E-Meter And Its Use (CHC 611231)
Series: CHC
Date: 31 December 1961
Speaker: L. Ron Hubbard
Thank you.
Well, we have a little bit of E-Metering to show you something about. Now, the E-Meter was developed in America. Then they forgot it. Actually, the E-Meter in Scientology is a very old instrument. It's based on the first – the first meter of this type was built over a century ago. Perhaps you didn't realize that. A century old. It was the Wheatstone bridge. It had the sensitivity that if you hit a cow hard with a baseball bat, the cow would fall down. And then they knew the meter was operative.
This meter – a meter – a psychogalvanometer is an integral part of the Keeler. I always get these two mixed up. There's the Keeley cure, I think, and the Keeler lie detector. It's one or the other of those things. Anyhow, they use them with the police. The police fool with them.
And they have a Wheatstone bridge connected in a psychogalvanometer which sits along with the instrument. They basically depend upon the blood pressure gimmick. You know – did you ever go to a doctor and the doctor takes out this rubber tube or – I don't know – sack, and he wraps it round and round. And then he pumps up this thing and something goes up, and so on, and then your arm hurts like the devil. And then it goes down and then he looks at you fixedly to see if you're breathing and he says, "Fine." And he writes something down and then insurance company won't give you insurance. Well, that thing and a respiratory device – a respiratory device is the next item that they do. And they put it around the chest and they have an idea if the fellow breathes, "uh-huh-uh-huh-uh-huh-uh-huh," like that, he's crazy. And I always just thought he was out of breath.
Anyhow, this blood pressure indicator and this chest device and this one-hundred-year-old psychogalvanometer, put together properly, brings a price of eighteen thousand dollars. Isn't that interesting? They have thousands of operators for these machines in the United States. There are thousands and thousands of operators in the police departments. And the machine is always suspect because it has a 9 percent error.
When you're running one of these things you know nothing about past lives and you say to this criminal, "Did you steal the lady's handbag?" They never add the interesting question tagged to it, "in this life." And they're liable to get any kind of a reaction. Let me assure you they're liable to get any possible kind of a reaction. And they do. Men get hanged with this thing. They're operated by men who haven't a clue about the human mind who are human bloodhounds with long flapping ears, and they claim out of these thousands and thousands of operators that there are only two hundred of them that are reliable. There are only two hundred of them that'll say they don't know.
I know some of these operators and I have worked with police-lie-detector operators and I am quite, quite fascinated with the generality of their activity. I've put a police-lie-detector operator on his own machine and I have made it do things that he never dreamed it could do. And he is one of the two hundred. And I showed him conclusively that he had murdered, raped, burned and slaughtered. That he was guilty of every crime on the book. But not in this lifetime. He was quite interested – he was quite interested in the fact that the machine was wrong.
Well, those are crude machines. Those are crude. Yet they hang men with them. But they have given electric detection or electronic detection of the human mind – they have given it a bad name. That is all that amounts to. There's always the lower-scale mockery of the actual activity. And it gives it a bad name.
Unions are now passing rules saying that their union members must not be lie detectored. Naturally, naturally. I agree with them a hundred percent. Fellows don't know how. The reason the union gives is the operators are incompetent. That's right! But they should give another reason. The machines stink. They might cost eighteen thousand dollars, but that is no index whatsoever of their accuracy. And their accuracy is poor. I think they've even gotten sufficiently popular in the United States that they have been portrayed in the Dick Tracy comic strip. And that, of course, is a point of arrival for any police detection equipment.
Well, with all that one cannot expect anybody to have much respect for a little box that costs about a hundred and twenty-five dollars, and so on. It's too small; doesn't cost enough. But it has taken me and a lot of very fine electronics people ten years to build a machine that really could function. And it starts putting the older machines, of course, in the shade.
That we did anything with the older types of equipment at all is surprising. That is all. It is just absolutely amazing that we did anything with them.
The physical response of the machine – let me show you a British Mark IV. The physical response of the machine has nothing whatsoever to do with its mental response. That is the first thing you have to know about these – that they can go through all of the physical response tests. This is very, very important to you – this factor. It's taken me a long time to find this. But they'll go through all the physical response tests without registering mental response.
