FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 00 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

=========================================

Greetings!

We are proud to announce our support of the international
effort to put LRH Tech on the internet.

For our first post to the newsgroups, we present to you the
Organization Series lectures, in 20 parts.

These lectures contain Ron's early insights into how Scientology
should be run. You will find the Cof$ today at complete odds
with the basics that he laid out in these lectures. Especially
telling is Ron's empowerment of the individual, rather than the
organization.

We scanned these from the transcripts of the 1989 Clearsound
tape set titled "How To Present Scientology To The World".
We do not have the original version.

To FZBA US: If you have access to the old reels, please check
these for any RTC omissions.

ARC,

Director
FZBA of Scandinavia

=========================================

CONTENTS

PART 00: Introduction and Contents

PART 01: How to Create and Instruct a PE Course, Part I
PART 02: How to Create and Instruct a PE Course, Part II
PART 03: Education
PART 04: Methods of Education
PART 05: Tone Scale (Autumn 1956)
PART 06: How to Handle Audiences
PART 07: Research Report: Radiation and Its Relationship to Processing
PART 08: Definition of Organization, Part I
PART 09: Definition of Organization, Part II
PART 10: Testing
PART 11: The Consequences of Organization
PART 12: The Deterioration of Liberty
PART 13: Hope
PART 14: The Scale of Havingness
PART 15: Money
PART 16: A Postulate Out of a Golden Age
PART 17: Confusion and the Stable Datum
PART 18: Randomity

PART 19: Glossary for tapes 1 - 9
PART 20: Glossary for tapes 10 - 18

===================================

INTRODUCTION [by Cof$]

The lectures you are about to hear were delivered by L. Ron 
Hubbard between 18 October and 13 December 1956 to the combined 
student bodies of the Washington, DC, Academy and the 15th 
Advanced Clinical Course, along with the staffs of the Washington 
organization and Silver Spring Distribution Center.

Ron had an extremely vital subject to address: how to present 
Scientology to the world. There was a particular importance in 
doing so at that time, just as there is today.

The world scene in 1956 could only be described as chaotic. 
Atomic testing in the Nevada desert and elsewhere was exposing 
thousands of servicemen and millions of people to radioactive 
fallout; Soviet tanks had invaded Hungary; Israel invaded the 
Sinai while French and British forces attacked Egypt over control 
of the Suez canal. The Cuban revolution was in its beginning 
stages.

"Scientology," Ron said then, "is doing very well across the 
world. If it were doing just a little bit better, there would be 
things not happening which are happening at this moment on the 
major scene of nations." He further stated that "Internationally 
the goal is to bring about a superior civilization in which peace 
can exist on earth. The modus operandi by which this is done is 
education in the actual simple facts of existence."

In this series of talks, Ron lays out the technology by which 
Scientologists(TM) can make Scientology better known and help to 
accomplish the purpose laid out above. The subjects he covers 
include the basic tenets and laws governing organizations, 
setting up and teaching introductory and advanced courses about 
Scientology, overcoming stage fright in addressing small or large 
groups, the step-by-step actions one can take to truly bring 
others to an understanding of Scientology, and much more.

These lectures were originally recorded in the new Academy 
premises of the Founding Church in Washington, DC, on equipment 
that is now long since obsolete. The most meticulous care and 
procedures have been used at all stages of production to restore 
the original recordings of these priceless lectures so they can 
be presented to you in Clearsound(TM) state-of-the-art sound 
technology.

It is our pleasure to do so now.

The Editors, 1989


====================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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




FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 01 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

==============================================

HOW TO CREATE AND INSTRUCT A PE COURSE, PART I

A lecture given on 18 October 1956


[Start of Lecture]

Thank you. Now, you may not have recognized it -- you may not 
have recognized it as such, you see -- but you are attending 
tonight a PE Course.

But a couple of little notes before I go on.

This PE Course is a very international affair, truthfully, very 
international. In fact, tonight as I stand here, I want to call 
to your attention that the international character of it is 
somewhat sullied, however.

You remember the king that was King of England when the United 
States revolutionized? That was George III, and if you look here 
carefully, I've brought back his head.

Well, the main difficulty that we're up against in teaching PE 
Courses is exactly that -- their international character -- 
because there are certain various things which intervene between 
public interest and sanity.

Now, I wouldn't mention any names, I wouldn't mention any cults, 
I wouldn't mention any activities at all.

However, the Roman Catholic church is an organization which has a 
great many people in its membership. And when we teach a PE 
Course to a large class that contains almost totally members of 
the Roman Catholic church, if we go heavily on the Roman Catholic 
church and give them a poor time, what happens? Next week we have 
no attendance, not because the people don't want to come, but 
because they've been told that they will be excommunicated and go 
to hell if they do! This makes it much more attractive, but they 
stay away.

Now, this international character is observable in small 
districts, in small countries and in big countries. And the 
handling of an international activity on a blunt, this-is-the-
way-you-do-it basis is almost impossible because it does not take 
into account the randomity in existing areas.

Now, it would fascinate you to know that today Scientology is 
active in nineteen separate countries. You don't hear much about 
that. In some of these countries numerically the activity is very 
small, but wherever Scientology has gone it has continued to 
flourish. And particularly since PE Courses have been introduced, 
they have cut a swath that nothing else has ever cut, including 
early Christianity.

The mere fact of teaching a PE Course is evidently one of the 
most civilizing activities that has been conducted here for a 
couple of thousand years. Now, that's quite fascinating to know 
that.

So let's start right out at the beginning of What is the goal of 
a PE Course?

Internationally the goal is to bring about a superior 
civilization in which peace can exist on earth. The modus 
operandi by which this is done is education in the actual, simple 
facts of existence. And a PE Course is equally welcome to the 
government of Ireland, it is welcome to the government of 
England, to the government of France, and oddly enough to an 
Arabian government and the Israel government. It is welcome to 
the British nation and to the Indian nation. Wherever you look 
you'll find these people ready to tear each other's throats out 
and both sides accept a PE Course, the data of which is contained 
in Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought. And they both accept 
these tenets as good roads and good weather, and here we are.

The Republicans, the Democrats, the Communists, the Socialists 
might also accept this, not then on a national basis, but a 
political basis.

However, I'm afraid that I have to report that we're not too 
successful in educating commissars. We are not too successful in 
educating high priests -- and other psychiatrists. We are not too 
successful in educating people with a pitch. Get that.

The people with a pitch conceive that you are going to subtract 
from their particular MEST -- which is what people are to them, 
MEST -- some of their vacuum lines. And I always tell them quite 
frankly, "We're not even vaguely interested in disrupting your 
control of your congregation or your populace. If you were to 
come and study this, you would see exactly how it is not likely 
to disrupt your control." And they fall for it and they come and 
they get all confused.

Scientology today is an effective mission in the Western world, 
highly effective. And the effectiveness of it is on the level of 
populace which, in the workaday world, runs the actual wheels of 
industry, commerce, agriculture and loafing in the various 
nations of the world.

We have an enormous appeal to the general public, an enormous 
appeal. But if you think we have an enormous appeal to 
intelligentsia, then your PE Course is going to fail. All right, 
let's not generalize on this, let me settle this problem once and 
for all of vested interests and pitching the substance matter of 
a PE Course so that people with a pitch won't start pitching at 
you.

You have to take the materials of Scientology and carefully edit 
them in your lectures so as not to start tromping on toes in the 
immediate front yard of some dinosaur or mammoth or overgrown 
bulldog.

You run it, then, good roads and good weather. Everybody's in 
favor of those -- good roads and good weather.

We don't, then, start talking in Ireland about the eighth 
dynamic, nor do we talk too much about the seventh dynamic.

Every night at 69 Merrion Square South in Dublin, Eire, somewhere 
between twenty-five and sixty Irish assemble and are taught a PE 
Course. Good roads and good weather. There is the first PE 
Course. That was the first point of origin of PE Courses. It 
originated because an HCO -- a Hubbard Communications Office -- 
was being established in Dublin and it had a great deal of extra 
space.

At first the government was very wroth, it was very upset, it was 
very mad that anybody should come in. And then it sent one of its 
"best" investigators -- some fellow way below minus zero -- and 
boy, he thought that course was wonderful. And he went back and 
he told his superiors that, and several of them came too. The 
course had the cleanest bill of health that was ever written up 
on a pratique. The government loves it.

People come from far cities in Ireland into Dublin and spend the 
whole week just so they can go evenings to the PE Course. For a 
little while the course staggered. Its administration was far 
less than optimum. The teaching was good, everything was good. 
The recruiting was wonderful but the administration was so poor 
that a person walking in the front door could not get registered. 
And if he did get registered, the registration card got lost. 
They lost more people there.

I went from Ireland down to Spain, and during the ensuing ten 
weeks the entire PE Course fell to pieces, until we sent over a 
very fine, bright young man -- a young Englishman -- to take over 
and take charge of it. And he had it back up into solvency and so 
on in a matter of three weeks.

We found many things. We piloted this course from its tiniest 
beginnings on through and developed various things about it. We 
developed it in such a way that it would continue to reach in to 
the workaday world of Ireland.

Some of our Instructors, for instance, on occasion have talked to 
business colleges in Ireland -- just gone over and given them a 
part PE Course, and then sold a number of Advanced Courses. 
They've even received pay from business colleges of a guinea a 
lecture to talk to the students of the business college. Very 
great interest, very great interest.

Ireland realizes that efficiency is desirable, it has so little 
of it. It really does have very little of it. The way an Irishman 
is accustomed to seeing a post filled adequately and its 
efficiency raised is to put five more Irishmen on the same post. 
That's their standard method of operation. And as a result, the 
American College of Personnel Efficiency -- which is the name of 
the Irish operation -- is a tremendous success. It is a financial 
success. It pays its own payrolls. It takes care of its own 
activities very nicely.

It is running now in a direction which quite interestingly 
forecasts a change in the Irish civilization. I'm not now just 
drawing a longbow, it's already being felt. If a taxi driver 
around town hasn't heard of the American College of Personnel 
Efficiency, other taxi drivers would think he was stupid, which 
he is.

Scientology, of course, is an Irish science developed by an 
Irishman. That'll inevitably become the legend. Probably it was a 
fellow by the name of Saint Patrick who drove all the 
psychiatrists out of Ireland. That's the way these things evolve.

But it is factually so that the civilization of Ireland, if it 
changes radically, will have changed because of the PE Course.

What we are doing abroad today is much greater than what we are 
doing in the United States of America. We are bidding up toward 
the principal goodwill American activity abroad. It's very 
fascinating. Because we don't talk about being an American 
activity. We talk about being a local activity, accidentally 
associated with an American of -- I don't know, pick your country 
-- of Arabian descent. I have acquired more ancestors! My only 
European ancestry actually, however is, actually -- just to be 
absolutely factual about it -- French, Scotch, English and Irish. 
Anyway...

The truth is that the only thing you can export with success is 
an idea. It has to be a good idea, and you can't export the idea 
that the only country on earth is the country exporting the idea. 
A chap by the name of Schicklgruber tried this and there were 
several bodies lying around at the end of the trial. We can't 
teach the Scot -- I think you'll recognize this as an 
impossibility -- we can't teach the Scot that the English is a 
superior beast. We can't do that. The Scot will not buy this.

Neither can we teach the Englishman that the Irishman is the 
superior entity. We can't teach the French that the only good 
ideas there are, are Irish. Now, France might be able to teach 
the rest of the world that the only place there are any fashions 
are in Paris, but this is a different thing. That's simply 
teaching a single facet of superiority. No country buys the total 
superiority of another nation.

We're very fond of believing that in America -- that the 
exportation of the superiority of the American is a possibility. 
We believe that is a possibility. Actually, Americans are very 
acceptable abroad -- well, not American government officials. I 
mean Americans. There is a difference. Don't think there isn't a 
difference. The people who hang around the embassies and -- or 
the commercial attachés, and so forth -- actually only function 
in many foreign countries simply by the grace of American 
businesses in those countries. They would never have a commercial 
report if it were not for the local manager of the Ford agency. 
He has all of the lines.

The American government is too big. It has too many guns. It has 
too much money. It's a colossus. It's something to be afraid of.

South Africa, for instance, could not ask a reasonable favor from 
the United States of America, because there would be strings 
attached, they say. But man, can they ask favors of an individual 
American. Now, that's an interesting difference, isn't it?

So an American abroad today has a tendency to be -- well, he's 
Gary Cooper or somebody, you know. They know who Americans are. 
And the American government, however, that's something that lives 
on another planet.

Give you some kind of an idea of the impossibility of exporting 
the superiority of any one being -- give you just a little idea 
of this: A bunch of friends of mine up around Coppermine, Lord 
knows where up to the north; you go just a couple of feet further 
north than Coppermine and you bump your nose flat against the 
North Pole. There are Eskimos who occasionally descend -- despite 
the cautions of the Northwest Mounted Police -- into 
cannibalistic activities. And of course the police up there are 
fairly reasonable about it because they realize a man that far 
north gets hungry.

But these chaps used to use a word which was of some interest to 
me. I won't try to pronounce it for you because Eskimo is much 
more complex than any other language I know of on earth, and I 
don't think there's a white man alive that knows it. He knows 
some of it, but he doesn't know the language called "Eskimo."

And they rather protect this language by its complexity, and so 
on. And I'd hear them using this word that was something like 
glumb-bu-glm-glumb-bu-glm, and "That fellow over there, he's 
glumb-bu-glm-bu-glm," and so on. And I finally got curious 
because I noticed they were pointing to people who loafed and who 
did nothing: people who didn't hunt, people who didn't support 
their families, people who did nothing, who had to be waited on 
if anything happened at all.

And so I said, "What does glumb-bu-glm-glumb-bu-glm mean?" And 
they said, "White man."

We have done something very, very successful. This talk is not 
about, you understand, the international overseas activity of 
Scientology. I'm just pointing out something to you. We're doing 
something very successful. We are not exporting the vast 
superiority of the American or an American technology. We are not 
using any of the controls which would normally be expected to be 
used by an American organization to impress other people how 
great and mighty and wise it was.

Our people abroad and your fellow Scientologists abroad are of 
the nations, for the most part, that they inhabit. I admit that I 
have to tell these people every now and then to be loyal to their 
own governments. I have to tell them, "You're not a citizen of 
Scientology. You're a citizen of Lebanon." It's a difficult thing 
for them to get through their heads. They say, "All right, we'll 
act that way if you say so, Ron."

But it is a test of a PE Course. It's a test, a terrific test. In 
America today we are being very careful not to permit ideological 
teachings to be broadcast far and wide. We confine them 
exclusively to our best schools. We teach communism practically 
nowhere outside the university. We are not a people bombarded by 
a great number of ideologies.

It's very, very fascinating that foreign nations are not in this 
category today. The vast sums appropriated by the Kremlin to 
teach people communism would stagger you. They have agent 
provocateurs and educators and experts afloat in all of these 
countries who are doing a terrific job. They're terrific trained 
men. They have literature, they've got the know-how, they know 
all of the appeals, they've got experience. After all, they had a 
tremendously successful revolution once. They're still swell-
headed about it. They're still appropriating money for this 
educational program the length and breadth of the world. We don't 
let them in here, but that doesn't mean they don't exist abroad.

You would be amazed at the number of political philosophies and 
educational philosophies being taught in Spain, for instance, a 
very great country.

Communism is taught as an everyday occurrence. At least half of 
the people are full-blown, dyed-in-the-wool, utterly convinced 
communists. They have anarchists, completely different from 
communists. Communists only depend on anarchists to get a 
foothold. They have republicans -- the popular, modern philosophy 
of Spain since it won. And they have this and they have that, and 
they have this and that. And you never saw so many things or so 
many people that were so anxious to teach people about things.

And in that kind of an atmosphere a PE Course is the one that 
wins! Now, if that isn't a test of something, I'd like to know 
it! We're even doing better than the Irish National Educational 
Program. They insist that everybody learn Irish, the native 
language. They insist they listen to Irish on the radio. They 
insist that they sing Irish songs and learn to play harps. Suzie 
bought a harp for me because she wanted me to be in practice if I 
got knocked off! But when we looked at the harp very carefully we 
found it had been made in Wales and there were no harps available 
for sale in Ireland. It looks to me like that government program 
wasn't so good.

And yet millions are spent on that program by experts in the 
government. And how many pounds get spent on the PE Course down 
at 69 Merrion Square? Oh, about fifty pounds a week is its total 
payroll and outlay. And it's successful, and these others aren't.

Now, I am talking about countries that are a long way away from 
the United States, and each one of them has its peculiarities and 
each one of them has its problems.

But these things are a long way away from America. I wonder what 
it is in America that a PE Course (1) has to step around, and (2) 
can help. I wonder if these things vary from district to district 
and area to area. And I wonder if it might not be true that 
Americans are slightly less observant of the exact problems on 
which they're sitting in their own particular district and the 
things which they themselves have to avoid to keep from stepping 
on toes. I wonder if that could be the case.

It's very easy to look a long way and see much. It is sometimes 
hard to look right here and see anything. This has a great deal 
in it. Because it's an oddity that Scientology and PE Courses are 
going better abroad than they are at home.

Now, it'd be very easy to assign this to the peculiarities of the 
American nature. Be very, very easy to do that. You'd just get 
rid of the whole thing, dump it in the ditch and you wouldn't 
have to worry about it anymore.

I'm afraid though, that isn't true. The only thing peculiar I 
find out about the American nature is how peculiarly similar it 
is to any other human nature. The only peculiar thing I find out 
about America as a whole is the fact that its natural resources 
and ability to produce have far outstretched other nations, at 
the expense perhaps of some of its culture. At the expense of 
some of its culture.

You find in Spain, for instance, oddly enough, better worker 
morale, better general morale than you find in America, just in 
general. Nobody ever retires in Spain. If you were to tell 
somebody that they had to retire or something they'd think you 
were crazy. "What's this new idea you're trying to import?" We 
wouldn't even be able to sell it in a PE Course. Spain has never 
been indoctrinated with the idea that there's a virtue in 
loafing. Now, that's a great peculiarity because we -- close to 
the Latin countries -- rather believe in this oddity of the 
Mexican with his hat down over his face, sleeping against a wall 
as a national symbol because we see it on everything. Boy, that's 
not Spain.

It's quite amazing you know. You've got your cookery, you've got 
your saddle harness, trappings, most of your ideas of conveyance, 
all from Spain. You can't even buy pepper in Spain. It's very 
difficult; a specially-imported item -- and you're peculiar 
because you're trying to buy pepper. It has no ... Spain hasn't 
anything in common with Latin America. I don't know how come we 
ever tied them together. They don't even both speak Spanish. You 
ever hear any Argentinean? Yeah, it's a real interesting 
language, but it's not Spanish.

Anyway. Here's the Spanish nation: it hasn't learned yet that it 
shouldn't work. Here's the Italian nation: the same thing. The 
French nation is exactly on a reverse polarity: they've never 
heard of work. The Irish nation have heard of it too well, and 
the English nation are willing to learn about it if there was 
anybody in the management characteristics that would steer them 
in that direction.

And what happens is in all of these countries the various 
activities are varied from the American view, of course, but not 
at all dissimilar. Not at all dissimilar, their variations. But 
you haven't wild differences.

There's nothing peculiar about an American. There's nothing 
really strange about his ideas of work. He just has ideas on the 
subject. But there is something strange about his ideas of 
education that are so strange it's a wonder any of us can read 
and write. It has become the most peculiarly complicated subject 
about which nobody knows anything in the world.

We have educated with such ardure, with such thoroughness, at 
such a fantastic tone level, that our children today come home 
from school and ask us how to spell "cat." They're only, you see, 
in the seventh grade.

Look at their writing. Schoolboy writing I thought was bad 
enough, but in the last decade it no longer compares favorably 
with copperplate writing of 1860. It no longer compares favorably 
with that. In fact, you can't read it at all.

We do have, temperamentally perhaps, no wild difference between 
ourselves and the nations which gave us our genetic lines. But we 
do have some oddities on the educational line, and it may be 
these more than anything else which hold us up a bit in PE work.

We have been made to resist school, and in foreign nations it is 
considered a privilege to go to school. Go to school, go to jail: 
that's about the same thing to an American boy, not much 
difference. And you ask him to come to "class" to take a "course" 
and he doesn't respond in droves. He's been there.

So I would look forward to a longer program of civilization in 
America than in Europe, mostly because of this training factor 
and no other.

So it means that a PE Course in the United States would be 
successful, but not as successful per capita unless we carefully 
review the exact conditions of the environment in which we are 
working, and discover (1) what factors we should avoid, and (2) 
what we can really help. And maybe we've never studied those in 
America. Maybe with a long view I see them much more clearly in 
Ireland or England or Lebanon. Maybe.

Maybe there are things that we should avoid in America that we're 
too American to avoid. Could be, could be. But there's possibly 
something in this.

I think the PE Course in America has to be tailored up to fit the 
American scene like nothing has ever fit it. I think that is 
still, in the main, to be built as a technology. I think we're 
starting from scratch. But I know what our entrance-point is. Our 
entrance-point is the education of educators. I know that is our 
entrance-point. The education of educators.

Until they are educated it is highly unlikely that a long-
distance program of American education would be entirely 
successful. So in the interim -- in the interim -- we have to dub 
in another program, at the same time educating educators.

I don't know if you realize it completely, but the first Logics -
- The Logics, actually, all of them, of Dianetics -- are the 
science of education. Those are the axioms of education. With a 
few more that immediately define education, no more than that, we 
have it made. No difficulty should accrue then; we do have this 
business of education down.

But the trouble with education in America is it entails the word 
school. And it's very probable that an individual would take much 
more kindly to something that avoided this, avoided school. It's 
very probable.

But if you're going to avoid school, how will you run a PE 
Course? Because it's a training course. I don't stand here and 
tell you I've got this problem solved. I tell you we're just at 
the entrance of a whole series of problems.

Our people can at least read. That isn't true of many of the 
people taking PE Courses outside the United States. Well, if they 
have this, that's quite an advantage. That's quite an advantage. 
We should make use of it.

Exactly how we get over this hump of you say, "Come to school," 
and the fellow backs up at light speed, I don't know. It may not 
even be true that people are avoiding school. It may be true that 
they only avoid a certain type of school. If we found this out 
exactly, then we would know what school they were avoiding and 
not be it.

If we would look over the enrollment figures of adult education 
and find out what subject was most heavily subscribed to in 
polytechnical colleges, adult education in adult night schools, 
adult high school -- if we got the most heavily attended class 
and said the PE Course was that, we'd have it, temporarily, as 
long as we didn't say "class" too loudly.

I have even thought of coaching people so that they would know 
how to go to school. That's a quiet entrance-point: Run a 
coaching course so that they could study something.

But it is an entrance level. Now, we could take the United 
States, now that we've come home on this -- you know, we've been 
looking abroad, now we're looking at the United States -- we 
could take the United States itself and consider it to have 
certain problems which were common denominators to all the United 
States. And then we would have to look at the individual areas 
statewide.

I myself have lived in Connecticut. A young writer, I lived in 
Connecticut. And I know the (quote) "Connecticut native" 
(unquote) is quite different from the Arkansas native. I know 
that for sure. There's quite a difference. The ferocious 
independence of the Connecticuter and the professional indolence 
of the Arkansaser are not compatible. Both however have their 
very good points and their charm. Therefore, it probably would 
not be possible to lay down something that would be good for all 
districts and areas of the United States. It may be, you know, 
that the United States is actually a number of nations held 
together by common transportation and television.

And the first thing that I would teach anybody who was going to 
start a PE Course would not be to Q-and-A with what I did. I 
looked abroad and went abroad. But remember, I organized and 
taught PE Courses abroad.

Now, what I'm asking you not to Q-and-A with is this: You're in 
San Francisco, and you model a PE Course exactly for Denver and 
teach it in San Francisco. Now, I'm not going to model a PE 
Course for Dublin and try to teach it in New York, because there 
would only be the New York police force that would attend it.

Why is this?

It's because there must be a common meeting ground in the R of 
the ARC triangle before A and C can take place. There must be an 
agreement between the course and its area, its administration and 
the administration of the area, before it can occur as a 
communication medium. There must be.

We almost emptied a course in Ireland on Tuesday night because on 
Monday night we had a young English girl -- a very, very 
brilliant auditor -- lose her head while lecturing. And having 
been cautioned very carefully not to mention the Roman Catholic 
church, she promptly explained to everybody that they ought to be 
"Angelicans" because she was one. Have you got that? And we 
emptied the course. I mean, that was that. That was the end of 
that week.

Well, the funny part of it is that when you're teaching a PE 
Course, if you don't ever mention the fellow becoming a 
Scientologist, it becomes inevitable. You're not superman, then, 
asking somebody else to be you. You're asking somebody else to be 
better what he already is. And when he learns how to do this, he 
is of course a Scientologist.

Now, I can tell you some of the blunders that can be made. And 
one of those blunders is to continue to appeal to the 
intelligentsia -- to publish in intelligentsia media.

You publish and disseminate to people who do things. The 
intelligentsia only talks about people who do things. That's the 
definition of the intelligentsia. They're people who talk about 
people who do things. You got it?

Now, this is very interesting. Many people consider themselves 
intelligentsia who aren't. That's just a difference of definition 
of intelligentsia.

Scientology already contains a very top strata of brilliance. I 
know some Scientologist who is very low on the critical level 
looks around and he says, "Oh, no. My God, don't tell me that I 
am looking at the most intelligent upper five thousand of the ten 
thousand most intelligent people in the world. Don't do that." 
Well, I won't do that. I won't say it. Don't have to, because 
it's a fact. It happens to be. It happens to be.

And amongst Scientologists there are many who have thought of 
themselves quite a bit as members of the intelligentsia. They 
have thought of themselves in this category. They are the smarter 
people, and so forth, and they look around.

But I'll tell you a singular difference. Their friends, and so 
forth, aren't doing anything. Their friends aren't 
Scientologists. They merely talk about it. That's true, isn't it? 
This rather singles them out of the pack, doesn't it? It 
certainly does.

I don't tell you this for any other reason than that I consider 
it factual that the Scientologists today do represent a terrific 
upper strata.

Of course, I could say about myself like Fred Allen said about 
himself right after the war. He came on his program and he 
explained that due to the war all of the great comedians had 
fallen away, so as to leave him on a pinnacle. Maybe that's the 
case with Scientologists, you see. It could be. It's undoubtedly 
the case with me, you see?

Because as far as mathematics are concerned, I can remember some 
old boys way back when, see -- in terms of logic and 
extrapolation and a few other things -- that could think so many 
rings around me, I felt like I'd been played a game with by being 
ringed with pretzels, you know? It was just, wow! You know, whoa! 
I haven't seen them around. I just haven't seen them around 
lately. It isn't that I'm seeing fewer people. Something has 
happened, somehow.

And maybe something's happened that leaves us, not on a pinnacle, 
but certainly a plateau. Got the idea? Evidently something has. I 
wouldn't know or attempt to plumb the exact chemistry and 
reaction of human beings throughout the world today, but I do 
know that as we look around, we find the strata of leadership 
less and less apparent. What they would call a wise action today 
would have been considered a rather stupid one a decade or two 
ago. You see, there's something at work here.

And we, being the brighter people, knowing more about it here and 
there, have a great tendency to confuse brightness with class. 
And you find the brighter people are not necessarily members of 
one or another class. Remember that. That's a very important 
thing.

You will not get all of your PE Course attendance from the lowest 
laboring level or the highest social strata. You will get the 
brightest ones in the lowest and the brightest ones in the 
highest. You get the brightest ones.

The people who simply sit there and read your ad are not as good 
as the people who sit and read your ad and wish they knew more 
about it.

The people who sit there and read your ad and wish they knew more 
about it are not as good as those who sit there and read your ad, 
wish they knew more about it and call you up. Those people are 
capable of reaching a bit.

But they're not as well-off as the people who sit there and read 
your ad, wish they knew more about it, call up, make an 
appointment, come down and see you and go through the course.

That is a mechanism of superselection in itself. That's quite a 
mechanism. And it means that you eventually wind up with the 
brighter ones, no matter what social strata they're from. You 
always do, by the way. The brighter ones and the braver ones.

So there really isn't any hope of running through a PE Course at 
once a totality of any given section of the population. It would 
almost be catastrophic if you did so. The people who will reach 
that far are capable of leadership, and when you're through with 
them, they're fitted for it. Got the difference? They're capable 
of it and they're fitted for it. And that's why it goes rapidly.

But I feel that there must be some small flaw in the way we have 
begun to approach it so far in America on this selectivity, 
because we have not followed such an exact pattern. But already 
we have learned that it does no good in America to advertise. It 
doesn't do any good to advertise.

We get everybody we get by word of mouth. You understand, I'm 
merely talking on percentiles. Something like three out of fifty 
or three out of twenty-five come in because of ads. That is our 
average for all over the country.

We must then, to start a PE Course, do this: We must find a 
strata of people who can reach, reach them, get them to reach, 
and then know that they will reach others. And then we will be a 
success. And that is in essence the formula of recruiting a PE 
Course. And if you avoid the pet blasphemies and bugaboos of an 
area -- discover them and avoid them -- and if you find out what 
in an area is most in need of help and has the most interest 
centered on it in an area, and parallel that, your PE Course will 
be a tremendous success.

America ran out of frontiers a long time ago, until we found 
another one, America.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]




FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 02 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

===============================================

HOW TO CREATE AND INSTRUCT A PE COURSE, PART II

A lecture given on 18 October 1956


[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

Now that I've talked all around the subject, I've braced myself 
up now to take a solid tackle at the subject itself: How do you 
teach and administer a PE Course?

(1) You establish what to avoid in the area, (2) you establish 
what you can help in the area. And let me add to that, (3) you 
teach -- while teaching a PE Course (according to public advice) 
-- something that is a privilege to attend.

And one of the formulas is to find out what people still respect. 
You can add that up and think it over any way you please. To make 
it more specific than this, however, is to invite you to make a 
mistake.

One, two, three -- what you avoid; what you can help; and then 
you run, according to its name, something it is a privilege to 
attend.

And having done this, it is usually a good thing to inform the 
Central Organization what you are doing and to give them a couple 
of dollars to coax them into mailing an announcement to the 
people in your immediate area. This is somewhat impressive. The 
organization in Washington sends to the people of Riverside who 
are intimate with Scientology -- that they have on their mailing 
list -- an announcement from Washington. You get the idea? Some 
such activity. They know then that something is happening.

Now, one of the biggest mistakes that can be made in running a PE 
Course is not to let me in on it. You would admit the lowest 
laborer in your area, so it isn't too much to ask that you send 
me an invitation too. The reason for that is I get continual 
questions asked me: "Is there a PE Course running in this area?" 
And if I don't know you're there, I can't say yes.

Now, when an auditor asks that, that means he's going to set one 
up. And that means you'd get competition that would suddenly 
spring into view, and competition is not necessarily good. Two PE 
Courses run poorly side by side.

In the first place, we don't have enough auditors to cover the 
areas that are to be covered, and in the second place, by pulling 
everything in toward a centralized activity the course is big 
enough to support the auditors that are running it. You follow 
that? Teamwork.

You'll be busy enough fighting city hall or somebody for the 
first few weeks of play. You don't need competitors in your 
immediate vicinity who know as much about it as you do. So, 
invite me to attend too.

Now, having put out the word, by whatever means, that you're 
running one, be sure that you have administration to take care of 
one. That's often a little step that people omit. We omitted it 
in 1950. Some people can remember this I see.

How do you get the word out? Well, I'd told you one suggestion: 
Send a couple of dollars to Silver Spring, Maryland, and ask them 
to inform anybody they have on the mailing list in your immediate 
area that you're running a PE Course, starting such and such a 
date, at such and such a place, run by such and such a person. 
You got the idea? They print up a little card and send it out. 
All right.

The next one has to do with advertising in the local papers. Now, 
advertising in a big-city daily is a catastrophe. It's not just a 
mistake; it's a catastrophe. It takes your bankroll without 
giving you any students. Nobody ever reads the classified 
sections except the proofreaders and the people who want you to 
read the classified sections. I don't know why, but classified 
sections are no longer drooled over by the general public. They 
apparently avoid them. And the number of course attendees that 
you get out of running something in the "Los Angeles Daily Slime" 
-- "Slimes," excuse me -- will be disheartening.

It's very expensive advertising; it doesn't cover to the people 
you want it to cover to.

And we get here the biggest single problem in the conduct of a PE 
Course: How to get the word out, initially. If you get enough 
people going through the course, they will get enough people 
going through the course -- particularly since you now have 
available for sale to your people in the course Scientology: 
Fundamentals of Thought. This is a big thing. Don't depend on 
people who come there and sit down and just listen to you once, 
out of a fog, to pick up something that they take away and tell 
their next-door neighbor straightly. Lord knows what they tell 
their next-door neighbor about this. But if they have a book -- 
they can let them read a book -- why, the fellow can comm lag his 
way through the first chapter and discover that there is 
something here.

Now, there's another factor that is avoided there, is the contest 
value of friendship. Because Joe is going is no reason for Bill 
to go, but if they both read the same book they'll both go. This 
is quite amazing. It takes, then, a third party, you might say, 
to create a good agreement there.

There is another book, The Problems of Work, which is straightly 
aimed at the PE Course attendees. These are inexpensive books. 
The sale of them helps finance your PE Course. You can buy these 
books for a 50 percent discount and that permits you to put 50 
percent of the gross sales of each book into your PE Course 
exchequer.

But getting the word out initially is difficult because there 
isn't anybody there, perhaps, into whose hands you could place a 
book.

Now remember, the only thing you're trying to do initially is to 
have some people that you can talk to and into whose hands you 
can place a few pamphlets or books. That's all you're trying to 
do. You already answered these first three things. You know, 
then, what your program will be. You may not call it a Personnel 
Efficiency Course, but you will call it something. You will avoid 
the things you should avoid in the area, and you will have 
something that's a privilege for them to hear and know about. 
We've already got that set up. That's the program. That's the 
overall policy of our PE Course. That isn't what we teach; that's 
just the policy from which we teach. And you set that up and you 
remember it, and it becomes a common denominator to what you say 
to these people.

Now, all you have to have is a number of people into whose hands 
you can somehow ingratiate a small book. That's very simple, 
isn't it? -- since those people don't have to dislodge themselves 
from the place they are to where you are. That isn't necessarily 
a step that has to be taken the first time. If you try to take 
this step the first time you're liable to be in difficulties. 
Your PE Course is not likely to be well attended perhaps, and 
perhaps it is.

There are all sorts of idiosyncrasies, by the way. Trying to give 
this course free in New York City is difficult, because a New 
Yorker knows that everything that is free is no good. It is not a 
privilege to attend anything that is free. It's only a privilege 
to attend something for which you pay. And we've started the 
policy of making people pay for the free course, then we get 
people to attend.

Elsewhere, they attend a free course, and then the first course 
they attend that they pay for is the Advanced Course. But 
remember, this is only the first requisite. The first requisite 
there: You have your policy, you know what your program is then 
from the policy, and you merely want to get a number of people 
interested in this subject and get their names and addresses, and 
be able to collect yourself a group in this fashion.

So therefore, it is a very logical thing to find places where 
people sit down that you can stand up and say something. That's 
an easy one, isn't it? You could actually put a list of places 
where this happens. This happens at YMCAs. This happens at 
women's clubs. They're always starved for speakers. This happens 
at various group meetings of the Kiwanis Clubs, you see, the 
Rotarians, all sorts of things.

Although I will admit that I have appeared before the Optimist 
Club, have given a very nice talk and have distributed a bunch of 
Self Analysis and have never heard from any of them. This I will 
admit. But they didn't expect to have anything happen; they 
expected everybody to come there and be optimistic.

That is only one form of approach, you see. You can also simply 
disseminate the information that you're holding a course, have a 
place to hold it, wait for people to turn up, hand them out some 
literature on it, sell them some books, give them the first 
lesson, tell them to be back tomorrow night -- something on this 
order, you see. You can also do it very straightforwardly.

It doesn't matter how you do it. Whatever method you use, be 
effective, please. Don't be ineffective, and don't give a PE 
Course with two people in it for one week and then give up. That 
only tells you that you haven't accomplished the first step, 
which is to get a book into the hands of a lot of people. That's 
the first step. Do you see that?

You would be amazed -- and us old Dianeticists could tell you 
better than others, if you're new at this business -- how much 
pounding it takes to get any kind of a reaction at all. I have 
known old Dianeticists to sit on people's chests with Book One 
and beat them in the face with it for hours on end before...

Now, there's an oddity about this program. Dianetics is well 
known. It's much better known than you think it is. It's much 
better known than we in Dianetics and Scientology believe it is, 
because we never contact it to amount to anything. We have 
avoided it to some degree. It's fascinating.

In the first place, we haven't had the book. It was owned by 
people whose political appointments were slightly questionable. 
And that book has just been taken out of their hands, with its 
electrotype plates, spare copies and lists of addresses of 
bookstores that buy it, and is now totally in our possession. We 
own this book again. And this has only been a matter of the last 
week, as I speak to you here, that we own this book. Now we're 
just this moment going out on a program of placing this book in 
as many bookstores as it should be in.

The book, by the way, after six years of neglect, still had a 
sales level in bookstores comparable to the routine best seller. 
This is the most fantastic thing you ever heard of. No book six 
years old ever sells anywhere. And it's not available in 
secondhand bookstores. In spite of the tremendous number of them 
that have been sold, you can't buy one secondhand!

One of the reasons -- I don't like to mention names and so I 
won't -- but there is a large company called the Nelson Company 
whose vested interest is the sale of Bibles. And we wondered at 
first why they were so cool toward publishing anything, until we 
received some of their literature and saw that the Nelson Bible 
was the thing that everybody should use to hold down the center 
tablecloth in the parlor. And then we understood.

Psychiatry and the Bible have closed terminals. They had to unite 
forces, being aware of our presence in the world. Factually true. 
A very odd thing that a Bible publishing house would suddenly 
acquire, lock, stock and barrel, a psychiatric-textbook house, 
yet that's what happened. And in that purchase, Dianetics: The 
Modern Science of Mental Health dropped into the lap of this 
Bible company. And they got rid of it like it was burning up the 
joint. And so it did come back into our hands. We were able to 
purchase it and its electrotype plates, and we are putting it 
back in the bookstores where it has been carefully restrained all 
these years. So we'll be hearing more of Dianetics. This is for 
sure.

We're hearing lots about Dianetics right now. I don't know how 
many letters we get. It's a very small number, but we still get 
letters: "We have just read the book Dianetics: The Modern 
Science of Mental Health." I don't know what it is. It's some 
very low number; maybe one a week or maybe even two or three a 
month. One a day?

Male voice: One.

Yeah, about one a day. That's a pretty interesting figure. And it 
isn't even being distributed.

But that, we have learned -- that I have learned -- is the source 
of public interest: the published book, the disseminated book. 
Any book will do as a disseminating medium, but a paperback is 
not as good as a hard-cover book. In spite of the fact that a 
hard-cover book actually costs more money. A paperback doesn't do 
as well for you as it might.

So, what do we get to here? The HASI London, the Founding Church, 
Washington, DC., have both learned the hard way. And oddly 
enough, I have learned the hard way. Imagine me having to learn 
this, you see. I did though; I had to learn it. I cognited over 
in London on it -- almost took my head off. I usually try to be a 
couple of hundred yards away when I cognite. It took actually 
eight months of reduced activity in the HASI London to make me 
look and look hard.

Now, we had advertised. We had advertised in various publications 
during that eight months. We had given away free pamphlets. We 
had done this; we had done that. We had tried all sorts of 
tricks, but we couldn't figure out why our volume of action was 
low. Until we suddenly realized that Mr. Derrick Ridgeway, the 
publisher of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and 
Self Analysis in England, had gone bankrupt about eight months 
before, and all of the books had been pulled out of the 
bookstores and had not been in the bookstores for eight months.

And I looked at this and I said, "No! Don't tell me that 
advertising, don't tell me that heavy press relations, newspaper 
stories and other things do not influence our business one 
shilling -- but that the disappearance of a hardcover or a 
paperback book out of the bookstores can be fatal to it!"

And we went at once on a program of straightening this out and 
our business is back up. It took that to teach me. It was an 
interesting thing to learn -- for me to learn, for an author to 
learn. It was not something I ordinarily would've figured out.

In other words, what I'm telling you is this: Two organizations 
in America and England have learned this the hard way -- that you 
cannot do business without the dissemination of the basic 
publications of Dianetics and Scientology. If you think you can, 
try it. We'll have just as much bad luck, I am sure, as we had on 
both sides of the Atlantic. This is a fascinating point. This is 
a very fascinating point -- not one that I would've suspected or 
put this much weight on: that the public has faith in a hard-
cover book! But if they don't have it as mass in their hands, 
they don't have any faith in it at all!

Now, a paperback book, if it's nicely printed, is a poor 
substitute but it is a substitute. And below that, there is no 
substitute. Do you follow me very closely here?

I will tell you, then, that for success in a given area to take 
place in the absence of your bookstores locally stocking and 
selling the publications of Dianetics and Scientology is a feat 
to end all feats. So this becomes part -- and there's no pitch 
here; I'm just talking to you -- this becomes part of the 
activities of dissemination and recruiting for a PE Course: that 
you make sure, over their dead bodies, protests, apathy, that 
they have a couple of your books sitting in their window and that 
they will sell them to people. You got it? That's necessary.

It doesn't matter if you get the books and put them in the 
bookstore on consignment, to be paid for when they sell them, but 
they must be there! The public doesn't believe in something that 
isn't for sale in the local bookstore. And if they can't find it 
in the library it isn't believable either. So it looks like 
you'll have to put a couple of copies of several of these books 
in the local library so there won't be too big a waiting list -- 
but so there will be some waiting list.

And you have to go up and say to the librarian, "Now, these books 
are of considerable interest. You probably have had a copy of one 
or another of these things, but they're probably all worn out. 
And the local chapter has decided to donate, as a public-spirited 
gesture, these hard-cover volumes to your shelves. And make sure 
they go on them. Don't put them anyplace else. And file them 
under 'self-help."'

Now, we'll have to look up the exact library filing that these 
things should be under, because they tend to put them under 
psychiatry. And actually, when I'm cruising around the country 
one way or the other, I pass by one of these books on the 
psychiatric shelf and I shiver. You know, it's bad taste. It's 
just bad taste, that's all. It doesn't belong there. There's no 
relationship between psychiatry and that.

I tell you there's no relationship because we have a goal the 
psychiatrists don't have. I invite you sometime to go and talk to 
a psychiatrist or psychologist and ask him what he intends to do 
with people and wait in vain for him to tell you he intends to 
make them well, make them more sane or make them more able. 
You'll wait in vain. So you don't want to get that association 
going. You want to stay in the field of ability, which is the 
next point.

When you place them in the library, don't let them associate. And 
when you talk about it in the public, don't let it associate! You 
talk about ability. You talk about "people who are unable are 
also sick," but don't talk about people who come to you should be 
ill. Don't give it a medical approach. You sell ability one way 
or the other. You sell capability one way or the other.

Now, there is your book program. You've got to sell books to 
people; you've got to have books to sell people; you've got to 
put books into the local bookstores; you've got to put the books 
in the local library. You've got to do these things or nobody 
believes you're there. Because they go and ask to be told by the 
shelf before they're told by a human being. You see that?

Now, part of your dissemination course has nothing whatsoever to 
do with going near the press. Leave it alone, because it is a via 
which is not reliable. It does not express value or public 
opinion. That is our experience. It is interested in 
sensationalism. And that people's IQ can change when generation 
after generation of mental experts claimed it could not; that 
people who were sick in bed are now walking and well; that pilots 
who long since should have been retired, can fly -- that isn't 
sensational enough!

What is a newspaper definition of sensationalism? "He's dead in 
an awfully messy way!"

So, no matter what -- now you listen to me -- no matter what a 
reporter says he's going to do for you, no matter how well he 
says he's going to do it for you, no matter how much he says he's 
on your side, close the door quietly in his puss. He has never 
given anybody a break, not just us. The only way to lick this 
might be along some way of actually writing to the local news 
services, and so forth, and forbidding them to publish anything. 
Of course, you'd get something published.

We have never been helped by advertising. We have never been 
helped by newspaper stories. The number of queries which have 
come in have been the same before and after good and bad national 
publicity. And we've had plenty of it -- plenty of national 
publicity. And we've had quite a bit of good publicity, except 
nobody ever bothers to clip this out and send it to me. It's 
fascinating the amount of words that have been written on this 
subject without changing one iota the practice of a single 
auditor, without changing in the least the enrollment into the 
Academy or clinic. It's fascinating how little effect the 
newspaper has on anything.

It was once true that if you weren't mentioned in the newspapers, 
you weren't. That era has gone. Today, if you're not in a book, 
you're not. You get the difference?

As far as television and radio is concerned, they're a lot more 
work than they ought to be, but we have successfully run radio 
programs. We've run fifteen-minute radio programs in a station 
that couldn't be heard more than two blocks away from Hollywood 
and Vine. And we've packed them in 125 a night on fifteen-minute 
platters that I made on Dianetics. Tiny little area, didn't 
amount to anything, not very many people could hear it. It was a 
little classical music station nobody would ever pay any 
attention to. And for sixty-four consecutive nights we put on a 
program fifteen minutes long. And we got on an average of 125 new 
people every night walking in. So it can be done.

Radio is evidently a fairly good media, or was. Maybe people 
still listen to more radio than they listen to TV, who knows. But 
it has proven to be a good medium.

