Who have you 
complained about most? What have you complained about most?" And 
you finally zero that in and you find out they've complained 
consistently and continually about their family. Well, you could 
use it as a withhold question.

But there is one little word of warning on that. Knowing 3D Criss 
Cross, you will be very cautious about sailing in toward targets. 
And you don't sail in toward targets that you don't know whether 
they are terminals, oppterms or whether they are on the 3D package 
at all, because you know that you can beef up the whole Prehav Scale 
by running a wrong terminal.

So one of the poor ways to go about it: This girl has always had 
trouble with her husband, so we immediately say, "Well, without any 
questioning at all, she must have withholds from her husband. So 
therefore, bang! - let's just sail in on this and let's use the Zero 
question 'What have you done to your husband?"' or something stupid 
like this, you see?

Let's use this. Husband, see? Husband. Oh, oh, oh, wait a minute. 
She's always had trouble with the husband. The husband is either in 
the bank or not in the bank or should be in the bank, but there's 
something 3D Criss Cross wrong with this terminal "husband." So you 
of course don't follow that up at all.

Your generalized questions, your Zero questions, should be very 
general on the subject of doingness or knowingness, but they 
shouldn't have too much to do with beingness. They could have 
something to do with havingness. But you leave beingness alone in 
those Zero questions and you'll be all right, because this stuff is 
all being run - usually being run - prior to 3D Criss Cross, and you 
wouldn't know anything about it.

By the way, any 3D Criss Cross item - this is not advised - but any
3D Criss Cross item that proved out as the pc's terminal could
probably be moved in as a Zero question of the withhold system.
Now, whether it would blow up part of the universe or part of the
pc's head or not, I don't guarantee because it's not been tested.

It's probably too much and it's probably too unreal. But just give 
you an idea that if you were going to do beingnesses, those are the 
beingnesses that you would do on the withhold system, and you leave 
other beingnesses alone.

You can take up the whole subject - you could take up any subject,
you know? But be careful with the beingness aspect of it, see?
You could take up a subject of marriage. But God help us, let's not 
take up the subject of husbands and wives, you got the idea? Or 
families. You see, that's beingness. We can take up the subject of 
being broke, but we can't take up any other. Okay?

Thank you.

**************
END OF LECTURE