You can have a machine then that reacts to can squeeze, tone arm action, sensitivity, everything it reacts, except it doesn't read the mind. The reading of the mind is quite independent of the other and so you alter one of these circuits without knowing how they should read on the mind, and you've had it.
Now, a 1957 American meter was a good meter. But it was altered and altered and altered because it was simply given physical response, physical response, physical response. You see? And nobody paid much attention to its mental response. So, let the meter that was made then take responsibility for the fact that there hasn't been any person audited in America for years with the rudiments in. You want to know why your case is moving slowly? Look at the meter and the quality of the auditor in the operation of the meter. That's all. And this is the fundamental tool of the auditor.
This is a British Mark IV. It's a very pretty little machine. It's very simple, but oddly enough consumes the same amount of current whether it is turned on or turned off, or nearly so. In other words, the shelf life of the batteries in here – how long they last on a shelf – is how long they last turned on in the meter. It's quite interesting, isn't it? In other words, its current consumption is about as close to zero as you could get. I don't know how many microamperes or whatever this thing has. I don't know how small amount of current this thing throws particularly. I haven't measured this particular machine. But it has the characteristic of measuring mental response. And if your pc has a withhold, or if you have one, it will find one.
Now, when – one might say that one is terribly interested in withholds because he is interested in everybody being good – and that is probably the first idea that came into your mind when you first heard that Ron was interested in withholds. Then everybody will be good. This is a disciplinary action. That possibly was it. But that isn't true at all.
This picture I have shown you of the reactive bank is just this: The more withholds a person has, the more solidly the bank stays keyed-in. And if you want to key out the bank and make the pc easy, you pick the withholds off. And it is simply technical. It has nothing to do with moral values. Unless you get the withholds off, the bank stays keyed-in and you get nothing done. And that is all there is to it. The bank simply becomes in a solid, a glutinous mass and nothing can be done with the bank in the presence of withholds.
So the fellow who is sitting there not getting his withholds off or not giving his withholds to the auditor is only cutting his own throat. He may be getting even with his valences and this may be – this may be all very well; but in truth, it is under that heading of, it simply loosens up the bank.
Now, this little machine is deadly, absolutely deadly in that you could find out anything about anybody with the machine. Now, that as much as anything else, is a liability for the machine because people look at it, you see, as a police instrument. And it's not a police instrument at all. Well, the police wouldn't know what to do with this instrument. They really wouldn't. This doll – you put this in the hands of a cop, and he would say, "Well, did you ever rob a bank?" And it would tell him whether or not the guy robbed a bank two trillion years ago, you see? Bang! He wouldn't know what to do with that. You don't believe it? Put yourself on it and find out how many men you've killed, Miss.
Now, this machine, this little E-Meter, doesn't have moral connotations. It has case connotations. And the very fact that people are afraid to get off their withholds gives you a good reason why people stay aberrated. A mores which forces people to have withholds is a mores which keeps people crazy.
So there is the long and short of why we use an E-Meter and what an E-Meter is all about. And it is dangerous to use a bad E-Meter. And it is a bad thing for an auditor not to know these things perfectly and not to have a Class II classification. An auditor certainly should be able to get that.
Well, it takes about two months of standing a person on his head and shooting him down and getting him up before dawn and putting him over the paces and Mary Sue sticking her head into the session once in a while and saying, "Tsk tsk tsk tsk." Only she really doesn't just say that. "What is that response? What is that needle response? What do you call it? What – what is that? What is that – that right there? What is that response?" Fellow says, "That's a rock slam. Ha-ha." It's rising, you see.
This is the basic tool of the auditor. Don't take it lightly. But it has a limiter. If an auditor has tremendous withholds himself, he does not want to know how to run the machine and he does not want to get any withholds off his pc.
So it requires clean hands to audit with enthusiasm. Hence this campaign. It's just a betterment of technology that we're interested in, not a betterment of your goodness. The day when you are totally good, I will sneer because I'll know that somebody overwhelmed you and pulled none of the withholds. You are entitled to a little wickedness. Of course, I think you went too far when you blew up that planet. And you may have some realization that they are still after you in that army. But one is not interested in goodness.