Now, there's no particular reason why they have to listen to my 
silver oratorical tones -- you can talk too! If I ever want to 
teach you anything, it's that. You can talk. It doesn't matter 
how badly or how well you talk, so long as you talk. The only 
thing that's wrong is to shut up. That's in agreement with being 
dead! You see that?

Every once in a while somebody writes me and asks me for a 
fifteen-minute-radio-program tape. Well, I'm looking at several 
people right here, right now, who have done this individually and 
didn't know that anybody else ever did. But this is the commonest 
request I get through the mails. It's real common -- why don't I 
make a fifteen-minute tape of something or other.

Well, I made sixty-four fifteen-minute tapes one time in two, 
four, five days. Sixty-four fifteen-minute talks in five days. 
They drew 125 people a night. But what was I saying? I was just 
saying good roads, good weather: "Dianetics is a good thing. Come 
on down and listen to a talk on it. There is some hope." And boy, 
they came in.

Now, what would be your dissemination program? I'll ten you very 
briefly. The effective program! Make that your dissemination 
program. It's whatever works, see. However it works.

And when they get there, what do you do? You administrate within 
an inch of your life. You understand? Don't get the idea that you 
can exist as a communication line without being a terminal. Don't 
get the idea that pieces of paper and bodies can fly in, in your 
direction, carom around and bounce off, fortuitously landing in 
the proper chair at the proper place. They don't.

It is success or failure in auditing whether or not one can 
handle bodies or not handle them. If you can handle and place 
bodies, you'll be a successful auditor. If you can't, you'll be a 
flop.

If you can handle and place successfully, bodies, in terms of 
groups -- which are only composed of individuals -- your PE 
Course will be a success. If you can't, it'll be a flop. And the 
first step toward handling them is good, even, orderly 
administration. You think it's too much work? No, it's too much 
work not to have good administration.

When they walk in, get them to sign an enrollment paper. Make 
them enroll; don't let them walk in. Sign them up. Put them in 
the files. Sometime during the course, talk to them, interview 
them, put the results of the interview on the piece of paper. 
File it carefully. Give them tests before, tests afterwards. What 
kind of tests? I don't care!

You can't teach a PE Course without raising people's IQ -- it's 
not possible. You tell them some of the facts of life and they 
get bright. They get brighter than if you group audit them. 
Remember that. So, you've got to have that test.

Keep the record on the person. Make sure that if the course 
starts at seven o'clock, it starts at seven o'clock -- not seven-
twenty. If there's a break scheduled between eight and eight-
thirty, let that break occur. Make sure they're back at eight-
thirty. You see that? Precision of scheduling gives them 
confidence in your stability. Without it they think you're 
sloppy, and they're right.

Place them in the proper number of chairs. Put them where they 
are; take them away from where they are. Be cause to that course. 
Handle them, and keep records. Have their address, their phone 
number, the name of their girlfriend, the name of their wife. Get 
all the dope. File it properly and alphabetically with their 
tests, so that you can lay your hands on their folder at any 
time.

Joe Jones came to you in a PE Course on Monday, November umph. 
Make sure there's a folder there that says "Jones, Joe," and when 
he enrolled and what he did and his IQs and any correspondence 
that he handed you. You've always got Joe Jones right there as a 
mass. It's magic. It's just like the witch doctor takes the 
amulet. See, don't ever avoid this. Don't ever avoid Joe Jones to 
the level of not keeping a folder on Joe Jones. Why? Because you 
can help him. You can do a lot for Joe Jones. And if you lose his 
folder, you'll cause him an awful lot of randomity -- and 
yourself too.

What do you do with this folder and the tests after you've taken 
all these things? You enroll your Advanced Course from it, that's 
what you do. How? Well, you don't send out a continuous, 
continuing barrage of publications and issues and memos and 
letters and pleadings and so forth to the same group. You cut 
this down as fast as they don't respond. Got it? And the whole 
clue is, keep people going through the course. It is the number 
of bodies you handle, not the thoroughness with which you handle 
a few.

The whole key of a successful course is volume of people. Keep 
them moving. Get them in, get them out. Discourage repetitive 
weeks attendance. Discourage it. Make them enroll, tell them 
they're through with that one. They want some more training, they 
can enroll in the Advanced Course. Just as simple as that.

Now, no matter whether you're running a course in a week; or a 
course in two weeks at three nights a week, sandwiched with an 
Advanced Course; or whether you're running another system of free 
course for one week, two weeks, three weeks until you get enough 
people to make an Advanced Course -- and then you knock out your 
free course and teach your Advanced Course till you've used up 
all those people, and then start a free course again, without 
scheduling it; just by calling people up... That's randomity I 
know. But it still can be that sloppy and succeed. You teach 
night courses long enough until you get enough people to attend 
your Advanced Course; and then teach it and get it over with; and 
then go on and teach free courses to recruit a new Advanced 
Course; and handle number of people and handle them well and 
handle them with precision, and you'll win.

But if for one moment you forget to procure, you're dead. If you 
forget to procure people -- to bring them in and get rid of them 
-- you're dead. And if for one moment you forget to administer 
properly and take care of the people you have got, you're dead. 
That's a fact. We've tried it both ways. I talk from a depth of 
experience. It's just about the evenest thing you ever did if you 
handle it in this fashion. You pay attention to procurement, you 
pay attention to handling it and getting rid of it.

Now listen, the value of the course is in itself. The funny part 
of it is that very few people ever get startled because you 
deliver what you say you're going to deliver. You say you're 
going to make them better and you're going to make them smarter 
and you're going to make them healthier and you're going to make 
it so they can probably get promoted or they're more stable or 
secure in their job. That's fine. Do you know those people go 
away and never tell you. Now, I have to tell you this because you 
may not find it out for a while. They go away and they never tell 
you.

And one day you're looking for a secretary or something, you 
remember a secretary that went through your course. so you call 
up this girl and you say, "Now, Isabel, how about coming in and 
working for us?"

And she says, "Oh, I couldn't do that."

"What's the matter?"

"Well, I've gotten a raise."

"Yes."

"And I'm getting promoted. I'm executive secretary to the boss 
now, but they're thinking of making me an assistant something."

"Oh."

And you say, "Well, when did all this happen?"

"Well, it's just like you said. Are you surprised?"

Here we have the strangeness of the course itself. It just 
delivers very nicely. And because it delivers very nicely doesn't 
mean that you don't pay attention to it. You've got to pay 
attention to it. The one thing that's got to be live is that 
course. But the course is dead if you don't procure well and 
administer well.

All right. Now, what do you do with all this administration? What 
else do you do with it besides file it and do all sorts of weird 
things with it? Well, you cull it. One of the things you do with 
it, you cull it. You put these people aside over here as being 
dead ducks, and you keep these people that are fairly live.

But right after you've taught a course, there is a trick that 
always works. You write and tell them to come in and see you 
personally about their intelligence test. That's all you say: you 
have the figures on it now, and you've got to talk to them about 
it. And you write them that briefly; personal letter, out it 
goes. They're in and seeing you. A surprising number of them come 
in.

When they come in you point out the fact that they've made this 
much gain or that they haven't gained. Just point out the truth 
to them whatever it is.

And having pointed this out to them, you say, "All right. Now, we 
can't guarantee anything better than this unless you go into the 
Advanced Course. And we're trying to do our best for you, and the 
thing for you to do now is to sign up and go into the Advanced 
Course. Here's the thing that you sign and you sign on this line 
here. That's right. And be sure and be here next Monday night." 
They do. But "How would you like to join the next Advanced 
Course? It is only fifty dollars," and they stay away in droves.

Why? You're dealing with people who can't make decisions. Would 
you run Part B of 8-C before you ran Part A? You certainly 
wouldn't. Well, these people when they come in have to have Part 
A run on them! Don't forget that. You tell them what to do.

What would they expect the Red Cross to do? What would they 
expect a government office to do? A government office has 
suddenly undertaken to make them more efficient and happier and 
make their life calmer -- the government office has undertaken 
this. When the people reported in, if the government office was a 
public office of this character, they would simply say, "You fill 
out this, you do this and you go there. This is where you appear. 
Go over by the cashier, and you pay your taxes over that way." 
And the people would do it, wouldn't they?

The moment that you say, "Now, we've helped you out and we want 
to help you out more, and we want you to decide whether or not 
you're going to have further training." You take yourself out of 
the category of the Red Cross. You take yourself out of the 
category of an authoritative organization. Why take yourself out 
of that category? You modest?

You would be amazed how many times, if you picked up the 
telephone, called a number at random and told the person to 
report -- how many times he'd actually come over. Remember that. 
Don't ask a person if he wants any processing. Tell him when to 
come to your office.

I've even done this amazing thing: I have seen somebody that 
needed some auditing. I've gone over and told them very sharply 
and pleasantly that they needed some auditing, they needed some 
processing, they needed some treatment for what was wrong with 
them, and here was the card, here was the office hours, here's 
the time they were supposed to report, and to please be there at 
four o'clock and please not be late. I give them this problem so 
that they can concentrate on the problem of not being late.

And they miss anything else and they appear, and I give them some 
processing and straighten them out, and tell them what we're 
doing, and straighten them out and run them out of there at the 
proper hour, and then send them a bill and they pay it. Never at 
any one time do we ever discuss Scientology.

You know, you spend so much time selling people that you never 
have a chance to do anything to them. That's very often the case, 
you know, very often the case.

You place yourself in an authoritative position and your PE 
Course will be an enormous success. You treat yourself as a 
public service that is really doing something. You think of it in 
the form of you are actually a logical person to take care of the 
disabilities, the inabilities and so forth of an area, to take 
care of its efficiency, that you're the person in the area who 
safeguards its industrial programs. Just cast yourself in that 
role, act accordingly, be awfully amazed if anybody doesn't do 
what you ask them to do, and you're a howling success. That's all 
there is to it.

So, how do you teach this course? Well, you get the books in the 
bookstores, and you get the people there. And once they've gotten 
there what do you tell them?

Well, boy, you will lay the most dreadful egg that any ostrich 
ever fell over if you try to teach them the entirety of 
Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought.

What you teach them is a very, very simple thing. You teach them 
the basic and fundamental principles of Scientology. And these 
are:

"The cycle of action of the MEST universe is create-survive-
destroy." If you can teach these people that in a couple of 
hours, you're doing fine.

The next thing that you teach them is the eight dynamics. This 
disenturbulates life and compartments it and individuates it so 
that it isn't a big, horrible blur. Teach them the eight 
dynamics, definition for; give them illustrations of, and that's 
that. And if you can teach them that in a couple of hours you're 
doing awful well.

Now, you teach them about ARC -- affinity, reality and 
communication -- and how you use it and employ it in the general 
activities of life. And, boy, if you can teach them that in four 
hours, you're a genius. Just that, see: "There is affinity, there 
is reality, there is communication." That's what you teach them 
in four hours.

The next thing you can teach them about is some havingness -- 
possession, environment, contact. There is such a thing as a 
universe. There is such a thing as this room. There is such a 
thing as a typewriter or a drill press. Things are. Things exist. 
And people have them or don't have them at will.

Now, these are awful fundamental things. These are terribly 
fundamental. There are some more fundamentals of exactly this 
nature and character that you could teach them. But don't try to 
teach them that in the same course. You teach this course in a 
peculiar way, very peculiar way. You teach this course by getting 
a maximum of agreement with the people you're trying to teach 
these things to.

Now, you all learned Dianetics and Scientology by hard study, 
application, observation, experience, rationalization and so 
forth. You didn't learn it in ten hours. Did you?

Audience: No.

Well, by golly, don't try to teach it in ten hours because you 
won't be able to. And that's that.

Therefore, the course material on which everything depends must 
be something at a level that people can grasp. You would be 
amazed how complex you have to make the cycle of action before 
people are willing to grasp it. How many examples you have to 
give before they suddenly see the light. How involved you have to 
make it, how fantastically important you have to make it till 
they know this thing, before they finally are willing to grasp 
this thing.

If you can get them to define it, and get them to argue with each 
other about the definitions of it, the fact that you would stand 
there and devote an hour or two to the constant definition of 
this one thing teaches them that it's terribly complex, terribly 
important and awfully complicated!

And yet it clears them up all the way through, and they go out of 
there saying, "What do you know! People get born. They live! They 
die! What do you know!" And it becomes a stable datum. And 
because it is one of the master stable datums in the bank that 
you've restimulated and brought up through, you've clarified a 
lot of confusion for them.

Now that's all you do, is you get them to agree on stable data. 
Very definite, distinct, basic, Scientology stable data. And if 
you do that well, if you get their participation -- and you won't 
be able to get their participation or teach this way unless you 
yourself can and are willing to handle a group -- you will then 
walk those people out of there with a higher IQ boost than you 
would have gotten with the same number of hours of group 
auditing. That's a hell of a thing but it's a fact.

What they need is understanding at this level, not processing. 
You yourself can know your material so well that you cannot 
conceive how these people would be even vaguely interested in 
these baby simplicities! That's what you say, see. What you 
think. And you sometimes feel embarrassed after about your second 
PE Course standing there telling people that they are born, that 
they live and that they die!

And so you yourself try to make it complicated enough for you to 
be interested in. Well, learn to duplicate. By the time you've 
taught it three or four times, your amazement has worn off, and 
your own level of sincerity and your desire to help these 
people... When you see what it actually does for them, you will 
have lost all your diffidence along this line. You will no longer 
be diffident about pounding these things through.

It is the symptom of a new Instructor that he has to be 
tremendously complex in what he says. That is a symptom of a new 
Instructor. And you'll all make the same mistake. Make it. No 
matter how simply you talked complicatedly -- see, no matter how 
simply you talk complicatedly during your first PE Course -- you 
still will not have stressed sufficiently the basic data you 
should have relayed. You will still have too much extraneous 
material.

You will still have added too many factors in Scientology to that 
series of lectures.

Now, it is also a mistake not to tell these people that they are 
studying, and looking into the teeth, a thing called Scientology. 
There is a certain diffidence on the part of some people to say 
they are studying a specific thing. They feel they will alarm 
people. Now this is an oddity.

This is only, by the way, peculiar in people who are having a 
hard time of it. I'm not saying that to be sarcastic; it is true. 
They very often are avoiding the subject themselves in some 
fashion. They're hoping that the auditor will overlook the 
majority of their engrams or something and the next thing you 
know, they try to minimize this. Don't. It's a tremendous 
simplicity, but people need a label so that they can talk about 
something and you're dealing with word of mouth. And if they know 
nothing about it and yet know the word Scientology, they're all 
experts.

You would be amazed the expert conversations I have heard between 
two people on the subject of Dianetics, who knew that Dianetics 
had something to do with mental health, and that's all they knew.

But the most learned conversation ensued that I ever heard. I sat 
there at the end of the table, at the head of which they were 
arguing -- and they didn't know my name or who I was -- and they 
had this tremendously fascinating conversation. They several 
times asked me to chip in my two cents worth and give them my 
opinion on it, but I kept telling them I'd never heard of it in a 
straight fashion. I'd never been given a very straight rendition 
of it, and so I couldn't express an opinion. The evening still 
finished with me with the reputation of being a very wise man.

Now here, here we have, in essence, the various items which are 
the most important: Establishing the policy. Making out of this 
policy the actual substance of what we're going to tell people, 
the way we're going to write our literature, what we're going to 
adhere to, what we're going to call our course. Out of those 
three first items I gave you, we're going to make this policy. 
And this policy will create our lectures. It will create our 
public presence. It will create to a marked degree our exact form 
of address to the people who come to us to be taught.

The next step in it is to make sure that you understand 
completely that it is the hard-cover or even the paperback book 
or publication available in the bookstores... People don't have 
to buy it in the bookstores; they have to know it is in the 
bookstores. This makes them feel comfortable, makes it real. And 
in the local libraries. And if it's in those places then people 
know it is real. And if you surreptitiously were to stamp your 
name and address and the name and address of the PE Course -- 
such as this: "This book donated to the Riverside Public Library 
by the Riverside Efficiency Club. Something or other, something 
or other Orange Street," see. People would still know where to 
find you.

Also be in a phone book. You can be listed under almost anything, 
now. We've got the telephone company so beaten down and confused 
they don't know which end they're standing on.

And then make sure that your administration advertises you as 
being as efficient as you would like other people to be. There's 
a peculiar liability, a peculiar Achilles' heel, in teaching an 
efficiency course: You lay yourself open to so much criticism if 
you're inefficient. Don't let this drive you into being more 
efficient however. The reason you're being more efficient is 
because you are more efficient. You got that?

Make sure that your administration is very good. By this I mean 
that your records are kept, your people are enrolled, you have an 
account of the money received, you've given them proper receipts. 
When you sell the books, you know how many books you've sold. You 
know how many books are still on the shelf. All of that sort of 
thing, you know -- your office records.

Do you know an office person or an executive works as hard as he 
is avoiding administration. That's a maxim. He works as hard as 
he is avoiding good administration. People come upstairs here the 
last day or so, and they don't find me working. I don't work 
anymore. I quit working a long time ago. I quit working the day I 
found out that one could administer.

I quit working the day I found out that I was trying to keep comm 
lines poised in midair on one side and flowing on the other side, 
and so on. That I was putting tremendous effort along these comm 
lines. What I do now is set up a terminal. I don't put the 
terminal on automatic, I merely let the comm lines flow and stop 
and flow. It's very simple. I keep an eye on them, and when they 
need some action, why, I take the action. That doesn't mean I'm 
not busy; I just don't work anymore. I'm awfully busy.

You would be amazed how many dollars can be lost in a confusion 
of papers. I have seen an office lose twenty-five thousand 
dollars worth of business in the course of about four months. 
That's quite a lot of business to lose in the course of four 
months, isn't it? I've just seen two thousand dollars lost in the 
course of three-and-a-half weeks -- too close to home to be 
comfortable. There was a change of post and the terminal on that 
post didn't adequately snap up to the same volume of handling as 
the one who had pulled off of it. And there was that much 
business dropped.

If you want to know what's happened to your income, it's because 
you aren't getting bodies in or out. If you want to know why you 
aren't getting bodies in or out, consult books and consult the 
policy of your teaching, and consult as well your administration. 
You can cost yourself fantastic sums of money by mailing to 
people that you have already covered fifteen times, and who are 
so tired of hearing from you, they'd love to shoot you. Don't 
ever get yourself into a mail-order-house classification. Don't 
ever do that. It's a waste of time and cash.

You'd have more luck just calling up people at random on the 
phone, saying, "Have you ever heard of Scientology? Well, why 
not? What's the matter, are you backwards?"

You'd actually have more luck doing this than to mail repeatedly, 
repeatedly, repeatedly to a worn-out set of names that you 
recruited in the first place at the end of a shotgun.

No, you've got to procure bodies. And if you're not procuring 
bodies and throwing bodies out the side door, and if you're not 
calling them back to talk to them about their IQ and get them 
enrolled in Advanced Courses, you're not serving your community.

Service is the keynote of success. It is. That isn't an isolated 
datum that's thrown into some Dale Carnegish bric-a-brac. That is 
one of the more important data you ever looked at. If you're 
dealing with the third dynamic and you want to know the road to 
success or away from it, look at service. You will be paid for as 
much service as you give. And if you don't give service, you 
won't get paid -- unless, of course, you're a government.

If you want to make money without giving service, you'll have to 
do it at the end of a bayonet. That's correct. It'll take force, 
duress, scareheads. You know, typical "Everybody in the country 
is going insane. Seven hundred and seventy-five thousand 
Americans are admitted to institutions every day. You too can go 
crazy!"

It takes this kind of advertising. It takes this kind of 
pressure. It takes billions of dollars of government 
appropriation in order to keep an organization going that isn't 
giving service. It takes bayonets! Really. If you're not going to 
use bayonets, you have to give service. That's all there is to 
it. And you're not in a position to use bayonets. They get rusty 
in the California climate.

Now, here we have a vital service rendered to the community. And 
the only danger you will encounter is that you yourself discount 
its vitality and vitalness. If you yourself discount how much 
service you actually are capable of rendering to your community, 
you will undersell it. You will never do anything but undersell 
it no matter what you say. It hasn't been here for a couple, 
three, four, six, eighteen billion years.

How the devil can you undersell it? You can't oversell it. You 
can't undersell it. Because no matter what you say about it, as 
long as you're trying to push it in the right direction, you will 
be somewhere within the realm of truth.

Maybe it is very bad for people to become more able. When half 
the populace becomes wolves and the other half is still jack 
rabbits, you naturally will have to have the other half that are 
jack rabbits made into wolves, and now somebody will invent a 
superwolf, won't they?

Now, I am afraid that's the way the scientist thinks about these 
things. When people are civilized they don't become wolves. That 
blows up the whole thing.

You're the single most vital civilizing influence on earth today. 
If you don't tell people this, if you don't conduct yourself 
accordingly as a public service with a greater level of authority 
given to you by your command of knowledge of life, what you are 
and what you're doing, then you'll keep playing along in the bush 
league. You establish by your own postulate the size and 
importance of your own activity.

Service is something you will have to give. You have to learn to 
give service. You have to learn not to be cross because you're 
awakened in the middle of the night.

Remember that by getting all those people in and sending them out 
you're going to get people who will take an Advanced Course. And 
that's a very simple thing to give. The first week of an Advanced 
Course is Dianetics 1955, the second week is Science of Survival. 
Therefore, you can enroll every Monday by teaching such a course.

All right. Your next thing you sell is auditing. Only you don't 
come around and tell people that you'd like it if they ask you 
for some auditing. You tell them to report and you tell how much 
it costs. Same way. You're a public service, you understand? And 
as such, people who aren't doing so well at their typing or their 
clerking or their executing, and so forth, need assistance. And 
you tell them so, and that's the way they're supposed to do, and 
they're supposed to come in, and they're supposed to sit down, 
and they're supposed to pay you the twenty-five an hour that they 
got for it. Whatever it is, it doesn't matter, don't you see.

Act on a level of authority and act with efficiency and give 
service. The funny part of it is you can't help yourself, you can 
give service. So the only thing that'll lick you is inactivity. 
And that's the only thing that really would knock you out of 
action in running a PE Course.

And I hope the material I've given you will be of some use to you 
here in the coming months.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good night.

[End of Lecture]




FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 03 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

===============================================

EDUCATION

A lecture given on 25 October 1956


[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

There's a rumor going around that I'm supposed to talk to you 
about how to instruct people tonight.

Now, somebody tells me that that's what I said earlier today, but 
I have been run on not-knowingness, and the process was never 
flattened. We got back to five lives ago and I quit. I said, 
"That's that," I said, "That's that. If there's... If I've got 
all this to not-know all over again, to hell with it."

I want to talk to you about instruction. Instruction is an 
interesting subject. It's a very interesting subject, because we 
seem to be in the business of instruction. Now, you think of 
yourselves as auditors. Auditing techniques are a method of 
bringing people to know. Think it over.

A great oddity here is that the common denominator of living 
appears to be learning. In Dianetics we had survival as a common 
denominator. In Scientology we discover, much to our 
embarrassment, that that's inevitable. So we have to find another 
excuse, and the best excuse we can find without looking too far 
or weighing our brains down too much is learning.

Apparently learningness has great breadth, and we find 
learningness at almost any level of action, living or operation.

Now, learning would encompass this operation: Fellow looks at the 
wall and learns it's a wall. You got that? So recognizingness is 
the lowest level of learningness and is still learningness.

We meet Joe. If we're in good shape, we can learn that it's Joe 
by looking at him. Some of us who are not in very good shape meet 
Joe and talk to Father.

Now, do you see how this fits? See how this could be pushed over 
into a learning category?

Now, don't be fooled. The truth of the matter there is there's an 
awful lot more (this is between us Scientologists) to livingness 
than learningness. There's a lot more of it. There is 
creatingness. There is a number of other factors than 
learningness. We're not going to go into any of them. We're just 
going to talk about learningness, and we're going to show how 
everything could be pulled in and by some slight adjustment, and 
maybe going around a few fast curves, be common-denominatored 
into learning, which would make education our forte. Education.

The odd part of it is that a Scientologist can educate people 
that no one else has ever been able to educate. How do they do 
it? By auditing them. One of the main things that rises in 
auditing is IQ, which tells you of course, secondarily, that 
learning rate goes up. What is IQ but relative cognitionability?

Now, what then are we doing, what are we doing in actuality 
(below the level, of course, of Solids and Effort and so forth), 
but pushing thought around one way or the other? See, we're 
pushing thought around.

Now, people who think there is only thinking of course buy at 
once the totality of cognitionness. See, they buy that as the 
totality of any action. If you can learn about it, you got it. 
They do this so well that they invent so many things to learn 
about that nobody is ever then able to get Clear by processes of 
education alone. They booby-trap the line.

Some fellow has a body; he can't look at it so he looks at 
somebody else's. He can't look at that so he looks at a dead body 
on the dissection table. He finds an awful lot of spare parts as 
he begins to cut it up one way or the other. He looks over all 
these spare parts and he begins to realize that there is no way 
he can bring order into the chaos of blood and confusion from 
this cadaver except to apply new titles to everything that comes 
under his hand. So he writes a learned textbook on the subject. 
But actually he doesn't do anything. He doesn't even do a good 
job of cutting the corpse up, but he does do a splendid job of 
titling parts of the corpse. And he does a wonderful job of this, 
and he spends the rest of his life readjusting his titling.

This is about as close as anybody ever looked at a body -- I mean 
directly -- in the healing professions. They've even taken the 
titling and put it over into a dead language that nobody ever 
speaks anymore, you see?

A psychologist trying to occupy a brain that is to him only a 
series of titles will not get very much reality on the close 
proximity of brain cells. He has so many parts of the brain that 
he is living in the midst of a bunch of titles.

Now, learning can very easily, then, be subjugated to learning 
some complexity which has been invented about something that one 
never looks at. And so learningness itself can get to some degree 
into disgrace.

There's an obsession about learningness which is quite 
interesting to handle: the technique of craving to know -- "Put 
craving to know into the walls," and so on; makes people sick at 
their stomachs, and all sorts of interesting things.

Now, here's learningness, then, at its worst: learning large, 
long categories of invented knowingnesses disordered into some 
kind of a chaotic catalog, with another curve of another language 
being applied, and so on.

Botany is one of these classification subjects. And I'll tell you 
the total thinkingness that went on concerning botany. It would 
interest you very much. It was done by Francis Bacon in a little 
essay, and he laid down a (quote) "science" called botany because 
he supposed that this would be a good way to lay down a science. 
So he just took something that hadn't been laid down and dashed 
it off in a paragraph or so, that this is the way you would put 
together a science about flowers, growing things. He dashed off 
this little paragraph, and that, since the sixteenth century, has 
been a science called botany.

Well, it's never moved in its actual technical activity from 
those few sentences. But, brother, has it got classification! 
Wow!

Now, you didn't know that a skunk cabbage was actually intimately 
related to a wallaby rose, did you?

Well I didn't either but the... some botanist would undoubtedly 
be able to accomplish this in some associative fashion.

All right. Now, let's take learning about the mind. I said some 
psychologist would be in the middle of a bunch of named parts, he 
wouldn't be in the middle of a brain. Well, then his ability to 
contact or look at his own brain has been so low that it has 
escaped him that the classification of the brain was the 
classification of an item in which most of the psychology world 
has been totally, embeddedly resident. So this whole fact has 
escaped them.

Now, let's look carefully why it has escaped them. They couldn't 
look at it, so they looked at a substitute for it. They couldn't 
look at the thing, so they looked at a substitute for the thing.

Now, let's go on into basic therapies, old-time therapies of one 
kind or another, and we find one of those was psychoanalysis. And 
psychoanalysis is so interested in the significance of the 
experience that they have never looked at the experience.

So education has been in the past, or learning has been in the 
past, a system of avoiding observation. So a systematic avoidance 
of observation will sooner or later get something into trouble, 
and into trouble has come the whole of education itself.

We send a man to school for -- I don't know, I think it's gotten 
up to an optimum now of sixty years till he gets out of college; 
and this individual actually has been put in a groove of avoiding 
knowing. You see that? He's on a system whereby he can avoid 
knowing something. How does he do that? By studying it!

Now, there are significances, and there are basic associations, 
and there are mock-ups, and there are floors and walls and 
machinery and cogwheels and botanical gardens. There are all 
these things. And anybody that you're trying to teach anything is 
normally into an interesting avoidance of the object by learning 
its invented knowingnesses.

Here's a great big machine, has chromium-plated cogwheels and 
gold-plated levers and -- oh, it's a gorgeous piece of stuff, you 
know? I mean it's huge, so on. Two men walk up to it. One of them 
says, "What's that?"

And the other one says, "That's a Nash-Wheelsy."

"Oh? Oh, is that right? I didn't know that." And they walk away.

How easy it is to satiate somebody's appetite for learning by 
giving them a name for something. You ought to make a study of 
this. Somebody comes around to you and asks you, "What kind of a 
circumstance is this whereby somebody goes off the end of the 
pier because of a divorce? What's wrong with such a person, they 
had a divorce and they want to bump themselves off, and so on? 
What is that all about?"

And then you start to explain to them, "Look. What this person 
did to the other marital partner is kicking back as a motivator, 
you see? The person who is so upset about it must have done 
something."

Now, you explain this and you possibly would get it across very 
nicely. You see, possibly. You see, you would just take the 
actual straight-out anatomy of the marital difficulty. One 
person, after a divorce they want to kill themselves, and so 
forth. Well, they must have done something in order to inherit a 
motivator to this degree. Well, we explain this to somebody, we 
would give them some information. Why is it information? Because 
it can be used in the game of life.

But now let's just completely and utterly sidestep any 
responsibility we have as Scientologists, or just kick it over 
sideways and say, "Ahhhh!"

And they say, "Yes? What's the matter?"

"Well, that person has a-a-a-a-pseudomania. I mean it's a very 
serious circumstance. It's an illness -- it's an illness which 
often comes after a divorce. Pseumania -- pseudomania marititus." 
And you would be fascinated how often this deep, profound piece 
of nothingness would turn somebody else around and send them away 
perfectly satisfied, evidently. You know? They "know" now. Well, 
what do they know? They know something to remember, that's what 
they know. And that's all they know.

All right. Let's look at this, and let's take a little closer 
view of this, and we discover then that that person is willing to 
avoid the situation. The person is willing to avoid the situation 
and you gave him an excuse to. You gave him a fancy name. He 
didn't have to invade the thing any further. That was that, he 
could just avoid it from there on out and he's all set.

Or you have given him a little thread off your cloak of 
authority. An authority has told him this, so now he is an 
authority. And he goes down and tells his fellow mechanic "You 
know -- you know Pete?"

"Yeah, what about Pete?"

"Well, you know Pete -- Pete's in a bad way."

"What about Pete?"

"Well, Pete has uh... pseuda... um... has... uh -- he's got a 
dreadful disease!" That's the end of that datum.

All right. We find, then, if this is dominant as a method of 
conveying understanding, that people must be avoiding to a very 
marked degree the actual objects, actions or beingnesses of life. 
Must be! They must be running on "avoid," somehow or another. 
They must be going off this way when they, as far as we could 
see, could go right on that way.

Some fellow wants to know how to build a small concrete dam. You 
teach him how to mix concrete, you teach him how to make a form, 
you teach him something about the pressures of water at certain 
depths and the need of side embankments. And it's quite a 
subject, but you could probably teach him all this in an evening. 
They don't do that in this society. They send them to college for 
four years. And when they come out, they don't even know what a 
dam is. And they don't give a damn either.

All right. So, education could be one of several things, one of 
which could be the science of avoidance -- how to avoid. And we 
could do all that up, and we could do a wonderful science. It'd 
be terrifically acceptable. We would write it up in such a way 
that never could anybody find out anything, anyhow, anywhere. We 
would teach them a system whereby, if they looked at a wall, it 
was then necessary to look it up in a book. And having looked it 
up in a book, they would then have to address a small slide rule 
which operated in phonetics. Then they could look at the name on 
the slide rule, one way or the other, and it would give them a 
combination of syllables somehow or another, and this, we would 
say, was it.

You would be very amazed, but a book on this subject written with 
a very sober, pompous style would probably be enormously 
successful. "The Science of Knowing How to Study," or something, 
you could call it, you know. You'd be all set.

You would do this by catering to their avoidance mechanisms. 
You'd permit them to avoid, wouldn't you?

Well, our systems of education are less merciful, much less 
merciful, because we operate on the very sound principle that it 
won't kill anybody to know anything. And they operate with the 
associative datum -- you see, the datum instead of the thing, and 
so forth -- they operate on the theory that a little bit of 
learning will kill you deader than a field mouse; that learning 
is dangerous.

There's even an old proverb, "A little bit of learning is 
dangerous," you know? How they would love to include into that "A 
little bit of learning or a whole lot of learning or any kind of 
learning about anything will kill you dead." That is the theory 
of avoidance in education.

Now, we come through and we don't subscribe to this. We don't 
subscribe to it at all because we know for a fact -- we know for 
a fact that a person (that is, the person, not his body) could 
actually connect with or associate with anything with impunity. 
And the only things that are giving him any trouble are those 
things with which he dare not associate. The things that he's 
unwilling to learn something about are the things that are giving 
him trouble.

And then, what does learning mean to us? It means, simply, 
communication. It doesn't mean a substitute datum. That's 
awfully, brutally, horribly simple. You want to learn about 
something, communicate with it, see?

Now, one of the ways of communicating with it is talking it over. 
Now, supposing it's just a datum. Supposing it isn't a solid 
object, supposing it's just some thetan's postulate. The only way 
it disappears is to talk it over, and in many cases, think it 
over.

Now, a person gets down to a point where he can't think it over 
anymore, then he has to talk it over. But most people do both: 
they think it over and talk it over, and it goes boom.

Data consists of the postulates, or assignment of value, of 
thetans.

That's data. That's all data is.

Now, when they have assigned a value on which they have rather 
uniformly agreed, they have a fact. You got that? Now, would 
anybody please tell me how the association only with these 
agreements, or the communication only with these agreements, 
would kill anybody? That's for sure.

Well, it so happens that the walls got there that way. That's 
packing a postulate that says "I am a case of thereness, agreed 
upon and ratified by the Treaty of Ugveldt, eighteen miles south 
of cloud nine." That's the wall.

So if there's a vast difficulty in associating with other 
people's agreements, of course then we'll have vast difficulty. 
Because the vast difficulty is just another postulate.

So we get down to the fundamental of Scientology education, and 
that is that it doesn't hurt a thetan to communicate with 
anything, anywhere, at anytime. And to educate him, all we have 
to do is teach him that. He has to know that. He gets to be a 
mighty smart boy if he subjectively knows, knows by experience -- 
may require some processing, you see -- that it won't kill him to 
know about something. If he learns that, then he learns learning.

It's a great curiosity that to go on then from that point and 
make any great tremendous complexity out of it is really rather 
difficult. A person can learn about what he can communicate with. 
And it won't hurt him to communicate with it.

Now, it does hurt -- you understand, this is the cross-up that 
gets this all off. When you push a body into a buzz saw, parts 
come off, which by common agreement is painful. That's quite 
different though -- it's quite different -- than a thetan 
communicating with a buzz saw. You get somebody exteriorized and 
push him into a buzz saw and he says, "Whee!"

Now, the funny part of it is, if the body wasn't rigged by 
agreement to be destructible by its own experience -- a body has 
agreed already to be destroyed by its own experience, you see -- 
you could push it into a buzz saw, and when you pulled it off the 
parts would simply reassemble. If there was no experience factor 
added to the body, that wouldn't be painful either. But if you 
add an experience factor to the body, then you let people in for 
pain and destruction.

Old-time education could be defined in this wise -- in this wise 
(it's horrible): placing data in the recalls of others. 
Therefore, old-time education accepts hypnotism, does not really 
allow for the usableness of the information, does not analyze 
doingness and completely avoids any havingness, which of course 
permits nobody to be anything. But putting data into the recalls 
of others causes others to rely on experience, not perception. 
These are two different things. Remembered experience is quite 
different than perception and estimation of the situation.

Now, I'm not running down old-time education completely; I'm just 
burying it.

Scientology has an entirely different category of action. Now, 
this has not at this time been laid out perfectly, all squared up 
at the edges and so forth. But it goes something like this: You 
offer data for the assimilation and use of others and facilitate 
their absorption of it to the end of permitting them a better 
control of a better life. That would be a much longer definition, 
but it actually is more factual.

If you're going to attempt education at all, then it has to be a 
game with a goal. There has to be some reason why. And unless you 
add that into your definition you're going to get nowhere.

So when we offer a person a datum, that datum must be under the 
self-determinism of the other person, not in his recalls. Get the 
difference. It must be at the disposal of his own determinism. 
And if it is not, then it cannot be used thoroughly in living.

So we give them data in such a wise as to give them control of 
the data, and then permit them to use that data, align and 
evaluate and apply that data to specific beingnesses and actions 
in life. And we never let a datum hang up in the air without 
anything with which to unite.

Now, what I just said originally about the avoidance system of 
education happens to be any preclear you ever processed. He's 
sitting there in his mother's valence. He has a very bad heart, 
terrible! You say, "Anybody you ever know have a bad heart?"

"Oh," he says, "yes. Mother."

And you say, "Well, all right. Do you ever remember a time when 
Mother's heart was bad?"

"Oh, yes, yes. Lots of times," and so on.

You say, "Well now, what about your own heart? Do you suppose 
that could have anything to do with it?"

"Yes, I dare say it has a great deal to do with it."

No data would fall out. It's all in there in complete black 
basalt.

I've had people sit and tell me exactly what was wrong with them. 
They'd studied it all out. It was still wrong with them, still 
wrong with them. They hadn't gotten rid of a scrap of it. Well, 
how come? It was probably all the wrongness they had left. It was 
probably the only lesson they had ever learned.

Now, anything that is wrong with anybody is simply a lesson 
they've learned. Well, people know this so they avoid lessons.

But the first thing that got wrong with them was to avoid a 
lesson, and then this permitted them thereafter to avoid more 
lessons, and every lesson they avoided could then victimize them. 
So here we go, here we go.

How many ways could you devise to simply teach somebody a great 
deal about education? How many ways could you possibly do so? 
Well, how many auditing techniques do you know? There's quite a 
few, quite a few. But in view of the fact that you're doing an 
educational activity, it of course depends in a large measure 
upon communication. So communication must be demonstrated to 
exist before any education can be undertaken that will become 
education in the Scientology sense, not another engram.

You can always beat somebody's head in and say, "That'll teach 
him." It will, the rest of his life. It'll teach him every day. 
To what? Lord knows! Completely random, completely random.

Supposing the phrase in that head-beating was "He is no earthly 
good." We actually got somebody from Northwest Airlines, I think 
it was, that had this phrase in the bank, and everything he had 
done on the ground had been a total failure. He'd taken to be a 
flyboy, and he hated being a flyboy; but he was no "earthly" 
good.

Some other fellow with the same, identical phrase becomes a 
parson. Man will insist on using his power of choice and he'll 
insist on doing something about anything. But unless his power of 
choice is in plain sight, and unless his somethingness is in very 
good view, unless the individual has a command over something and 
knows what he has a command over of, you know -- that's very 
important.

I've heard it said that when you're training lions you really 
should know it's a lion you're training. See, I've heard of this. 
Some cautious souls have brought this up from time to time.

If you're handling a human being, why -- huh! Lord knows what 
you're handling. You might be handling a lion, or you... Look at 
these little kids. They run up and down the street snapping cap 
pistols at each other, and so on. You can't tell from one minute 
to the next who they are. Who are they? Oh, I don't know. They're 
anybody: Davy Crockett or Buffalo Bill or Nathan Hale or -- he 
got hanged -- somebody. They're being somebody. They're being 
somebody they're not. It's only when somebody becomes somebody he 
is that he gets worried.

All right. Systems of education, then, must only take into 
account the unharmful aspects of communication, and the formulas 
of communication, and the facts of communication, and an 
alignment of the data to be transmitted so that it may be 
employed in living by the other person.

Terrific dependency, though, on communication, isn't it? 
Communication and its whole formula. Every time that was avoided 
when you were a little kid in school, you didn't learn something. 
There was something you didn't learn. That's for sure. They 
didn't bother to get your attention, they didn't bother to tell 
you where it applied; there you went. And to this day you 
probably think two and eight make twelve. Of course that's your 
postulate. If you were good enough they would, but that's beside 
the point.

Now, education oddly enough contains a nearly complete -- outside 
of the definitions of it, itself -- rendition in the old Logics 
of Dianetics. And those are the anatomy of education. They might 
be called the axioms of education. They were totally missing in 
the field of education.

Some of those were almost known back in the days when they used 
to teach a subject called logic and argumentation. Wonderful 
subject. I had a textbook on it once. Just gorgeous. Such 
simplicity! How you defeat an opponent in a debate. Wonderful 
list. I mean, they took up the subject, they really meant to 
defeat an opponent in a debate; they had a complete anatomy of 
how you defeated somebody in a debate, which had nothing 
whatsoever to do with the debate and they said so; how you 
distracted his attention. It ran down to the most mechanical 
things you ever heard of: Have him called from the wings 
occasionally. It did. I mean, it was a wonderful textbook. 
Practical! Wish I'd studied it.

Anyhow, one of the little data in there -- one of the data in 
there was the most marvelous thing you ever heard of. "Never 
engage the actual data of your opponent in a debate. Always 
engage his sources." How fiendish!

The fellow says, "Two hundred and ninety-one tons of uranium were 
used last year." He's demonstrating the value of uranium, you 
see, and the expenditures on uranium, and so on.

You don't say "Ah," or "Well, what do you know." You never agree 
with him. A debate's an argument. It makes that very clear in 
this textbook -- printed by the way, about 1866 or '67 -- at no 
time do you agree with him. You find out "Who said that? Where 
did you get that datum?"

"Oh," he says, "that's Borks and Snorgelberg, their mining 
reports, published in the Miners Quarterly," and so forth.

And you say, "The Miners Quarterly of what organization?"

And he says, "Why, the United Mine Workers, of course."

And you say, "Ahhhh."

It wouldn't have mattered if it was the Republican National 
Committee, you'd have still said "Ahhhh."

I think they killed everybody off that knew the subject. I think 
they all got annihilated for it, so we don't have the subject 
anymore. It was a gorgeous textbook. I don't even have a copy of 
it anymore.

But anyway, if we want to relay a datum completely so that it 
fixes forever and it's not under anybody's control, we have to 
lose or lie about the source; we have to get the source out of 
sight completely. We have to give it some other source. Then we 
have to alter it a little bit. And then we have to deliver it 
with enormous authority; and if anybody says that isn't the 
authority, or the authority is nothing... has nothing to do with 
the datum, then let's back up the whole artillery on them. Let's 
flunk them, let's put them back half a term, let's send letters 
home to their parents. Sounds kind of wild, doesn't it? Just 
because they said that Snorgel and Fuggelbaum did so-and-so, why, 
all these penalties get lined up. If you don't believe it, you've 
had it.

Well now, that is old-time education. What good is the datum? 
It's no good at all. So Snorgel and Fuggelbaum said this -- so 
what?

Einstein -- here, I'll give you the reverse, now. Einstein had a 
lot to do, they say, with inventing the A-bomb. Well, it was 
invented on his authority or something. It was appropriated for 
on his authority. And we get down the line after a while, and 
Einstein at no time can say, "The A-bomb will not explode 
tonight." He can't say that and have it happen. What the hell is 
this about authority? What difference does it make?

Actually, it has nothing to do, really, with the behavior of the 
bomb at all. The bomb explodes or it doesn't explode, and that's 
all. It's an open-and-closed fact. Mostly because Einstein 
himself is outweighed by a tremendous number of people who all 
agreed on the backtrack that atom bombs exploded. He's outvoted! 
So you get pushed into the horrible position that I'm pushed into 
of simply categorizing the majority decisions.

But the whole alliance of authority and education is apt to bring 
people into a fixed state of mind. If what is being taught is 
true then they themselves will recognize its truth, since nobody 
can be taught, thoroughly, anything that he himself does not 
already have some knowledge of No matter how ghostily, no matter 
how thinly, there's some knowledge of it.

For instance, you can't be taught usefully -- so that you can use 
it -- any datum about the human mind that you have not already 
agreed to. You can be taught an invention concerning the human 
mind if you are taught that it is an invention. Otherwise, you 
would have to be taught hypnotically, merely given a new 
conviction which you could not use or alter. That would have to 
be done on an hypnotic level. What good would it be? Well, it'd 
add a new datum. And if enough people were hypnotized into 
believing this, that all brains had Ford coils in them or 
something, I imagine the genetic line would grow Ford coils. But 
it hasn't yet. Remember that; it hasn't yet.

In other words, we learn most easily that to which we have 
subscribed. This is why so many people flunk science. Science is 
the doggonedest mass of invention you ever cared to read, but 
it's a rather uniformly agreed-upon invention which is built on 
top of an already top-heavy series of inventions or postulates 
which are agreed upon. This already top-heavy mass of agreements, 
then, needs no further inventions, I assure you. And yet, just 
for the sake of teaching somebody something, these things get 
invented. You get the idea?

Now, it's a sure test of a teacher whether he knows his stuff or 
not, the number of data which he insists on everyone assimilating 
without question. If he insists that a great number of data be 
assimilated without further analysis or question in any way, 
shape or form, we know this boy doesn't know his business. He's 
scared. Somehow or another he feels that nobody must be permitted 
to examine these data. So he's doing something else. He's doing 
something else.

Now, educationally, it is absolutely necessary for the teacher to 
preserve the power of choice of the student over the data which 
he is taught. And if it is not in agreement with the experience 
of the student, and will not be found to be true in the 
environment of the student, he permits the student to examine 
this and say so, and operate accordingly. Only in this wise would 
you have anything used or useful.

Engineering fails mostly because all of the originators in the 
field of engineering have died off. They're way back on the 
track.

A chap came to me recently -- he rather surprised me; I was a 
little bit overwhelmed by this experience. He came to me in 
London, and the appointment was made by cable two or three days 
before the fact. The first whisper of it was about two weeks 
before the fact, and then the exact appointment was made about 
three days before the meeting. And he wanted to come by and see 
me at my office in London. He said he wanted to talk to me. He 
didn't say it was urgent.

So I sat there wondering what this could be all about, as the 
chap has a rather famous name. He's probably the leading boy 
employed at this time by the U.S. Air Forces in the field of 
aerodynamic research.

And I thought, "What on earth does this fellow want to see me 
for?" I haven't done anything, honest. You know?

And he sailed into the office, he sat down, he took one of my 
Kools, he accepted a Coca-Cola, rejected an offer of some vodka
-- said it was not national with him -- and chitter-chatted with 
me for exactly one-half an hour, talking about some recent 
developments.

I agreed with him, I thought these were fine, understood them a 
little bit, got some kind of an inkling of where he was going, 
fumbled with it a bit, said that's fine. He intimated that he was 
looking for some much younger man than himself, since he was 
about seventy-one and was right in there with the Wright 
brothers, to replace him someday, and intimated -- oh, how 
cursorily -- that someday he might want me to process somebody 
for him. But this was quite obviously not the object of his 
visit.

Well, he looked at his watch, went outside, got in the U.S. 
embassy car, went back to the airport, climbed aboard a U.S. Army 
Air Forces airplane, and was flown on to his destination, which 
was Brussels -- a large conference in Brussels -- and then flown 
home. That was all he wanted to do in London. And I sat there and 
I scratched my head, I couldn't figure out what in the hell was 
going on here. Didn't have any idea at all. No idea at all.

And finally -- after a lot of time went by I finally figured out 
what was wrong. The guy was lonesome! That's all. Haven't heard 
from him since. Told him to drop by here, he said sure he would. 
He isn't home yet. But this is an interesting thing.

But in his conversation it was rather easy to detect the fact 
that in his field he alone, he felt, was running on choice of 
data and theory. Everybody else in his field, his own associates 
and assistants, particularly his assistants, were all running 
fixedly on data which had now become agreed-upon data in the 
field of aerodynamics, but which is not necessarily true at all. 
In fact, I never have been able to figure out -- and neither 
could he -- how anybody ever applied calculus to an airfoil, and 
managed to build the same airfoil off the same mathematical 
sheet. He said he always inquired whether or not they had sent 
the test model over for measurements in building the actual 
model, and never felt comfortable unless they did.

But this man was a realist, terrific realist. If you couldn't 
think about it and look about it, you couldn't know anything 
about it, so what use was it? And that was the way he operated. 
That was it.

I am afraid that in the field of knowledge, to me nothing, 
including Scientology, is sacred. In fact, I'd have to be argued 
with and shot at awfully long for anybody to convince me that a 
datum was an unalterable datum which must never again be 
reviewed. I'm afraid I would be very hard to convince this way. 
Of course there'd be ways to do this. You could kidnap all of you 
and hold you for ransom until I admitted that the moon was green 
cheese and -- oh, I'd probably say the moon was made out of green 
cheese, because I'd go easy the other way too.

I am not trying to hold up an inviolable integrity at the expense 
of something or other, I know not what, don't you see?

The only fate I'd know which was worse than death would be 
"totally fixed on the entire track with all data which had ever 
been invented and agreed upon." That's the only fate I'd know 
that'd be worse than death. But there's another fate which is 
almost as bad, and that is to shy off every datum simply because 
it's been agreed upon, see? You have to remain fluid in both 
quarters. In other words, you don't have to accept every datum as 
a fixed, unalterable datum, and you don't have to shy off 
anything that looks like a fixed, unalterable datum. You don't 
have to do either one. Don't have to accept them, don't have to 
reject them. Yawn once in a while. It's not that important.

So here, here we have, worked out in Scientology, a great many 
data which are apparently the common denominators of agreements 
on the whole track, arrived at evidently by the bulk of the 
people who perceive them now. And people have become disabused or 
have disabused themselves of their participation in their 
creation, and many of these people are shying off of them and 
avoiding them, because if they thought again what they had 
thought once it'd evidently kill them. And so as we inspect this 
we arrive at certain definite methods and agreements by which we 
can reach these and turn them around one way, or fix them better 
the other way, or do something with them. In other words, we are 
actually capable of twisting and turning the various fixednesses 
and unfixednesses of existence.

Now, sometimes we do this well, sometimes we do this poorly; but 
we always unfix as easily as the thing was unfixed in the first 
place, and we always fix as easily as the thing was fixed in the 
first place. We always do those things, see? We can always unfix 
something that was awfully unfixed.

You know, a fellow's walking down the street and a thought 
flashes through his mind that maybe some of his behavior is not 
entirely masculine, maybe it is slightly effeminate. In other 
words, the datum is there "Maybe I'm a girl." Well, it's... You 
see, it's very nebulous. You know, maybe -- he's just playing a 
game with himself of worry, something. We come along, we pat him 
on the shoulder, he tells us what he's worried about. We don't 
even have to tell him "You're not a girl," see? I mean, he just 
tells us what he was worried about, he -- boom! See, it's gone 
that quick.

He's walking down the street now with another datum -- another 
occurrence. He's walking down the street with a datum that he's a 
man. That's pretty fixed, isn't it? He's walking down the street 
and he's wearing men's clothes and a man's head and he's got a 
man's haircut, and he's really convinced he's a man. Now, we 
would unfix that one with a little more difficulty.

Of course, they do it easily in Hollywood, but we're not going 
that way.

Do you see, though, that the relative fixation of the data has a 
direct bearing upon our ability to unfix it. You got it?

Now, we can easily fix in his head that he's a man, can't we? He 
already thinks so. And we might have some success in fixing in 
his head this other earlier datum that he's effeminate. See, 
here's fixing and unfixing data, see? He's got the little ghosty 
notion that some of his actions are effeminate. We hear this, and 
we don't permit him to complete his communication, we shut it off 
in some fashion or another, we turn it around a little bit and we 
ask him very searchingly whether anybody has mentioned this 
lately to him or not. And then we look very learned and we say, 
"You're sure -- you're sure you don't remember it? Oh," we say, 
"it's a bit occluded, eh?" He's wondering what's happening here, 
you know?

And we say, "Well now, I'll tell you how you cure this. I'll tell 
you how you cure this. One of the best ways I know to cure this 
would be to overcome any impulse whatsoever to wear feminine 
clothes or to use feminine things, you see, by simply buying some 
and putting them on the dresser. Therefore it'd be very easy for 
you, you see, to realize that they're not yours and that you have 
nothing whatsoever to do with them. And every time you look at 
them, get the idea that they are not associated with you in any 
way."

In other words, by this way and that way we might have some 
chance of fixing the idea in his head that he's a girl.

But by paralleling life we can take a lazy man's look at it, and 
a fellow walks down the street and he thinks he's a man, and we 
pat him on the back and you say, yes, he's a man. That's the easy 
look, you see? He says, "I'm worried about being a girl" -- he's 
worried about it, that's good enough for us. Talk it over and 
he's no longer worried about being a girl. Don't you see? That's 
very easy. It's very simple.

Well, we do much better than that. We teach people how their 
minds get fixed and unfixed. We do better than that. Then we show 
them how they can fix and unfix these various agreements and 
things and postulates. That's the business we're in. We do this 
well.

Here's an organization, a business organization, that even we 
consider disorderly. Some inkling has come through to its boss -- 
to its boss -- some inkling has come through to the boss that 
this might possibly be a prevailing circumstance throughout the 
organization.

Well, we could straighten up his personnel and his comm lines. 
And we could look over this situation; we could do pretty well 
with this. Realize that if we didn't facilitate the 
communications in the organization that it would remain as 
confused as it was. We could do something about this. We could 
alter the situation more in the direction of a tolerable unit.

Now, what do we mean by a tolerable unit? Well, we could say "The 
unit works better." That's fine. "It better meets its goals" is a 
better statement. If a man is trying to be more a man, we can 
make him more a man, just achieving his goals; or we can get him 
to change his goals.

Now, a business that thinks it's confused, we could come along 
and educate it that it is totally confused. We could. We could 
simply go into nooks and crannies and pull old junk out, and keep 
calling management's attention to how this person and that person 
in the organization had been stowing stuff away, and forgetting 
stuff, and so on; and offer him no solution to this, you see, and 
carefully tell him every time to refrain from boiling over about 
it and not to get mad concerning it, because the entire tone of 
the organization depends utterly upon his own mood. We'd produce 
chaos! I mean, the place would look horrible before you got 
through. I mean, you'd really have chaos.

You could say, "Now, don't say I told you, because I don't want 
to get in trouble, and don't mention it to anybody, but actually 
your stock department, you see, is keeping all of the out-of-date 
stock and refuses to order any of the up-to-date stock. And then 
it won't release any stock to anybody else in the rest of the 
shop. And the fellow there has to be treated very carefully, 
because he's in a kind of a bad condition. Now, you treat him 
very carefully, and so forth, and don't go in suddenly and mess 
all this up, because your attention really is needed over here on 
much more important things." Get what you'd do here. It'd be 
pretty wild, wouldn't it?

So, you could intensify any given situation, or simplify any 
given situation; or, by the correct handling of data, return to 
any given situation its own self-determinism over what it's 
doing.

Just by the process of education alone, just by the process of 
educating the people immediately associated with living a marital 
life, on the subject of "These are some data about life. You pays 
your money and takes your chance. There they are. You want to 
look them over, okay. If you don't want to look them over, all 
right. Because this is kind of the way it seems to be. Let's look 
around and see if that's the way it seems to be." Orient them a 
little bit, give them some stable data, restimulate some stable 
data. All of a sudden, why, their environment is liable to 
straighten out and run much more smoothly. This you would call 
counseling. Or would you call it education?

Now, here then is a tremendous field in Scientology, and it does 
appear that all you're doing is not just increasing the learning 
rate of a person, but increasing his power of choice over what he 
has learned. And if you can do that, why, then he can lead a much 
better and more successful life.

Thank you.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]




FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 04 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

===============================================

METHODS OF EDUCATION

A lecture given on 25 October 1956


[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

Methods of education. First method of education would be talking. 
That doesn't work.

Another method of education would be beating. That is very 
successful, providing you don't care what you're teaching 
somebody.

So the first method that I would even vaguely recommend in the 
field of group teaching would be the method used in the PE 
Courses, where we take a definition of some kind or another, and 
we read it off. And then we take the data that is being defined, 
nothing more than that, and get the audience to define it.

And we don't get them to agree with our definition; we get them 
to define what we're defining. And we get each person to define, 
here and there scattered through the audience, and ask the rest 
of them if they think that's what it is.

Now, this method, of course, can utilize one word at a time, a 
group of words, and so on. It is only useful as a method when one 
uses rather fundamental items in life. Now, you could ask 
somebody to define apple pie for a long while without any great 
leap of IQ. You might be able to increase, here and there through 
the audience, the gastric appreciation for apple pie.

Therefore, the educational system is not quite as broad or 
permissive as it appears to be. The Instructor is very carefully 
segregating, out of the vast body of data available in this 
universe, a few cornerstones of knowledge: things which are 
intimate to the livingness of the audience concerned.

Now, with great success, you could use apple pie, definition of, 
with a bunch of cooks, pastry cooks.

"Apple pie. What's that mean? What do you think an apple pie is?"

And we'd kick this around for a while, and the group would become 
more real to the group, and apple pie would become more real, and 
the job would become more real, and so on. But that is a 
specialized application.

Now, let's take something much more general, then, for a general 
group. And if we pick a general group, then about the only thing 
we can handle with a general group are very, very specific items 
pertaining to living itself in its broadest definitions.

Then we'd have to take such things as cycle of action, affinity, 
reality, communication, various parts of communication. We'd have 
to take oddities of phenomena which are still very general and 
broadly effective. We could actually ask a group of people about 
the parts of man. We could read it off hurriedly -- preferably 
very hurriedly -- in one category, you know: "A body. Well, all 
right. What's a body?"

Got the idea? Well, this they all hold, obviously, in common. And 
so we could establish an agreement this way.

Well, I'll go over the method. The method is very, very specific.

Originated this originally in London, but hadn't thought too much 
about it or done too much with it until here at the Academy, just 
before the congress.

We hadn't actually beaten groups to pieces with this in London. I 
had merely experimented in Dublin and London enough to know that 
this was intensely effective. That's because I hadn't done much 
teaching. See, I hadn't done very much teaching of these general 
groups.

And all of a sudden, why, here we were and I had to give the 
optimum method that I knew in teaching a PE Course, and so that's 
the method that was given out. I knew it was successful.

Well! Much to my amazement! Much to my amazement, after I went 
back to London and tried to get this going in the PE Course as a 
standard operation, dudurrrrr. The Instructor didn't want to do 
it. He almost blew the place apart with it.

Why?

Well, this Instructor is a good boy, and he's doing it now and 
doing it well.

Now, get why this method didn't come to view and isn't generally 
used, and wouldn't be generally used if it had come to view. It's 
quite one thing to sit and talk to an audience, who, by the 
social patterns of discipline, will remain seated and listen. 
That's one thing.

But how about delivering the whole thing over to the audience, 
and still holding that audience under control?

And this evidently is not a capability possessed by everyone 
(that they know about).

Now where, then, do we use this successfully in Scientology? 
Where else could we use it?

Anyplace, providing it was done by a Scientologist.

So we come very specific here. A Scientologist would have to know 
that he was being a little bit overawed in order to bring himself 
up to confront what was overawing him slightly. Here he's 
presenting to the audience these data, key data of one kind or 
another, and asking this person to define it and that person to 
define it. And he gets a squirrely definition there, so he goes 
over there and he asks that person to define it. And he gets a 
good definition for there, and so he says this and that.

And all the time asking the rest of the group, "Well, now, do you 
agree with that? Do you agree with that, really? You think that 
is the definition to it?"

Somebody defined a cycle of action as something used by a trick 
cyclist. And he looks around to the rest of the group, and he 
says, "Now, do you think that's what a cycle of action is?"

The rest of the group says "No, no, no." And somebody starts to 
mutter in the back.

And he says, "Well, all right, now you tell me what a cycle of 
action is," see, and "Do you think that's what a cycle of action 
is?" and so on; just variations on that theme.

Well, the reason this is so formidable is actually more than 
simply the control of people. The person doing this is 
confronting the exact mechanism that got him that way in the 
first place: a vast mob of people agreeing that that is the 
datum.

So a fellow to do this has to realize that. And the only person 
that would realize that would be a Scientologist.

So it's no wonder that it wasn't invented and used. But it's a 
killer.

Now, if you wanted to teach a bunch of stenographers how to 
stenographer -- supposing you were running the Gregg Business 
College, or something of the sort, and you were a Scientologist.

Every once in a while somebody writes me and says, "I have left 
Scientology professionally now. I am running a mortuary 
business," or something, "and I'm using it in my business, and 
the business is very successful, and I owe all this to 
Scientology, and I'm getting some other morticians interested." 
And yet he began the thing by saying he was no longer a 
professional Scientologist.

I guess people had the narrow definition that a Scientologist 
would be totally one who audited individuals. I guess when they 
said then they weren't any longer in Scientology, they meant that 
they weren't in auditing.

Well, the funny part of it is, a person couldn't do this with a 
group unless he could audit. It's actually an auditing process, 
one kind or another, and you have to handle that group as, not a 
series of preclears, but as a preclear, or as a composite of 
circuits of some sort or the other. And one comes up and another 
one comes up ... And you just run it out.

And why is it so successful? And why do people gain in IQ with 
such rapidity? Of course, they gain in IQ if you simply stand and 
talk to them about these same data. But this is nothing compared 
to the gains you get on this agreement.

"Now, what do you think that means? Now you tell me. How about 
you?" And so on. And variations of that theme.

Well, one thing it does is quite amusing. Somebody says that a 
cycle of action is a trick cyclist. Well, the rest of the group 
says, "Ha-ha-ha-ha!" And he says, "Hey, what do you know? I'm not 
in agreement with the multitude. I'd better take a look at my 
values."

He does. He thinks it over, he talks it over a little bit, he 
mutters about it, and the next thing you know, he comes off some 
false values which are discursions from the basic agreement of 
that particular pin of life, see?

So the individual who gets it dead wrong can be counted on to do 
some advancing, even if he gets mad. He'll do a little advancing, 
just like that, by having his opinions called to account. Because 
if his opinions are off beam on these exact fundamentals of what 
he is doing, which is living, then he's doing a nonfundamental 
job of living. That's all there is to that. It's as simple as 
that.

Now, we take these stenographers in Gregg Business College and we 
could, of course, and should, really, continue with just the same 
thing: cycle of action, ARC, and that sort of thing, and get 
these things all thrashed out, till they all reach an agreement 
on them.

And if we're really doing a thorough job, then we'd go all over 
them again. We would do this repetitively several times, and, 
man, we'd have people who were way up in tone. But we would 
include some specifics that addressed exactly their professional 
activity.

"Give me a definition for typewriter. All right, you, Maisy: 
definition for a typewriter. Mm-hm. That's fine. Now, the rest of 
you agree with that, hm? Do the rest of you agree that a 
typewriter sometimes serves as a paperweight? Do you think this 
is right?" And here we go, see?

The next thing you know, they would be in communication with a 
typewriter better, because they'd found out that a typewriter was 
a machine with a goal of obeying a typist and putting letters on 
a piece of paper in a roller. We don't care what kind of a 
definition they finally agreed on; we don't even care how sloppy 
the English in it would be, or how many modifying phrases and 
participial clauses there would be attached to it, or how 
cumbersome the thing was. This we wouldn't care about.

We ourselves could not operate from only a memorized definition 
to do this. If we memorize a definition, "Cycle of action of the 
MEST universe is create, survive, destroy... That's fine. I got 
my stuff. Now I'm going in and teach this class. All right! 
That's fine. Now, what do you think the cycle of act--"

We'd be waiting for somebody to say "The cycle of action is 
create, survive, destroy."

Not a soul there ever read the book. They don't know that.

Somebody would come up and say, "Cycle of action -- we finally 
got this cycle of action. And a cycle of action, we finally 
figure out, and the cycle of action means that something starts 
and keeps going for a while, and then it flops."

And this is perfectly acceptable.

"The rest of you agree with that?"

"Yeah." Bunch of truck drivers. "Yeah! Yeah, that's it! That's 
true! That's the dope! Right! We got it! It's like a tire: gets 
manufactured, runs for a while, boom!"

So the fellow teaching it would have to be a Scientologist. He'd 
have to know what a cycle of action was. He'd have to be able to 
sort of have a picture of it in his mind, you know? Eyuh-thuh. 
Somebody comes up and says that.

Now, a fellow who didn't know anything about it couldn't do it. 
Because he wouldn't know when to stop. He's liable to call to 
account definitions which are on the beam.

You get the idea? He's liable to say, "Yeah, well, all right. Do 
the rest of you think that's it?"

Get the difference.

Well now, that system would then be used to clarify livingness in 
general or specific capabilities or characteristics amongst a 
certain group of people.

Now, let's take acting. If you took a bunch of actors, and you 
wanted them to be better actors, you could process all of them. 
But one of the actions you'd have to undertake to consolidate a 
company of actors would be this type of an activity.

And you'd have to reduce acting to its common activities, those 
that had common denominators to all acting. See how we'd have to 
do that?

We could go over this, then; we reduce it to maybe fifteen 
titles, each one, one after the other. Each characteristic -- 
we'd wind up with about fifteen of them, or something like that.

We'd even take the parts of acting. We could take the stage. We 
could take an audience. "What's an audience? All right, you 
define an audience."

"Rryrrr-rowrr! Yeah, that's what an audience is."

And you'd at least let them work out a tremendous amount of 
hostility on the subject of hostile audiences and so on. You'd 
probably run the last two or three flop plays out of them, just 
with just that, see?

In other words, you'd have to break this subject down. So you'd 
have to know a great deal about Scientology and a bit about what 
you were trying to break down. You'd have to have observed what 
was going on.

Now let's take several other fields.

Let us take the field of medicine. Now, how much medicine would 
you have to know to run this on medicos? Really not very much.

"So, what's a patient? Now we're going to define patient. Now, 
you, Dr. Jones, how would you define a patient? Oh? Ho-ho! 
Somebody who pays a fee. Very good, very good."

We'd eventually get back some of the ethics and so forth that 
they had in medical school and lost there. We'd eventually get 
this and that and clarification. We would also get greater 
interest in their own profession.

Now let us take an organization, and this becomes very, very, 
very important, because it is a part of organizational 
Scientology.

Organizational Scientology is moving right up to the front, 
because we are actually processing more and more large firms. And 
so far, we are simply processing them either on a PE basis, just 
teaching them fundamentals of life, or we are doing it 
individually. That is, the Association is doing this, and it's 
doing a great many of these. Some of them are coming up every 
time you turn around, all abroad. It'll be happening here in 
America soon enough. Individual or PE Course.

Now, you have to know something else here. You have to know this 
other thing about special activity.

Now this same method of training can be used on an individual. 
And the second you move into settling an organization in place, 
you use a different type of education than would ordinarily be 
used.

You don't issue him 825 directives, all of them more or less 
conflicting, but beautifully typed. You issue him instead a 
Scientologist, who takes up his job with him. And you put this 
individual on post. I'll tell you much more about that when I 
start to tell you how to run a practice. But, you put him on 
post, and you get him to define his activity until he has a 
stable datum for it. And you just keep doing this with him.

Oh, he'll weep and tear his hair. He's liable to do anything 
before he gets through. It's quite an adventurous activity. Just 
exactly what you did with life, with a group, you do with an 
individual. And it's the darnedest auditing you ever ran into.

You run out a whole field of confusion when you do this. One of 
the most vital activities that could be engaged upon by a 
Scientologist. It's quite interesting. But as I say, we'll know 
more about that later.

Now, here then is the special characteristic or just the 
fundamentals of life. Remember the rule is that you have to get a 
person to define it, find out how much of their agreement exists 
with it, discover any further ramifications or things that have 
to be added to the definition, and then you eventually get them 
to achieve a stable datum on this subject.

The moment you do that it as-ises a tremendous quantity of 
confusion; when they really do it.

So here we have a group activity going down to an individual 
activity.

It always used to be that an individual activity expanded out to 
a group activity. But here's a new one.

This same process has been used very successfully, and is being 
used successfully, which was originated on a group and now it's 
applied to individuals -- see that? -- as instruction.

Instruction. Odd kind of instruction.

A fellow's an accountant. You say, "All right. Now here you are, 
and here I am and..." Sort of an "Am I here?" sort of a "Is this 
a room? Is this a session?" sort of a conversation, you know?

"I understand you've been on the job quite a while," and "Do you 
know Mr. Smithers well?" and so on, "your boss," and two-way 
comm. And "All right, well, we're supposed to do something here. 
I want you to explain something about your job to me."

Well, he's always willing to do that. He thinks you're there to 
explain his job to him. And this takes him by storm, because you 
don't do that. You say, "What is a good definition for 
accounting?"

And he gives you some long, involved thing out of the Alexander 
Hamilton Institute for Higher Federal Swindling.

And he gives you this, and you say, "Well, that's very good. But 
do you think that is -- just think it over for a moment -- do you 
think that is..." Pick up any clause in it, any phrase in it. "Do 
you think that belongs there?"

"Well, I don't know.

"How would you rephrase that?"

And it's a funny thing that you're asking him this question, 
because he's never thought about the definition before.

And he starts knocking it together, and after you've done this 
with him for maybe an hour, this professional accountant comes up 
with a definition for an accounting, something he never had 
before.

And all of a sudden, about eighteen hats he thought he was 
wearing disappear, and about three more he didn't know he had 
appear, and his job starts to orient. And being a stable datum 
now, he can handle his communication post, which is all he is 
occupying.

All right, now, let's see, then, that there is a method of 
teaching by definition and getting agreement. There is a method 
of teaching that way.

There is another method of education, which is lower than this, 
and which is quite fabulous. It's fantastic. In fact, I'm ashamed 
to mention it. It's too fundamental. It's right down in the 
bottom drawer.

I'm going to pick somebody very bright here in order to do this 
with. And you understand this is just a demonstration. Have I got 
any volunteers? Thank you, Harold.

PC: Okay.

LRH: All right. Now I'm going to say something, and then I want 
you to say something. Is that all right with you?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: All right. One, two, three.

PC: One, two, three.

LRH: Now, that's very good. Now, did you say that?

PC: Yeah, I said that.

LRH: Well, why did you say that?

PC: Because you said it.

LRH: Oh, I said it and then you said it!

PC: Uh-huh.

LRH: Now, do you remember what you said?

PC: One, two, three.

LRH: That's very good. All right. Now, you see how this goes now. 
All right, I'm going to say three more numbers, and I want you to 
repeat them, okay? That's good.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: All right. Six, eighteen, twelve.

PC: Six, eighteen, twelve.

LRH: All right. What did I say?

PC: Six, eighteen, twelve.

LRH: Is that what I said?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: You're sure that's what I said?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Well, do you recall what I said? Do you really...

PC: No, I recall what I said.

LRH: You recall what you said, not what I said?

PC: Yep. Yeah.

LRH: Well, that's very fascinating. Well, what number was it?

PC: Well, it was three numbers: six, eighteen, twelve.

LRH: But you do remember it, don't you?

PC: Yes, I do.

LRH: Well, do you recall me saying it?

PC: (pause) Mmm... not as well as I recall me saying it.

LRH: You remember you saying it better! Well, that's very 
interesting. All right, now, that's good, that's fine. All
right: thirty-two, sixteen, eleven.

PC: You want me to do something with that?

LRH: Sure; say it!

PC: Oh! Thirty-two, sixteen, eleven.

LRH: Very good, very good. What did I say?

PC: Thirty-two, sixteen, eleven.

LRH: All right. Do you recall me saying that?

PC: Yeah, but not quite as well as I do me saying it.

LRH: All right. That's very interesting, isn't it?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: All right. Now we're going to go a little further into this, 
if this is all right with you, huh?

PC: Sure, sure.

LRH: All right: A hundred, twelve, sixteen.

PC: A hundred, twelve, sixteen.

LRH: All right. Did I say that?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Do you remember my saying it?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: You do remember it?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: It's easier to do now?

PC: Yes, it is!

LRH: Well, all right! All right.

PC: Yeah, after all that.

LRH: All right, I'm going to say three more numbers, and I'm 
going to ask you to say them after them. All right?

PC: Right.

LRH: All right. Three, two, one.

PC: Three, two, one.

LRH:	All right, that's fine. Now, do you remember the first 
numbers that we used? The first numbers I said?

PC: Mmmm... no.

LRH: The first--

PC: Oh, oh!

LRH: Yeah, what were they?

PC: One, two, three.

LRH: One, two, three. All right. Very good. Well then, you can 
remember what I say, can't you?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Huh? You can remember what I say, and you can remember what 
you say, can't you? Huh?

PC: Yeah, yeah.

LRH: All right and it's not very difficult, is it?

PC: No.

LRH: It's not very difficult at all.

PC: No.

LRH: Well, all right. Now, I'm going to ask you something, and 
that is, did you feel any physical pain while I was saying these 
numbers to you?

PC: No. No.

LRH: In other words, repeating them and remembering them didn't 
cause any physical pain. Is that right?

PC: No, it didn't.

LRH: No physical pain at all?

PC: No.

LRH: Well, all right. I'm going to say three more numbers, and 
I'm going to ask you to say them after them, all right?

PC: Right.

LRH: All right. Eight, seven, six.

PC: Eight, seven, six.

LRH: All right. Now, how do you feel about that?

PC: Good!

LRH: You feel all right about that?

PC: Yeah! Yeah.

LRH: In other words, there's no great tension involved here?

PC: No.

LRH: You sure? You sure? You sure there's no tension? Huh?

PC: Nah.

LRH: Less than there was?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: All right. Now, what was the last thing I said?

PC: Eight, seven, six.

LRH: In other words, this is easy to remember, huh?

PC: Yeah!

LRH: Yeah, it's easy to remember what I say, huh?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Well, all right. Now, what do you think about it?

PC: Well, I think it's pretty easy to remember what you say.

LRH: All right. You think it really is?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: All right. Now, all of these data, of course, I've been 
giving you are very nonsignificant.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: There is no great significance to this data at all.

PC: Mm-hm.

LRH: Is that right?

PC: That's right.

LRH: All right. Now let's get just a little more significant, all 
right?

PC: Okay.

LRH: All right. All chairs are purple.

PC: All right. All chairs are purple.

LRH: All right. Well, is that true?

PC: No. No, it's not.

LRH: Well, what did I say?

PC: You said all chairs are purple.

LRH: And then what did you say?

PC: I said all chairs are purple.

LRH: All right. We both said all chairs are purple.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Are they?

PC: No.

LRH: No. All right, then you could disbelieve something I said, 
couldn't you?

PC: Yeah!

LRH: You could throw it out, huh?

PC: Yeah, yeah.

LRH: All right. Well, that's good, that's good. Now, let's try 
that again, all right?

PC: Yeah!

LRH: All right. The ceiling is an inch above the floor.

PC: Okay. The ceiling is an inch above the floor.

LRH: All right. How's that?

PC: That's all right.

LRH: What did I say?

PC: You said the ceiling is an inch above the floor.

LRH: All right. Can you throw that out?

PC: Yeah, sure.

LRH: Do you have to believe it?

PC: No.

LRH: It's not a vital datum?

PC: No. No.

LRH: Is it true?

PC: No.

LRH: Not true?

PC: No.

LRH: In other words, you got a power of choice over something I 
said, haven't you?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Well, that's pretty good. That's pretty good. All right, now 
let's go just a little bit further with this, shall we?

PC: Okay.

LRH: All right. Preclears should always be acknowledged.

PC: Okay. Preclears should always be acknowledged.

LRH: Mm-hm. Well, all right. Is that true?

PC: Mmm... Well, if you want to help him, it is.

LRH: Huh?

PC: Yeah, if you want to help him, it is.

LRH: Well, yeah, but the datum was preclears should always be 
acknowledged. Is that true?

PC: No, that's not true.

LRH: That's not true?

PC: No.

LRH: What do you think about it as a datum?

PC: I think it's a pretty good datum.

LRH: Yeah? Pretty good datum, but not always true.

PC: No, not always true.

LRH: Well, I tell you what. Let's take a little example of this 
here, one way or the other. Let's take these two objects here. 
We'll call this object the preclear, and we'll call this object 
the auditor, all right?

PC: Okay.

LRH: All right. Now, I want you to give me an example of that 
datum, "preclears should always be acknowledged." Now, if that 
datum were in existence, what would be the action of the auditor 
here to a statement on the part of the preclear? Now, you just 
tell me.

PC: Well, acknowledge him; say "Okay" or "All right," something 
of the sort.

LRH: Mm-hm. All right. Well, now you have the preclear here say 
something and have the auditor acknowledge it, okay?

PC: Oh, "Gluck!" You know, "Okay."

LRH: All right. You bet. All right. Have the preclear say 
something.

PC:  "Gleeck."

LRH: All right. Now what does the auditor say?

PC: "All right."

LRH: Okay. Is that... that's an acknowledgment?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: And the datum says what? "Preclears should always be 
acknowledged." What's that say there?

PC: Well, that says that the auditor should always acknowledge...

LRH: Yeah...

PC: ...something from the preclear's statement.

LRH: Well, give me a more graphic example of that.

PC: Well, preclear says, "I'm hungry."

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: Auditor says, "Okay."

LRH: Mm-hm. All right. But the datum is a preclear should always 
be acknowledged. Now, can you give me a graphic example of that? 
Using these two items.

PC: Using those two items... (pause) I don't know! No, not very 
well, using those two items.

LRH: Why not?

PC: Well, that's not a preclear, and that's not an auditor.

LRH: Well, that's true... That's true. I agree with you there. 
It's perfectly true. Perfectly true. In other words, you didn't 
even have to accept my assignment of value to these two things.

PC: No, no.

LRH: You didn't have to.

PC: No.

LRH: Did you really agree with the assignment of value to them?

PC: Well, for a little while there.

LRH: But not now?

PC: Yeah, not now.

LRH: Well, not now. All right, shall we assign value to them 
again?

PC: Well...

LRH: Why don't you assign the value to them? Which one's the 
preclear?

PC: I don't know that I'd want to assign that value.

LRH: You don't know that you'd...

PC: Well, unless I wanted to assign more values to them, and said 
that the, well, the glass, you know, could talk or do certain 
things...

LRH: All right.

PC: Yeah, you know. And I could do that.

LRH: Okay. Well, do so. Go ahead.

PC: Oh, go ahead? Okay, well, it's all right the way you had it 
there. The glass can be the preclear.

LRH: All right. All right.

PC: And the Coke bottle will be the auditor.

LRH: All right. Now let's get an example of this datum we're 
examining.

PC: Okay. The glass, as a preclear, says, "I've had enough of 
this; I'm leaving."

LRH: Mm-hm.

PC: And then if the auditor, which is the Coke bottle, must 
always acknowledge the preclear, the Coke bottle says, "Okay."

LRH: It's not very workable, is it? All right! All right. You got 
a good grip on this datum, though?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: All right. Well, let's modify it so it is true. Now, how 
would you modify it so it's true?

PC: Well... (pause) Well, something to the effect that if an 
auditor wants to get good results, you know, if he wants to 
handle this thing, then he will acknowledge. You know...

LRH: You were...

PC: Like, for example, an auditor might just be trying out, to 
find out for himself whether acknowledgment was worthwhile or 
not. So in that case maybe he wouldn't acknowledge, just to see 
what would happen.

LRH: Mm-hm. Well, give me a datum then that could be taught to 
somebody.

PC: Hmm...

LRH: Concerning acknowledgment.

PC: Well, something like "You want to be an auditor, you're going 
to audit a preclear, try this for yourself and see if it works: 
When your preclear originates something, you acknowledge. See if 
you get good results." Something of that sort.

LRH: Mm-hm. Well, can you just codify it as a datum?

PC: (pause) Mmm... (pause) Well, just acknowledge your preclear.

LRH: Mm-hm. You'd want to make it that brief?

PC: Well, you might add something about results in there -- get 
certain kind of results. I don't know for sure.

LRH: Well, "acknowledge your preclear": is that much of a 
modification from "preclears should always be acknowledged?"

PC: Well, I don't know about this should always be 
acknowledged...

LRH: Oh! You don't like that should always.

PC: Yeah, I'm not sure I like that.

LRH: Well, how would you vary that?

PC: Mmm. I don't know.

LRH: Well, let's vary it so that it could be stated. Preclears 
what, concerning acknowledgment? Just anything you want to say.

PC: Oh, I'd be more inclined to say... I don't know.

LRH: Come on, let's make a datum up here.

PC: (pause) I don't know. I'd just say "acknowledge your 
preclear."

LRH: You just would say "acknowledge your preclear."

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Hm. Nothing cautionary about it?

PC: I might make another datum that says -- that would put this 
datum under "For good auditing..." I mean, "These are the 
rudiments of auditing," or something, "Acknowledge your 
preclear." And then tell the guy, "Well, you try doing it, or you 
try doing it -- try not doing it, and see what happens."

LRH: All right. All right. What conclusion do you think he would 
attain then?

PC: Well, I think he'd come to the conclusion that when he wanted 
good results, that he would acknowledge his preclear.

LRH: All right. Well now, supposing you tell me that datum.

PC: Well, if you want good auditing results, acknowledge your 
preclear.

LRH: If you want good auditing results, acknowledge your 
preclear.

PC: Right.

LRH: Is that what you said?

PC: Yeah, that's what I said.

LRH: Did I repeat it?

PC: Yeah, you did.

LRH: Oh, I'll repeat something you said.

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Is that right?

PC: Yeah.

LRH: Well, say it again.

PC: If you want good auditing results, acknowledge your preclear.

LRH: All right. If you want good auditing results, acknowledge 
your preclear.

PC: Very good!

LRH: All right. Okay. Thank you very much, Harold. End of 
session!

All right. Now, do you see this particular method of instruction?

It takes a nonsignificant datum and teaches somebody that the 
repetition of the datum does not bring about chaos, does not hurt 
him any, that he can do it. Right?

Then you teach him he could remember it and so forth.

Now, although he is taught data all the time, it might be, 
because of association of something with you, he is not 
necessarily convinced that he could accept your data. Some people 
are safe and some aren't, you see? Got the idea?

So if you wanted to teach him something, why, you would have to 
give him a test of this. Let him look it over.

And you'd do this, of course, with a nonsignificant datum: one, 
two, three; a hundred, thirty-two, sixteen, see? Just numbers. 
Just nothing to it, nothing to it at all. You get a repetition of 
this, and then he can remember it, and he will find out that his 
own -- usually, this is fairly standard -- he'll remember that 
his own repetition is safe, and that yours is a little bit held 
off, see? Then he finds out immediately that's not so bad; I mean 
there's nothing wrong with that.

Now, you do something else with him. He's so used to being taught 
by life with duress, and not with a power of choice, that you 
take a totally incorrect datum. You know, you showed him he could 
remember it over a long period of time, like the trick of giving 
him the first number backwards, and letting him repeat the first 
number again.

But you give him an incorrect data. There would be no argument 
about the incorrectness of the datum. And you let him throw it 
out. And you give him another datum, incorrect, and let him throw 
it out. And if he has any difficulty with the nonsignificant 
items, you would, of course, keep repeating these until we could 
do it smoothly and this worked out.

I don't care how long it took.

And then, you would keep giving him incorrect data and letting 
him throw it out, and show him definitely and positively that he 
could give it the yo-heave. You got it?

Now, you've shown him that he can remember something or reject 
it, and that is the definition of power of choice.

You've shown him and demonstrated to him -- probably at much 
greater length than I have demonstrated to you here, you see? You 
have demonstrated to him that he can take nonsignificant data and 
give it the yo-heave, he can take completely incorrect data and 
give it the yo-heave, and that he can remember any of this data. 
And also that it didn't hurt him and it didn't kill him. You got 
it?

And then you give him a datum which is the datum you wish to 
teach him. And you give him power of choice over the datum. But 
the pitch is to give it a little bit exaggerated in force. You 
got it? "Preclears should always be acknowledged." It's not true. 
Not true.

Let him quarrel with it. Let him chew it around. Let him add it 
up and look over his experience.

And make him give you an objective example. That is a vital part 
of this particular operation -- a vital part of it.

Have him set up a dummy situation somehow or another, see? If 
you're teaching him that it is wrong to run off the road with a 
car, or something stupid like that, why, you have him show you 
where the road is on the table and move the salt shaker off the 
road, see? You get the notion, see?

You give him an objective example. He has to then translate your 
statement into action. Got that? He must do this, and he must 
continue to do this until he can do it, one way or the other, so 
that it ceases to be a bunch of words.

There's many an excellent student to whom all of education is 
only a bunch of words, and somehow or other they've mastered the 
mathematics of words so that they can make the words change and 
redefine and come back, and nothing ever hit reality at all. In 
other words, the avoidance factor is so strong that they have 
worked out a complete mathematics of symbols. And they can be 
very convincing. They can give you examples.

But to point to objects, to make them give direction to the 
objects, intention to the objects, and so forth, is quite 
something else. It removes this thing, then, from the theoretical 
class and moves it into the world of doingness.

So you remove this datum into a bit of a better definition, and 
then you remove it into the world of doingness. You argue some 
more with him and agree with him -- you pick an agreement with 
him -- on the subject of the definition itself, until he can 
state it fairly well. And then you make him give it to you, and 
you repeat his definition.

It shows him he can do this, too.

Fascinating thing is he's liable to relax about the whole datum.

Now, one item came up with relation to this particular 
demonstration session. Of course, the amount of stress that we 
were putting on it is of course brief We did this very, very 
briefly, with somebody who already knew the datum. That's why it 
could be brief, don't you see?

No subject has more than half a hundred important data in it. I 
don't care what you're doing. They don't have more than a half a 
hundred really vital, top-flight data.

The running of a truck company: some guy who knows how but can't 
tell you how, and that sort of thing -- got it bred in the bone, 
and all that sort of thing -- you better not count on him in any 
push. Because he can't state what he's doing; therefore, it's all 
in the field of action. So therefore it must be to some degree 
obsessive.

He always has to get the trucks out. There's eight broken down. 
If they run any further in the condition they're in, they'll burn 
up his trucks. Well, some hidden datum is in there someplace 
about always getting the trucks out.

So these eight trucks, in spite of the protests of the mechanics 
and so forth, hit the road anyway, and there's an awful lot of 
dollars in trucks suddenly burned up, you see?

I've seen shipping companies do this. The ships must always go to 
sea and be making money for their owners.

Or "Paint is expensive!" or something like this. And this is a 
monitoring, important datum.

All right. Now, in view of the fact that we are doing an 
evaluation of data, if you please -- please, look at this -- the 
evaluation up to this moment is in the hands of the Instructor. 
You got it?

Now, we have to run another type of session, which is best done 
on the ground with the subject matter of the person. We run 
unimportances. We run unimportances, that's all.

We don't run importances. Why?

Everybody in the universe has always been running importances. 
Everything was always important. Anything was important.

"It's very important that you put your hat on this particular 
peg."

"Why?"

"Well, because it's important!"

Well, why is it important? What's important mean? Important means 
punishment. Got it?

People are taught to do things, not because they're sensible or 
because it's a good game, they're taught to do things because of 
consequences -- dire consequences.

So you can cover the whole field of any activity in terms of 
consequences by covering it in terms of importances.

Now, you could do consequences or importances and wind up more or 
less with the same result.

You're teaching somebody to drive a tractor. Driving -- teaching 
of driving -- is quite an activity. There are a lot of driving 
schools in the United States. They teach people to drive.

There are a lot of police schools that teach people to drive 
better. They do a fine job of it, too. They send the people out 
to have more accidents. It's very good. I mean, it's very good. 
They have trouble, you see, with employment in the traffic 
department. And if they had less accidents, why, they'd have less 
employment, so on. You got to keep it up somehow or another; it's 
the only way I can figure it out.

But they teach everybody how important it is to do this, and how 
important it is to do that, because of the dire consequences of.

And I've never heard anybody in a driving school... And I've 
looked this problem over very interestedly. We even devised a 
very beautiful little test that someday we're going to shove 
under the noses of people who are taking driving tests. And when 
they flop it, they flop. That's that. It's an amazingly 
insignificant little test to show up the tremendous stress of 
confusion in the individual. Because only 10 percent of the 
drivers make 90 percent of the accidents. And all you have to do 
is eliminate them, and we would see a lot less red lights.

I've never heard an instructor say, "You drive this way because 
it's the aesthetic thing to do," or "because this is the way to 
drive gracefully."

They don't do that. And yet that's the only reason that appeals 
to a thetan. It's the only reason people buy automobiles today: 
they look aesthetic in them, they think. Or they drive 
aesthetically or something. You know?

Maybe somebody's got a reverse on aesthetics, and ugliness and 
aesthetics have reversed somehow -- beauty and ugliness have 
reversed in the field of aesthetics -- and so he knows how he 
looks aesthetic in a car: old slouch hat, Model-T Ford, you know? 
That's the aesthetic setup.

So what would you do? What would you do with somebody if the 
importance of the situation is rather for the birds. It really 
doesn't get too far.

I was rather amazed to learn a complete report about all of the 
kids of a town in England are taught continuously and yanked back 
in. Nobody ever stops teaching them how to ride their bicycles 
and walk safely. They're always taught this. Ride their bicycles 
and walk safely.

And the report goes on and on, saying then the importance of an 
educational program in preventing accidents, since they've had no 
accidents in that town for motor traffic, which is fairly heavy 
through it, for many, many years. And this program has been very 
thorough and has been followed very, very well.

The datum, of course, makes good sense in favor of "make them all 
study safety, and they have a safe record," until you learn that 
they are conducted through these exercises and so forth on the 
ground.

It amounts to learning how to walk and ride bicycles on streets. 
They take them out and... They must include in it, for the thing 
to work at all, the lesson that "you, too, can safely ride a 
bicycle and don't have to worry about it." And that must 
overweigh the importance factor; otherwise the program would not 
have mounted up this way, see?

It's quite interesting.

Now, if you have no time to educate anybody, if you're very 
careless, you don't care anything about it, and you feel pretty 
sadistic, you say, "Nobody is going to leave this post tonight."

You're a general or something, and, you know, uncontrolled. And 
somebody named Slovick or something or other leaves the post, and 
you shoot him. You show other people the dead body and you say, 
"You see?"

That is, if you're real stupid, this has a workability which is a 
usable workability -- if you're real stupid. You haven't any 
imagination or something, you can do that.

Well, this has a rather broad appeal, for some reason or other.

I'll show you; it's intensely workable, this method by force: "If 
you kill. somebody, you'll get killed."

Very forceful; it works: murders stopped a long time ago. Hasn't 
been a murder in years, obviously, because there've been an awful 
lot of hangings. Proves itself, doesn't it?