You'll find that man is basically good, and he will do the basic and best thing unless he is totally aberrated. If you wanted a society to be totally criminal, you would have it have total withholds and provide no means whatsoever for getting them off. And then you would have a totally criminal society. And it could elect anybody.
Societies are as sane as they are in communication with one another and as insane as they have withholds. I can take one look at an organization and I can tell you whether or not the members of that organization have withholds from one another because it's a direct index of their efficiency.
Do you realize that because of valences and withholds that practically – there isn't a person on Earth who isn't himself an odd man out. Individuation. Can't belong. Can't participate. That is the keynote of this planet. And if we are able to attain an "all withholds off" – just that, not even fancy clearing on up the line, in Scientology – we will be the first true group on Earth. And I think that's worth working for.
Now, we have a little program here that we're going to put on, and we're going to show you something about this. We unfortunately are using – I think – an old 1958 meter and it has a projector. And it's a very sluggish meter and it's not a Mark IV. Nevertheless, you can still make these things work.
And now Reg is going to do a little bit of auditing here.
Male voice: Now it's coming on.
All right. Now, can anybody see that meter?
Audience: Yes.
All right. And now I'd like to introduce to you how it is that a session should run and what is really important about a session.
Auditor: All right now. Is it all right if I just give you a little check-over on some of your auditing?
PC: Mm-hm.
Auditor: Okay. All right now. Will you give the cans a squeeze? Good. Have you had some auditing recently?
PC: Yes.
Auditor: All right. And who's been auditing you?
PC: Stanley.
Auditor: Okay. All right. Now, where was he auditing you?
PC: In New York.
Female voice: Can't see the meter.
Male voice: Ron…
Auditor: All right. Now, what house was he auditing you in?
PC: Seventy-seventh Street and Third Avenue.
Auditor: All right. That's fine. Now, how did you like being audited in that room?
PC: It was fine.
Auditor: All right. Now, there's something there. What's – something you didn't like about that room? That.
PC: Just-just…
Auditor: He…just.
PC: We tried to clear this. It was a big kind of block to the right-hand side of the ceiling.
Auditor: A big…?
PC: Block.
Auditor: A big block. Uh-huh. On the right hand side of the ceiling. Uh-huh. All right.
PC: It was a beam of some kind.
Auditor: Mm-hm. Okay. Now, anything else in that room?
PC: No. I thought of a blue – a blue package that you keep paper in.
Auditor: Uh-huh. All right. Did you tell your auditor that?
PC: No. I said I could have it.
Auditor: You said you could have it. All right. Well now, let's ask you this again. How'd you like being audited in that room? Okay. All right. That's all right now. Now, how'd you get on with your auditor?
PC: Fine.
Auditor: All right. A little reaction there. What was that?
PC: Well…
Auditor: Yes?
PC: / love him.
Auditor: You love him. All right. Tell him that?
PC: Yeah. A few times.
Auditor: Mm?
PC: A few times.
Auditor: A few times? Okay. All right. Now, was there anything else that you withheld from your auditor? Oh, what's that?
PC: Something to do with his wife.
Auditor: Something to do with his wife. All right. Okay. Did you tell him? Something you withheld? You withheld that?
PC: I don't even know what it is myself.
Auditor: You don't know what it is yourself. All right. Well, what did you think of when I asked you the question?
PC: Nothing.
Auditor: Nothing. All right. Let's just check it. All right. Now, have you withheld anything from your auditor? Okay. That's all right now. All right. Now, was he auditing you over a present time problem?
PC: What time? No.
Auditor: When he was auditing you, did you have a present time problem while you were being audited?
PC: Not really.
Auditor: Mm?
PC: Maybe, but not really.
Auditor: Something you thought of just then, did you? That. Come on, you tell me.
PC: Do I have to tell you…
Auditor: Where's it gone?
PC: Do I have to tell you now?
Male voice: She wants to tell you later.
Auditor: All right. You want to tell me later do you?
PC: I choose to.
Auditor: All right. Well, apart from that problem… All right. Now, was he auditing you over – oops. Apart from that problem was he auditing you over a present time problem? Okay. All right. So that's fine. Now, tell me, was there any – any auditing question that you left unanswered? Little one there?