Education by importance, then, is all right as long as you're in 
terrific ARC with your people.

You can say, "This is an awfully important datum. Look it over 
and see if you don't think so."

If you're not in terrific ARC with the people, not close up and 
in terrific ARC with them all the time, by golly, you 
certainly... It isn't power of choice you have to return to them, 
it's relaxation. That's what you've got to return to them: 
relaxation.

You've got to get them to relax about the body of data before the 
importance of the data shows up.

So, you teach somebody to drive a tractor by having him select 
the unimportant parts of it: things that he's sure are relatively 
unimportant about the tractor, the control or handling of which 
is relatively unimportant.

And you know, before you've run it very long, this tractor will 
become the most important thing he ever saw. I mean he won't be 
able to run it very long before "But it's all important!" you 
know?

And you say, "Oh, come on. You can find something else about this 
tractor that's unimportant. Oh, come on; let's find something 
else." You're running a covert kind of 8-C, of course, at the 
same time, which is highly successful and mustn't be neglected on 
the educational factor.

"One more unimportant thing about this tractor."

Well, he finally decides that the coat of paint that is on the 
exact front of the crank is probably unimportant. He probably 
decides that.

And you keep nailing him and nailing him and nailing him. The 
thing gets more solid to him -- one of the things that happens. 
But the other thing that happens is, the allness that he finally 
comes upscale into starts to disintegrate.

He finds out after a while that the controls -- he doesn't know 
anything about the tractor; he's just been examining it. He will 
finally select the controls and the exact items which are control 
contacts of the tractor as the most important things of the 
tractor from his standpoint. And then hell select these down, and 
gradually, why, hell have it taped.

The funny part of it is, if you do that, he ran get in and drive 
the tractor. Fantastic!

In other words, it isn't so important that it'll kill him if he 
doesn't know. And if he's on a craving-to-know anxiety all the 
way through his learning to drive a tractor, it practically kills 
him. And someday the tractor probably will kill him. It's all so 
important that he convinces even himself by running off of a 
cliff with it.

He suddenly fumbles for the brake at the last moment, you see, 
and hits the choke, and it merely advances the speed of the 
engine slightly. And he says, "Something is wrong here," he says. 
"It's all so important."

So there's a whole series of tricks educationally that center 
around the devaluation of importances of the unimportant parts of 
the subject. Got it?

That's a whole field of education. Go take somebody out and show 
him a hydroelectric dam, find the unimportant parts of it.

My God, it may take him ten months! We don't even care who he 
talks to or anything else. But we don't let him simply study it 
out of its manual, see? We don't do that to him. He has to select 
the unimportances.

Now, one of the things that is very amusing about this: I quite 
often show somebody how to use a camera, because that's a 
dramatization on my part of Fac One, of course.

And I have pretty good luck. I pretend to take film out of the 
back before I show people the snapshots and so forth. And it's 
quite interesting that people in Scientology are very, very easy 
to teach about a camera. Very easy. Fac One or no Fac One; it has 
no bearing on it. They're just rather easy to teach the 
mechanical operation of something. You show them this and show 
them that and they say, "That's fine," and wind it up and 
"click," you know. They're fine.

Except for somebody who has never selected out the importances of 
Scientology, and who still believes that every datum in 
Scientology must be totally memorized, because it's just as 
important as every other datum in Scientology. And Scientology is 
the same order of magnitude as yoga; it's the same order of 
magnitude as something else; it's same order of magnitude as 
psychology; the same order of magnitude... It's all-all-all-all-
all, see?

And you look up this person's past, and they've been punished 
within an inch of their lives. Direct coordination. It's all 
important.

So if you said to somebody, "For good auditing results, preclears 
should be acknowledged," something on that order -- if you just 
said that to him, and you said to him, "Preclears sit in chairs 
and stand up," and "Textbooks vary in price." Now, you give him 
this data, and you say, "Now, study for examination."

So they memorize "Textbooks vary in price."

You will find this person likewise is incapable of putting the 
material into use.

So you have to devaluate the unimportances out of this allness.

All right. I was showing somebody this in Scientology -- how to 
run a camera (this was not very recently) -- because I wanted 
this person to get a couple of snapshots at a congress. "You go 
over there and snap them."

All of a sudden realized that I'd hit a peculiar strata of "it 
was all very important," because they were being taught something 
-- because I was teaching them this, you see?

Its order of magnitude jumped out of groove. See? And the anatomy 
of a preclear and how you snap a camera became of equal 
importance, you see?

They were going this way: "Yes. Yes. Show me that again. Sh--show
me where the -- where the release is. Show me where the -- 
where the release is."

And I said, "Well, which release are you talking about?"

"How -- how you take the film out."

Well, what could we have cared less about taking the film out of 
the camera they were only going to use for two shots? Yet they 
were fixed right on it.

And I said to them, "Well now, tell me confidentially: Do you 
think what I'm telling you is very important?"

"Ha-ha! Ha-ha! Ha-ha! It's not at all important, is it? Ha!" and 
they all of a sudden went outside and went into hysterics.

Person's whole auditing characteristics altered -- their 
abilities altered -- just on suddenly realizing something was out 
of line on the allness of the importance of everything.

In other words, we just shook one little brick loose in this 
formidable wall, and the rest of the wall caved in.

Now, the shaking of the allness and everythingness and uniformity 
of the importance and heaviness and conviction of, and so on, is 
probably one of the best educational maneuvers that a fellow can 
undertake with somebody who has already been educated in a 
subject. So we even can undo old-time education.

Now, I told you education has something to do with fixing data 
and unfixing it, changing existing data, either by making it more 
fixed or less fixed. So today we have under view and in view, 
then, a technology, with its importances, and any variation of 
it, which can undo to a marked extent a very thorough education 
in some subject and return it to the power of choice of an 
individual.

Now, because some people are so far out of communication, the 
technique of teaching them something often has to include 
auditing. So they'd have to be audited and uneducated.

But this you find is the most formidable task of the educator: to 
take somebody who has been educated in it. You hand a bunch of 
new radar and stuff to the Andrea Doria. Everybody on there has 
been going to sea all this time. They are all terribly 
experienced; they know all about it. They never look at it.

And in a fog one day somebody thinks they're depending on it, and 
they're not depending on it, and they've got a cross-up, and they 
have never been uneducated from other methods, and they're 
supposed to accept new methods, and they're all equal -- 
lahlah... And the Andrea Doria is on the bottom.

See what happened? You didn't try to uneducate them before you 
educated them.

Now, everybody knows that a thetan is a bottomless pit. But not 
on the subject of education. He absorbs just about so much on a 
subject, and then he knocks off.

So you have to get him to evaluate it, reevaluate it, and assume 
its various levels of evaluation under his own power of choice. 
And then he's got a subject in more useful state than he has ever 
had it before.

And now I hope you know perhaps a little more about how to teach 
people to know less about what they know all about.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]




FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 05 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

===============================================

TONE SCALE (AUTUMN 1956)

A lecture given on 1 November 1956


[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

Well, tonight particularly I have nothing to talk to you about. 
Tonight particularly.

And that's because the weather doesn't really permit dry humor.

Very good. I knew one man would applaud that. I knew that.

I would like to give you a little talk on the Tone Scale and 
rather bring it up-to-date and talk a little bit about its uses.

This material you all know. You've heard all this. There's 
nothing new about it at all, I assure you. Except, of course, 
some few small items.

Now, the first of these few small items was the addition, some 
time ago, of the Know to Mystery Scale.

Now, the Know to Mystery Scale was an interesting introduction, 
but all it was in essence was an expansion of Science of Survival 
up and down. We expanded Science of Survival up and down. Well, 
it's very interesting since in Science of Survival we have told 
you how bad it can get and is, you see, at the bottom of the 
scale, that with our Know to Mystery Scale we then go south. And 
this is very hard to do, but I managed it. I just said everything 
from that point on down south was indescribable, 
incomprehensible, un-understandable, and that was the trouble 
with it. Everybody was trying to understand it and there's no 
understanding in it.

Now, it's very fascinating that the Tone Scale itself occupies 
that band which is covered in the Know to Mystery Scale as 
Emotion. And that's a rather high band.

The Know to Mystery Scale goes in this fashion: It goes Know, 
which is totality of knowing; and then it goes Not-Know, which 
means that we have to not-know some things in order to know some 
things; and then it goes down into Look, which means the totality 
of perception; and then goes down into the emotional band, which 
goes, of course, from enthusiasm down to (covering it very 
roughly) conservatism, antagonism, anger, fear, grief and apathy. 
That's the emotional band, and then we move into Effort or 
Solids; Solids are part of the Effort band.

Well, right about that point -- right about that point -- a 
fantastically terrible cognition occurred. It almost blew me out 
of my chair at the time I was sitting there. I was minding my own 
business. I wasn't thinking about much of anything. And I was 
sort of adding up processes, you know, in a lackadaisical sort of 
way, and I said, "Now, let's see. These processes over here 
obviously upset preclears." And I wrote down a small list of 
these things, and "Then these processes over here obviously 
benefit preclears. But in this list of processes that benefit 
preclears we find a great many that don't, and in the list of 
processes that don't benefit preclears we find some that do. Oh, 
no."

Well, of course I had entered right into the strata of 
incomprehensibility and unfortunately made it comprehensible. I 
got to looking at this and all of a sudden realized what we've 
been doing for a long, long time. Ha! It's pathetic to think of 
it, but every now and then when we audited a preclear and he 
became apathetic, we were making him well. Just look that over.

Every now and then when we were auditing somebody and he 
apparently slumped to the bottom of the emotional scale, we 
actually were winning. We had brought him up to apathy.

When you really look this over you have the answers to a 
tremendous number of phenomena which we have encountered, and 
amongst them is "don't care." Amongst them is "forget," "can't 
remember anything," "can't remember childhood." Amongst them is 
irresponsibility: "can't do anything about it anyway." Many of 
these characteristics lie below apathy and they're all above 
apathy. And what a happy man it is that can be apathetic. He's 
high toned.

Now, one of the first random data that was recovered in this wise 
was the observation that very often seamen, very often chaps 
working on ships, rather beat-up characters... I'm talking now 
about the common seaman of yesteryear before the unions promoted 
him above the officers. This fellow would occasionally get hurt 
and would then insist on going about his duties, and could not be 
made to sit still long enough to have a broken hand or something 
like this heal up. And very many men have observed this and they 
have assigned a certain deity to it, you see. The man is 
practically godlike in his ability to withstand pain.

The horrible discovery is he's not withstanding pain; he can't 
feel it! He cannot feel it. He is incapable of that much 
sensitivity. He is below apathy.

Now, I know what I'm talking about now, because I've had several 
cases that were in that range and they hadn't known that they had 
been hurt and had no recall of it whatsoever. And I worked with 
them and brought them upscale, and they finally became apathetic 
about having been hurt. And I brought them up a little bit higher 
and, oh boy, did it hurt. And brought them up a little bit higher 
and they could handle it. But at that low stage they had been 
completely overwhelmed to a point of not even knowing they had 
been overwhelmed.

Now you say, "How bad can it get?" Well, you can go lower than 
that. You can go lower than that. You can go to a point of no 
comprehension of any successive moment. No comprehension of any 
moment preceding or succeeding any other moment.

Now, you can get worse than that. You can get no comprehension of 
any moment, including now. Well, we get a politician or something 
like that, you know. We get somebody that's really in there 
pitching, you know. He doesn't know he's there; he doesn't know 
he has been there; he doesn't know he will be there; he doesn't 
know you are there or anything of the sort, and that's about it.

Now, we have already descended below Mystery because he's not 
puzzled. Nothing worries him. Oh-ho-ho, no. Nothing worries that 
man at all. He can be counted on to not react, and therefore he 
is a firm, sound, solid individual. Obviously nothing ever 
affects him. But it would if he found it out! Get the difference. 
Something would affect him if he found it out.

Now, this is actually a matter of tone. Of course, we're 
approaching, in the ranges of the Tone Scale, close down to
now-perpetual unconsciousness. And unconsciousness is, of course, 
just plain waiting. That is all.

Now, there are some other few little things about the Tone Scale 
that are interesting besides that below-apathy matter. And one of 
them at first is not too useful, but a person is a victim of any 
tone level above him. No use to this, of course. Now, we've 
talked long ago about the fact that it took about one point zero 
band -- that is to say, one solid number on the Tone Scale -- to 
affect the lower number. In other words, it was one-half a number 
or a whole number, but you could have an effect on a person in 
fear, for instance by being angry or antagonistic. See, that's 
one whole point above it. Fear at about 1.0 then is affected by 
1.5 and by 2.0, but isn't particularly affected at all above that 
line.

Now, this is quite interesting. He doesn't know anything exists 
above that line. Cognition, low on the Tone Scale band, is in 
terms of about one tone or one-half a tone. In other words, one 
can cognite upwards easily one tone. So that a man who is afraid 
perpetually, always in fear, would then have great reality on the 
fact that people became angry and antagonistic. Also that people 
became sad; that is below that tone. And also that people became 
apathetic and weren't afraid when they ought to be. See, there's 
something wrong with the fellow, because he isn't afraid when he 
ought to be.

But that's sort of dim. That isn't too well understood by this 
person.

So we get a new principle on it: That a person is affected most 
by that part of the Know to Mystery Scale immediately above or 
below his position upon it. That becomes a fantastic weapon for 
analysis of various things. It tells us at once that the German 
people were somewhere between grief to fear when they were being 
led by Hitler at 1.5. Here we had a perfect 1.5. They must've 
been in grief or in fear, and that must have been the national 
tone at the time this was going forward.

Therefore, we could predict the Tone Scale of a people by 
examining their choice of leaders. And when we do this, I'm 
afraid we would often error because we would get down below a no-
emotional band and there those points are hard to recognize. But 
there the rest of the Tone Scale serves us well, because those 
lower bands are significance, significance, significance and from 
significance on down through to greater significance and greater 
significance.

You see, there's... From the end of the Tone Scale at apathy and 
down through Solids we're on solid ground, if you will excuse me. 
But from there on it is merely the type of significance which 
gives us the judgment of the situation. That's all. There is 
nothing else.

Now, I am particularly interested in the fact that people keep 
following this Tone Scale. I don't know, they've heard a rumor or 
something of the sort, and it's fashionable or something, but 
they do follow it. And a process is a good process which raises 
people on this scale, and it is a bad process when it doesn't. I 
don't know any process which depresses them. It's quite 
interesting. I really don't. I know processes by which their 
total memory could be wiped out in twenty seconds.

The second I started studying brainwashing, this one fell out of 
the hamper. I mean it became one of those easy things. There's 
nothing to that. Brainwashing -- the whole subject is 
insufficiently complicated for the Pavlovian school to have 
grasped, don't you see. It's not complicated enough. So there's 
really nothing to brainwashing somebody. All you have to do is 
take away all his mental image pictures at once, quickly, 
suddenly, and so forth, and if he depends on these utterly, of 
course you wipe him out. That's all you have to do and you've 
brainwashed him thoroughly.

You can do a limited job of this by giving him some additional 
pictures he doesn't want. But that, of course, is very limited 
and very arduous. The Pavlovian school didn't even do that. The 
people brainwashed in Korea were... Well, I guess they were 
brainwashed, I don't know. It's a technical name, but it's just 
the technical name of it.

A tremendous amount of duress was used and the mechanisms to 
produce hallucination were interesting, but they didn't work.

By the way, the Korean is still working somewhere in the range of 
the 22 percent. You've heard me talk about 22 percent. I mean, 
any therapy will do good work with 22 percent of the people. And 
it's interesting that brainwashing is apparently right in that 
band, too. In other words, there are 22 percent of the people 
with which you can do anything. All right.

Now, it's an interesting thing that a person does not escape 
affect from the upper band above him even when he doesn't know 
about it. He will consciously react to one-half to one tone above 
him -- referring to your Tone Scale in Science of Survival. But 
just because he doesn't cognite on them, he doesn't fail to react 
to the upper bands.

So a person in Eat has got the rest of the stack sitting right 
there.

So we go down into complications from Solids. Now, I said the 
Know to Mystery Scale, this very useful scale: Know; Not-Know 
(the ability to not-know or forget or wipe out things 
consciously); Look, which includes all perception; and then down 
into the emotional scale, the various emotional bands; then into 
Solids; and then, what do you know, into Think. All right.

It's a very fine thing to run into Think finally, because at this 
band one only thinks of things he invents to think about. It's 
quite an amazing band. It is a band occupied normally by people 
who cannot face anything solid. They cannot work, they cannot 
exert effort in any way, and they occupy this band with great 
thoroughness.

Well, they go south from there. Now, you know, that was about as 
far south as anybody has ever gone. But actually, they go south 
from there; they go way down from there. You go into Symbols. 
And, of course, the definition of a symbol is something that has 
mass, meaning and mobility. But at Symbols we never really have 
the thing. We have a substitute for the thing. And that is the 
proper definition of the Symbol band. If a Symbol has mass, 
meaning and mobility, that would make anything a symbol.

But let's look at it a little more carefully, and we find out 
that the symbol band actually is a band of substitution. One 
substitutes for the thing, something else.

In other words, we have a barrel and a person at the symbol band 
never looks or feels or weighs or inspects the barrel. He says, 
"That, uh... that is a... a Krokokinov barrel. Yes, yes. That's 
true, that's true," and goes and looks it up in a dictionary, 
chases down the derivations of the word, follows those through 
carefully on its history, writes an enormous paper on the 
subject, releases it, has it printed in some huge technical 
journal, is acclaimed far and wide until, of course, the janitor 
comes along, who's in better shape (because he can work), and he 
looks at the barrel. And he finds out it's a barrel of crackers, 
and he proceeds to pass them out to his family and friends and 
they eat it all up. And nobody ever finds out about this. It's 
this tremendous amount of significance which is built up on that. 
In other words, it's a representative stand-in.

The characteristic of that is "Never look at the thing; always 
look at a substitute for the thing." Well, you can use this 
directly in processing by making people look at substitutes for 
the thing until they will finally find themselves, willy-nilly, 
in communication with the thing, and they find it doesn't bite. 
And that's the end of that particular manifestation as far as 
they're concerned.

Now, we go south from there and we find people who cannot 
substitute meanings for things, but still have to get rid of 
them. And they do that by eating them. This is the activity to 
which they are mainly dedicated and devoted.

Now, there are two sides -- because there's cause-distance-effect 
as a formula for communication -- there are always two sides to 
being eaten. There is eating and there's being eaten. And 
actually, it's probably a very interesting game. I know a number 
of animals that play this game. I've actually had a number of 
recipes given to me as an affectionate gesture by a chief of a 
tribe down in the Solomon Islands. He thought that was a good 
thing for me to have there.

It's how you cooked "long pig." And you have to do various 
interesting things to overcome the rather sweet flavor of human 
flesh. Evidently it's very difficult to get rid of that pungency. 
He explained to me that very often when you were raiding the 
poorer tribes, they had not been dieting well. If they ate too 
much seafood, for instance, you could sometimes taste fish in the 
thing.

And he had a certain kind of berry that you cooked with the food, 
you know, which did away with fish and so on. It was very 
scientific but awfully complicated.

Of course, you'd take a French chef, he could go the Solomon 
Island cannibaler several better. The pinch of thyme which 
matches the touch of ginger, and it's all flipped with exactly a 
certain angle of the little pinkie, you see. You have to hold the 
little pinkie up like this just as you flip it in a certain way, 
and otherwise it doesn't taste right.

Well, we get down to that band, and then we get into another band 
below that band and that is the band of Sex. And people have had 
an awful lot of fun with this band. They get awfully significant 
about it. It's much more complicated than eating -- much, much 
more complicated.

Well, I don't know, there's no reason to go into some of the 
aboriginal customs on the second dynamic, but there are several 
that are very, very amusing. They're very interesting and so 
forth.

Let's take courting of one kind or another, and so on -- the 
various accepted measures. Here, sixty, seventy years ago, the 
whole act of courting was done according to some ritual which was 
notable mainly for its complexity. You talk about its inhibition, 
however. You sat on the girl's porch in the hammock, you know, 
and you talked in exactly certain tones about certain distant, 
disrelated subjects. You went and saw her. You didn't just jump 
in the car and get across the state line and get married. You 
didn't do that. You asked her father, and he looked into your 
bankbook. He tried to find out how secure you were in life and 
all kinds of odd, ritualistic functions that went along with 
this.

But anyway, that is even more complicated than eating, I assure 
you. Much more complicated.

Now, you go south from there and you get, of course, into what we 
have normally called the Mystery band. You get into, oh, basic 
religions and so on. And boy, are these things complicated.

It's very interesting that the moment firearms came out... You 
would think that a manual of arms was something that evolved 
across the centuries, but this is not true at all. The high 
priests of the military at once invented rituals of Lord-knows-
what complexity in order to load and fire one of these early 
firearms. They even had priests running up and down the line 
blessing the touchholes. It was quite interesting. And nobody 
understood firearms, so they just made a terrific complexity out 
of it. And I don't know whether it was blessing the touchhole or 
not that made them go off, but the soldiers were fairly convinced 
that it was.

You start to fade out about that point into anything that is 
easily understood, because that's its definition -- "not easily 
understood" -- from there on south. So that we get below there 
the next definite location is "waiting to understand." "Not 
easily understood," you see, goes south to "waiting to understand 
because it is too complex to figure out, so therefore we have to 
have some other thing someplace or another to undo this 
complexity, but it probably will not come along, but we'd better 
wait anyhow."

See, at that band they don't wait for anybody or they don't wait 
for any purpose, you see, particularly. They just kind of wait. 
But understanding is not part of it. No understanding enters into 
that at all.

Now, you see, we've gone a lot further south than the original 
Tone Scale in Science of Survival. This is because we've become, 
ourselves, hypercritical and cynical -- as time went on, you see. 
But the truth of the matter is that we were driven to it. We have 
been driven to it because we have found preclears located at all 
these way stations south from simply being apathetic.

Now, this produces something fantastic in processing. If an 
auditor doesn't understand this when he's processing these days 
with modern processes, he gets himself into an interesting batch 
of trouble. He thinks he's making the preclear worse.

He starts processing the preclear on Connectedness. The best 
process I know on the subject of Connectedness would simply be 
"What could you make connect with you on how many vias?" Nice 
complicated process.

Now, originally the process was even simpler than that, but it 
proved a little too simple: "What could you make connect with 
you?" You had him look around and spot things that he could make 
connect with him. Now, that's an interesting thing to do, an 
interesting exercise. The only trouble is, it is a bit forthright 
and occasionally misses the preclear. So what you do is add "via 
how many other things." "What could you make connect with you via 
how many other things?" See? Not only "What could you make 
connect with you?" but "How zig-zagily, crookedly and round-
aboutly could you make this occur?" And we'd find this is much to 
the appetite of the people on the south end of the scale. They 
think this is a delightful process. It begins to work very easily 
and nicely. And they work it, and they work it with innocence. 
And they sit there, and they run as good preclears should, and 
then they get apathetic, and they get more and more apathetic.

But unfortunately, some of them simply get caved in with effort 
before they hit apathy. Then they hit this apathy and they get 
very apathetic, and they get more and more apathetic. And then 
after a while they get sad. And after a while they get afraid, 
and so they come on up the Tone Scale.

But this process, particularly, is one which does turn on the 
subzero scale. "What could you make connect with you on how many 
vias?" They come upscale on this process, and you do actually 
move them up into this.

Running Stop-C-S and some other modern processes you see the 
similar manifestations. A person is apt to feel awfully, awfully 
apathetic for a little while. Take "Keep it from going away." You 
ask somebody to keep something from going away. You hand it to 
him. You're liable to turn on an awful lot of soggy, degraded 
sort of feeling and so on.

And if you didn't know about the subzero scale, you'd say "I'm 
making the preclear worse," just like I thought for five years. I 
thought, "Well, you run these processes, it makes the preclear 
worse." No! We had our hands right on processes that were making 
them better, except it isn't normal and natural to expect that a 
person would be healthier in a state of apathy than in a state of 
ugh. But it's true; he would be. His health would be better going 
around apathetically.

A chap one day had been run on a process which did this, and he 
said all of a sudden, "You know, I... uh..." -- this is after the 
session -- he says, "You know, I... I -- I think I've been 
calling boredom wrong all of my life. I... There's something 
wrong with this. You know I think what I've been calling boredom 
is really apathy. And this means that I would occasionally come 
up tone to feeling bored. But I wasn't feeling bored, I was 
really feeling apathetic. I wonder how boredom feels?" He found 
out a few days later and he came back and told me. He says, "You 
know," he says, "boredom is entirely different than apathy." He 
says, "You don't, when you're bored, have a sick, degraded 
feeling in your stomach." A big cognition, see.

Therefore, we in many instances have, as auditors and people 
practicing in Scientology, actually believed that we were not 
achieving any effect upon people when we were, and we were 
actually bettering people when we thought we were running them 
into the ground. Well, that's because we weren't cynical enough 
much earlier in the development of the subject. If we'd been more 
cynical, we would have simply looked at it plainly and flatly and 
said, "The human race, heh, is not flat on its back, but sooner 
or later we will get it there."

Now, an individual, then, would better into unconsciousness. Now, 
look at that one. Could a person better into unconsciousness? 
Yes, he frequently does become better by becoming unconscious.

Now, this is no reason why the medical profession should go on 
knocking everybody out with squirt guns, or whatever they do. 
Those syringes they go around with all the time. Just knocking a 
person out doesn't make him better, but a person who is getting 
better very often presents the aspect of being knocked out. They 
get groggy. They go "wog-wog," you know.

Well, the first time I found this taking place was when I was 
processing somebody and they went clean unconscious.

Obviously they were totally out. They were not in communication 
with me at all, obviously, but I just kept on giving them the 
auditing command anyway, which was a subjective command. And what 
do you know! They followed it all the way through much better 
than they had a few minutes before when evidently totally awake.

Now, this was quite fascinating, because they were totally awake 
as somebody else. So the whole of valence shifting is simply 
ceasing to be awake as Joe and waking up as Bill. See, that'd be 
the whole of valence shifting. One passes out of Father's valence 
into unconsciousness, which is "It's better off for you to be 
unconscious than to be conscious as Papa, because you aren't 
Papa." It's very complicated.

I don't know how many echelons a person would have to move 
through in terms of unconsciousness to get out of maybe forty or 
fifty valences, one after the other, because each one of those 
would go through unconsciousnesses to get better before he 
totally passed out of that valence.

In other words, how many unconsciousnesses north does the 
preclear have to go to himself become unconscious.

Now, I hate to tell you these things really, because it's liable 
to give you a snide attitude toward the people walking up and 
down the street. You're liable to get the idea that these people 
are not quite there, and I don't want you to get that idea at 
all, because they obviously aren't.

But here's the great oddity. They get along one way or another or 
somehow. They bungle through in some way. And the only thing we 
can object to is occasionally we're what they bungle across. And 
when they do that, we have, of course, a great license to object.

But actually, until man can develop a criteria of his own, not 
something borrowed from his great-great-great-great-great 
grandmother, only then can he move up into a level of culture 
that you would call in any way, shape or form, a desirable level 
of culture.

Now, if an individual is unconscious himself while being 
conscious as Grandpa, then we get the interesting aspect that 
these individuals that can be affected by nothing -- you know
they take everything in their stride; they do not react to
things; they tell you "You shouldn't be so emotional. You should
take it all calmly and philosophically like I do." Of course,
this individual doesn't ever do anything, but that's beside the
point. "You should be calm, you see, and you should not react.
You shouldn't go into motion of one kind or another. You should
be real calm."

The funny part of it is, this individual that evidently will not 
react to anything is in a total hypnotic trance. And anything you 
say to him goes in, thud! and he will react to it just like a 
puppy dog if you know this. And that's a horrible thing to find 
out about somebody.

Here's this individual who is in an obsessive game condition. 
He's in a game condition whereby he's been fighting unknowingly 
some sort of a fight or game or other and -- I don't know, the 
penguins will get him or something. And he's been fighting this 
game. And here he is and he's evidently alert, you know, and he's 
on his toes and so on. And you say something to him, and he says, 
"Ah, that's not true, rrr-rarr-rar-rar-rar-rarr," see. And you 
say, "MY goodness, what a formidable person. He's really getting 
through life, isn't he? He just brushes everything off."

Well, the funny part of it is he's in a total hypnotic trace. 
That's something you'll miss unless you look. Actually, all you'd 
have to do, in spite of how he is snarling at you, is fix your 
finger in front of his face like this and say, "Bark!" He would 
say to you, "Well, it doesn't affect me. Nothing you can do would 
really affect me. Woof! I'm pretty tough or..."

One way or another your suggestion will go in, it will penetrate 
and it will act, because it is usually more alive than he is.

In handling preclears, it's one of the more fabulous things, that 
the preclear who acts the roughest and snidest toward the auditor 
is usually closest to a total hypnotic trance. And the funny part 
of it is, that although you apparently are making no impression 
on him whatsoever, if you became rough or lost your temper a 
little bit and said some things which were slightly engramic, 
they would be.

Such a person is in an obsessive resistance which inverts and 
pulls in on him everything that is said to him. So, he can't 
select anything that's said to him. He can't analyze it or look 
at it. It's below his level of inspection. Everything that's said 
to him goes below the level of inspection. How does he know?

Now remember, I gave you that first characteristic; I said when 
they go below apathy, they get down to a point of where they're 
not conscious of the moment just passed, not conscious of the 
moment which will come and not conscious of the moment they are 
in. But they can be a valence sitting there raising hell with you 
and usually are.

Now, this person, oddly enough, fulfills all the condition of an 
hypnotic subject. And just because they don't react, and 
instantly the body goes into some sort of a rapport the second 
that you command it to, is no reason why you haven't got them in 
an hypnotic trance, don't you see. The valence doesn't hypnotize. 
You can't hypnotize Grandfather because he's not there; he's been 
dead for years. But you can hypnotize his grandson Johnny who is 
sitting just in back of the valence. This is quite fabulous.

So that these people have a tendency to go around and pick up 
life as just a running fire of engram, you might say. It's just 
total moment-to-moment. They see a mantelpiece and they know all 
about the mantelpiece. They know it falls in on people and hurts 
people, so they know that's dangerous. And that grows in as 
something against which they should violently react. Only, of 
course, they're too low to react, so they simply look at the 
mantelpiece. But the odd part of it is, is some part of them 
violently reacts to the mantelpiece. There they sit, below 
apathy, evidently not reacting, but they look at something and 
they do react.

So you have this odd fact of their unlearning characteristics. 
They can't unlearn. It's not possible for them to unlearn 
something. So be careful of what you teach them. Don't act like 
the society does. Don't take these people and put them in jail, 
because they won't unlearn it. Don't tell them they're criminals; 
they won't unlearn it. Don't tell them they're bad children; they 
won't unlearn that. Don't tell them they're bad husbands; they 
go, "I am now a bad husband."

Now, they only go crazy when somebody tells them they're a bad 
husband and a good wife or something. Somebody tells them they're 
a bad husband and a good husband because they're a bad husband 
because... so on. And eventually they get mixed up, and their 
selectivity is now they can't select out which hypnotic trance to 
follow, so they have to cease to be along that particular line or 
be a confusion along that particular line. Maybe after that 
they're just a confusion. They go down and join the traffic 
department and plan traffic.

Wherever we see somebody who is having a hard time in life and 
whose tone is obviously somewhere along "beautiful serenity," you 
know, don't get the idea that there isn't chaos going on, because 
there is.

Somebody comes along and says of the fireplug, "That's green." 
This person goes walking up the street wondering how the person 
knew they had a green complexion, because their complexion 
obviously at this time is now green. Yet when you confront them 
and ask them why they are looking sad, they can't tell you. 
"Well, did you hear somebody say something?"

"No. What do you think I am, crazy? Do you think I take in 
everything that is said to me?"

Well, don't say, "Yes, I think so," because they'll have to think 
so that way, too.

What we look at in this wise is an ambulant dramatization 
dragging around an hypnotized preclear. And I'm afraid this comes 
close to being average man. It does begin to look this way.

Now, the odd part of it is that he wakes up on simple, basic, 
fundamental communications, truths and actions. That's why 
processing works. He wakes up. He says, "That's my language." All 
of a sudden he says, "Ha! Somebody said something to me." See, 
that's the first time that's happened. They've been talking to 
his dramatizations or his valence before this, and somebody has 
said something to him, you see. Something happens; he starts to 
wake up.

So don't be amazed if he goes completely anaten as a 
dramatization as he wakes up as himself. He'll get this odd 
manifestation of himself feeling totally awake and giving the 
aspect to the auditor or the person talking to him of being 
totally asleep. We have merely reversed the situation, you see. 
The valence went to sleep and he started to come awake, so that 
he looks like he's asleep. Deceptive, huh?

But the funny part of it is that you can go right on and audit 
him very well. I mean, all that's asleep is the dramatized 
valence.

Now, he is not yet strong enough to wiggle the arms and do those 
other things, you see. He's not strong enough to prop open the 
eyelids yet. But if you go on processing him and don't quit at 
that point, why, he'll get strong enough so he can open the 
eyelids. Interesting phenomena.

This series of processes which have recently been developed are 
devoted exclusively to picking up a being where he is and 
boosting him up the line with the least barriers encountered in 
terms of bank and other valences. You encounter the least number 
of barriers possible, and you just try to boost him up the line. 
So don't be alarmed if you find yourself auditing somebody who's 
gone completely dong. He'll tell you afterwards, "I don't know 
why you didn't keep on talking because I could hear you all 
right." Now, what he's really confessing is that he himself can't 
wobble the chin without the help of the bank and other mechanisms 
and automaticities. He can't wobble the chin and wiggle the vocal 
chords, so he has a hard time acknowledging.

He gets very, rather rapidly, able to kind of bob his head a 
little bit, you know. You'll sometimes see some guy who is 
evidently totally anaten, and you'll give him an auditing 
command. If you watch him very carefully, why, he'll manage a 
little bob of the head. And it gets into a better and better 
headbob, and after a while he would himself begin to talk.

Well, don't be amazed if he starts to talk sadly or angrily or 
something to you, as though you have just knifed him to the 
heart, because that's where he moved on the Tone Scale -- up, not 
down.

Interesting phenomena, the subzero manifestations. And of course, 
we're all Scientologists here so I can tell you it is the exact 
phenomenon of lost past life. It is not necessarily true that a 
thetan forgets everything simply because he loses a body. That is 
not necessarily true at all. He depends on the havingness of a 
body to remedy his havingness. When he loses it, he drops so far 
in tone that he drops into the no-memory band -- no record, no 
memory, don't care. And if you bring him upscale he begins to be 
mad as hell at having lost that body. Oh, he begins to really, 
really gripe about it.

And one of the interesting things I did one day with a 
Connectedness process was -- right out of thin air, I was running 
Connectedness, and the fellow all of a sudden went gog-wog-glub. 
And I kept on giving him the auditing command and so forth. And 
all of a sudden the preclear sat up in the chair and said, "Damn 
them!"

I said, "What's the matter?"

"They had a nerve!"

"Who had a nerve?"

"Where am I?"

Come to find out he'd just been knocked out at the Battle of 
Hastings. He thought it was kind of mean for full-armored knights 
to be attacking a couple of unarmored peasants, of which he was 
one.

Now, just how he'd been coasting up the track since, he didn't 
bother to explain, nor did he have any memory of it. But his last 
intimate consciousness, as a thetan and a being not dependent on 
a body in any way, was getting knocked off at the Battle of 
Hastings. So, of course, we get lots of argument from people 
about past lives.

Of course, it isn't any such thing as a "past life." How can we 
speak of the person standing before us in past tense? There are 
past identities, but there were certainly never past lives. He 
loves, though, to categorize things on a past-life basis, which 
frees him from any further responsibility for having stolen the 
warden's chickens. And he very glibly says, "Oh, that was life 
before last." See, he glibly says this. That's very easy, because 
this absolves him of any responsibility for it.

Well, have him look it up in the statute books. Nowhere in the 
statute books does it say a thetan is guilty of anything. It says 
bodies are guilty, and that settles it. A body is buried. If 
you'll notice, it's always The People v. John Jones. See, "John 
Jones." Well, he's a thetan. His name is something he'd tailor 
up. Somebody else named this body "John Jones." He gets out from 
it sideways with the greatest of ease, you see.

But there are no past lives. One has been living continuously for 
a long time and he never ceased to live. But he did drop down 
tone.

You suddenly take away from somebody who is carrying it, two 
hundred pounds of potatoes that were his, and he'll complain. You 
can watch him drop down tone. Now, if somebody is carrying two 
hundred pounds of gold, and he had amassed this at great care and 
labor, cross-postulates and not-knowingness; and he'd gradually 
accumulated this tremendous amount of gold, and somebody came 
along and took this gold away from him at once, he would probably 
be so apathetic about it that he would not complain, you see.

Now, he could beef about the potatoes; he could argue, see. 
Somebody came along -- he has this two hundred pounds of 
potatoes, and he knows there are a few thousand pounds more in 
the world -- and they took these two hundred pounds of potatoes 
away from him, and he said, "Ah, those dirty dogs! They robbed me 
of two hundred pounds of potatoes!" See, he could still rah-wraw. 
Or he can say, "You know, I am afraid to walk down that road 
anymore with potatoes." Or he can say, "You know, that makes me 
pretty sad." Or he could say, "I sure feel apathetic about that," 
and go back and dig some more potatoes the next day, you know; 
knock off for three or four days on digging potatoes.

It's quite a different thing with a higher value. Two hundred 
pounds in gold -- they take it away from him, he goes below 
apathy. He simply sits down, and you say to him, "Hey! Hey!" And 
you say, "Hey!"

"Nah."

"Hey! What's the matter?"

"Umm." And that's about all the explanation you'd get for his 
tone.

Well, we do this with thetans, as auditors, all the time. We say, 
"Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey you, wake up!"

And he says, finally, "Hm?"

And we say, "What's the matter with you? What's the matter with 
you?"

He says, "Damn them!" Because what'd he lose? He lost two hundred 
pounds of body, just like that.

He nursed it carefully. He was very careful to steal it from the 
very best people! Raised it up. Educated it. Protected it. 
Somehow or another got it through school. Somehow or another got 
enough things stolen to keep it going in the lean periods, you 
know. Kept it out of jail. Found it a good dame. You know, he 
really cared for this thing. Groomed it every morning, polished 
it every night; careful never to run it into lampposts or 
anything like that. Somebody comes along and they take it away 
from him.

And, of course, he gets more apathetic than he would get at 
losing two hundred pounds of gold just like that. And he doesn't 
come out of that easily, even though he gets another body, 
because the body that made him apathetic isn't there again ever. 
He gets very, very significant at this band.

Well, we take the Greek. The Greek knew pretty well that people 
lived before. The Egyptian was certain of it, earlier than that. 
Later than that we find the primary mission of a church, whose 
name we will not mention, substituting good spirits for all the 
bad ones that were running around in Europe.

The main appeal that the Roman Catholic church had in its early 
inception -- the main appeal that it had -- was simply that it 
would protect you from bad spirits by exerting a certain amount 
of power over them. And the peasant bought this. Everybody bought 
this because they knew all about bad spirits. They knew that 
lately when they were exteriorized they didn't intend anybody any 
good, so they could understand perfectly how nobody else would.

That is the only way Catholicism got its grip on Europe. You can 
go back and examine the histories very carefully, but this is 
what it amounts to.

Now that nobody is worried about spirits at all we find the whole 
Catholic movement much paler in the world than it was once. They 
have to mock up a new enemy in order to really get along well.

But here we have loss of havingness resulting suddenly and 
catastrophically in subzero scale position which contains no 
memory, no recall, no present, no past, no future, no existence: 
"It didn't happen. It couldn't happen. I'm not here. It never 
was." And we get a good look for the first time at the subzero 
scale, which is not, by the way, a new scale. But to understand 
this scale was quite something else because the scale itself just 
gets more and more complicated from Effort on down. It gets so 
complicated it goes beyond comprehension. But one can describe it 
in negatives. He can isolate those things which are not present 
on the subzero scale and describe them, and the things that are 
not present are memory, reaction, sensation and all of the upper 
scale. And that's what's in the subzero scale.

Now, do not confuse insanity with subzero scale. Insanity is a 
peculiar mechanism which happens. You can turn on the sensation 
of insanity any time you wish in a preclear by getting him to get 
the idea that he must have something but can't have it, that he 
must reach something but can't reach it, that he must withdraw 
but can't withdraw. Any of those sets, rigidly enough held by the 
preclear, gives him the feeling of nahhhhhhhh! whoa! It is a very 
delicate condition. It's delicate in that it's almost impossible 
to continue.

Just why they don't get more cures -- those people that handle 
the insane -- is a great mystery. Barrett and I were going to 
write them a letter the other day and ask them "Why don't you 
people get your 22 percent quota of cures?"

That is an odd circumstance. It is simply a conflict existing 
right on the point of conflict, and we get a "no decide" on an 
emergency measure, and we get the feeling of insanity. And when 
that persists, then the insanity persists.

Well, everybody has felt for a moment this terrific emergency 
situation in which there could be no decision. He had to make a 
decision! He can't make a decision! You see? Anybody has felt 
that for a moment.

Now, if we synthesize that and extend it in continuance on the 
track without disturbing it in any way, we get then this thing 
called the glee of insanity or the feeling of insanity, and so 
on. It's just a no-responsibility in any way.

But I call something to your attention: that the insane do 
gyrate, they do move, they do chatter and they can still 
dramatize, and that is something. It is when they can't dramatize 
at all, when they're in a catatonic state, that people consider 
them completely incurable. Actually, a catatonic is not 
incurable; they are merely difficult. You could do lots of things 
with a catatonic. No need to go into that since this is no talk 
on the subject. But one of the things you could do is simply lie 
down alongside of them -- assume the same positions. They get mad 
after a while; that's more duplication than they could 
understand. They'd [be] liable to turn around and say, "What are 
you doing?"

But, looking at the Tone Scale at large, we do see that we have a 
firmer set of values. We can work more positively and understand 
more certainly a betterment when it occurs. That's one of the 
tricks of any therapy, is to find out when the patient is getting 
well. That's one of the great difficulties, since it was formerly 
impossible to rely upon the patient's statement. He either said 
he was, rather obsessively -- "Oh, I feel so much better! I am 
very grateful to you" -- and falls over dead, you know. And the 
other one... And the other one has never been able to raise his 
hands above his belt before and he says, "I'm damned if you're 
going to treat me like that anymore!" See, and so on.

But the only thing that you notice is the variability of reaction 
following this rather pat pattern as it moves upscale.

Now, we have many training processes which are the processes 
which have formerly moved people upscale rather rapidly. They are 
not just training processes. An auditor has to know how to do 
them. He has to get along with them well. Each one of these, 
however, moves people on the Tone Scale, and so he gets a good 
chance to look this over -- particularly old Opening Procedure by 
Duplication, an early Scientology process which has just come 
back into view. It'll be in view, too. Because you can watch a 
person walk right up the Know to Mystery Scale. They go tock-
tock-tock-tock-tock-tock-tock. It's very fascinating. One moment 
they're talking about -- oh, I don't know, they walk over to a 
book and they pick it up and they say, "I hope it's something 
about sex," and they put it down, and so on. And they walk over 
to the bottle, and say, "I wanted something to eat, not to 
drink," and so on. And they'll make remarks, if you ask them, 
which tell you just where they have gone to on this Know to 
Mystery Scale. We have a very handy tool, then, of analysis.

And the unfortunate part of it is, the only real diagnosis in 
terms of analysis -- the only real diagnosis there is on the 
subzero scale -- is in terms of being able to experience the 
present, imagine the future and recall the past. Reality of these 
three things are the important things in diagnosis on that scale. 
And it means the ability to experience (and this is also 
monitored by the ability to learn), the ability to forget and the 
ability to handle or reject a datum are all establishing points 
on this subzero scale.

And when you increase and better those abilities, you better them 
up till even they can feel apathetic.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]




FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 06 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

===============================================

HOW TO HANDLE AUDIENCES

A lecture given on 1 November 1956


[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

Well, the subject of this lecture should be randomity. But 
actually, I intended to talk a little bit more about teaching 
processes and the handling of groups -- that you as 
Scientologists should be interested in.

First and foremost, we will examine the first threshold that 
anyone has to cross when handling groups or attempting to teach 
large numbers of people. That threshold is known as stage fright. 
Embarrassment. That's the first thing, and that is a threshold 
which has to be crossed by anyone sometime in his career. It is a 
fascinating phenomenon for everyone except the person who has it.

It's very remarkable, the instances of stage fright I have seen, 
but none of these made near as much impression on me as instances 
of stage fright I have experienced myself. These made a 
considerable impression on me. I remember very well in the field 
of radio, of overcoming the mike consciousness right here in 
Washington, going to the university. I had a fifteen-minute 
program every day. And it was fascinating, as time went on, how 
accustomed I became to handling that mike and going on, good 
weather and bad -- mostly bad here in Washington.

And years later I was going to the Geller Theater Workshop in 
Hollywood, after the war. And I walked in, and was going through 
all the class -- everything was going along fine, smoothly, 
pleasantly. I was learning to say "How now brown cow?" along with 
the young starlets and so forth. I was studying acting, was what 
I was doing, to find out how to make actors, because it seemed to 
me that there was an answer to the mind and to training in the 
field of acting. I felt that acting was a sort of a synthetic 
living. And what you could know about it as a synthetic thing you 
might then be able to apply to life and so understand life a 
little better.

I, by the way, didn't finish up there at all. I got vastly 
fascinated with other things. And I was a writer, not an actor, 
anyway, you see. And I became very enamored with other fields of 
action, and became particularly enamored with processing the 
young actors who were going there. And actually, to the last days 
I was in Los Angeles, these kids used to come up from there 
saying "I hear you can do something for me." And I usually did, 
one way or the other. I'd square them away on this subject.

But I walked in one day to their radio workshop with the rest of 
the class and there was a microphone. There it stood -- pure, 
innocent and chromium plated -- attached to exactly nothing. It 
didn't even go out to a monitor station outside the room. It was 
simply a dummy mike, and people were supposed to stand there and 
practice plays, and so on, reading, and how you handle paper, and 
how you talk, and so on.

And it came my turn, and I stood up in front of this mike and all 
of a sudden, boy, that mike had more motion in it, and so did I, 
than I would ordinarily care to experience. Brrrrrr! And I c-c-c-
couldn't talk! Fabulous! The thing was a dummy mike. I went back 
and I sat down and I said, "That thing is a dummy mike! I've 
handled one of these things for years!" Tuhh! Coo!

Well, as the days went by, I got all right again. But it made an 
impression on me. I had actually experienced stage fright, which 
was very interesting -- on a dummy mike! And I assayed one day to 
know more about this. Now, the only time I myself pick up stage 
fright in front of audiences is when they get up to a certain 
size. Up to about twenty-five hundred, strictly cucumber. Above 
twenty-five hundred, well, "My God, there's a lot of people out 
there."

And then a famous English actress started clobbering me in recent 
months to say something about stage fright. What was it all 
about? She called it "first-night nerves." She said, "Every actor 
on the first night has nerves." And she attributed it to the fact 
that they didn't know how the play was going to go; and they 
didn't know what was going to happen; and there was tremendous 
uncertainty; and they were watching themselves every moment in an 
unaccustomed scene, which would become an accustomed scene after 
a few nights, and so they would lose their upset. This is the 
theory on which man has worked and it is wrong. It is not the 
theory. It is not what is behind stage fright.

The essence of stage fright is simply this: It is the 
unwillingness to confront a mass. It is a "can't have" on the 
mass. That is all. That's all it is. And to prove that, it is 
only necessary to change one's mind or run a process in the 
direction of having that mass to instantly cure stage fright. It 
cures just like that. Remedy of Havingness. Why is it "first-
night nerves"? Why, after fifteen years off the air, do I step up 
to a dummy microphone and get the shakes?

That's because for fifteen years I didn't have something which I 
had. It's the fifteen years of not having the microphone which 
make you shake the moment you have one, because you already had 
one and it didn't worry you. The first time you had it, you 
hadn't had it, don't you see? So there was no period there of 
not-havingness to overcome with some sudden havingness. But we go 
on, then, for a short time and have one a few years, and then all 
of a sudden we run this long span of no havingness on a 
microphone. The next time we meet one, snap!

The instant we get one, it's an important item; it is an 
important havingness. We are trying to have it all at once. It is 
motionless. There it is. It is obtainable, and available, 
obviously, but we try to get fifteen-years worth out of one 
second of microphone. And there isn't fifteen years worth in the 
microphone. You got that? There is only one performance worth.

All right. Now, let's take that audience. If you'd never had an 
audience, no audience would give you a quiver. If you'd never had 
one, you would never experience stage fright. You would be 
graceful and aesthetic and carry off the role like an old 
trooper. But having had an audience over a period of time, then 
not having an audience for a period of time, the next audience we 
get is going to make us go mnnnunyaaaa!

Why? During that one presentation, we are trying to get the 
entire no-havingness of audiences filled full during that period, 
because they're important. You see, it's an important havingness 
to have an audience. That's an important havingness. And it was a 
not-havingness over a period of time, and the no-havingness of it 
makes it a shiver. Now, this is a basic mechanic. There are 
considerations above this, but I am telling you the mechanic so 
that you can understand it as a principle which can be utilized 
in the curing and overcoming of embarrassment -- both on the part 
of your preclears and on your part if you don't like to confront 
an audience.

Now here, in essence, is Remedy of Havingness on audiences as the 
cure. That is the only cure there is that is a good, reliable, 
standard cure. It's a good cure.

Have them mock up audiences, go and find audiences, don't you 
see? Find out what part of audiences they can have, what part of 
audiences they can dispense with. Go take them to a movie theater 
and stand back in the aisle someplace toward the back and have 
them point out the backs of audiences. That's perfectly all 
right. It's still mass -- back or front. Make somebody go and 
talk to some people someplace. That, in essence, is having an 
audience. But making a person go and talk to a bunch of people 
gives him two things to do at once: both perform and have. And 
it's one too many for most people who have had, and then haven't 
had.

If you experience embarrassment because of an audience, it is 
because you have been without one for a long time; not because 
audiences customarily, in the last few lives you've led, leaped 
over the footlights and tore you to ribbons; not necessarily 
because you confuse every audience you see with a jury of twelve 
good men and true, who want to hang you for stealing that horse. 
It isn't necessarily true that you confuse things at all. It's 
just that you've been a couple of hundred years without a good 
audience! And therefore, you try to remedy a couple of hundred 
years worth of no-audience with an audience. And it scatters them 
all over the track. Really! They go tzzzzz! from your point of 
view.

They are evidently much more critical. Their critical level is 
tremendously exaggerated by any person who is giving a 
performance in front of an audience. He thinks their critical 
level is something fantastic. Well, I'll agree with you, it's 
something fantastic, but it's not that bad.

I've seldom seen audiences file in, to an ordinary entertainment 
production at least, with Tommy guns held under the overcoat. You 
know? Seldom. Very few. And yet a lot of people who get up and 
try to perform or talk in front of an audience certainly seem to 
be convinced that the very least that is under those overcoats is 
Tommy guns.

Now, as you reduce havingness, you heighten critical level. As 
the havingness goes down, critical level goes up. So as 
havingness goes down on audiences, one's belief in their critical 
level goes up, as well as one's own critical level of the 
audience. And to talk to an audience you mustn't have a high 
critical level of the audience, let me assure you. You have to be 
in communication with them. And if you have a high critical level 
of any audience to whom you are speaking, you are not going to 
communicate with them at all. And as a result, you're going to 
have difficulties.

If you haven't had audiences for a couple of hundred years -- 
ever since you stepped out of the Swan Theater, or something of 
this sort... Maybe you were awfully good at Hamlet once; maybe 
you were one of the most terrific Othellos that ever trod the 
boards, but you haven't done it for a long time -- that is, you 
haven't had for a long time on the subject of audiences. And one 
day you go out to do Othello and, boy, do you lay eggs!

Several things can happen. But you think that their critical 
level of you is much greater than it is. And you think at the 
same time, that your performance is much worse than it is. And 
you also suppose that their demands are much greater than they 
are. Maybe you got this idea out of a Roman arena. That's a 
discouraging place to have audiences. But wherever you see bad 
performance you simply have a case of no havingness of audiences 
and theaters.

You can cure the first-night nerves or the mike fright with 
subjective processes by which simply someone mocks up audiences 
and shoves them in, audiences and throws them away, microphones 
and shove them in, microphones and throw them away. There is 
nothing to this. It is one of our most elementary processes and 
it works. Works very satisfactorily.

But people get so bad off in having an audience that they can't 
have one even when they have one. So what do we do then? We have 
people waste audiences.

The total reason for the existence of Hollywood and the cinema 
today is entirely attributable to the fact that nobody can have a 
show. Look it over. Do you think a bunch of shadows playing on a 
screen with no substance is an adequate show? Well, that is 
wasting the production, don't you see? That's a waste of 
production. I tell you it's a waste of production because people 
go downhill on going to shows and after a while don't go to 
shows.

It must demonstrate, then, that it's not an adequate havingness 
for the amount of motion contained in the presentation. They have 
gotten to a point of no-show, to a point where they have no show, 
so that they can have no show, don't you see?

Now, we've reduced the screen... First it went up. Hollywood 
asserted itself. It got big enough to be seen, with VistaScreen, 
VistaVision, BroadView. What are some of those? Cinerama, 
CineScope, "Cinemope." There are a whole bunch of them. They got 
big, you know. And then they got fifteen different varieties of 
color. And the actors got to be 115 -- that's the stopping point 
of this is when the actors get to be 115 feet high. What are they 
trying to do? They're trying to remedy somebody's havingness. 
They're trying to put up enough mass there to keep the people 
coming. They are trying to say, "Look, they may be only one 
molecule or one photon thick, but they're awfully tall!"

And the audiences have turned aside -- not being able to have a 
show -- to a point where they look on a little seventeen-inch 
screen or a twenty-one-inch screen which isn't even in color 
these days. And they don't even look at it, they simply go to 
sleep. The fellow says, "I slept a good show the other night on 
TV. Did you snore it?"

Now, it must be -- if people are wasting shows to this degree -- 
conversely, somebody must be wasting audiences, too. And 
certainly this is the truth. The Hollywood actor wastes audiences 
and wastes them and wastes them. You never saw a poorer audience 
than cameramen. I've talked to them and they didn't notice what 
was happening during the scene at all. But they knew how many 
feet they ran. They knew what the light reading of the scene was. 
But they couldn't tell you who the actors were unless they read 
it on their card.

The assistant director is a very bad audience. No mass! He's the 
furtive little fellow that runs around when the heavier director 
tells him to, you see. And the director, he's only looking for 
bad acting or bad positioning, so he's no audience. He doesn't 
see any of the good stuff. Man, are those people wasting 
audiences, and they go mad in the process of doing so. They do! 
They just go mad in the process of acting before nobody.

If you were around a movie colony any length of time, I can 
assure you that your services would be pulled in that direction. 
Because they have lots of preclears for you that nobody had 
better find out about.

Now, here we have, then, the disappearance of show. We're seeing 
it happen. We're trying to have people sit in front of the 
camera... I mean, pardon me, the TV set -- I mean, the Fac One 
thing... We're trying to have them sit there for twenty-eight 
hours of the day in order to remedy the fact that there aren't 
three minutes worth of show. There is no mass in there. They 
can't have any mass; there's no mass involved.

The very thing to do, if you wanted to kill all entertainment in 
the country, would be to take all mass out of entertainment. 
You'd kill it. So therefore, the very thing to do on your part -- 
the very thing to do to take all confrontingness out of you -- is 
to have nothing ever to confront.

Well, one of the ways you move up into this on a gradient scale 
is simply go to a lot of live theater for a while, or go to a lot 
of lectures, so forth. It's amazing. There are still things going 
on. Playing to somewhat empty halls, but these things are still 
going on in the society. Get yourself a few tickets and slide in 
and listen to what people are talking about. You'd be utterly 
fascinated. They're seldom very good. People go to see them; they 
listen to them. And just note carefully whether or not anybody in 
the theater audience picks up any tin cans or rotten eggs or 
anything. Just note carefully, by the end of the production, how 
many people have leaped over the footlights with a knife in their 
hands.

Now, you will note -- you will note, in such a wise -- that there 
is still a lot of presentation going on. There are still people 
talking to people; there are still people listening to people. Of 
course, I know it's getting in to the minority, and a small 
percentage of the world indulges in such a thing. But the funny 
part of it is, that it is that way, not because the excellence of 
production has dropped, but because people have run out of 
havingness on production.

Remember, this country for a long time was a backwoods country. 
One drove up and down the streets of Philadelphia hoping that his 
wagon would not sink to the hub during the next block. The 
streets of Washington have only been paved for a short period of 
time. Itinerant players tried to remedy the havingness of the 
country, but it wasn't very easy to do. We went for a long, long 
period with no show to amount to anything. We were a lot, a 
tremendous lot, of wilderness.

It's an amazing thing that you don't find the older countries of 
Europe fallen away to no-show to the degree that countries that 
are newly emerged are without show. You can understand, of 
course, that the Casino de Paris in Paris would of course be 
fairly jammed, particularly during tourist season, in view of the 
stage productions which they have. It isn't the costumes that 
people go to see; it's the lack of them.

And, by the way, the Casino de Paris is noted for its 
tremendously beautiful costumes -- the most overdressed place you 
ever saw in your life. The amount of show given at the Casino to 
an audience which numbers thousands and thousands of people -- 
it's big, that's a big place -- is rather fantastic. A lot of 
poor people go to the cinema, but anybody with any money still 
goes to shows. In other words, there is still theater and people 
haven't completely flattened out on this entirely as a country at 
large. But we're still climbing the hump.

I'm not telling you that people just normally dwindling-spiral 
and run out of show. I tell you they get used to not having any 
show -- as we've had for the last couple hundred years over on 
this side -- and they kind of try to work up to it. They try to 
get in to at least see the TV set once in a while, you know. They 
work up to it on a gradient scale somehow or another. There is 
hope! But it's all on a subject of havingness, no matter which 
way these aspects play. Do you see that?

Now, you think that nobody would come and listen to you talk. 
Bah! It's not true. It's not true at all. As a matter of fact, 
you and your experiences, with your individual viewpoint and with 
your knowledge and command of the subject of the mind, would 
probably have no difficulty whatsoever talking to any audience 
that could be mustered of whatever kind in America. Unless, of 
course, you were running a bzzzzzz! every time you saw an 
audience! And then they would realize that you couldn't confront 
them, and they don't want, then, to confront you. Got it?

So, handling groups is being willing to have, so that one can 
confront. Groups of people are people. They are essentially 
audiences. They are something to have. And you, to them, are 
something to have. And so with that communication possible and 
made possible because of a mutual ability to have, we have such a 
thing as stage presence. We have such a thing as audience 
interest, don't you see?

I would love to tell you that it's your aesthetics, just the way 
you hold the pinkie, the beautiful gesture with which you 
undulate, the way you describe things. I would love to tell you, 
as they do in theater workshops, that it's your command of 
English, your proper accent, the way you pronounce "formidable."

But it doesn't happen to be true. Those are all significances 
which hang on to the fact of actual havingness. The reason it is 
difficult to study acting is because one does it without an 
audience. It's very interesting.

The ways and means of remedying your havingness on groups, in its 
crudest, rudest and most elementary form, is simply to get a 
bunch of people and talk to them. Grab yourself sort of by the 
back of the neck this way and say, "Good evening," and note 
carefully that they are still there. That's rude and crude. But 
there are other ways of going about this -- much smoother, more 
positive ways of going about this.

And one of those ways is this whole subject of confrontingness 
coupled with the subject of havingness. Havingness is the easiest 
to talk about or deliver, as far as a process is concerned: Mock 
up audiences. Mock up audiences in motion. Mock up audiences and 
have the preclear push them in. Mock them up and throw them away. 
Mock them up and let them remain. Mock them up and push them in. 
Mock them up and throw them away. Mock them up and let them 
remain. Just straight Creative Processing.

All right, you say, somebody has an entirely black field; he 
can't possibly do mock-ups. All right, that's fine. Have him mock 
up audiences in total blackness and push them in. You see that? 
You know, this idea of having a... when you shut your eyes, never 
being able to see a mock-up but seeing only blackness and so 
forth -- that belongs, you know, as a problem, back to about '52 
or '53. It doesn't belong to now. It really doesn't. Just "Mock 
up a black mass and push it in, a black mass and throw it away" 
gives us quite adequately a clearing of this. Fellow goes anaten 
and lots of other things happen. But you can do it with good 
auditing.

It simply is addressed by addressing it. Also in confrontingness, 
you can have somebody mock himself up confronting blackness, and 
all sorts of interesting things happen. He finds himself standing 
on the bridge of spaceships, going through space with little 
asteroids pattering merrily through the windscreen.

But the subject of havingness is essentially the subject of 
willingness to confront or willingness to be something that 
you're willing to have confront.

In essence, then, people must become possessible to you if you're 
going to handle and talk to groups. It must be possible for you 
to possess people.

Now, let me assure you that the race at large runs on the idea of 
no invasion of privacy. Got that clearly? This is a well-
established fact -- individuation. People feel they must 
individuate. The whole idea of individuation, or falling away 
from the race at large, is the story of disenfranchisement from 
the game. As one is kicked out of the game he believes that he 
had better individuate just a little further, he had better be 
just a little bit different. A fellow who can play a game doesn't 
have to be different.

Listen to some of our modern, very popular comics, and listen to 
them say the same thing over and over again. It's quite 
fascinating. It'd be a great loss, for instance, with any of 
these boys if they lost a couple of their pat tricks. You've seen 
these many, many times, yet you laugh at them. It's the 
familiarity of them, it is the ARC, the repetition contained in 
them which makes them acceptable.

So do you have to be new and different and come on the stage with 
fifteen lions -- fifteen? No, you don't even have to have 
anything to say. It's the most fabulous thing you ever heard of.

One time, many years ago, I was doing some high-school 
theatricals, and we had a whole scene for which there was no 
fill, and we all of a sudden had a blank spot on the program, you 
see. The characters that were supposed to go through that 
particular skit just hadn't appeared. They'd evidently backed out 
at the last moment. I went on the stage and sat down and ate a 
piece of pie and a sandwich.

Of course, I admit there was novelty in this since there was no 
piece of pie and no sandwich. But I didn't say a word for twelve 
minutes. And that's an awful long time to be on a stage doing 
nothing and saying nothing, except eat this piece of pie. I did 
not even eat it spectacularly! I just ate it -- and the audience 
sat there and watched me eat this piece of pie and then eat this 
sandwich, and rolled in the aisles.

There was only one original bit in it. When I was through with 
the pie plate I did throw it -- non-extant -- offscene and have 
somebody back there drop a couple of dishpans. But otherwise, I 
didn't look at the audience, talk to them or apparently 
communicate with them. There is evidently a tremendous 
willingness, then, on the part of an audience to communicate. 
This is what that proved to me. I just kind of knew that I'd get 
away with it. I was cocky in those days.

But there are many instances of this kind. You really don't have 
to have much to say or to be terribly original. The one thing 
which you must not be, however, is nervous. Above all things, you 
must belong there as much as they belong there. At least that 
much. When you start to exceed this, you start to command the 
audience. You see that? You belong there more, a little bit more, 
than they belong there. This is delivered by your certainty and 
your appearance. You are simply there and you look like you're 
there. And you look like you're there because you know you should 
be there. Don't you see? It's very esoteric.

Now, Scientology at this time is doing very well across the 
world. If it were doing just a little bit better, there would be 
things not happening which are happening at this moment on the 
major scene of nations. Of that, I assure you. We do have the ear 
of more people than you would suspect. There are more people 
listening. Today, Scientology is accepted in a state of rather 
frigid wariness by the professions which it is supplanting. They 
are no longer scoffing at it. They get down to the point of 
saying "Oh, Hubbard died yesterday," or "The whole subject is 
uh... uh... Where did you hear about it?" We have conducted a 
personal survey of such people; we know.

Also, it's quite amazing how many people you run into who have 
vaguely heard of it. Now, if you run into one in a hundred on the 
face of earth, this is quite amazing, quite amazing. Because 
we're not doing the standard American Medical Association 
advertising campaign. We're not doing any of these things.

In other words, we're doing, in a small way, all right. But one 
of these days, one of these days, somebody about your shape and 
size as an individual is going to have to stand up and talk, 
because they won't let you sit there. You got the idea?

A military organization, which at this moment is engaged in a 
very large and bloody war, has just interrupted its comm lines to 
me, as far as I am concerned. But before this unfortunate 
incident occurred, I was engaged in writing their manual on 
mental health.

You don't think we get around? It's quite fascinating. Wherever 
you look, we are more capable of penetrating and we are doing a 
better job of penetrating than before.

You see, we have the know-how. We do have the know-how. Even if 
you, in your experience and so forth, were only able to bring 
calmness or sobriety to one alcoholic in the case of three or 
four hours of processing -- if that was all you could do, you 
see, by running a little bit of 8-C, just make him feel better -- 
you're still doing more than anyone else has ever done in the 
field of the mind.

But the other day, over at the HGC, we raised somebody's IQ, I 
think, forty-four points. Forty-four points! It's not possible. 
We did it. We do it rather usually.

And what is more promising: with indoctrination into good 
auditing procedure, and with a better understanding of 
techniques, and better codifications to deliver an understanding 
to auditors, and with their better use of them with better 
procedure, we are getting better and better and better results. 
And somewhere along the line, we'll have to quit or we will 
become far, far too popular.

You can't sit and know all we know forever. You see, you just 
can't do it. It isn't true that people will try to shoot you 
down. Only the weaker-minded will, and they're always bad shots.

No, one of these days -- one of these days, let's face it -- 
you're going to have to face it.

I was scared a few weeks ago. I had a piece of paper put in front 
of me that moved me back about an inch in the chair. You know, 
thud! You know -- quickly recovering my aplomb and saying, "Oh, 
yes, yes. Carry on," and all that sort of thing, and -- 
rrrrrrrrr!

A discussion was taking place of what we would use for training 
quarters in a certain country for 250 thousand men. And the size 
hadn't come home to me at all until a choice of bases was under 
discussion. And they had a spare infantry-training school which 
had been closed down since the war. And it turned out that it 
wasn't big enough for the task we were going to have to 
accomplish in about three years. A whole infantry-training school 
isn't big enough to handle a quarter of a million men, who would 
only be run through the school, you see, at a few at a time.

But, let's take 250 thousand men and divide it by thirty-six. Can 
you do that? A third of a quarter of a million. How many men is 
it? How many people is that? How long you going to train them so 
as to resist brainwashing, be able to handle enemy propaganda, be 
able to withstand the rigors of modern war? How long? Well, I 
wouldn't attempt it in under three or four months. How many 
people is that over a period?

Well, the training school would have had to have been enlarged 
because it wasn't big enough to hold the number of people which 
would have had to have been trained at one time. And I had no 
more chance of laying my hands on enough Instructors to run that 
school than a man in the moon, even though I'd reached out for 
every auditor in the world today. And that's only a quarter of a 
million men. You don't train thousands of people at a time 
without personal contact.

If anybody has a long memory, do you remember Los Angeles? Now, 
how many people was that? How many people was that? And the 
tremendous amount of randomity, of course, might have been 
occurring from lack of know-how in terms of organization, but it 
was an awful lot of randomity. There was a lot of motion there 
which wasn't under good control at all. We still learned 
something.

But are we going to do a first-class, Los Angeles sort of a job 
on a project of training 250 thousand men? No, then it takes 
everybody everywhere to pitch in on that job. Fantastic as it may 
seem, it would take everybody everywhere. And of course, a lot of 
people can't come. They've got their sectors nailed down. So we 
just have to multiply everybody by four, you see, that is there. 
And we say, "You're four people today. This is your class, that 
five hundred people over there that are milling in a small 
circle."

Now, we're not embarking on that tomorrow. We're not embarking on 
such projects immediately in all directions. But the time to 
learn to confront groups is now. The time to train groups is now, 
because the very best you could do is simply stand up and train 
men to train groups, which men know nothing about your subject at 
all.

It makes a sad look when you look it over. The thoroughness of 
the training would be very un-thorough indeed, under present 
circumstances. The handling of groups, though -- the handling of 
groups definitely includes the handling of a large group of 
students under lecture. Don't think that you wouldn't have to 
handle them just like you would an audience of any kind. They 
won't learn a thing unless you do.

All right. Now, completely aside from some large project which is 
now put up on the shelf because the army involved is shooting, 
you have a sphere of activity yourself in which you can talk. 
Your ability to talk is one thing. Your ability to confront a 
group is another. And under that heading is your ability to 
handle and control them. And here's the funny thing: If you can 
handle and control them, the amount of effort you have to put 
into the talk is very slight indeed. Strain comes on instruction 
only when you can't handle and control the people to whom you're 
talking.

Now, the odd part of it is, an audience is perfectly willing to 
be handled and controlled. Very willing; tremendous willingness. 
All you have to do is run good 8-C on them, and they think this 
is gorgeous. You just talk to them with good 8-C. Talk to them 
complicatedly enough, too. But you talk with good 8-C. You don't 
say, "Now we'll take up the problem of all of these airplanes. 
Now, how many of you boys have studied your lessons about 
submarines? Well now, that's very, very good. By the way, at 2:15 
we all stand to for baggage inspection." This isn't running good 
8-C on a group and they don't like it.

So, handling, controlling a group has a great deal to do with the 
ARC you can maintain with a group. And every Scientologist 
should, on his own initiative, put himself into a better 
havingness in terms of audience. Don't start crossing the first 
stage-fright period with your first real audience. You get the 
idea? Cross it first -- either on the gradient scale of simply 
going out and talking to the Boy Scouts Troop 10 or remedying it 
in an auditing session. Any way you care to go about it, you 
actually should practice up a little bit on being able to handle 
and control a group of people. It would do you worlds of good. 
Make you feel good; make you feel real good.

Now, actually, in handling groups and so forth, I, of course, 
myself, am a little shy. I like to be amongst friends. I do. I 
like to be amongst friends. I do not like to talk to hostile 
groups. I really do not.

And I'm mean, too, when I do. You never saw such a change in a 
man in your life as when I have to talk to a hostile group. I 
immediately go off onto an entirely different line of stagecraft. 
It's tough! It's tough! They're there challengingly. They are 
willing to listen, but they already have been told how bad it is. 
They're sure you're not going to say anything interesting. But 
they're going to suffer through it somehow so that they can get 
on with the dessert or something. I get mean about that time, and 
I do bad things. I seldom give bad reports on myself, but that is 
actually an instance when I do.

I hypnotized, one time, the staff of St. Elizabeth's. Told them 
they'd heard a good speech and left the stage. They all came 
around afterwards saying, "What a good speech that was you gave!" 
That was a mean thing to do. That was certainly backing out of 
it, wasn't it? But it was in the early career of Dianetics and I 
felt very much like backing out of it. I was preceded by someone 
who told all of them how bad it was over "Ron-ward."

They might afterwards have suspected my knowledge of the mind, 
but certainly not my knowledge of hypnotism. It's very easy to 
hypnotize groups.

Another time, I talked to a group of people that couldn't have 
cared less about hearing anyone. But it was on their schedule 
that there was twenty minutes going to be devoted to a speaker, 
and at the last moment they hadn't been able to find any, so they 
got me. This is the sort of a position, you see, which is optimum 
-- optimum. Well, I found out that in view of the fact that they 
couldn't care less, I might as well make them care more, and I 
became a bad boy at once and started insulting them. It's all I 
could do. I at least got their attention.

I was rather amazed afterwards -- I was rather amazed 
afterwards... Actually I was rather insulting. I talked about 
their particular activities and not about mine at all. Never said 
a word about my activities, but said tremendously about theirs. 
And they hadn't been very nice to me when I had come in, you see, 
and I taught them better. I went down the list of their faults, 
one after the other, castigated them rather roundly, 
sarcastically and impudently. And afterwards, two of them came 
around and congratulated me for having given the only sincere 
speech they had ever heard there.

I suppose that one has a havingness on hostile groups as far as 
that's concerned. But the truth be told, I've never had any group 
be hostile long. Their hostility rather has a tendency to blow up 
to the degree that you find them on the Tone Scale. And you talk 
to them on their position of the Tone Scale and they will very 
quickly realize that you are real.

Now, this isn't necessarily a trick. One simply falls into it. He 
inspects the situation and he talks. So actually there is no such 
thing as a bad audience -- unless, of course, it is a group that 
wants to hang you. But of course, they are not technically an 
audience. The type of entertainment they want doesn't include you 
alive. So even then there's a saving grace. But there is no 
really bad audience.

A man should be able to control almost any kind of an audience. 
Very few petitioners ever believe that the United States 
government could be an audience. But there was a chap one time 
who wrote... Did you ever read the story of The Man Without a 
Country? All about Philip Nolan? Well, the author of that, one 
time, wrote a petition for the Customs House -- if I remember 
rightly -- on raising pay or doing something of the sort. And he 
wrote it so well and it was so beautifully expressed, and it was 
so seldom anything like that had ever been sent to the government 
at large, that they raised everybody's pay. Even the government 
could be an audience. Now, that's a fantastic thing. In other 
words, there is no limit whatsoever to the direction you can 
appeal or to the level you can appeal.

People used to criticize George Wichelow over in London -- rather 
broke his morale down -- for going out in Hyde Park and lecturing 
alongside of the communists and lecturing elsewhere. But the 
funny part of it was, he has his regular group. He's over in 
Jersey now, and he's not lecturing in Hyde Park anymore -- people 
miss him. There are an awful lot of people drifted by there. As a 
matter of fact, we were mentioned in two or three leading 
newspapers, along with other groups that were seen lecturing in 
Hyde Park.

But the point is that even this level of audience and that type 
of talking was effective. It doesn't matter what kind of an 
audience you get together. It doesn't matter particularly how big 
they are or how small they are. It really doesn't matter how 
interesting you are or uninteresting you are. The point of the 
matter is, all you have to do is say something to them. And just 
do this, and you find out you get along splendidly. But you find 
out that by not doing it you are apt to someday find yourself 
confronting an audience, not having had any havingness on 
audiences for a long time, with the result: stage fright, tongue-
tiedness, and so on. I'm not backing up a horrible fate for you, 
but I am telling you for true that you should talk.

Now, the whole world is trying to tell you as an individual that 
you should never talk. There are two crimes in this universe. One 
is thereness and the other is communicatingness. Both are 
attempted to be punished. People attempt to punish both of these 
things. Thereness and communicatingness. The only two things that 
you can do wrong are to communicate and to be there. All crimes 
fall into that category. The law uniformly makes you prove that 
you weren't there. If you can prove you weren't there, why, they 
immediately exonerate you. That's thereness.

 Now, we take the whole subject of communicatingness. I don't 
care whether you did it by words or by bullets or with a knife or 
something, the only thing anybody ever objects to is 
communicatinguess apparently. This is the way the world runs, 
apparently.

Two crimes: thereness and communicatingness. There are only two 
ways for a man to get well: thereness and communicatingness.

Now, you, by succumbing to the law against being there and the 
law against communicating, are aiding and abetting your own 
demise. You are being a partner to the crime of your own 
extinction. So, if you can be discouraged in doing either of 
these two things, you can be made ill. That's for sure. Only 
those things to which you cannot or dare not communicate can 
affect you. Fantastic, but true.

Now, if you yourself feel that you cannot communicate to groups 
and cannot hold them, you will become the victim of groups. And 
because life is a third-dynamic activity -- not a first-dynamic 
activity -- part of living consists of confronting groups. And 
when you cut and ran, or let the shakes deter you from shaking, 
you of course are being a partner to your own demise.

So then, it actually doesn't come down to a basis of you should 
do this for dear old Scientology, see. It actually comes down to 
a basis you should do it because in the past I am sure that you 
have done an audience or two in. I'm sure you have. Otherwise you 
wouldn't be shy of them today, if you are. Now, of course, many 
of you are not at all audience shy, and that is very fine. That's 
very fine. You should practice, however, once in a while.

One of the most interesting activities in which a person can 
engage is the instruction of his fellow man, in making his life a 
bit better and in making the world a better place in which to 
live. In fact, I would go so far as to say I don't know of any 
other activity. But that's just my stupidity. I have had some 
past acquaintances who tell me that destroying the whole world 
from pole to pole is an interesting activity, too. They have told 
me this.

Well, the total win for destroying the world from pole to pole 
will consist of not needing a fire in the future with which to 
fry eggs on earth. You won't need a fire to fry eggs on earth 
after the boys have got it all neatly dusted off, but you won't 
have any eggs, either! So these blessings are not always 
blessings.

It does seem to me that making the world a better place in which 
to live, maintaining people's interest in existence, keeping the 
game going, helping your fellow man -- these things seem to be 
very worthwhile activities, and I know as long as I engage in 
them and keep my attention off of my more wicked impulses, I feel 
fine.

So that's really the only therapy I have indulged in recently. 
And whereas I'm not in awfully good condition, you know -- I 
never am -- I nevertheless feel more satisfied than many of the 
preclears I've had recently.

Thank you.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]




FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 07 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

===============================================

RESEARCH REPORT: RADIATION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO PROCESSING

A lecture given on 8 November 1956


[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

Want to talk to you about the future -- the future. There 
probably shouldn't be a tape recording of this, because it is to 
a large degree confidential, to a very large degree 
revolutionary, to an extreme degree slanderous, libelous. But 
I'll claim it was all dubbed-in on the tape!

It may not have occurred to you in the last week or so that there 
was any future. We have had several national catastrophes of one 
kind and another, including the election of a president. And we 
have had a couple of wars. But most important we have had some 
international policy outlined which puts us in an interesting 
position -- we as Scientologists -- an interesting position 
indeed.

Probably the most important of these is the insistence upon 
peace. We have a condition in the world now known as "peace 
without communication." Naturally, that's impossible -- which, I 
suppose, is why it's the policy. You could only have peace in the 
presence of broad, intelligent communication with plenty of 
figure-figure on the lines and lots of wait. If you just get 
everybody talking hard enough about their difficulties along 
enough comm lines with enough commissions, undoubtedly you would 
have peace. But you can't keep chopping things off and say that 
peace will prevail. It takes a lot of communication to keep the 
peace.

A nation exists in the world today -- the Soviet states, or 
whatever they call themselves. I forget. It's a bunch of small 
countries that got together and decided to pack a big stick named 
Stalin. Well, he died. He was holding them together very neatly, 
and they started to fall apart. And the first person that 
objected was the person who was returned to office in the United 
States. I consider this quite remarkable.

After every great ruler -- by which is meant a cruel, tyrannical 
beast -- the Russian nation has fallen apart within the 
succeeding ten or fifteen years. The Russian nation has been a 
nation many times, and each time has reduced itself to 
principalities as soon as the wielder of the big stick was dead. 
History is so repetitively redundant that it begins to look like 
duplication -- and who in a State Department could duplicate?

The Russian nation is again doing this same trick. It is busy 
falling to pieces. First, there went Poland; then there went 
Hungary. And for some reason or other somebody at the last moment 
decided that Hungary -- in the Kremlin, they decided -- that 
Hungary would have to be assaulted and (quote) "put back together 
again as a Red Satellite," which they succeeded in doing with 
such bad press and publicity that now the word communist is 
becoming a curse word in Europe.

They're doing a wonderful job of disintegration -- none better, 
gorgeous job. There went Poland; there went Hungary. Now, because 
of their savageness of attack on Hungary, refugees rushing out of 
Hungary into other nations can be counted upon to stir up 
revolutionary activities there. And here we go! The Russian 
nation has always "went" just this way. I wish to God somebody 
could read history and find out that this is the case, and just 
leave it alone and stop talking to them to quit! I don't want 
them to quit! I want them to fall apart.

There's a difference. Left alone, in my humble opinion, talked to 
pleasantly, ignored as to all the bad things they're doing, 
patted on the head at proper intervals, big commissions arranged 
to discuss the peace, more communication lines, "millions for 
cables but not a penny for tanks" and the Russian nation would 
just go bidrromm -- blob!

But no, we've got to reprimand them. We must give them an 
external enemy, observably an enemy, so that they can reunite in 
the face of this great external force which threatens them. It's 
too bad. I expect any moment hero medals, one quart or two quarts 
of hero medals, to arrive over here in Washington.

About the only way you'd keep it together is give it an external 
menace and start rapping it on the knuckles and reminding it that 
it's a nation. It's almost forgotten.

Here is a singular bad piece of policy, because it means war. But 
war is something that cannot be fought in the world today. It 
can't be fought because there is a "weapon" (quote, unquote) 
which is not a weapon (underscore). And that weapon is the atomic 
arsenal: the atomic missiles, the H-bomb, the Q-bomb, the buzz 
bomb -- whatever we want to call these bombs. They'll have a new 
name for them next week.

Atomic fission or fusion is not usable in war. Just as you would 
not issue rifles to your troops which would blow off their 
breechblocks in every private's face, so you would not engage war 
with an atomic missile. When you fire one of these missiles, it 
backfires.

Now, it's all right for them to play around with these things and 
make reactors and install them in submarines, so that you can 
give a big contract to some electrical company and get a kickback 
-- in spite of the fact the submarine doesn't work. You can do 
all kinds of interesting things, if you want to, with atomic 
fission. There are lots of progressive activities that could be 
engaged in, but not amongst them is a weapon. It's not a weapon, 
any more than poison gas is a good weapon. It's not a good 
weapon. It's only a good weapon against civilians crowded on 
roads, where your troops are not scheduled to advance. Then 
poison gas gets to be a pretty good weapon.

But not fission. Fission is a bad weapon because it isn't a 
weapon and pretends to be a weapon. If you threw enough atom 
bombs at this moment at Russia to paralyze Russia, it's a hideous 
fact that the atmosphere of Earth would become so polluted that 
the citizens of the United States would not thereafter be able to 
survive in any condition of health. And if Russia bombed the 
United States with not a moment's thought of any retaliation, the 
Russian citizen would be in like condition. What kind of a weapon 
is this? It's not a weapon at all.

Just why we have to have an H-bomb testing program is a little 
bit difficult to establish, since I was convinced a long time ago 
that bombs would go off. I'm sure you've gotten this idea, too. 
And that is about all there is to find out. That is found out: 
bombs go off.

Well, you don't have to keep shooting bombs off to make sure that 
bombs go off. We all know that bombs go off. There must be some 
lingering doubt in the atomic physicist's mind concerning this 
point. Maybe he's surprised every time when they explode! 
Fascinating.

They talk about "bomb-testing programs" -- well, it'd be one 
thing if mankind was trying to find out if he could make fission 
"fish." That would be one thing. But not only will the United 
States have to carry along this whole program of exploding enough 
bombs to finally convince their atomic physicists that bombs go 
off, but now England has got to explode enough bombs to make sure 
that bombs go off and satisfy their physicists. And then Russia 
has got to explode enough bombs to make sure that bombs go off 
and satisfy their Atomic Energy Commission. And I suppose by that 
time France will have discovered the formula. But long before 
Russia will have completed the same series embarked upon by the 
United States, the air will already have become sufficiently 
poisoned that people will not be able to stay at work.

This is a fantastic fact. Just who is kidding who, Lord knows. 
But the Public Health Department of the United States is at this 
time debarred from further inspection of atomic-radiation 
pollution in the air. The governor of the state of New York has 
been forbidden to permit any further monitoring of the air in the 
vicinity of New York. He can't find out if it's radioactive 
anymore. Now, this is a fabulous state of affairs.

Well, I didn't know it was personal. I didn't know that we 
Scientologists had the stake in this that we had in it until a 
very short time ago. It was all right to say that one or more 
elements of the A-bomb were poisoning the atmosphere and were 
affecting people's health. That was one thing. But nobody really 
has been close enough to these bombs to really be affected by 
them, of course, except the population of Earth. You didn't have 
to be near one of these bombs. Some people are more sensitive 
than others because some people have been X-rayed more often than 
others. Some people have been subjected to radiation in other 
ways, such as television. Television spits out enough gamma to 
make you spit out your teeth, if the truth be known. Takes years 
of sitting in front of a TV set to spit your teeth out.

But if you talk to them seriously and say, "Now boys, what are 
you doing...?" The way you sneak up on these guys is very funny. 
You say, "Television actually emits radiation."

And they say, "Ho-ho-ho, ha-ha-ha-ha-ha." You don't want to 
approach it that way, see. That gives them an out, doesn't 
surprise them.

You say, "What are you boys doing now about the gamma radiation 
from TV tubes?"

And they say, "Well-l-l-l, as a matter of fact, we're getting 
there. Uh... we've got it pretty well licked. Uh... we're going 
to try lead glass on the front of the... What am I talking to you 
for?" This is quite amusing.

It's such a tiny quantity that by itself it probably would never 
seriously affect anybody's health. Probably the entertainment 
itself would be more effective in destroying them. But the funny 
part of it is that it is there, and it does add to the already-
existing gamma-type radiation and particles in the air at this 
time.

Now, down in Arizona they put an H-bomb nine feet below the 
ground and blew it up. Why? To find out if it'd lift dust? Well, 
it certainly did! It had the entire Southwest counting, so that 
anybody who wanted to go uranium mining was in a delirium of 
happiness over the tremendous number of mines he discovered. They 
were under every piano and back of every bar. Everybody and 
everything in Arizona counted after that. You took a Geiger 
counter and it'd go birrrrr, dit-dit-dit-dit-dit. Well, gorgeous, 
gorgeous. Guys went around in a delirium of happiness before they 
suddenly realized this, saying, "B-r-r-r-r, I got a mine. B-r-r-
r-r, I got a mine. B-r-r-r-r, I got a mine. B-r-r-r-r. Hey, 
that's me!"

Now, wherever we go on earth, then, we're going to encounter air 
or space which contains radiation at a considerable count. It is 
not really, at this point, where it would be noticed completely 
by the individual. It is right on the threshold of that.

Just exactly what this had to do with last week's activities, I 
would not be able to guess. But people under a bombardment of 
radiation start to go down tone; they start on down tone.

Now, all of this has a considerable bearing on us. We are, at 
this time at least, citizens of earth. We do have a playing 
field. It is quite one thing to confront a playing field being 
blown up, bang! and that's all there is to it, you know? But some 
chap wrote a poem one time, and he says the world won't end with 
a bang, the world will end with a whimper. And evidently that is 
the case.

The threat of war will probably culminate in no war, but it will 
catalyze various nations to reassure their physicists by 
exploding bombs, and the more bombs that are exploded, the more 
atmosphere saturation there will be. And I don't know that they 
will stop it, because at a certain point sane reaction is not 
noticeable. You can get just so much radiation in the air and 
after that you do not get sane, rational reactions. You get 
reactions only.

Now, I'm not backing up the hearse to you. The only reason I'm 
talking to you about it is because we can do something about it. 
We can do several things about it.

We find this intimate at this time because we believe, to some 
degree, that we have evidence which tends to point in the 
direction that this condition has been going forward for about 
nine years. All right. If this is the case, has it had any 
bearing on what we've been doing in Dianetics and Scientology? 
Evidently it has. The reactions of cases at large -- the 
reactions of cases at large -- between 1947 and 1956, carefully 
reviewed now, does appear to have altered. How?

In 1947 it was very easy to run an engram. Even in early 1950 it 
was still fairly easy to run an engram, but it was a little 
harder. By the end of '50 it was getting difficult to run 
engrams. In 1951 we had to beef up our processes like mad in 
order to run an engram cleanly. By 1952 we were beginning to run 
into nothing but whole track. Nineteen fifty-three, we just had 
to look for other processes than engram running. And we had to 
look hard, and we looked into exteriorization. In '54, in '55 and 
in '56 we have actually been researching further and further, 
into more and more powerful techniques. Why?

In 1947 the techniques we had were good enough! In 1950, spring 
of that year, they were practically good enough. Why haven't they 
stayed good enough?

People haven't changed, have they? Not at all. We even see a 
difference of techniques which, run two or three years ago, don't 
work very well today. This fascinating panorama has just unfolded 
before my view as a distinct possibility. And it may or may not 
be true, but it is certainly a distinct possibility, and there is 
a coordination here between the amount of radiation in the 
atmosphere and the difficulty of auditing a preclear.

So, I started to look forward a little bit further, and I found 
out something quite interesting: An individual who has an 
invisible particle nipping at the body, reacts. He doesn't know 
what it is. It is a hidden influence. It is a hidden menace of 
some sort or another.

So what's he do? He tries to fill up the space around him. What's 
he got to fill it up with? Huh! A bank! He starts pulling in a 
bank to fill up this space. He starts inspecting things, saying, 
"Is that it? Is that it? Is that it? Is that it? Is it my Aunt 
Chloe? No." And, all the time, it's an invisible particle which 
has a reaction against the body which makes the body 
ambitiousless and ill. Wow!

What would this do to auditing if between 1947 and 1956 we had a 
progressive pollution of the atmosphere which caused people to do 
this more and more and more, and made auditing rougher and 
rougher and rougher? This would be a fantastic thing for an 
auditor to confront, wouldn't it? That'd be a very interesting 
thing to be looking at and not knowing you were looking at it. 
It'd be demanded of you, in any given month, that you run more 
arduously than you did the month before. To some slight degree 
you would have to be more on the ball with a preclear. You would 
have to do more and cause more and be more alert, and you'd have 
to be better and better and better. Your techniques would have to 
be better and better and better to produce more or less the same 
result.

Now, the question is, has that happened? It is not necessarily 
true. But it's a strange thing that we have followed this exact 
course. According to the records which are lying around, people 
are harder to audit in general today than they were. And I don't 
care what people these are: a carpenter pulled off a project, 
milkman, anybody. We don't care who it is.

Health level: In order to get a full insight into this, one would 
actually have to inspect the Public Health Service records, if 
they are available, on various subjects between, let us say, 1920 
and 1930, and 1945 and 1950. Would there be any difference in 
these records? What would be the prevalence of certain illnesses? 
Are there more illnesses today than there were then? Is the 
public-health level lower now than it was then? Is there an 
incidence of insanity today much higher than then -- and could we 
actually depend on these figures as not merely a press release by 
the APA to get in more appropriations? Is there any other 
supportive evidence?

Well, all of this will have to be looked over and carefully 
weighed. But for the time being, we can hold the fort. We have 
processes that overreach the condition. We gained a bit. But we 
have something more important: We have a biochemical means of 
converting, evidently, this restimulative type of case into an 
easier-to-audit case. Now, I just say evidently we have that. I 
am not trying to press you with a great, big stable datum that 
win maybe tomorrow become an unstable datum. I'm merely offering 
these things. And if they turn out to be true, they're true; and 
if they're not true, they're not true. That's all.