PC: Who have you something.
Auditor: Who have you something? Who have you something what?
PC: Murdered? Raped?
Auditor: Mm-hm. That one – that one was missed, was it?
PC: I know it was the first thing that came to my mind.
Auditor: Mm-hm. All right. Now, what was the question then?
PC: Hm. I thought of something else.
Auditor: Pardon? What did you think of?
PC: I thought of something else, "What have you done to Scientology?"
Auditor: What have you done to Scientology. All right. Now, what was this first one? Who have you murdered?
PC: Murdered. Who have I raped?
Auditor: Who have you murdered? Who have you raped? All right. Now, what have you done to Scientology? All right. A little reaction on that. What was that?
PC: I thought I haven't done enough.
Auditor: You haven't done enough. All right. So what is it there, that you – an omission?
PC: Mm?
Auditor: Is that an omission you're telling me?
PC: An omission? Yes, think so.
Auditor: All right. Okay. Let's ask this – clear this question again. What have you done to Scientology? Still kicking here a bit. What is it?
PC: I keep thinking of nothing.
Auditor: Keep thinking of nothing? What is it?
PC: The word – the word "nothing" comes up.
Auditor: The word "nothing." All right. Let's check it once more then. What have you done to Scientology? No, it's still kicking. What's this one now?
PC: I just – well – the phrase came to my mind – several things – I really don't have anything particularly there.
Auditor: Mm-hm. Well, what did you think of at that point?
PC: Just "several things." That was the thing that came to mind. "Several things" – the words, no pictures.
Auditor: All right. Well, have you e – have you ever spoken bad things about Scientology? Mm?
PC: Not really.
Auditor: A little reaction there. All right. Ever run it down at all?
PC: No. I've been unsure about how to – how to tell somebody about it.
Auditor: Been unsure how to tell somebody about it.
PC: Yeah. I felt really that I didn't do a very good job in explaining it.
Auditor: Mm-hm. All right. Well, just let's check this question again. What have you done to Scientology? All right. That's clean now. Okay. All right. Now, is there any other question that your auditor missed on you? Ooh!
PC: I-It's…
Auditor: Yes?
PC: I – the thing that came to my mind is you just asked me what I'm nervous about.
Auditor: Yes? Oh, I see. That. All right. Do we have a little mutual agreement here? All right. Now.
PC: Mutual agreement on what?
Auditor: That's all, what we said. I still didn't feel… Do you consider that okay? All right, now. Is this a question that he missed on you?
PC: I've never even been asked it before.
Auditor: You haven't been asked it before. Okay. All right. Now, is there any other question he always missed on you? There's a little reaction. What's that?
PC: Nothing. I was given a Joburg.
Auditor: Mm-hm.
PC: And a…
Auditor: Oh, given a Joburg?
PC: Yeah.
Auditor: Uh-huh. All right.
PC: Or a Sec Check or something.
Auditor: Yes?
PC: And I kind of – one stage put a block on – on getting anything from any past lives because I wanted it to be of this life.
Auditor: Yes?
PC: And I guess I felt guilty about that, because I cleared it with the auditor and never went past life.
Auditor: Mm-hm. All right. Now, was there a question on that Security Check that was missed?
PC: Can't think of anything.
Auditor: No. Okay. It's cleaned up here now.
PC: Mm-hm.
Auditor: All right. Okay.
[To LRH] All right Ron. Do you want some more?
LRH: Yeah, go ahead. You still haven't cleaned up what she'd done on Scientology.
Auditor: All right. Well, that's clean now, Ron. That's clean now.
LRH: All right.
Auditor: All right, now. Just this question – oops. Now, what have you done to Scientology? All right. There's still a reaction there now.
PC: I've helped all these people by coming up here.
Auditor: Yes. All right. Okay. Well, is there… Check this again. What have you done to Scientology?
PC: Haven't done enough.
Auditor: Well, all right. You haven't done enough. All right. Once again, what have you done to Scientology?
PC: Oh, I probably said it was no good in the beginning.
Auditor: Uh-huh. All right. Okay. Once more. What have you done to Scientology? Cleaned it nearly. All right. Okay. Now, what have you done to an auditor? That. Mm-hm.