But all sorts of random data comes through, data which has been a 
wild variable. You know, a good investigator, a good scientist, 
actually doesn't pay much attention to stable data. He doesn't 
look into the field of stable, won data; he looks into the field 
of variable data. He looks into the field of wild variables to 
try to find out if there's anything there.

Well, this has been a wild variable for me, and I've lived with 
and suffered with this phenomenon of worsening cases. That is to 
say, at any given instant, the cases presented to me to be 
audited were worse than the cases that had been presented. What 
was this dwindling spiral I was confronting? Wow! What's going on 
here?

For a long time I've suffered with this, because... "Have I 
gotten my observations completely wrong? What's going on here? 
Now, let me see. It took about so many hours back about '48. Let 
me see. I'd run out so many engrams and only rarely would 
somebody present an early engram. It'd be mostly later stuff. And 
everybody I'd seem to run into ran these things rather easily."

In 1950 1 started to run into some black cases -- cases that were 
harder to audit. "Well, maybe they were around before," I'd say. 
"Maybe we're running into a further strata of populace. Maybe the 
auditors I am teaching just don't know how to audit at all?" But 
I'd throw that aside because obviously they did. You see, all of 
this data, weighing it, coming along the line -- one would be 
rather anxious if he'd had this much random data thrown at him, 
you see, to instantly throw in a good stable datum like blaming 
it all on radiation. We must resist that temptation. There is no 
sense in succumbing to it at all.

Just continue to examine it. There might be something else 
entirely at fault here. Something else might be occurring. 
However, this one does seem to fill all characteristics. National 
health at this time is much poorer than it was. Service in the 
United States has fallen off in the last year very markedly.

Only the people who were under the bombardment of atomic bombs in 
Phoenix (they were only 250 miles away) became ill in London 
after the discharge of Russian bombs. These boys and girls really 
became ill, by the way. I mean very ill -- wham! Russia released 
some bombs that were almost total raw gamma. They didn't know how 
to get a bomb into an economical state at all as far as gamma was 
concerned, and these bombs were quite deadly. And when they 
released them, there were a certain number of staff in London 
went down like tenpins. And I thought, "Well, somebody would get 
sick. It's that season of the year. It's probably just flu." But 
nobody else got sick to any degree.

And then we had a congress and these sick people were actually 
called upon to run the congress -- myself amongst them, by the 
way. We were actually called upon to run this congress. And 
somehow or another we stumbled through it. We got it done. We had 
it made finally. But before the congress, I was thinking neatly 
to myself, "I really ought to call it off. Rather than expose a 
crowd of people, many of them strangers even to Scientology" (an 
English congress being different) -- "rather than expose them to 
an obviously epidemic illness." I ran them on some processing 
that made them sick. You know, they went this way a little bit on 
a couple of the sessions, but, by golly, they didn't get sick 
from what the staff had.

Therefore it required a little closer look. And that closer look 
showed us that it was only that staff which had been in Phoenix 
which was now ill in London. Ah-ah-ah-ah-ah. It was an 
interesting thing to observe, wasn't it? Wasn't that an 
interesting thing to observe? Nobody else got sick! People were 
sniffling a little bit or something, but the people who were 
really sick, right down sick and stayed sick for weeks, were the 
people in Phoenix who had been exposed to the Phoenix radiation.

Now, you think of this atomic radiation as something that floats 
through the air with the greatest of ease, blown hither and yon 
by the winds of the world. Therefore, it requires a long time for 
it to arrive, and the distribution of these particles are 
entirely dependent upon being wafted hither and thither. They all 
have to do with fallout, "which is being carefully watched."

We used to just almost laugh ourselves hysterical in Phoenix. "We 
don't understand why there is any public hysteria, because the 
fallout is being carefully watched." Nobody seemed to add up, in 
the test grounds and so forth, that we didn't care who was 
watching it; we cared what it was doing!

By the way, there was an epidemic of measles (which was 
noninfectious measles) which broke out immediately after the most 
serious series of these. Measles, by the way, has an inoculation 
today which contains gamma. In other words, you can prevent 
measles with a little shot of gamma. It's quite interesting. 
Measles and gamma are quite closely connected; so are some other 
definite illnesses, most of which are respiratory illnesses and 
all of which have to do with the cave-in of bones.

Now, I didn't say "infantile paralysis," did I? You didn't hear 
me say that, did I? Because the Infantile Paralysis Foundation 
makes a lot of money, and nobody must say anything about the 
Infantile Paralysis Foundation. And it's such a good thing that 
we have Salk vaccine, which only increased infantile paralysis 
seven or eight hundred percent. I mean, it's a good thing to have 
around. Or did the Salk vaccine increase infantile paralysis in 
its rate across the country? Was it the fact that we had a 
president of the United States who suffered from infantile 
paralysis that popularized this with little children who weren't 
alive when he was ruling? You suppose this widespread popularity 
of infantile paralysis, being a respiratory disease which attacks 
bone structure, has anything whatsoever to do with it? You don't 
suppose this sudden upsurge of this little-known disease covers 
exactly these years I am talking about, about toughening cases!

Oh, unfortunately it does. Unfortunately it does, very 
definitely.

Are there any other random data like this kicking around? Start 
checking people's health -- just stop them on the street and 
start checking their health. "How well did you feel, when?" They 
give you fascinating data on it. Some young person is liable to 
tell you, "Well, I felt all right while I was in college, but I 
haven't been feeling well since. Getting out of college has upset 
me.

"Oh, yes! When did you get out of college?"

"Oh, uh... I got out of college in '48 and, uh... I haven't been 
well since."

"Well, what's been wrong with you?"

"Oh, nothing, I've just been tired."

"Oh, you've just been tired, huh? Nothing seriously wrong then?"

"Oh, no. I take it easy. I get along all right."

This isn't the type of public illness which runs at once to the 
doctor.

Are there any other coordinative data? Now, I don't say these 
things all have to add up to fission. They might add up to 
Martian rays being played against earth as far as that's 
concerned. But they certainly are a number of data to stand 
totally isolated, aren't they? What is this all about?

Why is it that when we audit people we occasionally discover (if 
they were ever out to Phoenix and worked in the Phoenix 
organizations) that they have stuck views of Phoenix? 
Nonsignificant views -- they're just standing, looking down a 
street in Phoenix. There's nothing engramic about that 
whatsoever! We've never had anybody get stuck in this kind of an 
engram before: quietly walking down the street, and that is an 
engram! They run like engrams. What is this all about?

Well, a number of data adding up is enough for us to take 
precautionary steps. That's all the data adds up to -- enough for 
us to take precautionary steps and to study the situation 
further. And you have every reason to have the information that 
we are doing just that. We are not suddenly taking off into the 
blue from a stable datum that everybody is poisoned to pieces by 
atomic fission.

I don't know what the roentgen count has to be in the atmosphere 
in order to actually make somebody ill. I do not know this. 
Unlike many of our learned fellow men, we in Scientology do not 
use human beings on a vivisection basis. We're not accustomed to 
doing that. So we haven't exposed people to radiation just to 
find out how they felt. We haven't stood them up and given them a 
good solid bath of gamma so as to find out if they died or not. 
We leave that up to Hitler or to the APA or to the Atomic Energy 
Commission. We leave that up to the paratrooper division during 
the war who let paratroopers walk through the Mojave Desert 
without water to find out how far they could go before they fell 
down and died. I mean, we have a different standard of things 
which is above the animal standard.

So all we can do is to use our reason on the thing, investigate 
the evidence presented, and if it fits, all right; and if it 
doesn't fit, okay, we'll find something else.

But we are taking precautionary steps. And at this time, based on 
what we learned of what we used to call "Guk" back in the old 
days -- Dianetics and Scientology is well old enough now to have 
"the old days" -- we recalled that some odd manifestations 
occurred when nicotinic acid was delivered to individuals. It was 
very peculiar.

Nicotinic acid is advertised in the pharmacopoeia as turning on a 
flush. It says so; it says it's toxic. But it's a funny flush, 
isn't it, that in 1950 displayed nothing but bathing-suit 
patterns on the body. I never saw such neat flushes. They were! 
They were very neat. And it was very peculiar, if this stuff was 
toxic, how an overdose of it eventually turned on no flush at 
all. And the more you overdosed it the sooner you didn't get any 
more flushes from it.

Now, we flattened several cases in those days so that they didn't 
have any more sunburns to run out, and they felt pretty good. And 
I remembered this suddenly three weeks ago -- something on that 
order -- and I said, "Do you know that sun that sits up there and 
goes wog-wog, you know, that everybody says "Ra" to? Well, the 
sun up there is pure fission -- no better example can anywhere be 
found than sun."

Ohhh? What is sunburn? Eh-eh-eh! Now, wait a minute. If nicotinic 
acid would run out sunburn, which is fission of a sort, would it 
run out radiation? Well, you know me. When I go out to test 
something, I test it! I go find somebody like Breeding.

No, actually the kids around are terrific. They're absolutely 
terrific. If I use myself on an experiment, I practically get 
shot. Everybody argues with me. I'm not supposed to have this 
particular type of martyred glory. I received more phone calls 
from London from madder people, because I hadn't tested radiation 
on them when I got sick last February on some tests on this. Gee, 
they were mad!

So anyhow, Don came up and immediately volunteered to start 
throwing nicotinic acid down the throat at a mad rate. Well, 
within a day or two he had all our hair standing on end. I 
thought he'd go at it conservatively, you know -- he'd take fifty 
milligrams every day or something like this, or a hundred or 
something like this. So he started taking, I don't know, a 
hundred on the hour every hour; or every three hours he doubled 
the dose, or something like this.

And he went and looked it up, and he even took the new form of 
it. There's a new form called niacinamide, and it does everything 
(it says in the pharmacopoeia) that nicotinic acid does, but does 
it better, you know, without the side effects. It's an absolute 
dud; it's completely null. I mean, it doesn't do anything. How it 
bears any relationship to nicotinic acid I wouldn't know, but it 
evidently does according to the pharmacopoeia. So it's just old-
time nicotinic acid.

Well, he started throwing this down his throat at a mad rate. And 
he turned purple and pink, and started scratching and itching, 
and people could toast marshmallows on him there for a while, and 
so on. And it started to run a little bit flatter. And started 
some other people on this -- more people began taking it.

But what do you know? What do you know? The stuff doesn't now run 
out sunburn. It'll run out some sunburn; there are some sunburns 
that it turns on but it's now running where people don't wear 
bathing suits. It's running where people have themselves 
beautifully neat and decent as well as where they don't. 
Fantastic! They run all over. The most interesting, prickly 
sensation you ever wanted to feel. They turn on hives and red 
flushes and prickly sensations, and their faces get it most 
often. I wonder why that is? The face is exposed all the time. Of 
course, the face gets sunburned more often. But how about a case 
that had all the sunburn run out by nicotinic acid in 1950, and 
for years afterwards is totally null on the subject, starts to 
run out face flushes, all with visios of Phoenix? Must have been 
facing in some direction when something flashed. Got it?

I don't even tell you now that nicotinic acid runs out radiation. 
But it's running out more than it ran out in 1950 and that's for 
sure. Of course, there are people around that start to take it 
who believe it runs out nothing, it just puts them into complete 
torture and that's that, and it's just a new mechanism of 
accomplishing this thing. They're just sure that this is just a 
new Inquisition they have just run into, where they are being 
burned alive without even the benefit of a stake. But here's 
what's peculiar: Pieces of engrams that didn't run before, odds 
and ends of track of the last few years and so on, start to go 
out on this stuff.

Now, I didn't do too much research on this because I don't 
believe much of the data on which existing information is based. 
You have to be very careful in the field of research where you go 
for sources. Sources must be reliable. And you get a bunch of 
sources that are under confidential classification or secret 
classification and this and that, and you take the odds and ends 
and scraps which are escaping out from underneath this basket -- 
this bushel which is hiding the light -- and you often don't get 
the complete, straight story. So I hadn't paid too much attention 
to these various things.

But we found out quite independently that the administration of 
dicalcium phosphate, the administration of B complex and the 
administration of ascorbic acid are all actually necessary to the 
administration of nicotinic acid. One of the first data that 
turns up on a little research on this, demonstrates that 
something they're calling -- I don't know, they'll call it 
something else tomorrow; they're calling it, now, strontium 90 -- 
actually replaces calcium in the bone structure. Fascinating. We 
found out that it was a necessary adjunct some time ago. All 
right, if it's a necessary adjunct, how come strontium 90 also 
does it?

Now, I didn't know positively how this whole problem went 
together. I don't know how this problem goes together, exactly, 
beyond this fact: An individual seems to throw into 
restimulation, engrams, to reassure himself when he is being hit 
by a hidden menace which he cannot see. Then he gets something he 
can see. A thetan is having something happen to his body that he 
himself does not experience. The thetan doesn't experience it. 
The body more or less gets the reaction and gets the experience 
of being bombarded by gamma or other things such as strontium 90.

All right. The body being bombarded -- that it is being bombarded 
is out of the ken of the thetan. He knows he has not been around 
any atomic-energy plants or anything of the sort. He doesn't 
suspect the possibility that the entire ionosphere flashes every 
time one of these bombs go off and that everybody on earth gets a 
360-degree flash, don't you see? The entire thing goes flash! 
Very possibly this happens. We don't know that.

But brother, do we know more than the guys who are monkeying with 
it! See, we're in college and they're in kindergarten as far as 
reactions and the history of this thing is concerned!

We know, for instance, that every time gamma has appeared on a 
planet, no life on that planet has been the result, according to 
the experience of the genetic-entity line. An investigation with 
an electropsychometric testing, and so forth, demonstrates that 
the appearance of gamma is synonymous, to the genetic entity, for 
no more line, end of track. He stops growing, stops procreating, 
stops pushing on, because there hasn't been anything before which 
stopped this menace.

And what do we find? We find that radiation directly affects 
procreation, the development of cells; it directly affects the 
procreative mechanisms. It hits straight at the second dynamic. 
Leukemia, nonproduction of bone cells, nonproduction of 
corpuscles, nonproduction of various body cells of one kind or 
another -- stops.

Now, here we have, then, the mechanism of "No further 
reproductive activity. End of track. This is it, boys. Hit for 
the moon. Go someplace else, because this planet is doomed." And 
we find that story on the track with an electropsychometer or in 
auditing a preclear or in running Over and Under on engrams -- we 
find that this is what is part of the genetic-entity blueprint. 
And that is why it has such a tremendous effect upon the body. 
The body goes at once to pieces. It says "Who cares? How can I 
possibly go on? What's the reason to raise any children? What's 
the reason to do anything.? Because this is end of track! Sooner 
or later some madman is going to take this stuff and he is going 
to throw it around thoroughly enough, and that'll be that." Maybe 
none of these things go up with a bang, because I don't find any 
bangs on this end of track. I just find end of track. There isn't 
an atomic war there. Those worlds ended with a whimper. Well, is 
this one?

Now look, we know more about the mind, we know more about the 
track than man has known before. Maybe we know more than has been 
known for a lot of planets back. That doesn't mean that we 
couldn't know an awful lot more; it merely means that we know 
more than man, in his ignorance, knew. We could know a great deal 
more than we know right this minute. And part of that is, that we 
can get a reaction between a vitamin compound and sunlight -- we 
can get a rather violent reaction on a body on sunlight -- that 
we probably can get a considerably profitable action between a 
vitamin compound and gamma and strontium 90 and the rest of these 
compounds.

And we also have underlying this, if we learn how to audit it -- 
which I have been trying to find out for ten solid months -- how 
to get a person capable of actually having, without destructive 
consequences, these particular particles. Now, that would be the 
answer; that would be the answer! I have been looking for that 
answer for a long time now. I almost killed myself in the process 
of the quest, but I haven't lost complete hope in doing that.

By the way, I'll tell you something very amusing. We went off the 
whole line of it completely last February. Said, "Oh, to hell 
with it!" Just threw in the sponge as far as this line of trying 
to proof up a body against being affected by all of these things. 
We just said, "That's all. That's the end; I mean, the devil with 
it. I mean, I blew my skull and that's that."

So I said, "Let's see what is the silliest line of processing 
that I could dream up? What is the silliest thing I could say 
that would remedy this situation of a quarrel with atomic 
fission? What's the silliest remedy?" Well, that everybody could 
mock up a body adequately enough, so that as fast as bodies got 
knocked off, you'd still have a body mocked-up that you could 
talk and walk and be seen with. That's pretty silly, you know? 
That's a good remedy. That's a thorough remedy.

I proceeded along that line of research and everything we have 
learned for the past ten months, tremendous things, have fallen 
out of that hamper. "How do you go about mocking up a body that 
everybody can see, that you can use to talk with?" And the more 
we go along that line, the more profitable and productive the 
answers have been. It looks like we can't go in any direction 
without winning; we go in any direction and we win something.

Actually, of course, the actual goal of this is probably not at 
this time attainable, because it would absolutely ruin the game. 
See, the game would just go poof. But, nevertheless, trying to go 
in that direction has produced answers.

All right. We have new answers and new activities in view. 
Undoubtedly, if we keep going along these processing lines, we 
will wind up with some sort of an answer to fission -- handling 
it and so forth.

Now, we could go in two directions there: We could go in a 
governmental direction, which would consist of public appeal and 
so forth, or we could go in  research direction. And I'd just as 
soon go in both -- just as soon.

If you find a bunch of idiots playing with a loaded, cocked .45, 
you have tendency to want to take it away from them, you know? 
And I don't say that we want to take away the atom bomb or any 
part of that, but we do feel -- we do feel -- that no weapon 
should expose the population of earth to annihilation long before 
it is employed. We feel this would be wrong. We feel somebody 
would have made a miscalculation. Therefore, we should do 
something to discourage these people a little bit one way or the 
other.

Now, in this other line of research, we have in it two divisions: 
one is mental and the other is physical. And the funny part of it 
is that we probably are in possession of, at this moment, 85 
percent of the answer on the physical approach. We call this 
compound Dianazene, after Dianetics. It is a compound. You do 
have to have the various parts of the compound to get a balanced 
dosage. We're learning more about it all the time. Wow! Does it 
give an effect! I mean, that alone justifies its use.

I'm at this moment engaged in seeking to persuade any government 
agency that is in charge -- because I find out now that the 
Atomic Energy Commission is no longer in charge of atomic energy; 
I think that's quite interesting -- but any agency that's in 
charge of this sort of thing, to send us some "wictims." Well, 
they're proud men; they'll send us some victims. They'll send 
some fellows over -- "Look what we did. Ha-ha! tsk!" You know, 
that frame of mind. They'll send us some people over that have 
been overexposed, that they know have been overexposed. And when 
we get our hands on them, brother, you could probably toast 
marshmallows on them, because we'll start slugging them up.

Now, we do have some cases of known exposure, and where those 
cases of known exposure are met, we get much more violent 
reactions than we get with cases that have only been normally 
exposed to the atmospheric radiation. Cases which have been 
assisted by lots of X-rays and other things -- which contain, of 
course, gamma and so on -- are peculiarly liable.

All right. Now, we're going to get ahold of these fellows and 
we're going to shoot them full of Dianazene. Some we will take a 
rational course of just a normal, natural dosage, and some we 
will slug up and some we will underdose. This we will do for 
sure. And we will get more data on this subject, and we will 
learn a little bit more about it. We will balance up our ration a 
little bit more. We also have to get equipment that measures the 
amount of count in an individual, you know, so that we point the 
equipment at him, and it goes b-r-r-r-r and measures the amount 
in there.

And our next action will be compounding everything we know about 
a mental assist in this particular type of case. Now, if we are 
successful this far... And I don't think you will doubt but what 
we could be successful that far. This is easy; we've already got 
all this already. We could always find somebody that has been 
irradiated. I could put an ad in the paper that simply says, 
"People who have been overexposed to radiation should report to 
the Foundation for examination." They'll turn up.

All right. We'll get our series complete here, and so forth. And 
then we'll start rolling up our sleeves. We'll take Dianazene, 
which by that time will be unrecognizably complicated...

It isn't, by the way, just nicotinic acid. That I assure you. It 
really isn't just nicotinic acid. We've already found out that it 
needs the other materials to really give it a good, hard punch. 
People taking nicotinic all by itself have run longer and 
unnecessarily arduously. But that's all right; we are all 
"wictims" in the same cause. What have we got to lose? If we 
didn't pursue this, of course, we'd all be dead anyhow, you know? 
That'd be that. The only thing we got to lose is the mock-up and 
earth.

All right. So we look along this line and we discover, then -- 
what do we do? What do we do with all this information when we've 
got it? -- when we know the dosages, when they're exact, when 
they're right down to the smallest milligram. We'll get 
scientific about this and probably won't get anywhere near the 
good results. We will probably be weighing the fellow and 
figuring how many milligrams of this and that per kilo. I can see 
somebody up the track a hundred years from now measuring these 
things with a type of assay balance, you know, that measures a 
thousandth of a milligram or something like that. It's even 
enclosed in glass so the air won't tilt it, you know -- measuring 
it carefully so as to get the exact dosage it says in the 
handbook, you know?

Anyhow, we'll take handfuls of this stuff and throw it into 
people and see what happens. And when we've done that -- when 
we've done that -- we will, of course, issue a very complicated 
manual on the subject which will befoozle anybody. The most 
complicated manual: It'd be "The Care and Treatment of 
Radiation." And it'll just have a whole bunch of stuff on a page. 
And when you get to the bottom of that page... and it says, "And 
see your local auditor." And then we get a whole bunch of stuff 
on the next page, and at the bottom of that page -- and an 
asterisk this time -- it says, "See your local auditor." And on 
the next page, why, well... Very complicated on that page -- 
unpronounceable. By that time we get the "pyrobenzo-amino-
phyllaline content of the Dianazene is the primary booster which 
takes care of strontium-boof-woof 90 1/2 -- a very little-known 
element." And we get to the bottom... We get to the bottom of 
that page and it says, "By all means, see your local auditor and 
pay the bill, too." Anyway we'll have a manual on the subject.

But the point is, it does require auditing along with it. I don't 
think anybody could clear himself up all the way along the line 
without some auditing. It doesn't seem reasonable, since bodies 
never have in the past. Our stable data to this date is that 
bodies left to their own devices don't fare too well in auditing.

We have run people on freewheeling for five years without running 
them Clear. Actually, there is a case on record of somebody 
running for five years on freewheeling on Guk. You didn't know 
that, did you? He isn't Clear yet. Feels fine; he never felt 
better, but he isn't Clear. Got a very good report on it the 
other day.

So, there is a mental assist necessary. So that requires, besides 
Dianazene, an intensive.

Well, the fact that there are only about three hundred auditors 
who are real active and on the ball in the eastern United States, 
and there's about -- let's see, that's a million... No, that's 
only about a hundred thousand preclears per auditor. I think 
that's pretty good. I think we have some possibility of doing 
some part of this job if we can possibly do it!

Well, there may be a lot of things wrong with our plans, but 
there's nothing wrong with our intention. And I hope you will 
agree with me that it's a pretty good intention to keep the race 
running and clean it up if we can, in any way we can, and keep a 
show on the road.

What do you think?

Audience: Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you.

[End of Lecture]




FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 08 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

===============================================

DEFINITION OF ORGANIZATION, PART I

A lecture given on 8 November 1956


[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

Tonight, I haven't got very much to talk about. But I did want to 
talk to you something about a subject which I haven't even added 
up in my own head or in my own environment -- which, of course, 
makes me an authority.

An authority is somebody who knows nothing loudly. It's an 
absolute requisite -- absolute requisite -- for an authority to 
know less about a subject than anybody else, more importantly. 
And the subject must always be a subject about which nothing is 
known.

To be a real authority you would have to pick up a subject which 
was nonextant, you see, and become quite resounding on that 
subject. Then you would be a real authority, particularly if you 
said nothing ever. A real good authority simply sneers quietly, 
whatever is said. That is very, very effective -- very effective. 
It's a tactic I recommend to you if you ever get in there with a 
medico or something of the sort and you don't know what to do, 
why, just sneer effectively. You know, sort of... like that, you 
know? Just a touch of...

Now, this is a subject -- about which I'm going to speak here -- 
about which I know very, very little, very little. Because very 
few things are actually well organized, to know anything about 
organization is therefore practically an impossibility since 
practically nobody has ever seen any. You see? But you could 
easily become an authority about organization because there is 
apparently such a thing in the world as organization.

And I didn't realize that organization didn't exist, actually, 
until 1950. And I noticed then that it didn't exist with an 
exclamation point! Now, I'd rather suspected its existence 
before, but I had never totally suspected the exclamation point. 
The fact of no organization in 1950 was quite interesting, and I 
thought it was something peculiar to the people and organization 
with which we were dealing. I assigned it to us personally. I 
couldn't look far enough to blame it way over there. So I said, 
"Well, the thing to do about these organizations..." I said, "The 
thing to do, obviously, is to hire some experts" -- see, hire 
some experts. And then we really did go to hell!

We had one of the fanciest managers that ever managed anything. 
He had been a howling success. I suppose the people that he had 
managed for before are still howling. Now, we had press agentry 
and promotion experience which had been so valuable in Hollywood 
that Warner Brothers practically collapsed the moment that this 
man left their promotion department. We had skill, but 
unfortunately without an exclamation point.

I'm sure these gentlemen could have worked, had they known what 
an organization was. Well, some people are very fast. They pick 
up their cognitions rapidly. Some people are capable of 
understanding a cognition when they see it and so on. I run comm 
lags myself, and it sometimes takes me a little longer to find 
out that I don't know about something or that I do know about 
something, or do recognize it. But when I do -- or don't -- I'm 
honest about it. Perhaps that singular difference there makes up 
something for the comm lag.

But it's taken me about six years to find out thoroughly that man 
doesn't know anything about organization and that there is a 
camouflaged hole there that has been filled up rather adequately 
by experts. And nobody can glibly tell you a definition for an 
organization. Nobody can rapidly give you the size and shape and 
general pattern for an organization. They'll give you some 
patterns, but are they for an organization? See, that's a little 
bit different.

Now, what belies this: we have such organizations as General 
Motors and Westinghouse. And these are running concerns. They do 
get things done. There's Boeing Aircraft and big, big companies. 
They do build things; they do ship things away, and so on. And 
obviously these companies have people in them that know about 
organization -- obviously, or they wouldn't run.

Well, I say obviously they know all about organization until you 
go to work for them, and then you get another view. You say, "How 
do these airplanes ever fly?" "How is it that electric motors 
made by this concern ever run at all?" We talk to their personnel 
and find this personnel caught up in some kind of an 
incomprehensible paper chain which seems to run this way: They 
originate a despatch which comes to them for answering.

This is very common in the United States Navy, for instance. My 
good friend and one-time close pal Robert Heinlein, the science-
fiction writer, was in Philadelphia and he was in the aircraft 
factory. They pulled in all the science-fiction writers they 
could lay their hands on during the war -- they even tried to 
pull me in -- to Project Space Opera. And they were trying to 
design various items and units, and so on, out of science fiction 
into the world of reality. And naturally, the boys all dived back 
on the track and picked up already-conceived patterns and 
presented them. Unfortunately, we didn't have the materials with 
which to build most of these things. But it's interesting that 
the suit that is worn today by jet-plane pilots was designed by 
that unit. It was designed as a spacesuit by that unit, and it is 
worn today by jet pilots.

Many other bric-a-brac such as the satellites that we hear about 
every once in a while (not the Red satellites but the pink ones 
that Dr. Eisenstein is going to throw up there to confuse us)... 
Anyhow, other things came out of this project. But what mainly 
came out of the project is illustrated by this little story about 
Robert Heinlein.

He heard that there was somebody in the country that knew about 
rocket-orifice pressures -- how big a pressure you got at what 
velocity for what opening. He heard that this was known, that 
there was an expert somewhere in the country that could give him 
these figures. So he originated a communication. Of course, it 
was a naval-aircraft factory, and so he originated the 
communication, put it through the proper channels and got all the 
endorsements. It went out to Chicago and came back into 
Washington and got here and there and so forth, and eventually he 
discovered the name of the expert: it was Robert A. Heinlein.

Well, organization is an interesting thing. It's interesting 
enough that if you ask a preclear simply to mock up an 
organization, he inevitably mocks up confusions. It's one of the 
ways of running confusions, is just to say to the preclear, "Mock 
up an organization. Mock up an organization." You just keep this 
up for three or four hours -- somebody that worked for Philco or 
somebody -- and he line-charges. I don't know why he line-
charges, but he does! There must be something in those 
organizations which belie the word organization.

All I am seeking to do here is to show you that we are starting 
from scratch. It is very seldom that one can work away from 
virgin ground, but we seem to be doing that just now. We are 
starting with known data. A word, organization, exists. See, 
that's known data. The rest of it's wilderness. You see, we look 
out this way and this way, we see nothing but desert stretching 
in all directions without even wrecked Egyptian tanks on them.

Well anyhow, we look over this, and we find out then that we are 
in that comfortable state of mind of having a tremendous amount 
of elbow room. That's always a nice thing to have when you're 
starting out on a subject.

Well, is there anything to know about this subject at all? One 
must always ask this question: Is there anything to know, or must 
one invent something to know about it? Well, actually there is a 
great deal to know about the subject, and actually it seems 
possible that an organization can exist. It seems possible that 
an organization could be defined. It seems possible that the 
running of an organization could happen, not by accident, but by 
plan. And it seems possible that one could ferret out these 
various rules of organization so that one was not always running 
from the general's latest idea on how the organization ought to 
run.

That's awfully embarrassing to an army at all times, and it's 
equally embarrassing to an electrical plant or something to have 
an executive vice president who is issuing communiqués 
consistently and continually about the subject of organization 
modification when none has been built in the first place. You 
see, that's very hard to do: to modify a nonexistent object.

The U.S. Navy has been modifying a copy of the British Navy now 
since 1772, or whenever it was formed. And it's been doing a 
very, very good job of modification. Someday they'll wake up -- 
oh, any day now they'll find out they don't even have a navy now, 
see? Actually they're over in the Pentagon building at this time, 
and so on. They've practically modified themselves out of 
existence with their communication lines.

For instance, they have a terrific file system. This is the most 
brilliant file system I have ever read. Gorgeous. The manual to 
operate it is about that thick. It's to operate a navy file 
system. It's just gorgeous. You never saw such order, such 
neatness. Every number in that system has significance, oh boy! 
Wow! Man, are you impressed -- right up to the moment you walk up 
to a naval yeoman and say, "Uh... son, could you let me see the 
personnel report sheets for last month?" Well, of course the file 
system fails at that instant. But it's very, very pretty -- very 
pretty there in that big, thick book -- very pretty.

I like that file system. It is the neatest and best plan not put 
into action that I have ever inspected. Of course, it's a court-
martial offense not to head your letters out of that file book. 
Oh, I am sure that men can be court-martialed, even shot. I think 
it's perfectly all right to run away from the enemy, give 
admirals a lot of lip, wear your stripes backwards, or almost 
anything else. But don't omit those right numbers there at the 
top of that endorsement or at the top of that letter. That's 
pretty serious. That shows a disrespect for the Bureau of Naval 
Personnel. Very serious thing.

Well, there are several numbers and letters in a line. Very hard 
to memorize. I know I can't recall a single one offhand. But when 
the numbers get up to about that big, why, it makes a cross-file 
system the like of which you've never... See, every number in it 
means a different folder or subject.

Now, you take officer's raincoats. Nobody could ever have such a 
thing as "officer's raincoats," but you look in the file manual, 
it's there! "Officer's raincoats: OA52." They got you, haven't 
they? Now, you wouldn't think there would be "officer's raincoats 
-- torn," would you? But you turn over here to "torn" and you'll 
find it's OA52-3.

Now, you wouldn't think there was "officer's raincoats -- torn; 
belonging to reserve officers," would you? They got you. When you 
get the number about that long you've got the history of the 
United States!

Now, I'm sure somebody in the Navy Department keeps a file system 
of some sort because -- I'll just show you how good they are. 
I'll show you how good they are. You know, there's a lot of cavil 
about this. They say that after World War II and the Korean War 
that they lost a lot of personnel. Well, that was actually World 
War I they did that. A chap was ordered up to the Brooklyn 
Shipbuilding Company, and he was up there until 1936 before 
somebody found him in the files and sent him orders to tell him 
that World War I was over. That's actually happened. They just 
skipped him, you know, and he stayed on duty as an inspector of 
nonexistent ships. And nobody ever could order him out because 
they couldn't find his name in the files, you see; they'd lost 
the files.

But I'm sure somebody keeps a file, because I myself have been 
solicited for a Tommy gun. A rather unusual thing to be solicited 
for, but they knew my name and they knew where I was located. 
Isn't that terrific? I mean, it's really phenomenal. I mean, they 
did; they knew my name; they knew the item that was missing and 
so forth. Of course, it was the wrong navy, but that didn't make 
any difference at all. It really was the wrong navy. It was "L. 
R. Hubbard, Royal Australian Navy, Lieutenant Commander," I think 
it was; something like that. "Please return to the United States 
Navy the sub-Thompson machine gun which was borrowed from the USS 
Chicago" -- that was the wrong ship, but that didn't matter; it 
was the Travis -- "Please return it," and so on. Now, how they 
got onto this, I don't know, because the Travis got sunk, you 
see? And I don't know how they got into this, but somebody keeps 
a file! That, I'm sure.

Now, you look at these numbers up on these letters and you have, 
actually, the total concept of organization normally existing, 
plus one thing, a command chart. No service, no electrical 
company's office, nobody, should be without one of these command 
charts. I'll show you what they look like. They're square -- I 
mean, an oblong, a rectohedron or something, because everybody on 
them at the top is pretty thick. And you have written across the 
top here, it says Board of Directors, or Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
or it says something at the top here. It's very impressive. 
That's in bigger letters, see? And then you have two little 
dingle-dangles that drop down from this and other signs are 
appended to that. And one of them says Secretary of Navy, and the 
other one says the War Department or something. And then this 
dingle-dangles down into, well, other boards, you see: Bureau of 
Naval Personnel, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Staff, so 
forth. And this dingle-dangles down to another thing that says 
Regiments or something, you see, Fleets or something like that. 
And then this goes down to Commanding Officers Of. You got that. 
That's pretty smart. And then this goes down to Officers Of, and 
this goes down to Petty Officers Of, and this goes down to the 
army and the navy, see -- rank and file, see?

That's how they do this. That's how they do this. And you've got 
this beautiful... You know, it's... well, it's beautiful! You 
never saw the like of these things. They're pretty. You know, 
they're usually done on mahogany, Philippine mahogany, something 
like that, you see them. Or they're done in great things: you 
open up a manual and you keep unfolding, and you unfold them down 
like this, and you fold them up like this, and there it says 
across the top Joint Chiefs of Staff, see? Boy, is that... Tsk! 
That's it! We've got something here. We know who's boss around 
here. Obvious, it's the Joint Chiefs of Staff; they're boss.

A private wants to go on leave, he knows where he is supposed to 
go. He isn't supposed to go up there at all; that's too high for 
him. He's supposed to go see these people right above him, see -- 
his petty officers. And the petty officers, they're supposed to 
go see the officer. The officer is supposed to go see the 
commanding officer. The commanding officer is supposed to go see 
the Fleet. And the Fleet is supposed to go see the Chief of Naval 
Operations. Chief of Naval Operations is supposed to go over here 
to the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Navy is 
supposed to go over here to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You see, 
that's the way it goes. Got it? Yeah. And then they say whether 
or not he can have some leave.

Now... All right. Now, they forward this back, see, and it goes 
like this: the Joint Chiefs of Staff up here, and then it goes 
down to the Navy Department here, and then it of course goes over 
to the Chief of Naval Operations, then it goes over here to 
Fleet, and that goes down here to captains, and the captains go 
to the officers, and the officers go to petty officers, and they 
get down to the man, and he knows he can't have any leave. See, 
it's simple! See, the whole thing works out. It's obvious, this 
whole thing works out.

You think I was just indulging in some mockery, something like 
that, but I wasn't; that's a command chart. It says who's boss. 
And if you didn't have one of those things the whole place would 
go to pieces, you know that! Nobody would know who to salute. 
Nobody would know who to send the paychecks to, for whom to... 
Well, nobody would know! That's all. You see? I mean, you'd just 
be lost, and maybe it'd be a good thing.

Because the only thing difficult with this command chart is the 
moment the guns start going, the little dingle-dangles vanish. 
They just go missing. See, they... Before the first sentry takes 
off -- before the first sentry takes off not to confront the 
enemy -- these things disappear amongst the boxes. So you have 
Joint Chiefs of Staff standing in the -- well, they never stand 
in a first line -- but you have Joint Chiefs of Staff, or 
something, sitting someplace else. They're not any longer on the 
chart. I know; I've looked on the chart. You have troops down at 
the bottom of one of these command charts. You can talk to one of 
these charts by the hour and it won't shoot. Won't do a thing.

And I've been in the interesting position of sending a message up 
through one of those things for a very important piece of 
information that should have gone right on up to the top, since I 
was operating a comm center. It was very interesting. Just as in 
any company or something, somebody says, "A machine is broken 
down. All production will now be delayed for the next ninety 
days." He'd want to report that, you know. He'd think it'd be a 
good thing. Somebody up at the top is liable to notice the whole 
factory isn't running or something.

And so I tried to report this through one of these chains of 
command, and I found out that I was really getting there. Only 
they knew that that particular post and area had been wiped out 
and taken a long time before, so they never bothered to answer. I 
asked some chaps right here in Washington, I said, "Why didn't 
you ever reply to those despatches? What was the matter?"

He says, "Well, you were wiped out a long time before that."

And I says, "I was!" It was obvious. It was right there on his 
chart that those command channels didn't any longer exist.

Well, the very funny part of it is, the moment that action was 
engaged, why, one found himself finally doing what I did: I 
picked up a telephone, called the Secretary of Navy. See, and I 
said, "I'm tired of this place. I'd like to leave."

And he said, "Yeah."

I said, "Yeah, I've got some important despatches. As a matter of 
fact, we've got enough despatches here to practically sink the 
Japanese navy if they had to carry them. There's a lot of traffic 
and stuff like that, and so forth."

So he sent his plane down and picked me up and flew me home. You 
think I'm just talking through my hat but that is exactly what 
happened. Everybody knew the phone systems were out, and 
everybody knew the command chart didn't exist anymore, so it was 
very easy to pick up a receiver and say, "Give me Washington." 
They wanted to know Washington where. I said, "Washington, DC." I 
said, "Give me the Secretary of Navy." I couldn't think of 
anybody else. That's quite a phone call from down in the South 
Pacific through, and you just think that doesn't exist.

But then you think something else is wrong too. You think these 
command charts exist. Well, they exist on a piece of paper, but 
in actuality they are command charts and nothing else! That is 
all they are. And that's the first thing you want to know about 
organizations, is that they have command charts and that they are 
command charts and not communication charts! And when you try to 
put a communication through a command chart, you're in the soup, 
inevitably wind up in Campbell's chicken with noodles.

Now, obviously we have to know who's boss, but this is no reason 
at all why all channels should run through the bottleneck of the 
whole organization who is always the boss. Do you see that if we 
ran all communications through the Joint Chiefs of Staff, if 
every officer in the South Pacific who was tired of being there 
and couldn't see any of his own people left anyhow, and was 
fairly suspicious that those snapping sounds in the air weren't 
bees, had simply picked up a telephone and had found an operator 
on the job, of all people, who was capable of putting in a 
transatlantic phone call and said, "I want to go home now, and 
I've got some despatches. Send me an airplane," and if every one 
of them had been given an airplane, you would have had that many 
Secretaries of Navy to take care of that many officers, you see? 
So it doesn't operate as a communication chart and it won't ever 
operate as a communication chart. And that is the first thing 
wrong with organizations, is they take a command chart and say it 
is a communication chart, and it's not.

A communication chart doesn't even vaguely look like a command 
chart. Let me assure you, if the boss had to know everything 
there was going on in the organization you'd have no organization 
at all. It would make him so mad! The only possible survival an 
organization can have is just to keep as many communications as 
possible away from him. They bottleneck; he's arbitrary; he's not 
on the ground; he doesn't know the situation; he has policies 
he's executing which were originated in 1890. The best thing to 
do is just keep the show on the road, obviously, not follow a 
command chart. Pretty obvious, isn't it?

You start following a command chart, you start bottlenecking. 
Therefore, all initiative in the organization is destroyed. And 
if it is the purpose of a command chart to destroy all 
initiative, then it should also be used always as a communication 
chart. The command chart of an organization, when it becomes the 
communication chart of an organization, results in the absence of 
all initiative throughout the entire organization; everybody is 
being policed. And that is just about 99 percent of what is wrong 
with most existing organizations, is they have no knowledge of 
organization.

Now, let's look at this. Let's look at this. A man is put on a 
job to do a thing. He should have a stable datum for what he's 
supposed to do. If he has a stable datum for what he is and what 
he's supposed to do and what he's supposed to be, and if he 
really has that as a stable datum, then he will be able to handle 
all confusion that approaches him. He'll have comm lines. He will 
act. But if that individual does not have a stable datum then he 
is not a communication terminal. He will stop no communications, 
and the command chart gets pushed into being.

If every sailor put on a post, or every soldier put on a post, or 
every mechanic and laborer in a plant was put on a post and 
couldn't hold that post or decide for that post, then naturally, 
he would fall back on his next superior. And if that man couldn't 
hold that post and wasn't a stable datum and felt insecure he 
would fall back on his superior. And if he couldn't hold that 
post and everything seemed to be confused around him and he 
didn't know what he was, then he'd have to fall back on his 
superior. And the next thing you know, you're at the general 
manager, chief of the board, Joint Chiefs of Staff or whatever 
you're going to call the top of the chart. Why? Because nobody 
anywhere lower on the chart is a stable datum; nobody can stop a 
communication anywhere on the chart. And so command charts in 
that wise, in a very aberrated fashion, then become communication 
charts, and so they are in this world we live in today.

Unless, then, we know these principles and so forth, then all 
communication charts will be these command charts and every 
organization there is will be run by one man only, and he'll run 
himself to death and develop ulcers and that'll be the end of 
that. Follow me?

Why does a communication chart turn into a command chart? Because 
none of the communication points on it are terminals in fact or 
actuality. Nobody there can stop a communication, so they all 
collapse on the chief Got it?

Now, in times of abnormal confusion you would expect some of 
these points to fall back and say, "Hey. What do I do now?" But 
they ought to be certain enough in themselves and on their post 
that when it's said to them "Well, our policy at this time is 
just to ship everything we've got," they should say, "Well, 
that's good enough for me. All right, this is your stock. It 
belongs to somebody else, but I am on this point and therefore I 
will just start shipping everything we've got. Thuh-buh-wuh-wuh. 
All right, that's fine."

You could give all of these communication terminals a new policy 
without unsettling their own stability, if that stability 
existed.

So we find the first and foremost thing of organization of course 
would be a definition of organization. What is an organization? 
But to find out What is an organization, we have to look at what 
composes an organization, and we find that an organization 
optimumly would be composed of communication terminals. And if we 
look it over and find an organization is composed of 
communication terminals, then we decide that a communication 
terminal had better have a communication line. So we find an 
organization consists of communication terminals and 
communication lines associated with a common purpose or goal. And 
that is the definition of an organization and that is all there 
is. Now, if you look for anything else, you're going to get wound 
up in MEST. You're going to go splat against the walls or 
something. That's all an organization is.

Evidently an organization is a number of terminals and 
communication lines with a common purpose. The purpose associates 
and keeps in contact with one another, the terminals and the 
lines. That's all an organization is. It isn't a factory. It 
isn't a house. It isn't a machine. It isn't a product. It's not a 
command chart. That's all it is. And if you look it over in the 
light of that simplicity, you can actually form one and get one 
to function. One will actually function.

Now, there are several rules that go with this:

Every set of communication lines (being two: one going in and one 
coming out) must have a terminal. Every set of communication 
lines must have a terminal, and every terminal must have 
communication lines. Isn't that idiotically simple? But 
unfortunately, very few organizations ever follow this, and all 
their confusion and randomity result therefrom -- all of it. 
Because if there are too many lines and too few terminals, the 
lines will snap on those terminals. If there are too few 
communication lines and too many terminals, terminals will snap 
on the lines. You can't get a communication terminal separate 
from communication lines; you can't get communication lines 
separate from a communication terminal. They go together. And 
there have to be as many terminals as there are lines, and as 
many lines as there are terminals.

Now, we find in every organization somebody who wears fifteen 
hats, and he doesn't know it. He's the complaint department, and 
he's the file clerk, and the shipping manager, and this and that 
and a lot of other things. Now look, there's a set of lines for 
every one of those functions. If this man does not know he is one 
of these terminals, if just one is missing, then he'll use his 
body for it. The lines will actually snap on to his body. He's 
got to put his body in there the moment that he's missing a 
terminal.

He's fifteen terminals. If he knows all fifteen terminals and has 
a title for them, and he's got some exact geographical location 
where he says the terminal ends, he's all right. I mean, the 
lines end. He says, "That's a terminal. That's the complaint 
manager and here is the shipping manager and over here is the 
floor sweeper." He can do all of these things as long as he is 
all of these things. He's got himself separated out, in other 
words. He doesn't get tired. This is the oddest phenomenon you 
ever saw.

So you say is there any practicality in reviewing this subject of 
education organization-wise? Is there any practicality to it at 
all? If he has a set of lines that he doesn't think he owns -- 
that he has no terminal for, in other words; he got the lines but 
he has no terminal -- he resents it. He begins to buck back 
against the lines. He takes his body and shoves them into the 
lines -- tuh! After a while he says, "Work is so tiring. Work is 
so tiring."

That's quite an interesting phenomenon. A person is what he is. 
Anybody could hold down two hundred jobs as long as he knows he's 
holding down two hundred jobs. He must have the job compartmented 
as a terminal to match every set of lines that runs in toward 
that job.

I'll give you an example: Somebody in this organization was 
actually operating very thoroughly and very well, most of the 
time, with a maintenance terminal -- maintaining buildings and 
things like that. This person was actually wearing a hat called 
Maintenance and had never suspected it. Never knew this person 
had anything to do with maintenance at all. Was there anything 
there connected with maintenance? "No, I have nothing to do with 
maintenance." And yet all the time this person was handling two 
lines, a set of lines which said Maintenance. Person had to ask 
these questions perpetually: "Is that necessary?" "Can't we have 
that?" "How much does this cost?" all in the line of Maintenance. 
Job was wearing him out! Hidden job. Missing. The job was 
missing. There it was. There was no job there. So what happened? 
Every time something came in about maintenance -- somebody says, 
"Should we get these new carpets?" why, that person would say 
"No!" or "What carpets?" "What are you talking to me about? What 
are you talking to me about carpets for anyway? Why are you 
talking to me?" Get the idea?

Well, the reason they were talking to this person is because this 
person had everything to do with maintenance that was really 
important and didn't know it. The job had been assigned to 
somebody else who never wore the hat. Over in a dusty corner of a 
place there was a hat, all crumpled up, and it said Maintenance.

Well now, can the communication lines run to that unoccupied hat? 
No. There was no terminal underneath that hat and as a result the 
lines went and found somebody to run to. Got it? In other words, 
a loose set of lines will all of a sudden go dahh. Get the idea? 
They'll say, "Ah! Buddy! Huh!" All right.

Now, the other phenomenon which happens, doesn't occur to be 
quite as important until you really look it over and have it 
happen. You've got this amazing thing, you see? You have a 
terminal with no lines, see? You've said to this person he's 
Maintenance. And now he has no lines. There aren't any visibly 
set-up lines. There's nobody to pass any communications to. There 
are no vias. There are no further relay points, no lines at all. 
What's this person do? This person at once does something very 
fantastic: he snaps on to another set of lines. So here are your 
lines, you see? Your lines are running very smoothly and 
everything is going along, and all of a sudden, dah-dah-dat! 
"What's the matter with my communication lines? Why don't they 
function?" Well, they're stuck on the terminal called 
Maintenance. What did he do? He didn't have any lines of his own 
so he took to tossing stuff in your baskets. He started using 
your lines. The terminal then found some communication lines. 
None were set up. Got it? There's an affinity between these 
things called terminals and these things called lines which don't 
permit them to exist separately. But that affinity should not 
result in a total, balled-up confusion the way it does in most 
organizations.

You go into most organizations, you say, "Who takes care of 
supplies here?"

"Oh, the office over there. The office over there."

All right, fine. Go to the office over there. "Who takes care of 
supplies here?"

"Well, what did you want?" Wonder why they never answered the 
question. People don't ask themselves that. "What did you want?" 
they say.

"Well, I wanted to know where to deliver this package."

"Oh, just leave it right there."

"Well, all right. I'll leave it right there, so forth. Who signs 
the receipt?"

"What receipt?"

"Oh, the receipt for the package, the delivery of the package?"

"I don't know. Uhm... I don't know. We'll have to ask Mr. 
Smithers. He's out to lunch just now. Here, I'll give you... I'll 
give you some directions here. The gateman usually does that. I 
just remembered, the gateman does that. You go out and get your 
signature from the gateman."

You go out. The gateman says, "I don't do that. What am I doing? 
You mean, I sign for something? Where is it?"

"Oh, I left it back there on the porch."

"Oh, you did?"

You go back and it's gone. Well, anyway...

You say that was an unusual moment for that organization. No, it 
wasn't. That's the way things go on all day long.

"Who's in charge of maintenance here?"

"I don't know."

"Well, who ordered their telephone fixed?"

"I don't know. Mine's working all right."

There's probably nobody wearing the hat.

Well, what happens? The outside world goes out of communication 
with such an organization. Now, the outside world -- the public 
at large -- is so unused to anything these days that looks like 
organization that they demand that everybody in the organization, 
whenever buttonholed, wear all hats, Now, watch this one.

Everybody in the organization, every person there, has got to 
wear all hats inside the organization. So they come in, they want 
some -- give you the idea -- they want to buy a new set of 
paints. So they grab ahold of the fellow in the bedding 
department and they say, "How much are your paints?"

And he says, "I don't know. You'll have to go over to the paint 
department."

"Well, do you have a lot of paints?"

"Well, I don't know, ma'am. You'll have to go over to the paint 
department to find..."

"Well, are... I don't know whether I really uh... should place an 
order with this store or not. Uh... uh... what uh...?"

You listen to it sometime. Public walks in the door and they 
insist that the fellow in charge of bedding sell the paints. They 
insist that the fellow who is on the information desk (he should 
know) should be able to tell them the quality of the bedding, 
see? They're very certain that the elevator man is of course 
totally cognizant with everything connected with the 
administration, whereas the only thing he knows is the floors. 
And we get this continually: The public, being uneducated into 
the organization at all, keeps hitting it, and they insist that 
every terminal in it...

Now, they themselves consider themselves a particle on a line at 
best. They're a particle on a line, you see; they're not really a 
terminal. And they come in and they snap on to any existing 
terminal. And we have to consider them lines, not terminals. And 
they just snap on to any terminal which exists, unless we have 
signs about that high that we put in front of everybody as he 
comes in and the sign says "INQUIRY THAT WAY."

And then we have somebody thoroughly educated in Scientology from 
the word go that gets hold of them, remedies their learning rate, 
and asks them then what they want in such a way that they will 
actually say what they want, because in ten or fifteen minutes 
auditing he will have found out enough about the person so that 
the person will have found out what they want. You see? And then 
you could direct them that-a-way toward the exact terminal they 
are looking for. You got the idea?

But this is how, then, organizations get that way. They get that 
way by being pounded out of shape by random comm lines that hit 
the outside. So, what does it take? The whole organization, then, 
has to have outside comm lines too, and is itself a single 
terminal. It's a group of associated comm lines and terminals 
which is itself a single terminal, and it has in-go and out-come 
lines. You got it?

So that an organization which is being hit this way is actually 
missing its first rampart. A particle, when it hits a terminal, 
should stop. That's in theory. It says right there on the 
backtrack, it says "Space opera orders number so-and-so and so-
and-so. All particles when they hit terminals stop." That 
agreement had to be made a long time ago or nobody would have 
known or been certain about terminals at all, and you wouldn't 
have had any universe; and maybe that would have been a good 
thing. Anyway...

Here you have, then, organization. It is simply a group of 
associated terminals and communication lines, associated with a 
common purpose, and the organization itself must itself be a 
terminal with communication lines. And if you do that you got it 
made in the shade. You can actually bury the command chart and 
install an auditor.

What would the auditor do? Fascinating. It is an auditing job. 
Now that we have a definition for it, now that we see what is 
going on... We have particles and information and packages and 
tanks, or anything you want, traveling up and down these comm 
lines to these various terminals. We don't care what goes on the 
comm lines; we've just laid the pattern. There's got to be 
something there for it to run on. All right.

Now, what does this organization at large do to get itself in 
that condition that it can follow that definition and can be an 
organization? What would it have to do? It'd have to go hire a 
Scientologist. I'm afraid that's the only thing it could do. 
Because I don't know any other way to do it. I'm stupid maybe. 
I've had to do with a lot of organizations. I never noticed 
anybody around there doing it.

I used to think I was confused. I'd walk into a big publishing 
company, for instance -- a big company, you know -- and I'd try 
to find the managing editor, naturally. And I'd get the managing 
editor, I'd get his ideas concerning the release of copyrights or 
something, and we'd have a talk, and we'd do this and that, and 
transact business and so on. Well, I got a idea after a while I 
was confused because I could never find a managing editor that 
would say he was the managing editor who would handle the 
business he was supposed to handle. He always wanted to pass it 
down the hall to somebody else, who wanted to pass it up the hall 
to the managing editor. And all of my business usually floated 
between the guy down the hall and the managing editor, you see?

Occasionally I would work it in this fashion: I would merely 
pretend to have gone to the managing editor -- get his secretary 
to forge his signature or something of the sort, you know -- go 
to the fellow down the hall and fall on his head, you see, on the 
basis that something or other, something or other, and we have to 
have a decision on this, and then I was all set, you see? There 
was nothing to it. I never did that, but I would have had to have 
done it to have gotten anything really done at any time or 
anything decided.

So I used to think I was confused, and maybe I was, but I was not 
anywhere near as confused as the environments I was walking in. 
Everybody was wearing everybody's hats.

I was working for North American one time -- Aviation. I was 
working there -- short time; very short period of time -- till I 
found out what I was doing, and I left. It's interesting to find 
out what you're doing, after you've been put on a job after a 
while. I was having an awful time, and I decided I didn't learn 
fast. Imagine my surprise to discover after a short period of 
time that there wasn't anything there to learn! Now, you see, 
it's very often possible for you to consider yourself stupid 
because you can't learn something, but at the same time there 
might not be anything there to learn at all. Don't you see this? 
It might be that you feel adrift in the army. They used to call 
it "nervous in the service." You might feel that way, wen, 
because you were sort of stupid. You just didn't seem to be able 
to get the hot dope on which way you went and why. And maybe you 
did and maybe you didn't find out that you were singularly in the 
majority. See, you were in the majority there. Nobody else knew 
either.

Now, let's go a little bit further than this. Maybe there was no 
system to know. See, maybe in the flesh there was no system to 
know. Maybe it was just all on paper. Maybe the order was all on 
the order sheets but didn't exist in actuality at all, and maybe 
what you saw when you saw tanks lined up or packages lined up or 
something of the sort, and all going off very neatly, was simply 
the initiative of some sergeant or second lieutenant, see? Maybe 
that was just the initiative of somebody who had decided he'd 
better get the job done there anyhow, regardless of what was 
happening.

Well, I found this out one time, by the way, and before somebody 
got wise to it and stopped me, I'd practically built half of a 
ship. Found out we had orders to the tropics, and the war had 
been a long war, so I decided I would put an air-conditioned 
apartment up on the signal bridge. I did. I really did.

I mean, by that time I knew that everybody else didn't know there 
was nothing there anyhow to know. All you had to do was pretend 
there were terminals and pass communications on pretended 
communication lines and you were all set. All you had to do was 
walk in with a sufficient atmosphere of urgency, see? Everybody 
ran on an emergency. So you rushed in with an atmosphere of 
emergency with a very official looking piece of paper in your 
hand and you said, "That's it." And then before anybody could 
question you, particularly, you walked out, and they didn't know 
who they'd heard from, but they knew it was sure important.

It's very disruptive when you get somebody around an organization 
who knows this. It's a vicious thing to have in an organization, 
particularly if the organization isn't one by our definition.

The only organization you could really wreck thoroughly and 100 
percent would be an organization which didn't match up to this 
definition.

Now, how would you get it in that kind of a condition? Very 
simple, you would put people on the post. You would say, "How 
many people are you? How many hats do you wear?" You would just 
keep at him like an auditor, you know? It's auditing. It's 
organizational auditing. "Come on. How many hats do you wear? 
Come on, let's make a list of them. Come on. Are there any more?"

"Well, yes, and there's also wastebasket supervision."

"Ah, all right. Fine. Fine. Sure there are no more hats that you 
are wearing?" "

"No. No. I think that's about all. Oh, of course, except Director 
of Processing, that's my main job."

I mean, this is a silly thing. You ask somebody to start making a 
list of all the hats they're wearing and they come out with some 
number. Well, the funny part of it is, all right, so there are 
that many hats. It's perfectly all right for one body to be 
wearing two hundred hats as long as the hats aren't being worn on 
top of that body. Let's get them out here, two hundred hats, and 
let's make sure they all got comm lines -- otherwise they snap on 
each other.

Maybe you change post; maybe you put somebody new on the post. 
This person doesn't know he's wearing two hundred hats -- whole 
organization eaves in on that spot. Why? The person didn't have 
any idea of it at all. There was no label sitting up there saying 
"Wastebasket Emptier." You know, this, that, the other thing, so 
on, all these labels. The funny part of it is there was no basket 
sitting there.

Now, what's this thing called a basket? A basket is something 
silly. And you know what a basket is for, that's to keep things 
in that you don't want to read yet, and wouldn't pass on anyway. 
A basket is a low-order accumulator, and you're waiting for the 
wastepaper drive of the next war. But the only basket that 
actually accumulates is a basket which has no comm lines to it. 
The second you put comm lines to baskets properly, they empty.

Now, a basket can sit there with nobody knowing that it is a 
terminal or with it being twelve terminals and nobody knowing it, 
and it'll stay in a confused condition. Nobody's ever sorted it 
out. So, the Scientologist comes along and he says, "All right. 
How many hats are you wearing " And he writes all these things 
down. "You sure these are all your hats? Well, do any of these 
hats combine with any of these other hats?"

"Oh, yeah, yeah. Oh sure, this combines with that and so... Well, 
I guess that's really just one terminal: wastebasket emptier and 
incinerator burner. I burn things in the incinerator and the 
waste in the wasteb--. I guess that'd be one terminal."

"We'll group that under Manager of Disposal."

"Yeah, that's right. Come to think about it, if anybody died 
around here, I would be the one that would dispose of the body 
too. So that's right. That's a better terminal." See.

"So you have to say anything that's going to be thrown away 
around here, I am the thrower-awayer or disposer-of-er, and that 
is my unit. If anybody wants to dispose of something they see me. 
That's correct. Yeah, what do you know!" You know?

And they get a higher stable datum for each one of these 
terminals or their own function. And you keep working it over and 
working it over and working it over with this person until they 
finally get the idea of what this terminal is supposed to do.

Now, you ask them for a stable datum for the action of that 
terminal. What is that terminal now supposed to do? Then they say 
this, and they say that, and they say something else, and they 
say something else. And then they say some-- And then they 
correct themselves and they don't figure it's that. And then they 
say it's something else, and it's something else, and it's 
something else. And then they say, "You know, I probably could 
state that more succinctly." And all of a sudden, "Say, you know, 
a chief disposer would have the task of getting rid of things. 
Yeah, that's it. That's it. That's the stable datum for that 
terminal. That's what that terminal does. Oh, yeah, and there are 
four other things that go under that here, too. Yeah, and that's 
what this job is. Yeah, that is what this hat is. All right, 
we'll put the hat on that very nicely."

Now we make sure that these baskets have communication lines. 
That is to say, they get emptied, people come and put things in 
them, that there's action connected with that underneath that 
hat.

The stable datum will then as-is the confusion in the vicinity of 
that terminal to the point where it will simply settle down to 
two lines. It's magic, utter magic.

If a fellow finds his job confusing or the organization 
confusing, what I've told you here seems fantastically simple, 
but it fantastically works. It does fantastically work.

Now, it doesn't matter what's traveling up and down the lines, 
with one exception: verbal messages.

Telephones are psychotic. They don't remember a thing. I know, I 
picked up my phone upstairs the other day and I said, "What was 
that auditor's-conference report about three days ago?" and it 
didn't know. Didn't have a word to say. It just said, "Mmmmm." So 
they're all awfully, awfully confused. Well, anyway.

What do you do about these verbal things? Well, actually they 
aren't a communication which can travel along the lines of an 
organization, and no matter how smart people are -- and the 
people in Scientology are a lot smarter than people in most 
organizations -- no matter how smart these people are, verbal 
communications flying along these lines will somewhere or another 
break down, and they have a great tendency to break down. They 
break down with thoroughness, and when they break down they leave 
an area of confusion around them.

Somebody walks in and he says, "Bill just called. He wants you to 
phone him back about those books."

And somebody says, "Thanks." He's busy on a pantograph machine or 
something of the sort, you know, and it's going bangity-bangity-
bangity-bang. "Thanks, yeah."

A couple days later meets Bill. Bill says, "What the hell is 
wrong with you people out there!"

"What are you talking about?"

"Well, those books!"

"What books? Oh. Oh, yeah." It's very interesting.

Now, this all comes under the heading of even flow on the lines.

The way executives get ulcers is another story, but truth of the 
matter is that a written communication is far preferable to a 
spoken communication. They can be brief. They can be terribly 
telegraphic. They don't have to be fancy. They don't have to look 
nice or something, but they must be recognizable as a 
communication of some sort. They must have some sort of a 
destination and they must be from somebody, and they will travel, 
then, along lines. And the funny part of it is a fellow can get 
things done. He can sort these things out easily. Because you can 
start and stop a piece of paper, but you can't start and stop a 
verbal message.

A verbal message has the frailty of being an immediate and urgent 
thing, and if everybody uses verbal messages, we have left 
nothing but emergency. There's nothing but emergency left 
anywhere throughout the organization. Nobody can start and stop 
these things. You can't stop and start verbal messages. You have 
to park them yourself all up and down the time track, remembering 
all these vast details and so on, and it shouldn't happen. 
Shouldn't be, because it disobeys, in the first place, the 
proper-communication-lines-and-terminal rule which is set up.

Supposing we suddenly take a body out -- a body is missing for a 
short time; we have to put another body in its place -- where 
would we get all the verbal... I mean, in the body that's missing 
now there are a lot of verbal messages. He can't file them in 
this guy's skull -- not, at least, by current technology. The 
replacement doesn't know them. Hasn't a prayer. He hasn't an 
idea. Furthermore, he doesn't know what the stable datum is for 
the job unless it's written down someplace.

All right. It's quite important to know what an organization is. 
It's quite important if you're in an organization to know what 
the organization consists of and what it's trying to do. It is 
extremely important that you know how many hats you're wearing 
and that you have a terminal for each hat. And it's extremely 
important that you stay in communication with the remainder of 
the organization along its recognized despatch lines, and if you 
do so everything runs very smoothly and the organization will 
function. But if you try to go on command lines, then you, or you 
and somebody else, are wearing all the hats, and it's all bunched 
up, and it's all very confused. And this would be all right if 
the thing would run. It's perfectly all right to be confused if 
things would still run, but they don't.

The whole study of organization is one of the most intricate 
things I have ever tried to look into, so I have thrown it all 
away and given you this lecture.

Thank you.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]




FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 09 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

===============================================

DEFINITION OF ORGANIZATION, PART II

A lecture given on 15 November 1956


[Start of Lecture]

Well, probably for the first time in my career I am saying very 
honestly that I have nothing to talk to you about tonight at all. 
Usually I use that as a sort of a gag and so on, but it's 
absolutely true.

I was going to say a few words about organization and the 
handling and functions of organizations, finishing off what I was 
talking about last week. But you possibly wouldn't be much 
interested in that, so I thought I'd go off onto something else
-- unless, of course, you wanted to hear something about that.

Audience voices: Yes.

Well, I don't see any great note of enthusiasm there. 
Organizations are something that get on one's nerves with the 
greatest of ease, but nevertheless, my talk, I'll have you note, 
is devoted to getting it off and getting them off our nerves. So 
you see it is a different kind of a feature.

If organizations get on your nerves, then this talk is to get 
organizations off your nerves, don't you see? And not only get 
off of your nerves but get into your bank account. See? Got that? 
Got that?

A Scientologist should have a great deal to do with organizations 
in view of the fact that organizations do not know what
organizations are or how to run organizations; they just happen.
An organization says, "We're going to organize now," and they set 
up a command line, and then they use that for their communications
line, and the next thing you know, why, boom! Either everybody is
in confusion -- so much in confusion that nobody dares kill the
organization (that's usually how they survive), or the
organization simply knocks itself off. Because it uses its
communication line -- as its communication line -- its command
line. From general down to private is used as their communication
line.

Now, this has evidently happened recently to a very large 
electronic recorder company in America, one of the best, because 
it is losing all of its good people. Now, when a big organization 
starts to lose all of its good people, then you can be very sure 
that there is something wrong with its communication system. It 
means that those people cannot make the organization and its 
communications systems function in order to permit them to 
continue a good, productive level.

An organization is a servomechanism to the doingness of people. 
Now, I've told you what an organization is. An organization is a 
group of terminals and communication lines associated with a 
common purpose. That's what an organization is. All right. Talked 
to you about that for a whole hour, didn't I? Fact.

Now, here's something very peculiar: An organization never does 
anything. Never. It can't hurt. It can't bleed. It can't think. 
It can't act. It's a postulate of a purpose sitting there with 
communication terminals and communication lines, and that is the 
totality of the organization. We have to move something alive in 
on it before it seems to do anything. But the organization never 
actually does a thing -- never. Never accomplishes a second's 
work.

All an organization can do is to assist and facilitate those 
people's doingness who wish to do. That's all an organization can 
do. It can help you with your doingness.

Therefore, what an organization is, very sharply, is a 
servomechanism to the doingness of people. Now, what do you mean 
by a servomechanism? It means a mechanism which serves, services 
or aids something. That is all that that is -- servomechanism. If 
it is not a servomechanism, it becomes a sort of a monster, a 
peculiar sort of a monster too, because the monster never does 
anything, except interrupt the willingness and doingness and 
workingness of human beings. When an organization becomes a 
monster it has ceased to assist the doingness of the person and 
has begun to block the doingness of the person, and then that 
organization is a monster. It is apparently something which 
exists which kills people.

A bad organization could actually, factually slaughter everybody 
in its ranks. But what do we see here? We merely see then that 
ignorance of organization is what slaughters people in their 
ranks. Since the organization itself can never do anything, then 
attempted doingnesses go so awry on the organizational lines that 
they succeed in knocking off all the parts of the organization. 
You follow me that? It's something that man has never learned, 
and it's one of the reasons I have been talking to you about 
organization. Man has never learned this. He has never learned 
that an organization cannot do. He has never learned that it 
cannot bleed. It does not suffer. It cannot be punished. There is 
nothing there to receive or become cognizant of punishment.

And when you look at what an organization is, you find it's a 
series of communication lines and terminals associated with a 
common purpose. What about these terminals? No, a terminal is 
never a body, and that is a fantastic error that is made by 99 
percent of the people in organizations. They think of themselves 
as terminals. They exist as terminals only when they do not have 
proper communication facilities. I already talked to you about 
that. I said it snapped in on the body: They use the body as a 
terminal.

Well, let's look over this whole principle of organization, and 
let's take one person who is attempting to do something. Now, all 
he's attempting to do perhaps is to deliver some cartons of nuts 
and bolts from A to B and get a receipt for them. That's all he 
has to do. Now, he is a terminal known as shipping department. He 
has to stay pegged there if there is no real terminal. There's 
nothing to receive communications in his absence; he is then tied 
in to this. If there's any way people can write something on a 
slip of paper and drop it in a basket there, then we do have a 
terminal. It's a basket or the folder in the basket is the 
terminal. He can be reached. Therefore, he himself is not glued 
to this terminal at once. And he has received an order to ship 
two cartons of nuts and bolts over here to the assembly 
department. Now, he has to procure these from the people who are 
storing all of the spare parts and things like that. It's a very 
simple action. Nothing to this at all.

He calls, phones, writes -- in other words, indicates a despatch 
-- to the storehouse and says, "Cartons of nuts and bolts, if you 
please." He then operates as a communication particle: He picks 
them up. He walks over to the assembly room. He lays them down. 
He says, "Give me a receipt." He walks back to where he normally 
operates to see if there's anything else in his basket. Isn't 
that a simple arrangement? There's nothing to that.

Let's see how an organization could foul him up.

No communications lines exist whatsoever coming in to Mr. Jones, 
who is to deliver these nuts and bolts -- no communication lines. 
All of a sudden there's a pink slip appears in front of his face 
that says "You're fired! Why are you fired? Well, you're fired 
because you didn't deliver the nuts and bolts." What nuts and 
bolts? Most elementary situation in the world. He never heard 
about it. Why did he never hear about it? Because there was no 
organization there, or the organization that was there was not 
really a good organization at all. The messages, the calls, the 
orders, anything to procure the nuts and bolts, went someplace 
else. They went up to the blueprints factory or something.

See, here's how that'd work. The office boy drops by and he says, 
"Oh, I'm walking over toward the procurement desk and I'll take 
this along" -- he sees it on somebody's desk. And he walks up to 
the blueprint place. And he isn't looking, and he just lays down 
a whole bunch of stuff, and also amongst it is some other stuff 
that really belonged down in the engineering section. He puts 
that on the desk up there, too. Some messages went awry.

Well, most organizations specialize only in methods of making 
messages go astray. That is the only thing they really want to do 
is to introduce more vias on the line. They try to introduce more 
vias. If they find a command Jam anywhere along the line, they 
follow an exact principle.

Now, you think this is just a quip or a joke, but it's not. It's 
actually a rule that is followed by bad organizations -- by the 
people who run them. It's a rule followed by them just as 
meticulously and as carefully as Newton followed his three laws, 
right or wrong. And that is, whenever you have a communication 
difficulty you add people. If something isn't happening, you add 
people. If you can't get the job done, you add people. That's all 
they know. It's a sort of bluh-bluh. Just add some more people.

"What! You mean you can't get these nuts and bolts from this desk 
over to that desk. Hire three more shipping clerks."

Now, wait a minute. One couldn't receive despatches; do you think 
three more can?

Oh, no, but they can certainly pass despatches amongst themselves 
to add to the confusion to such a degree that nobody has any 
responsibility for ever shipping anything. And the remedy of the 
organization people in charge of that organization would be, in 
antediluvian times, to add more people to that desk again. See, 
one man couldn't do the job, so they added three. The four men 
now can't do the job, so now we're going to add ten. See, I mean, 
this is the rule they follow.

Now, you want to watch this very carefully as you look around. 
You will see a bad organization grow in personnel all out of 
proportion to how they grow in business. Do you see that? Their 
business doesn't increase, but they keep adding personnel. What's 
wrong with this organization?

Well, two things could be wrong with it: One is your business, 
and the other is your business on telling people what 
organizations are. The people comprising this organization have 
no doingness about them of any kind whatsoever. It doesn't remedy 
their no-doingness by adding more people.

The other thing could be wrong is the organization itself doesn't 
have terminals and communication lines. It cannot communicate 
inside itself.

I'll give you an example of how bad communication, and so on, 
works: Here's Jones. He gets fired for not delivering something. 
It's very seldom explained to the organization at large what 
happened to the shipping clerk. They think something bad 
happened. Management never bothers to inform anybody. It says, 
"That's nobody's business. You know, we're protecting the guy." 
So people begin to believe that he robbed a bank or he has a 
criminal record or something real bad, or reversely, that 
management is merely being arbitrary, you see? It's very 
upsetting.

Actually, management thought it had a reason to fire Jones, and 
it never aired this reason. Therefore, the organization never is 
able to come forward as individuals and say, "What are you 
talking about -- the two cartons of nuts and bolts that weren't 
delivered? I've been sitting here for three days with that 
communication on my desk, wondering where it was supposed to go. 
What do you mean firing Jones for this!" In other words, somebody 
could talk; somebody could communicate.

Well, there are two things punished in this universe: One is 
being there, and the other is communicating. Those are the only 
two punishments there are, let me assure you. Just two, one is 
being there, and the other is communicating.

Now, they actually are joined together. Being-thereness is 
advertised by communicatingness. Got it? But these are the two 
things that are punished. So people hear people communicating, 
and they say "Shoot them!" Somebody notices somebody is present, 
they say, "Make him run!" Got the idea?

So in spite of the beauties of the periodic chart, this universe 
could be said to be against organization, since organization 
consists entirely of being-thereness and communicatingness.

Well, how could an organization have an entire universe against 
it? Oh, very easily, very easily. You merely have to fill it up -
- all those posts in the organization -- full of people that have 
already totally succumbed to the ardures and duress of the 
universe. That's all you had to do: just get a bunch of people 
who've already caved in and have closed terminals completely with 
the physical universe, and let them behave in a chaotic fashion. 
Then they would take any organizational plan or pattern and 
scatter it, confuse it and nonexistence it at such a remarkable 
rate that you would no longer have an organization if you had a 
perfect one to begin with. Do you see that?

So we get to that thing which most intimately concerns the 
Scientologist. An organization is the easiest thing in the world 
to lay out. It is the easiest thing in the world to understand, 
as long as you understand that it is simply a collection of 
terminals and communication lines associated with a common 
purpose. Very easy to understand. Nothing to it. You can lay out 
an organization, scat, just in a moment. Until we run into this 
other fact: an organization, then, would never exist in any other 
way than as a collection of individuals. Given a perfect 
organization and given a collection of individuals -- see, a 
perfect organization and then just a collection of individuals -- 
the doingness of those individuals would confuse or upset the 
organization to the degree that these people could not straightly 
do. If they could not do, then the organization itself would be 
upset. Do you understand?

So every organization under the sun is composed of people -- 
individuals. There isn't a duo or a trio in the whole works. We 
hear of cliques in organization. We hear of four or five people 
who kind of run things over there in the machine shop. We hear of 
the four or five people who sort of run things in the west wing 
of the jail. We hear of these cliques, and we get the idea that 
these groups are not individuals but are operating on a group 
basis. Well, we know already that a group can sort of gather to 
itself a spirit. We know this. Groups are very hard to knock out. 
But in the final analysis, you yourself, in your approach to 
organizations, governments, groups of people in any way, must 
remember that these numbers of people are composed of 
individuals, and the general tone of the group is remediable by a 
change of tone of the individuals in the group.

There is no such thing as the United States government. There is 
no such thing as the British government. It isn't, if by 
government you mean something alive, something that acts, 
something that has volition, something that can receive, 
something that can send. It isn't. It's a bunch of individuals, 
and it wouldn't matter how many constitutions, how many Magna 
Chartas, how many customs you had laid out. It wouldn't matter 
how many rules and regulations you had on the communication lines 
if the individual occupying those terminals and using those 
terminals and lines was himself incapable of keeping lines and 
terminals straight and separate and was himself incapable of 
doingness. We get immediately to this fact about organizations. 
Organizations exist -- if they have any general purpose at all -- 
they exist or could exist only to assist the government of 
themselves or the doingness of people.

You could have an organization which existed solely to exist. You 
could have that. It could exist only to run itself You know, 
everybody taking in everybody else's laundry sort of thing, you 
know? The total purpose of it was to have an organization. This 
is possible. Many kids have gangs just to have gangs, not to do 
anything. It's quite interesting. They have an organization 
there.

But where the organization itself has a purpose which is exterior 
to itself, then its only reason for existence, the only excuse it 
would have to exist, would be to assist the doingness of the 
individuals within it. And if an organization cannot assist the 
doingness of individuals within it, then it had better not exist 
at all, because it will impede the doingness of the individuals 
within it.

When you have a very large number of people under one of these 
canopies like government (state, city, federal; I don't care 
what), you see a weird phenomenon take place, very weird: People 
look at this thing called a government or an organization or a 
group or a club -- they look at this thing and they say, "The 
organization did this. The organization did that." In such a way, 
the organization is simply a shield for cowardly men whose 
doingness is very poor. Nobody there stands up and dares be 
there. They say, "The organization. The government did this. The 
government thought that." The devil it did! At no time did a 
government ever do a single thing anyplace in the history of the 
world. A guy did it. A guy cooperating with some more guys did 
it. That's all that did it. And they used a set of communication 
lines and terminals that we call government, but they did it.

If you're looking for basic cause in a society -- its economic or 
legal duress or distress -- for heaven sakes never be fooled by 
looking at this huge, nonextant thing called government. Don't 
ever look at that to be cause for anything, because you are 
assigning improper cause. That's an improper cause and will wind 
you up into a concatenation of bad logic, because you didn't 
start at cause and therefore you won't get distance or effect. 
You say, "The government did it." The devil it did! It never did 
any such thing.

Now, this is something you must know if you are ever going to 
counsel a business or a group and get it into any kind of a 
shape. If you're ever going to do this, you would have to know 
this. I'm not just here cursing governments. Actually, there have 
been good governments on earth, because there have been good men 
on earth. And when there are bad governments on earth, there are 
bad men on earth, and that's all it amounts to.

When we address immediately, directly and intimately a business 
(and by the way, Scientologists these days more and more are 
addressing businesses), then we must never make the mistake of 
believing for a moment that the business exists as a living, 
breathing entity, because there win be something there that we 
feel called upon to process that we can't reach, and therefore 
we're up against a hidden menace of some kind or another; we're 
up against a hidden influence.

We go in and say, "Well, the Salisbury Company" -- how easily we 
say that -- "The Salisbury Company wants me to process their 
employees." You've uttered a common human statement. But because 
it's a common human error you will never be able to achieve it. 
Some people in the Salisbury Company want some processing. That 
is the correct rendition.

Now, the Salisbury Company itself couldn't ever be processed, 
never. The individual idea of how communication should exist or 
not exist, however, can be processed. The Salisbury Company will 
never do or be anything. It assists or impedes the doingness of 
the individuals within its comm lines and terminal boundaries. 
That's all it does, if it does anything.

Now, its communication lines and terminals are as good as the 
people will let them be, and they're as bad as, and as murderous, 
as the people insist that they are. So you see a bunch of 
communication lines and you see them all tangled up and so on, 
don't think that some bright guy in the company can't draw up 
more communication lines and terminals. They can draw them up by 
the -- oh, I don't know. Sometimes you doubt this when you 
suddenly shove under the hands of an executive and say, "Here. 
Draw me a map of your own secretarial service."

And he says, "What do you mean?"

"Draw the communication lines that you use every day."

And he comm lags for two and a half hours. Chews on the pencil, 
his tongue over here in his cheek. Squints up. "Let me see now. I 
write a letter... No, I really don't write the letter. Now, let's 
see. The letter comes in to me. Well, the letter comes in to me. 
I get a letter. Well, it's easy. I get a letter. I answer it. 
That's my communication line."

You say, "No. No. No. Come on. Come on. Just where does this 
thing go?"

"What thing?"

"The letter."

"Thing? You mean a letter. Well, it's a bunch of stuff that says 
something."

"Oh, it is, is it? Well, what is a letter?"

Wow. Guy will tell you it's anything. He'll say it is a 
communication. That's dodging the issue nicely. He'll finally 
find out that a letter is a piece of paper with some words on it. 
But this will escape him, particularly a business executive, by 
the hour. What is a letter? He won't be able to tell you. What is 
this thing? You can hold one up and shake it in front of his 
face. I've done this. "What is this thing?" I've said.

He says, "It's a communication! What are you talking about? That 
particular one is a demand for eighteen cans of something or 
other."

And you say, "Fine. Fine. What is a letter?" You know?

And he finally says -- after you plague him and chew on him and 
beat at him for a long time, he finally up and admits it is a 
thing; it's a piece of paper with some words on it.

And having cognited then that a communication particle was a 
particle, that it did have some mass, that it could go across 
space and distances, we say, "Now, let's get to work on the 
subject of where your communication lines go, and where they come 
from." And boy, they sure end always at the door of his private 
office. They never go out to his secretary. They just never 
arrive out there. They get taken out there in some fashion, or 
something of the sort. But when he processes one of these things, 
he really has no idea that it ever goes anyplace. It sort of 
magically disappears out of his own brain and appears in somebody 
else's brain in some fashion, and if it doesn't do that very 
magically, he gets very upset. He cannot allow any communication 
lag. He can't allow time for his communication, his letter now, 
to go through a couple of hands, to be transcribed, to go through 
a couple of hands and appear on somebody else's desk and to be 
put into a slot and read in due course. He can't allow for that.

So you find these boys are mostly concerned with jamming their 
own lines. They write the letter on Thursday -- Thursday evening 
usually, very late. The girl comes in. She has already a jammed 
line, so she gets this letter typed as soon as she can, sometime 
around 11:30 or something like that. She gets it into an 
envelope. Mailboy comes along and picks it up and it goes over to 
somebody over here. But what do you know, this was Friday and the 
offices are closed on Saturday. And Monday this other guy reads 
it in his desk, and so on. This would be optimum, you see. And 
then he answers it in some fashion, and it goes back onto this 
communication line. Monday afternoon our executive is saying, 
"Let's see. It was clear last Thursday when I wanted to know what 
happened to Jones. Uh... uh -- rr-rrr! I'll have to call him up 
on the telephone," see? So, he says, "Referring the... Hey, 
Jones," on the phone, "referring to the letter I wrote you."

"What letter?"

Now, I don't know why, but they always at this moment search for 
the letter. When he gets all the phone lines all tied up, and he 
gets Jones' secretary tied up and his own secretary tied up, and 
he gets everybody all tied up and everything off the groove and 
off the line, and finally he's satisfied he hasn't got an answer 
to it yet, Jones told him he'd answer him tomorrow. He's got it 
all tied up. He's all set, see?

Somebody's trying to crowd, push and crunch, not his job, he's 
trying to punish the line itself Got this? You'll find most 
executives are in this condition. The lines themselves don't 
exist to serve them, they exist to be beaten. Then you wonder why 
everybody in the plant can't find out anything. It's all sitting 
on the executive's desk usually. It's someplace unanswered. He 
has all the data.

I've met some of the most remarkably, wonderfully efficient men. 
Boy, these guys could tell you at any instant what the production 
figure was, where it was, how it was, zim-zam. Oh, boy! Straight 
genius, see? And anybody ten feet away from that desk didn't know 
a thing, and yet they were expected to do, and they were expected 
to function.

One notable case -- one fantastic case of this -- ran a 
government-surplus sales organization. He bought government 
surplus and he sold it. He had a staff of fifteen salesmen. He 
himself would receive all of the lists of the material he now 
owned. You see, he'd buy those over the phone. He'd take these 
lists. Then he would call up his own prospects. He would sell 
them. But in the meantime, routine communication had distributed 
these lists to his salesmen and they would be out there beating 
their brains out trying to sell things which had already been 
sold. And then he'd sit back and say, "You see how much better I 
am than any other salesman in the place, you know? My sales 
record is way up, and yours is way down. What's the matter with 
you people?"

Well, the funny part of it is, every single one of those salesmen 
knew what was the matter with the people -- him. He might have 
been fooling himself, but he wasn't fooling them; they knew what 
he was doing. And they knew that -- some dim way -- that he 
possibly was not conscious of this fact. He never let anybody 
have any information anyplace in the place. Nobody ever could 
find out a thing -- secrecy.

In other words, here was an individual who stopped every comm 
line that he could get his hands on. He'd stop it. He himself 
would act. He was a case of "I have to do it myself " He couldn't 
let another soul do a thing anywhere else in the world. And this 
man's whole organization was in chaos, if you called it an 
organization.

And one day it up and went broke. And he could never understand 
why those salesmen hadn't gotten out and sold the stuff for him. 
They knew that anytime they had an old secondhand ship, or 
something of the sort, then they knew if they got a sale for it, 
it would have been sold the day before and they never would have 
been told. So they didn't dare sell anything. They just didn't 
dare sell a thing. In other words, he achieved the cutting out of 
all of their doingnesses by cutting the comm lines which would 
have assisted those doingnesses. Got it?

So that's how organizations are wrecked. That's how they get into 
the state they get into. But all an organization is, is a series 
of comm lines and terminals, so what gets wrecked? The comm lines 
and the terminals. That's all that are there to get wrecked, so 
that's all that gets wrecked.

Now you, in handling any group, then, in view of the fact that 
anybody can dream up an organization, would actually be wasting 
your time to lay out a beautiful pattern of communication from 
here to there and so on. You would really be wasting your time. 
There's no sense in this, beyond this one point: People who are 
accustomed to this activity can feed you data at both ends, and 
you, because you hear both ends of the story, can act as 
mediator. And it sounds like a real bright idea -- the idea that 
Joe gave you and the idea that Bill gave you, see? You put them 
together into the idea that will agree, and they both say, 
"You're real bright, Mr. Scientologist. You're all set. You're 
absolutely right. See, I mean that's a good idea. That's a 
terrific idea you dreamed up." Who dreamed up? They dreamed up. 
But they dreamed up an idea that was within their ability to 
agree with communication. See, that was the idea they dreamed up, 
and you have to pay attention to that.

You either, then, have to dream up or agree with what they will 
consider communication -- at which time they will communicate in 
that pattern -- or you've got to change their acceptance level of 
communication, and I'm afraid there are no other answers.

You cannot have a soldier standing alongside of each government 
desk saying, "Communicate." Somehow or other they'd foul up his 
supply of bullets.

Here we have, then, this oddity that you could get people to 
agree on data, agree on organization, agree on patterns of data, 
patterns of logic. You could get people to agree on these things. 
But to hammer them with it and say, "You must not think about 
this now. This is not called to your attention any further. It is 
for your acceptance and memorization." Wow, they won't 
communicate with it, and they won't do.

I didn't mean accidentally to describe college education as it 
exists today. I didn't mean to. I mean, I'm sorry. I keep running 
into it, though, every once in a while.

You couldn't possibly ask anybody to do anything if you insisted 
on your evaluation of communication as the thing he must follow. 
Do you see? You can't then have him do anything. If you take your 
idea of communication -- see, your idea of what is a good 
communication here -- and then insist that he accept it right 
there, and like that... He'd have to be in terrific shape. If you 
gave him a Scientology definition of communication -- you said 
that is it -- he could look at its component parts but he 
couldn't put them together. It's not his idea of communication. 
He knows what communication is, it's "Huh!" That's communication. 
What do you do when you get a letter, you say, "Huh!" What do you 
do when you want to ask somebody hello? You know, you greet them 
on the street, you say, "Huh!" What do you do when you want to 
sell something? I'm afraid it is also, "Huh!" And we wonder why 
he isn't a good salesman.

No, I'm afraid we would have to take this subject of 
communication up with him very directly, and we would have to say 
"What is a letter?" Until he can finally find some definition in 
himself that tells you and at the same time tells him what this 
letter is, he's going no place from there. Do you see that? He's 
going no place because you've never found an entrance level to 
the case. There's no entrance level to the case unless you have 
some communication that is a communication: He understands it's a 
communication, and understanding it's a communication, he then 
accepts it as a communication. Don't you see?

Now, if you process people just into an understanding of 
communication... After all, you have its basic definitions. If 
you have its basic definitions, if you just went over each one of 
these definitions -- let's take a whole group of business people, 
see; whole group of business people. We just take the longest, 
most arduous definition of communication we have. You know, the 
one that's cause, distance, effect, and attention and intention 
and all the rest of them -- duplication -- we take all of these 
parts and we just rack them all up into an arduous stack over 
here, see? And we take the first one off the top and we say, 
"Now, what is this? What is this? What is this thing called 
attention? What is attention? Oh, you, Jones over there, what is 
attention?"

Oh well, Jones'll say, "Attention. Attention is something people 
demand of YOU.

And you'd say to the rest of them, "Now, what do the rest of you 
think about that? Do you think that's what attention is?"

Finally you'd get them to define, to their own satisfaction, what 
all these words were. You'd get them to define them as well as 
you could get them to define them. And I hate to tell you this, 
but if they're a group of business people that are in an enforced 
kick on communication all the time, the definitions they give you 
are not, at the end of hours, going to even approach 
satisfactoriness. They're going to be still something real wild, 
something you don't want at all. But they agree that's what it 
was, and so you say that's fine. You take the next one, and you 
go through the lot of them.

How many evenings of training do you think a group like this 
would have to have, huh? All you did was take the most arduous, 
long formula of communication we have and took every single part 
of it and asked them what it was. But the funny part of it is, 
you would wind up with people who, by and large, could then form 
and carry on an organization which would serve their doingness. 
Because once they find out they can communicate, they're apt to 
be willing to appear. As soon as they appear, they're willing to 
be terminals. As soon as they are willing to be terminals, why, 
they're perfectly willing to have terminals and confront 
terminals and work with terminals. And then you would have an 
organization. You follow me?

In order to reform the United States government -- formidable 
project; one which I advise you never to attempt; don't ever 
attempt it -- don't think it consists of going down to Congress 
and beating on the drum for a bunch of new laws to be passed. 
That has nothing to do with it! Has nothing whatsoever to do with 
it, not for a minute. All those new laws will do is they will 
enter new arbitraries which will cause additional new confusion. 
That's all. Because you're feeding into a vast bad organization a 
lot more ways of stopping, and boy it's on inverted stop now. It 
can stop everybody.

Now, the gay, heroic spirit of the young second lieutenant who 
goes into the army is a touching sight. I often see somebody with 
some shoulder bars or something like that -- brand-new gold bars. 
It's wonderful. It's a beautiful sight. I think, "Well, there 
goes another one, you know? He'll get in there, and he'll want to 
change this, and he'll want to change that, and he wants to do 
this, and he wants to do that. And he thinks that this is the 
thing he ought to do. And he looks and finds his troops are in 
kind of bad morale and in bad condition, and he wants to get them 
a little bit better off, and he wants to shape this up, and so 
forth. And there's no mechanism there to serve his doingness at 
all. He has no comm lines to serve his doingness.

Just let him try to address something to the major. Uh-ha, well, 
the major: that's a real close look. Let him try to receive 
something from the general staff. Comm lines are the command 
lines, so they're all forbidden. What's a command line do in a 
large organization? It forbids. See? What is the standard 
command? It's to forbid. "No, you can't." So if this is then the 
communication line, what do you get on the comm lines? Forbid. 
Now, after a while they forbid the comm line.