PC: Can I tell you later?
Auditor: That bad? Mm?
PC: I'll whisper in your ear.
Auditor: All right. You tell me fast. Okay. Thank you. All right. Now, what have you done to an auditor? Get a little kick there. Something else?
PC: Doris.
Auditor: Mm?
PC: Doris. She's an auditor.
Auditor: Mm-hm. Well, what have you done to her?
PC: Nothing.
Auditor: No. All right. Any other auditor?
PC: No.
Auditor: Mm?
LRH: What have you done to Ron?
Auditor: And what have you done to Ron? Mm-hm. That one.
PC: When he came in with a plaster on his finger, I thought, Hm, he's got plaster on his finger. Then I thought he did it on purpose.
Auditor: Okay. All right. That was the thought you had, was it?
PC: Mm-hm.
Auditor: All right. Well, what did you do to him?
PC: I sent him a Christmas card.
Auditor: Mm-hm. All right. Now, about this unkind thought. Did you tell anybody else this thought?
PC: No.
Auditor: Mm?
PC: No.
Auditor: No. All right. Let's just check this again. What have you done to Ron? No, it's still there.
PC: I don't know.
Auditor: [To LRH] Except that wasn't what you experienced.
[To pc] What have you done to Ron? That's clean, Ron.
LRH: She's got a little tick there.
Auditor: [To LRH] You want me to pull it?
[To pc] Come on, what's this tick?
LRH: There it is.
Auditor: Mm. Really.
PC: I don't think it's to do with this life.
Auditor: You don't think it's to do with this life? All right. So what is it to do with? Tell me something there.
PC: I thought of masturbating.
Auditor: Masturbating. All right. Okay, well, let's check this again. What have you done to Ron?
PC: Well, I had a picture of kind of pushing a knife through his belly.
Auditor: All right. When was this?
PC: a.d. something.
Auditor: a.d. something. Okay. All right. Now, let's clean it up again. What have you done to Ron? All right. I've got it set, Ron.
LRH: That's all, thanks.
Auditor: Mm?
LRH: That's all.
Auditor: All right? Shall I end off here?
LRH: Yeah. Give her the end rudiments.
Auditor: All right. Now, have I missed a question on you? What's that?
PC: Having to do with being Clear?
Auditor: Something to do with being Clear. All right. What was the question on this?
PC: Why aren't you Clear?
Auditor: Why aren't I Clear?
PC: Why aren't I Clear?
Auditor: Why aren't you clear. All right. Okay. Now, have I missed a question on you?
PC: No.
Auditor: All right. I'm just going to ask it again. Have I missed a question on you?
PC: Uh-uh.
Auditor: Okay. All right. Have you withheld anything from me? A little reaction there.
PC: I was so nervous backstage, I thought I was going to pee all over the place when I came on.
Auditor: All right. Okay. All right. Now, have you withheld anything from me?
PC: No.
Auditor: Okay. Now, how do you feel about my having given you this check?
PC: Okay.
Auditor: All right. Have we got an ARC break at all?
PC: No.
Auditor: Okay. All right. Well, just look around here and see if you can have something.
PC: All these faces.
Auditor: Mm-hm. All right. Something else.
PC: They're all pink.
Auditor: Okay. All right. Now, is it all right if I end this check now?
PC: Fine.
Auditor: Okay. End of check. Thank you.
PC: Thank you.
LRH: Thank you very much, Reg. Thanks a lot.
Auditor: Thank you, Ron.
LRH: And thank you, Maureen.
Well, now you see it – it looked simple, didn't it? Looked very simple, didn't it, huh? Well, it is very simple. You simply have to know exactly what you are doing. But you can know what you are doing.
Now, let me mention something here. Now, let me mention something here that's very important. This young lady has just been audited and the rudiments are that far out. Ohhhhh, what was her auditor doing? Whistling Dixie? Now look, ladies and gentlemen, she would have been absolutely parked in her processing from there on out! [LRH is on that part rather angry!]
Anybody who knows his business will know I speak right and I am not trying to exaggerate this. I just want you to do a good job. My entire concern about these things is simply the concern of efficiency and effectiveness. That is all.
Now, what was this auditor using for an E-Meter? An old tin pot of some kind or another?
But now look. If I can build into your consciousness during this congress just this one thing – that that is a serious goof! That that is not, "Well it – you know – it doesn't matter. It's all very crowded so it doesn't matter, anyhow, and so forth. You know. Nothing matters anyway because all that matters, and so forth." To hell with that attitude! That is a serious flub! This girl was audited with her rudiments out. This girl was audited with withholds on Scientology. Whether she did or did not have an overt on me has nothing to do with the price of fish. But let me assure you, if you have lots of overts on me, the horror of the thing is simply that your case doesn't advance. And I don't give a damn if you have overts on me! But I do care if your case advances.
Now, perhaps that is an unreasonable attitude. The better and more stylized attitude about it all is – probably you're more used to this on the whole track, you see? – "Now, don't take my name in vain, and we will all have a nice temple."
It is true that people who have overts of one kind or another on Scientology, Scientology organizations, Scientologists, auditors, the auditor who is auditing them, me or other principal personnel in Scientology, park their cases. I'm not trying to just sell you on the idea that all that hierarchy should be regarded with deep reverence. Your crime is not cursing out loud or putting it right when you feel there is something that should be put right. But when you get big withholds of one kind or another it just parks the case. Clank!
The way to play this – if I wanted to overwhelm you completely and entirely as a person – the way to play this would never let you get your overts off but would rig it so that you felt very guilty any time you ever thought anything bad about me. And if I could just rig it so that this was the highest crime in Scientology and if everybody would stand around and go, "Tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk," your case wouldn't make any advances either. But you'd sure be overwhelmed. And nobody's interested in overwhelming you.
You stack up a lot of overts and withholds on what comprises the last two pages of the Joburg, and what do you wind up with? You wind up with no case gain. You wind up with the fact that you feel the only thing that will let you out doesn't work. And therefore, it doesn't matter what you do to it. And out the bottom you go.
Now, I have a sufficient level of responsibility to be able to tell you very bluntly that I want you to get out of the sump. I want you to get Clear. I want you to be happy yourself. My only reward is simply that. Now, do you think I would tell you anything that would turn you around and put you deeper in?
And when I tell you, "God, please don't audit people with their rudiments out, please, please," believe me, will you? Just believe me. And don't leave withhold questions uncleared. Clear them all. Because you're going to leave somebody with ARC breaks. You're going to make the auditing sessions very rough. You're going to make it so nobody gets a gain. And you have trapped somebody in the mire. And that is not a small thing to do. Withholds are that important.
Why are they that important? They're that important because as a person withholds more and more on top of the reactive bank, the reactive bank keys in more and more and more and more. And the more withholds, the more key-in. And while you're busy stirring up this reactive bank with very powerful processes in Scientology, you have fixed it so nothing releases by letting the person have uncleared withholds while being audited. That's sort of a dirty trick. It's like putting somebody in a – an iron turret and clamping down the door and then turning fire hoses loose inside. Ah, the iron turret is the withholds. He can't move off of that point. He can't progress on that track. He can't go anyplace from there. And yet you're running processes that stir up all the energy in the mess and turn it all over and go round and round and round. But he can't get out of it. And he will become a very unhappy person. And he will then begin to believe that the only thing that can let him out doesn't work. And that it's no good. And that is an overt. I think you will agree with me that that's an overt.
Now, if we didn't know what this was all about and if we were ignorant of it, oh, well, that's one thing. But if we're not ignorant of it and we still continue to do it, I'd say that was nearly criminal.
How can anybody be audited today and wind up at the end of an intensive with a meter reacting on rudiments and withholds, uncleared and missed auditing questions and overts? And that wasn't very much. This little girl had done nothing. She had unkind thoughts because she had an overt. By the way, that is the mechanism. They think they have a terrific overt, or they do have a terrific actual overt, and then they go on thinking unkind thoughts. The unkind thoughts are not the overt. See, it's the earlier overt that makes the unkind thoughts come up.
The only reason you tick anybody's unkind thoughts is to find out if they've got an overt. You don't pull the unkind thoughts. That could take you hours. You pull the overts and that takes you, if you're good at it, seconds.
The way you trap somebody up against something is to cause him to have a problem with it. And the way a person has a problem with it is not be responsible for it. And if a person withholds thoroughly enough from the other side – A and B as I showed you earlier – if he withholds at all, he is then being one-sidedly irresponsible for the other side of the problem and it doesn't blow. Purely technical.
But it crosses, of course, the mores of life. It crosses existence as it is today, because there have been a lot of slave-makers around. There have been a lot of people around who were very, very, very anxious to have the rest of everyone in a trap. These people were afraid.
This is the same rationale that if we put – if one man in a city can put the rest of the city in cages, then none of them are going to attack him. And it requires the rather interesting idea that everyone in the city is going to attack him before he wishes to put himself in a position where he is the only one in the city who can walk around. And how long do you think that person is going to feel free after he puts the rest of the people in jail? He isn't going to feel very free. He's going to be awful stacked up on the track.
But it takes that kind of psychosis to put everybody else in cages, just so self can be safe. I don't feel that insecure. And most of you don't feel that insecure. What about a fellow like Hitler? My God! What level of insecurity the man must have had. He wasn't trying to conquer the rest of the world. He was trying to get his hands on it so he could put it in a concentration camp, so Mr. Hitler would be safe. I'm sure that was all it amounted to. I'm sure it upset him to have all those people free.
Well, if I've got nerve enough to let you free, for God's sakes, have nerve enough to do it right. Very simple. You saw an auditing session. Didn't look very complicated, did it? Actually, it wasn't a very easy session to pull off. It takes a good auditor to pull off a demonstration session like that, and don't kid yourself otherwise. Because the pc is jumpy and the pc doesn't react properly. And you got to carry it out and you got to pull things in front of a crowd; and you're actually releasing withholds not just an auditor in a small auditing room, you see? You're setting up these public address systems throughout the world, the way it seems to the pc, you see? And make the pc give up on anything, that's pretty rough.
But that's a very standard session. That's just a little patch-up session, but nevertheless, it had all the elements of a proper session. Only when he was trying to clean up the withholds in the middle of the thing, and so forth – ordinarily the process would have fitted in there. Or the Security Check would have fitted in there. That's what would have fitted there.
But let me – let me assure you of this one point. If we can conquer this one idea – that it is worth doing very well and it is worth doing very thoroughly – it is actually very simple. But if we can just get the one idea that it's worth doing well, we'll have won all the way because what we know now will carry it all the way. And it's very well worth doing.
I'll give you an idea. We have somebody and we've taught him to do what we call a Joburg – a Form 3 Joburg. The reason it's called a Joburg is because it originated in Johannesburg, South Africa, taken out of the laws of the South African courts which list quite a few crimes. And it was dreamed up there and it didn't have any name.
We had things we called "Security Checks" and this is, of course, a misnomer. These things have been used for security in the past and it graduated over into processing and hardly anybody has started calling it a processing check. Nobody has called it that, basically because every time they came to America they would have to say processing. And every time they went to England they would have to say processing. And "security" is "security" in both countries. Joke.
Anyway, this is a "Joburg" – is the slang phrase for it, and it's page after page of, "Have you raped, murdered, burned, shot, stolen, cut the throats of, betrayed, dissected, practiced psychiatry, been a newspaper reporter?" Any crime in the book is listed on this Joburg. The last two pages of it are devoted to Scientology crimes.
You just saw some pulled just now. Those are the high crimes that – well, listen, a pc could have raped, murdered, burned, shot, slain, skinned alive and so forth and still get through. But they can't have run around their neighborhood telling everybody that the Central Organization was no good and get that much of a case gain. That happens to be fact, not advertising or propaganda. Why? Because they have overts on the thing that will help them, so they can't take responsibility for the very session they are in. That is the mechanism.
So the last two pages of the Joburg is a trite phrase, a cliché, when you talk of sci – of Security Checks. There's the Joburg and there's the last two pages of the Joburg. And an ordinary sentence for an auditor who won't get withholds off – because we know if he won't get withholds off, the first thing we know about him is that he has withholds, see, with magnitude. See, obviously he can't take responsibility for both sides of the auditing session because he's sitting there, you see, withholding, and the pc is over here and so he can't be responsible for the pc. See how simple that is?
So we make sure that when he gets processed that he gets himself – and this is the exact sentence – the last two pages of the Joburg and a Form 6. What's a Form 6? It's all the mis – horrible handling he has done to pcs anyplace, anywhere. And the last two pages of the Joburg is all of his overts off Scientology. If we do those two things for somebody, he's all straightened out. Once in a while, we have to go to extremis and we say, "The last two pages of the Joburg and a Form 6 with 'guilty' version – with a 'make guilty' version." Now, that's sort of extremis. Make guilty version.
You find out every once in a while some auditor goes in for the fact, pc gives up a withhold, auditor makes the pc guilty of the withhold. So a Form 6, guilty version, simply is a basis, "Have you ever made a pc guilty of…" not "Have you ever done…" and that's for every question in it.
You could also run the Joburg with this. You could say, "Have you ever burned down a house?" is the question, you see. And you could say, "Have you ever made anybody guilty of burning down a house?" You get almost equal magnitude response.
It isn't a withhold but it is the setup to have a withhold about burning down houses. And peculiarly in Scientology, here and there, an auditor has set out to make it his business to enforce the morals and mores of the razzle-dazzle temple group of the Marcab Confederacy or something of the sort. And every time a pc gets off a withhold saying he murdered, burned, shot down, didn't give the right change to the streetcar conductor, why the auditor would sit there and say, "Oh? You realize, don't you, that that is a crime?"
"Oh, yes, yes."
It's just kind of a joke because the fellow is a fine auditor now.
The one lovely thing about Scientology is nobody ever holds your past against you. The past is our business and so nobody holds your past against you. That makes us one of the oddest groups that ever existed because the only reason groups exist here on Earth at the present time is somebody has a record of your past and might be able to hold it against you. So, therefore, you had better stay in line. That is the single mechanism of keeping people in line used here on Earth today.
You don't want to commit a crime because then you will have a police record and then you won't be able to get a job. Do you get that rationale? Well, that's holding your past against you. And, of course, some of these fellows fall from grace.
But this particular chap – he isn't here today and I shouldn't be telling stories of school because he's a fine auditor – he has become since a very fine auditor. The only reason we made way – made a dent in his case was to get the "make guilty" on the – on the Form 6. And this "make guilty" on the Form 6 – you see, that's what you've done to pcs – that's the whole of the Form 6. And "have you made guilty, have you made guilty, have you made guilty…" on every question – was just bang! bang! bang! crash! crash! crash! You know? And instead of, "Have you ever upset the pc's chair – have you ever kicked a pc's chair intentionally in a session?" you see, or something like that. "Have you ever made a pc guilty of kicking a chair in a session?" You see. Anything like this, you know. Crash! Crash! Crash! We finally traced it back.
We found out that it wasn't attributable to Scientology. It was because he had apparently been one of the high officials of the French government during the Terror. He'd evidently been one of Robespierre's boys. And, of course, he was just carrying it over as a habit pattern. Soon as we got rid of that, bang! Fine auditor. See, he knew what to do. He knew the best thing to do. To enforce the mores of the society, of course, all you had to do was make everybody guilty, then everybody would be good and then everything would run fine.
Except let me call it to your attention that that philosophy has been going forward now for two hundred trillion years and has yet to work well. And I think it's time somebody held it to question.
Now, if I can – if I can coax you forward into the realization (1) that it requires an instrument that will read in order to find, and (2) that it requires a great alertness and a perfection of training in order to do a thorough job, and (3) that it is the highest crime in the world to leave a Sec Check question missed – if I could just leave you those, do you know that Scientology in the United States would go at a much higher velocity than ever before? You would almost not recognize it with the speed forward that it would make. It is that important.
He who hath withhold will not take responsibility for nothing, including him. We don't even want you to take responsibility. All we want you to do is relax and be yourself. You know really, you're quite a guy, and we'd like to meet you. But we're not liable to find you back of all those withholds.
No, that is our program. It has nothing to do with morals. It has everything to do with upward and onward and freedom. If you can just be brave enough to be good enough to get the job done, you will be free.
Thank you.
THE E-METER AND ITS USE PAGE 4 CHC-05 – 31.12.61