Did you ever see anybody get mixed up with government who is in a 
much higher state of action afterwards? Think it over for a 
moment. Did you ever see anybody get mixed up with a government 
who came out in a much higher state of ambition and action, hm? 
Well, they'd have to have had a lot of processing to have made it 
if they ever did, because the lines are not there to serve the 
individual. The individual is there to serve the lines. Get the 
reverse look? And so the doingness of the individual is 
neglected. And if you neglect the doingness of the individual, 
you will make everything very gruesome thereafter, because 
there'll be a lot of bodies around and they won't be moving.

War is not a symptom of the anger of peoples. Governments go on a 
routine and regular cycle which drops into absolute destruction 
at relatively regular intervals. Its own organizational lines get 
down to forbid, and its own laws forbid killing the other fellows 
in the army, so somebody in the army has to kill somebody, and 
they go out and find an enemy and knock him off. I don't think 
that it has a single thing to do with the international 
situation. I don't think there's even any relation whatsoever 
between war and politics. I think war is an insanity which is 
achieved when a bad organization descends to a complete anxiety, 
and you get a condition of war.

Now, where would you get an organization that would assist the 
doingness of people? Well, it would have to be amongst people who 
were doing. And those people, in doing, must be able to tolerate 
communication. So what would be a good organization to work for? 
A good organization to work for would be an organization that 
would tolerate communication. And that wouldn't be too hard to 
work for. That'd be all right.

Work, of course, you understand is "always" arduous. But how can 
we get it to not a complete death sentence? And that would be to 
be in an organization where people were doing, and people were 
willing to communicate. And if this was the case, then that 
organization would gradually find that it could have and could 
construct communication lines to serve the doingness of people.

Somebody has an idea that coordinates his action with somebody 
else's action; there must be some way where he can communicate 
this. And having communicated it, the other person doesn't go 
straight up and a mile south and forbid the communication and get 
all upset about it.

The other person also has the freedom to say "That's nutty. 
That's crazy. Dopiest thing I ever heard." Free line, see?

And the other fellow say, "What's dopey about it?"

"Well, I don't like it."

"Well, that's not good enough."

"Well, all right, it'd make me more work."

"Oh, if it'd make you more work... How would it make you more 
work?"

"Well, I'd have to make everything out in quintuplicate," like 
they have to do for machine-gun ammunition on the front lines. To 
get more machinegun ammunition you have to make out the 
requisitions in quintuplicate, you know? One copy goes to the 
enemy for okay.

All right. Now, if we look over this we see that we are facing 
not an unsolvable problem at all. We are facing a problem which 
is peculiarly solvable, because we can solve the problems on the 
individual level, therefore it is obvious that we can solve 
problems on a third-dynamic or organizational level, because they 
are individual problems.

You can actually give people a test, spot them on the Tone Scale 
and know exactly how the communication lines will behave in their 
immediate vicinity -- the easiest thing to do a Scientologist 
ever did. The only thing that happens is the Scientologist, 
having nothing to do with a science, usually has a good heart, 
and he is always prone to assign a better value to the individual 
than the test indicated. This is fabulous. This works everyplace 
but the HGC.

HGC -- we know this so we're always on the safe side, always 
undercut the actual state of the case by three stages and process 
there. That's the only place where we do this. Every place else 
we say, "Well," (charity, sweetness and light) "I mean, they mean 
all right, even if they are a stupid bunch of jerks," so on -- 
keep giving people the benefit of the doubt. Well, it's a fatal 
thing to do in taking an assessment of people when you're trying 
to treat an organizational series of personnel. You better look 
at it right straight on the button all the way across; be 
accurate. I know that's not a human characteristic, but be 
accurate anyhow.

We had it figured out one time that it is impossible to be human 
and to be right -- utterly impossible. You could not possibly be 
human and be right. To be human it is an absolute necessity to be 
wrong! Well, that's for sure.

Now, look it over. You sit down at a table. You have a glass of 
milk while somebody else is finishing dinner, something like 
that, and you're waiting to go to the movie, see? And so you have 
a glass of milk to be polite. You didn't want it at all, but you 
just joined them and you're waiting for them to finish dinner, 
and they're going to go to the movie with you. That's fine. And 
they say, "You don't mind waiting, do you?" And you say, "Oh, no. 
I don't mind waiting." The feature only goes on in three minutes, 
you see? And you sit there smiling, you know? What a liar you 
are. Now, is that being right? No, you're not being right. You're 
telling lies. You're just lying like mad.

There are many other ways that it is impossible to be right. For 
instance, somebody says, "Well, you know that the cube root of 
Newton's second law is one of the more factual facts." And you 
know it's for the birds, but you don't want to offend him, so you 
say, "Well, that's right. Yeah." God have mercy on my soul, see?

You are always forced, being human, to tell lies, to be wrong -- 
just as routine, routine activity, see, be wrong. And you look 
this over carefully, and you discover that it's really not 
possible to be human and to be right. The penalty of being human 
is to be wrong.

Somebody wrote a play one time about a fellow who told the truth 
for twenty-four hours -- told nothing but truth, twenty-four 
hours -- and I think in the play he did not get shot, so the play 
itself was a lie.

But we look this over and we properly evaluate people, and we 
would be able then to forecast what they would do, what they 
would be, how they would work and react, and all we're interested 
in is how they would communicate. If we're interested in how they 
would communicate, then we can spot the fact that they will be 
able to do. A person is so accustomed to trying to do something 
that he cannot then communicate that communicatingness cuts down 
his doingness. And there's a direct coordination between these 
two things: his communicatingness and his doingness.

So, let's look it over and let's see very plainly that an 
organization depends upon the tone level of its personnel, and 
that is really all it depends on, unless of course we grade 
goals. Some goals of organizations are better and some are worse, 
some are more pervasive, some are less. But this again was the 
idea, ordinarily, of a person.

Communism doesn't like this idea. They even swear at the cult of 
the personality. I know they kept people from going to circuses 
in droves when they told Popov the Clown that he must play a 
background role now because he was trying to erect a cult of the 
personality. The Moscow Circus was being jammed throughout 
Europe; people were going to it wherever it appeared because of 
this famous clown, Popov. And the anti-Stalinists said that this 
must be a bad thing, that he was there and he was communicating, 
so they were going to cut his throat and they did.

And they get the idea that goals and songs and other things float 
in the air; they are conditions which exist, never caused. See, a 
folk song is an uncaused song. Nobody ever wrote it. That's one 
of the silliest things. You get to looking this over and you'll 
see that somebody is so stuck in conditions they can't have 
terminals. So it's rather a fabulous thing that communism 
operates at all. And we look at it closely and we find out it 
doesn't operate. What's operating there is a capitalism state-
size. Well, we won't go into that any further.

But if we have all things uncaused, why, then we can never treat 
them. Do you understand that completely? Things which have never 
been caused can never be erased. Only things which have been 
caused can be factually erased.

A fellow has lumbago: You have to find some basis for his lumbago 
satisfactory to him before it goes away. He has to understand 
that he caused it or somebody caused it or something caused it. 
And all of a sudden he cognites, and he says, "That's when I was 
going on that sleigh ride. Ah, I remember that pain. Yeah, I was 
on that sleigh ride and I was kissing the girl, and just at that 
moment we fell off the back of the sleigh, and I've never been 
the same since" -- something like that; an interrupted kiss or 
something. Anyway, he says, "That's why I've got this bad leg, 
here. That's easy." And all of a sudden it goes away.

A condition, to exist, must be uncaused. And so if we say the 
organization did it, it's uncaused. You see that? If we say the 
great god Throgmagog caused it (only he doesn't exist: he's 
everywhere at once; he's in all drinking water), the condition 
can never be erased. Nobody can ever reach it, and they go 
frantic. They get very upset with it because they can never 
penetrate to the causation, and never being able to penetrate to 
causation, they cannot of course eradicate the condition, so the 
condition goes on forever.

How do you make something go on forever? You say it was never 
caused. Nobody, nothing ever caused this. It is a condition which 
is natural, which exists, which is psychological. Well, all 
right.

Therefore, the statement that General Electric does this and 
General Electric does that, and General Motors does this, and the 
government does that are all uncaused actions which will then 
float forward till the end of time. And it's no wonder that 
whereas an organization might have been able to have built a 
submarine in 1954, to find that they're not able to build a 
submarine in 1956. They're just hitting the dwindling spiral, 
aren't they? In other words, this "company" built a submarine. 
The devil it did! It never did! I didn't see a single company 
sign down there pounding rivets. There wasn't a single sign, and 
none of the tape at all came around to polish the windows or the 
ports or anything. There was nothing. Nothing happened there as 
far as that's concerned. But there were some men there. And there 
were some men that did drawings on drawing boards, and there were 
some girls that copied them off. And there were some riveters and 
some welders there. And there were some atomic-energy men there, 
and there were some other people there. But they were all people. 
And they all lived and breathed. And they are reachable, and they 
can be contacted, and they can be talked to. And these people 
exist; they are. And their actions are traceable to them.

I'm afraid what I'm giving you is terribly destructive. If this 
was uttered tonight in Hungary or in Poland, we would probably 
all be shot before dawn. Fortunately, our present government has 
not yet snapped terminals to the degree that it would accomplish 
this if it found out about it. We are protected by the fact that 
our government almost never finds out anything. If it finds it 
out and if it believes it thoroughly, count on it; it's wrong.

Why would this be revolutionary? Because the complete, solid 
understanding that an organization is composed of individuals and 
is not itself a thing is primary cause on organization. And if 
you realize that thoroughly -- not just lip service to it -- if 
you really looked it over, if you yourself could find that in 
your own experience and in your own observation, then the 
organizations which you have looked at for so long (governments 
and other things) would be seen by you for what they are: 
collections of individuals. And those individuals are individual 
individuals. There is nothing mystic or esoteric about any one of 
them. They exist, they live, they breathe.

And to realize that about a great government is to realize, 
almost, the end of that government. Do you see that clearly? 
Because all you would have to do is to put out this law: You 
would have to say, "Government officials hereinafter must be 
human," or "They must be processed," or they must be anything'd. 
And there would go (up or down) the organization. All you'd have 
to do is recognize the individual nature of each person in that 
organization and realize that they were people, and you would 
never again be afraid of a police force.

Policemen are robots, you know; somebody else always sent them. 
Definition of a robot: a robot is a machine that somebody else 
runs. You never contact the operator of robots, you contact the 
robot. Well, police are peculiarly this. Nevertheless, there was 
somebody who sent them.

The organization of police is never against one. The organization 
of government cannot possibly be against one. The organization of 
an army cannot be against one. But individuals can be nasty on 
occasion. But remember this: individuals can be handled even when 
they have rocket pistols in their hands. I know. I speak by 
experience.

Thank you.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]



FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 10 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

===============================================

TESTING

A lecture given on 15 November 1956


[Start of Lecture]

Okay. I'd like to talk to you now about something I don't know 
anything about.

The difference between me talking about something I don't know 
anything about and somebody else talking about something he 
doesn't know anything about, is the fact that I'll tell you so.

I want to talk to you about testing. Don't know anything about 
it, see. As a matter of fact, this is factually true. Don't know 
anything about testing and so it's a very, very good subject for 
a lecture.

Now, testing was invented sometime, I don't know when, see. I 
don't know when it was invented. I don't know who invented it. I 
could hazard some guesses. I could say it developed originally 
out of the cave days. One caveman would get out and he'd pull a 
woman by the hair for a quarter of a mile, and he'd say, "I'm 
feeling weak today, I guess. Only made it for a quarter of a 
mile," or something like that.

It might have developed then. It might have developed some other 
time, but I wouldn't know. I wouldn't know. I never read a book 
on the subject, either.

The whole subject of testing is probably, though, a very great 
subject. I've met an awful lot of people who knew an awful lot 
about testing, and so on, but I never had the benefit of 
listening to them say very much. They're sort of reticent about 
the thing. So I'm quite sure that there is a huge subject known 
as testing. I'm sure of it! In other words, I am convinced.

But the facts of the case are that it has never been proven to 
me. See, I'm convinced that there is such a subject as testing. 
But it has never been proven to me -- it's never been proven to 
me conclusively -- that up till the days of Dianetics and 
Scientology, it had any value at all. Because what was the good 
of knowing somebody's existing state -- what was the good of 
knowing it -- if you couldn't do anything about it?

Oh, well, maybe it merely convinced him he was in bad condition. 
I know, but what do you want to convince him he's in bad 
condition for if you can't do anything about it? Got the idea? 
Factually?

So all the tests that we have and are using -- most of them -- 
are based on just one premise and one premise only: that Homo 
sapiens is in an existing state, and their textbooks say that it 
can't be altered. So all testing was designed to prove, 
evidently, before 1950, is that man couldn't change.

Now, it's interesting that we have found an area where man can't 
change. It is very, very difficult to change a man downward. Very 
difficult to change a man downward. The things you have to do to 
him to change him downward made very good newspaper reading 
throughout the end of the Korean War -- brainwashing.

But even a psychologist who only knew these methods couldn't 
change people downward with any consistency. And as a consequence 
he assumed people couldn't change.

But what would a group that assumed people couldn't change -- 
what could it have been trying to do?

Now, a man can be changed upward with such ease that it's 
fantastic that nobody ever found this out. I mean, if I could 
think up something anybody could think it up, see. I mean, it's 
easy. How come he never found this out?

Now look, you think I'm trying to lay at the door of psychology 
and psychiatry a criminal intent, don't you? Well, that's 
absolutely correct.

The discovery that man could not change could only have followed 
an effort to degrade him. And for the first time, we are trying 
to scale him upwards, and we find that the most elementary things 
can change a test upwards. Very elementary things can change a 
test upwards.

If you, for instance, were to sit and smile pleasantly at a 
preclear for twenty-five hours, he'd probably get better. If you 
just said, "Yes, is that so?" you know, "What do you know!"

If any psychoanalyst had ever contented himself with sitting and 
listening to some patient rattle on, I'm sure that some patient 
not deficient in havingness -- which the comm would have cut down 
-- but not terribly deficient of havingness, would have improved 
so considerably and so markedly that we would now have libraries 
full of books on this one case. That's a "series" in 
psychoanalysis -- one case.

The only series on schizophrenia in psychiatry, for instance, 
that I know of, that is real schizophrenia, is a series of one: 
one girl who assumed five personalities. And although it's been 
banned in Boston as pornography, it has made good reading for 
everybody else for a long time. And that's a series of one and 
that is total information concerning. That's a book by Morton 
Prince. You, by the way, would just have a ball reading that book 
because he gives you all the dope. He gives you all the clues 
necessary to solve the case, and minimizes every one of the clues 
and maximizes all the things that are completely unimportant 
about the whole thing.

Now, I am not trying to indict psychology, psychiatry, 
psychoanalysis or phrenology, or -- I don't know, what are some 
of those others? There's one there that had to do with 
transmutation of gold into lead or lead into gold or something 
like that. Yeah. Alchemy. Oh, yes, yes, modern chemistry.

And I'm not trying to degrade these, because they don't need it. 
It's sort of pouring mud in a mudhole, you know.

But when you look over this astonishing fact that today our 
testing programs... I don't know a thing about testing, but our 
testing programs demonstrate that we can change people and change 
them upward at a great rate -- very fast. I mean, it's not 
difficult to change people upward -- it's not very difficult.

If a person is on the bottom, sometimes you get some suction 
trying to pry him off, but once you get him rising a little bit, 
why, he generally goes on up, as long as the auditor will sit 
still and listen.

But where do we have any use for testing? You should ask the 
question, "Why don't I know anything about testing?" It should 
have occurred to you there that there might be some hooker in the 
statement, because I don't go around saying, "I don't know," you 
know, except when I'm being honest.

But there is really a hooker in the subject. I want to know if 
there's anything to know. See, I don't know anything about it. 
I've read some books on the subject, and I've done some testing, 
and so forth. Is there anything to know about it at all?

Well, the actual fact of testing -- no. There is very, very 
little to know about that. The actual fact of existing state is 
such a mystery that there's nothing you could know about that. 
You see, because it would simply be comparable data. "This person 
compares to a twelve-year-old schoolchild." That's a statement, 
that is! In what school, which teaches what curriculum, in what 
part of the world? See, they don't ever say.

They don't ever say "Jefferson High School, Lincoln, Missouri," 
or something like that, you know. They say a twelve-year-old 
schoolchild has the intelligent equivalent of..." I suspect 
statements like this. They're not specific, they're not exact, 
they have no location, they're floating in space.

So what about this? Well, I do know something about the change of 
tests or recorded change. That I know something about. And if 
they were more honest, and if they'd ever changed anybody, I 
guess that's all a psychologist would know, would be alteration 
of condition. Because you can compare one condition to another 
condition, but when you say a person has a test like this... What 
is the proper curve? Is it up here? Is it down here? Is it over 
here? Does it have lace pants on it? What is this? What's the 
proper test? What's the proper curve?

Somebody says, "This is the curve of Joe Jones. Joe Jones's curve 
is just like that." Everybody stands around and says, "Yeah. What 
do you know. That's pretty good. Mm-hm." Or "That's pretty bad, 
isn't it?" Compared to what?

Well, it's compared to something called the hidden ideal, the 
false ideal, the understood ideal, the suspected ideal or the 
represented ideal. Do you understand what the word would be? It 
would be an ideal which doesn't exist. But everybody knows it 
exists, and we have testing dramatizing this more than any other 
single human activity.

It is a hidden fact behind all criticism -- whether of plays or a 
person or cats, kings, coal heavers or bats or pigs with wings -- 
that there is an ideal, there is a perfection "That I know about, 
but you wouldn't," which is never spoken. And we should call this 
the pretended ideal.

There is evidently an ideal state in Mother's mind when she says 
we are bad children. There is evidently an ideal state in the 
sergeant's mind when he says we are poor soldiers. There is 
evidently some ideal of some kind or another in the priest's mind 
when he says we are sinful.

But they damn seldom say anything about what it is! They say we 
don't measure up in comparison to it. What?

We read in the papers, "This is a poor play." See, some critic, 
he's sounding off, "It's a poor play." Well, you could say, "Who 
said so?" That's easy -- the critic. But by whose standards of 
playwrighting? Now, this thing did appear on Broadway, and I'm 
sure compared to Bill Smith's play -- Billy Smith being only in 
the third grade -- that it shined. See? So that would make it an 
excellent play, wouldn't it, huh?

But compared to one of those little things Shakespeare dashed off 
between sonnets, the thing might not be quite so good. But then I 
am sure that people walked up to Shakespeare and said, "Well, 
Bill. Ah, well. This thing -- this -- this thing you've done 
tonight -- what was its, name? Uh... uh... Hamlet. Hamlet? Was 
that it? Uh... Bill, uh... I don't think it'll go. It won't go, 
Bill. It's a poor play." Compared to what? The one that the 
critic said was a poor play, or Billy Smith in the third grade 
said was a poor play, or compared to the Passion Play as done at 
Oberammergau, or a poor play compared to Bill's last effort. 
Well, possibly, you could get a comparison there, couldn't you?

So we've moved into about the only standard that could exist, "Is 
the fellow being bad or good compared to himself?" And that is 
what testing is in Scientology. Is he being bad or good compared 
to him? Is he being better or worse than him?

Well, unfortunately for the guy, we happen to know how good he 
can get. So we can measure him up against this standard. So, 
being honest, we can say a change is attainable in existing state 
and we are interested in the change, we are not interested in 
either existing state, don't you see.

But there are certain existing states necessary to the 
performance of auditing -- we say to auditors -- so, therefore we 
know that auditors that fall below this existing state, fall 
below it. This we know for sure. They fall below being able to 
audit. They crack up somewhere along the line. They say to the 
preclear, just about the twenty-fifth time, "Now, go over to the 
book. That's right. Look at it. What color is it?" And they all 
of a sudden say, "Heh-uu-hu-hm-hm, let's go out for a Coke." The 
preclear at this moment has somatics; he's about ready to drop 
his eyeballs on the floor. "Let's' knock off the, session. I 
can't stand it anymore."

And we know that they will do certain things below that state. 
But we, then, do have some kind of an idea about the state 
auditors should be in. And if we're certifying an auditor, we 
want to know if he's in some comparable state, but that again is 
against a known standard. It's a known standard.

Well, who's it known to? Well, boy, if you were this guy's 
preclear, you'd know it. See, it'd be known to you too. The 
fellow has to be able to persist, duplicate, communicate, 
acknowledge communications. He has to be able to get in there and 
pitch. He has to be smart enough to be able to figure out where 
the preclear won't go and make him go or knock his head in. He 
has to be able to do certain things, see. And we can test what 
sort of a condition a fellow has to be in, in order to make 
somebody do those things. That's very easy. It's very easy. But 
it is a standard. It's a known standard, not a hidden standard. 
It's very important.

This pretended standard, this hidden ideal, this thing which 
lurks in the back of people's minds when they say "We aren't 
smart enough. We aren't good enough. We aren't quick enough," is 
actually the basis of all criticism to which we object. Because 
we essentially are not objecting to their statement that we 
aren't good enough. We're objecting to the fact that they never 
say in comparison with what. They never say what we are supposed 
to be as good as, what we are supposed to be as fast as.

Therefore, we rather favor physical tests, things like that. Can 
we broad-jump five feet? Anybody in order to join this team has 
to broad-jump five feet, see. We know what we're doing then. We 
can broad-jump five feet, therefore we have passed the test. But 
it's only a standard that is set down, and somebody has found out 
that an athlete or a soldier or somebody has to be able to go 
through certain actions, since athletes and soldiers go through 
these actions.

Therefore, the only sincere and honest test that you possibly 
could lay down, really, in actuality, would be a test against 
observable performance -- observable performance.

Now, to show you how thin this bad and good thing is, a soldier 
goes out, sets up a machine gun, fires at a mad rate and misses 
completely his target. He doesn't kill a single human being. Bad 
soldier. He goes back into civilization, runs down the street, 
doesn't even knock over a human being, hits a cop, and we say 
he's a bad citizen. The common denominator of these two remarks 
is that people are critical.

Now, testing had its origin, I am sure -- this is my suspicion, 
since I really know nothing about the subject -- had its origin 
in the early days of brainwashing. It was an effort to make 
people self-critical, which is a keynote of brainwashing. If you 
would test somebody long enough and often enough, you'd drive him 
daffy if you never told him what he was being tested for, or 
against what standard. You'd have to have a standard against 
which he was being tested so that he could achieve, himself, a 
comparison of result.

Therefore, I would say that all those tests which simply evaluate 
by the observer...

I tell you, here's a test that -- we have a technical expression 
which is a condemnatory expression in Scientology -- "It's for 
the birds!"

This thing is called a Rorschach. A Rorschach is probably called 
a Rorschach uhm... It's a Rorschach. Anyway.

You go four years to a university to learn how to interpret one. 
Boy, there sure must be an awful lot there to know how to 
interpret. There sure is. I'm sure there's more significance 
racked up in less time -- wow! Four years to learn how to 
interpret one of these things.

You know what people do with these things? They're inkblot tests. 
Kids back in about 1820 used to take some ink, spill it on a 
piece of paper, fold the piece of paper over and open it and they 
have a pattern, you know.

Well, some psychiatrist got stuck in this period, got the measles 
and died back in 1820 or something. And he died when he was doing 
this and it's a dramatization, you see, or something like this. 
There's an explanation to its origination I know.

Anyway. He shows this to people, he shows this test to people, 
and he looks at them and he says, "What do you see? What do you 
see?"

And people say, "Ohhh, I see a fox or a bat or a kangaroo or, 
uh... it's a flying carpet," or something or other. Each time 
they say one of these things, they say, "Well, I think it's a 
fox."

"Ahhhhh," he says. "Patient thinks it's a fox." "What else do you 
see?"

"A bearskin!"

"Patient thinks it's a bearskin. Patient thought it was fox, then 
bearskin. F-B. F-B."

Well, they have about five or fifty of these plates and people 
are supposed to read them and so forth.

And it was a source of great embarrassment when one of them 
showed me one of these tests. They used to test everybody during 
the war. They didn't have anything else to do. And you get 
shipped in. They'd run out of clinics to send you to, you know. 
Go get your teeth fixed, go get this fixed, go get that fixed. 
Nobody would let you out of the joint, you see. You were there 
awaiting receipt of orders or something of the sort, you know, 
and so they would keep sending you to clinics, here and there.

So, of course, they'd send you to a testing clinic. They'd send 
you to the psychological clinic. They'd send you to the 
psychiatric clinic. They'd just send you around. You go around 
and people would spend an hour or so looking you over, and that 
sort of thing.

I almost got scared out of my wits! It just -- it frightened me. 
I was very timid in those days. And I sat down and... I was 
supposed to go to the psychiatric clinic, the eye clinic, and so 
forth.

The eye clinic didn't know what was the matter with me. I 
couldn't see. I kept telling them that was what was the matter 
with me -- they didn't believe me. And anyhow, I went in the 
psychiatric clinic, and I sat down. And all of a sudden he says, 
"Ahhh!" he says, "Ahhh!" And it was a very, very learned "Ahhh!" 
I will say.

And he shoved a Rorschach test at me. He didn't have anything 
else to do, or I was the wrong patient or something. He was 
confused maybe. And he shoved this test at me, and he says, 
"What's that?"

And I said, "It is a piece of paper with some ink on it! What do 
you suppose it is!"

Four days later he was still looking in his manuals.

I don't know to this day whether I'm supposed to be sane or 
insane, you see. Because there's nothing in any Rorschach manual 
that tells you what this response means. It frightened me all 
right, and he turned sort of pale and he jumped up on the table 
and took off his glasses. He started to chitter, you know.

So I took the test and I showed it to him! I said, "All right, 
you don't like that answer! What's it mean to you?" So he got 
back in his chair and sat there, and when I left he was still 
staring at it. Anyway...

We didn't have much respect for people in those days.

Well, anyway, having been given a Rorschach from beginning to 
end, of course, I'm wise enough to know I don't know all there is 
to know about Rorschachs. But this isn't the case with most 
people. When they've been given a Rorschach, you see, they become 
experts on Rorschach. And I'm smart enough to know that I have my 
limitations. Definitely have my limitations. I couldn't even read 
anything into it. And that's pretty good for a science-fiction 
writer. Anyway... I should have at least told him there was a 
spaceship there.

Anyway, looking over the whole subject of testing, one learns 
that there could be tests which simply measured against a 
standard necessary for performance, see. You had to be able to do 
something. Well, where did they come in relationship to that so 
they could do that? Well, you see, there'd be a role there for 
testing, definitely a valuable one.

Now, that's fine. But they don't call that psychological testing, 
usually. There is some sort of testing in psychology that goes in 
that direction, but usually that's done out on the athletic 
field, or it's done somewhere else. "Can you drive this car 
around the block?"

"Yeah."

"Well, if you drive well, you can have the job. Well, get in the 
car and drive it around the block." He does, he drives it around 
the block, and he says, "Okay, you've passed." See, now that is a 
type of testing which is against a standard. A person to be able 
to drive a car must be able to sit in the car, must be able to 
operate the throttle, the brake, and wiggle the steering wheel. 
That's all that is required in the District, anyway.

Here then is testing. When we reduce it into a tremendous 
additional significance, we are liable to get into more trouble 
than we care to get into, unless we wish to measure a state of 
case against a state of case. We take a state of case this week, 
and a state of case next week. We take these two states of case 
and find the difference between them.

Well, in view of the fact that nobody has ever been able to make 
states of case vary like this, it would really amuse you how 
stable these profiles are. I saw one the other day which would 
utterly knock your hat off.

This fellow was given a profile -- a type of profile which we 
have had in use in the organization. And he was given this 
profile before he went in the army. And in the army they used him 
for a guinea pig or something of the sort, and he had a nervous 
breakdown and had a lot of psychiatric treatment and so forth. 
And at the end of this time he had varied about fifteen degrees 
on "Nervous," and the rest of the profile was all the same.

In other words, here's this tremendous career, all this 
treatment, this hammer and pound, and the only variation on the 
test was about fifteen percentile in "Nervous." He was a little 
more nervous. It took them years to manage that.

Well, that's an existing state. But as long as it's not against 
anything, as long as all states measured are the states measured, 
we really don't know anything about this thing called sanity, 
because nobody ever found anybody that everybody agreed was sane. 
See, so there is no agreed standard for sanity. So a test never 
could tell you whether you were batty or walking down the chalk 
line. No test really could factually tell you this.

There is an oblique way of using a test that way which will amuse 
you, and that is if the person can't and won't take it, why, you 
can assume something wrong -- either in your offering it to him 
or his acceptance of it. And that's pretty positive evidence -- 
we don't know for what, but it's pretty good.

But these tests when given are stable. They are very stable. In 
Scientology, we push the guy upscale -- a direction nobody ever 
went before -- and they just move upscale just like that. Bzzzzz. 
Really, really fabulous. I mean, we change the existing state, 
and then we can measure how much it's changed by the new state. 
Interesting that we have now a comparison of states.

And in view of the fact that we have some standard required for a 
fellow to audit, and knowing this is more arduous than living, 
why, we can say the fellow has to be in this kind of a condition 
with this profile to get along fairly well in life, and we can do 
something about it. But we still don't know anything about 
testing.

We really don't know anything about testing. We know about a 
comparison with a comparison. We compare his new profile with the 
profiles that we know are necessary to auditors in order to 
audit, and we compare this profile with his old profile. And the 
only starting ground it has is auditors have often folded up when 
they weren't fairly high in tone on certain points. And when they 
are high in tone in these points, they couldn't care less. I 
mean, they can get chewed up like mad and they're not chewed up. 
You get the idea? But it's by comparison.

Now, nobody, then, would ever be able to give you a test, get any 
answers off of it and be able to say that you were peculiarly 
sane or peculiarly insane. Nobody would be able to give you a 
test and say this, just bluntly, bang, without comparison to 
something. It'd have to be "saner than what?" see? "More insane 
than whom?" You'd have to have some sort of a standard.

Well, in view of the fact most tests are developed from some 
standard or another, we then have some concept of their accuracy.

I'll give you some idea of how tests are developed as to 
standard. It's an interesting way to get a standard. We take 259 
Safeway store managers and have them grade their stockmen. We 
take the 259 managers, and we say whether their stockmen are bad 
or good, happy or unhappy, efficient or inefficient, you see. And 
then we test the stockmen, and then we assign the value of the 
Safeway manager, and we've got the leading -- huh! -- leading 
efficiency test of the country.

Now, listen, I've known some Safeway managers, and they were good 
men. Nothing wrong with that, but they weren't ever noted for 
their human charity. In other words, what have we got, finally, 
as the standard? We've got the opinions of 259 Safeway managers, 
not coordinated against each other at all, but each one assigned 
to his particular stockmen. And this is a standard? That's why I 
don't know anything about testing. Get the idea?

It also says the scores were weighted. I don't know why they were 
weighted though. In other words, we test the efficiency of people 
against the opinion of Safeway managers, and I'm not working in a 
Safeway so the test couldn't possibly work on me, don't you see.

But we could take any test, no matter how arbitrary, and get a 
curve on quite a few people, and then process them for a while, 
and then get a new curve. And we could say then this process on 
these people gets us this change. You got it? And in view of the 
fact that nothing else has ever been able to change this test, we 
must have been changing the test. Not even Russian brainwashing 
or sergeant brainwashing could alter this profile, thus an 
auditor must be doing something.

Now, we observe the fellow in life, and we find out that he no 
longer -- well, he's dropped a lot of his nastier habits. He's 
dropped a lot of his nastier habits. For instance, he no longer 
sits silent while his mother-in-law is talking. See, that's 
dropped a nasty habit. He hasn't permitted himself to be arrested 
for just months, see. I mean the guy's getting in better shape.

For instance, he used to read all the time the Wall Street 
Journal. Although he didn't buy stocks or anything else, he used 
to -- you know, he had nasty habits. And he'd never read the 
"Ball Street Journal." (That's another paper entirely.) And now 
he only reads the "Ball Street Journal," see. In other words, he 
changed, his conduct in life changed.

It used to be that he let the other fellow keep the job for him, 
and now he can even work. See, something has happened here. 
Performance has shifted.

So, we in Scientology come straight back to performance. What is 
our standard? The standard is "Can an auditor who gets this curve 
on this test audit?" Our findings have been, yes. So that's a 
satisfactory curve. He's able to stand up to a lot of clawing. 
All right. Therefore, his auditing performance is acceptable. To 
whom? To us! We're not reticent!

Well, if it's acceptable to us, why, it's probably acceptable to 
preclears because that's what's acceptable to us. We're honest. 
And it's true enough it does. It is acceptable then to preclears. 
And the fellow leads a successful life. He even has a successful 
auditing career. He's able to do things with Scientology and 
auditing, don't you see. But that's a performance test, isn't it?

And can he hold his own in his environment -- domestic 
environment and so forth? Yes. All right. Therefore, that's a 
performance, an observable performance, isn't it.

Well, now, the reason I don't know anything about testing at all 
is because testing itself is an esoteric subject. It is a very 
deep subject, and the reason I don't know anything about it is 
its standards are all hidden

Original psychological testing was designed to tell us that 
people were bad or not quite bad or worse. And it was designed 
against these lines and so on. I'm sure I'm maligning them. There 
are many psychologists that have gone out and made a sincere 
effort to test, actually, four or five living beings before they 
released a test which was standard sanity for everybody in the 
United States. I'm sure they've done this. I'm sure they have, 
before they released it and said, "We have tested a thousand 
people." I'm sure they did test a couple, maybe the wife.

But the main thing that I'm getting at is that we have found -- 
we're very tolerant -- we have found that these tests were 
useful, very useful, extremely useful. For the first time we 
found a use for them. And I should be standing here sounding off 
about psychologists, when they worked, for I don't know how many 
hundred years they worked. It was since 1879 on physiological 
psychology, and a lot longer earlier than that on a noncommunist 
line of approach. And they worked for all of these decades. They 
worked, they slaved, they amassed figures, papers, they tested 
people, they thought of things, they filed things, they unfiled 
things, they published books, they plagiarized each others' 
stuff; just all these years and years and years and years and 
years, just so that we could come along and find, for the first 
time, a use for their activity. And so I should malign them. I 
shouldn't at all. They undoubtedly have done us a very great 
service.

Well, they've done us a tremendous service as a matter of fact. 
Tremendous. I've known just exactly what to throw away here in 
the last week or so that I've been working on a new test battery 
for us. Yes, I have. I mean, they've given me all the things you 
don't do. A tremendous number of things, tremendous assistance.

You look down the thing, and you say, "Well, that couldn't 
possibly tell you anything. Therefore we won't write that kind of 
a test. This test over here is highly uninformative. It wouldn't 
be of any use to anybody. A total verbalization. Might test 
somebody's verbs, but we're not interested in verbs, so we can 
push that one aside."

They've done this tremendous amount of work and it has been 
extremely useful. It's been extremely useful, and I've been able 
to lay it aside. I haven't been able to learn anything about it 
particularly -- I don't know anything about it yet, as a matter 
of fact. But I do know that it isn't against a performance, and 
where it isn't regularly and routinely against a performance, of 
what use is it?

Now, if somebody had gone out and tested a thousand racing 
drivers or a hundred race drivers and said, "This test on a 
thousand (or a hundred) race drivers got this curve" -- wow! Boy, 
would I have riches. Boy, that would be riches. If somebody went 
out and said, "We routinely took right on down the block in Des 
Moines, Iowa" -- see, I'd be able to grade that, for sure -- 
"right down the block, Des Moines, Iowa. And we tested each 
housewife in succession down the block in the year 1927, and we 
got this final result." I could even find some use for that. I'd 
know that wasn't the curve for all housewives in the country.

If they'd said, "We've taken a great many schoolteachers teaching 
elementary school, and we've given them this test and we've 
gotten this result." If these factual things on which we could 
really count were actually listed, what riches we'd have. But we 
actually start from scratch in Scientology.

All we can do is take a series of questions -- almost random 
questions -- plot them on some kind of a random curve and say, 
"This is a good Scientologist because we know he can audit" -- by 
experience. See, we know he's all right.

And we take and run it again, and we say, "Well... not this guy." 
And then we know something else. We know, with processing, we can 
take this low curve and we can put it up higher and put him into 
a bracket where he can perform. See, we know these things. That's 
all we know. We don't know anything about testing.

In the first place, there is no such thing as standard 
performance. Your behavior today was undoubtedly the best 
possible behavior that anybody could have behaved in this society 
at this time. But if you had behaved as you behaved today in the 
middle of the African jungle, there wouldn't be a one of you 
alive tonight. Do you see the slight difference? Now, that's an 
extreme example.

Therefore, who could say what is a survival test? -- unless it 
would be a survival test against an environment. In other words, 
the test must always be against conditions which exist in an 
environment. It must always be a test of performance. You follow 
that?

It's important, because for years people have been telling you 
that you were dumb or mediumly bright or something, see. They 
have been telling you that you were bright and dumb or telling 
you that you could be smarter or something of the sort, and 
they've never told you against what standard. What's the 
standard? Brighter than whom? Dumber than which?

I know I had a teacher used to tell me I was awfully dumb all the 
time. She used to say, "You are the stupidest child I ever had!" 
She used to say this just routinely. "You're the stupidest child 
I ever had." She'd just would keep this up. Every day, you know, 
I'd try to read something or do something -- "You're the 
stupidest child I ever had."

Finally found out what was wrong with her. I went into 
consultation with a couple of other kids and I says, "What is the 
matter with the old babe?" you know. "What's the matter with 
her?"

And they said, "You know, there's times when you're diplomatic."

And I said, "What -- what do you mean diplomatic?"

"You take her an apple."

So I said, "Hey, what do you know!" You know, I was a kid out on 
the Western range most of the time, and I learned fast, you know, 
quick. And so next time I rode by a neighbor's of ours orchard , 
why, I took her a saddlebag full of apples. Smartest child she 
had. Always afterwards the smartest child she had.

So I figured out the standard of performance there was a bag of 
apples. So I know when I'm stupider than a bag of apples and 
smarter than a bag of apples. I hope you've had the similar good 
fortune to know what you're stupider than and smarter than.

They give you university examinations, give you high-school 
examinations and they give you a grade. The grade says "A," but 
they never say "a" what? They say "B," but they never tell you 
what to be. They say "C," and send you out of the place stone 
blind on any subject you've been studying. Now, that's an awful 
pun, a bad series of puns, but bad in comparison to whose?

You just remember that, will you, on tests. It is true that today 
we have tailored up a test which tells us that somebody will 
cause us trouble. In other words, his performance in our hands 
will be deplorable. Maybe the guy's a good marksman. Maybe he'd 
be excellent as a shrimp fisherman, down in Mexico shooting 
Mexicans. The guy might be... might be -- you know, he might be 
anything, you know. But according to our demands on his 
performance, such as to sit still and answer pleasantly, he's a 
bad character, don't you see.

And when he gets to be a good character, we know that he's 
capable of certain performances. We know he's capable of certain 
persistences. We know that his ability to handle people, his 
ability to live, his ability to do, communicate in general, will 
be very good.

But again (and I give you this very factually), from our 
viewpoint -- from our viewpoint. He will be able to talk to 
people; he will be able to make people better; he will be able to 
have the world happy that he's around. But that's only our 
narrow-minded viewpoint. He'll be of some value in any community, 
since he will produce. He will be missed when he's gone. But 
remember, that is only our viewpoint.

And, please observe this, it very well may be true that it is a 
terribly incorrect viewpoint. Maybe it's completely too narrow; 
maybe it's a worthless viewpoint entirely, you see. Maybe the 
actuality is that a fellow who is in a rage all the time, who 
stamps his feet, who makes everybody miserable, that kicks dogs 
when they've been hit by cars and spanks kids who have just sat 
on hot stoves -- maybe these people are the salt of the earth. 
But it just happens they're not, from our viewpoint. But it's our 
idiotically narrow-minded viewpoint that objects to this. You 
understand that? I mean, it may not be true that these are bad 
people. They're bad from our viewpoint.

It may require people like this to aberrate people so that we can 
process them. You see, there's always this sort of thing to think 
of. There's always something to think about like that.

It may be that standards of performance vary. Now, you take 
Tarzan's standard of performance. I was a great student of 
Tarzan's. I used to read Edgar Rice Burroughs quite regularly 
when I could... The librarian ordinarily wouldn't let me have 
books. I kept them too long, and so forth, and read them too 
arduously: read right straight back through their covers and 
things like that, and very bad habits. And I'd never have money 
enough to pay the fines of the books I already had kept out too 
long and which I'd forgotten to return or hadn't finished yet or 
something of the sort. We were always having a feud. Fortunately, 
there was a small window at the back of the library, so I checked 
my own books in and out. Anyway...

Edgar Rice Burroughs's stories of Tarzan were very encouraging to 
the youth of America in that day. They were very, very 
encouraging. They were a fine, upstanding example of a man acting 
like an ape. And I very often used to feel constrained by these 
books from highly civilized conduct and that sort of thing. But I 
was tremendously intrigued by this since that was a standard of 
performance to all young America. See?

If you acted like Tarzan, boy, you were in. Man, who wouldn't be 
willing to swing from tree to tree. I done broke my neck more 
than once. The dull crash, some old frayed rope strung up one way 
or the other, tarzaning from tree to tree, you know. They never 
tell you that the arc circumscribed by a rope is the length of 
the rope.

But this was still a standard of performance. Now, not modernly, 
but just yesterday, I told the two chaps that invented 
Superman... I knew them rather well up in New York, and they were 
looking for a good idea. And I told them that I thought they were 
overdoing it a bit. Seems like I was right: they were overdoing 
it from my viewpoint. They got more popular than anything I was 
writing. Well anyhow, these boys and Superman, you know.

Now, actually your wearing two identities and being 
schizophrenic, from the standpoint of a psychiatrist, would be 
extremely questionable -- extremely questionable. I mean, 
supposing you met somebody that jumped in behind doors and peeled 
off all of his clothes in a public hall and threw on some dyed 
underwear and then leaped out of windows, never used doors. From 
a psychiatric viewpoint that standard of performance is nuts.

But from young America of a decade ago that was quite acceptable 
conduct. Someday you'll have a preclear. These young men are 
still growing up, I call to your attention; you do not yet have 
them as preclears. And one of these days you will find that you 
have a preclear whose only foible is stepping behind doors... and 
running around in dyed underwear. The only difference is when you 
try to cure him of this, he probably will be able to fly.

Well, although I don't know anything at all about testing, I can 
tell you that, finally, standards of performance have to some 
degree unwound. There's hardly one of us who hasn't asked himself 
the question, "Isn't it better to be mean?" Almost every one of 
us has had the feeling that we were a bit soft. We didn't like 
flying into the teeth of some human being and making him feel bad 
or making her feel bad. We've told ourselves, "We ought to be 
tougher. We ought to put up a better front; we ought to be... You 
know, know when to snarl, know when to show the sharpened tooth." 
And I'm sure that we have walked away occasionally after we've 
loaned somebody five dollars or something of the sort and said, 
"When am I going to learn to be tough? When am I going to learn 
to be tough? When am I going to learn to be hardboiled and just 
stand right up to that little kid and say 'No!' When am I going 
to learn this?"

And the motto behind this is "Isn't it better to be mean 
occasionally? It's only from being kind and a sucker" -- synonym: 
being kind, being a sucker -- "being an easy mark, so on. When am 
I going to stop being all of these bad, soft things and be a 
hard, forthright, capable-of-saying-no person? When am I going to 
be able to do that? Isn't it better to be mean? I would be a much 
better manager. I would be a much better person if I knew when to 
come down with a slight slam. If I could just know, occasionally, 
when I should be mean, and if I just was willing to be mean, 
wouldn't that be right. Isn't it true that I should be more mean 
than I am? Isn't it true that I should be harder, more 
forthright, much more positive. I should be able to just take the 
people out there and just sweep them aside? And isn't there some 
rightness in being tough? Isn't there?"

And I used to ask myself this question. I used to ask myself this 
question. Everybody does. And I used to ask myself, "Isn't there 
a time when I will finally get rough enough, mean enough, ornery 
enough, that people will flinch?" You know. "Something wrong with 
me that I don't want to be mean. Something wrong with me."

And I used to think about this occasionally, and as the years 
went along I could spot times when I should've been tougher -- 
you know, I knew it; sure of it -- and very recently, very 
recently, ran a series of processes which were highly 
informative. Very informative. That person that's willing to 
confront other things doesn't ever have to say no, he doesn't 
ever have to be mean, he doesn't ever have to be tough at all. As 
a matter of fact, it's a silly thing to do; it's a silly thing to 
be. It is perfectly all right to be nice to people. It isn't a 
weakness at all; nothing weak about being nice. And a matter of 
fact, if you aren't, you're in the soup.

You could say that the only times for which you are suffering are 
those times when you weren't nice enough, when you weren't kind 
enough and when you weren't unmean enough, and those are the only 
times from which you're really suffering.

It is not true that being mean gets anybody ahead anyplace. 
That's really factual, really factual. Because being mean is 
going out of ARC with. And a careful analysis of games conditions 
and the processing of preclears demonstrates that if you were to 
run the process "Go out of communication with, go out of 
communication with, go out of communication with, go out of 
communication with," he goes to pieces. Fascinating little test, 
isn't it.

"I should be mean. I should say no. I should say I don't want to 
communicate with you. I should say I don't want to have anything 
more to do with you. I should be able to say, 'You do so-and-so 
regardless of the consequences.'" Willingness to mess somebody 
else up, you know, being hard about the whole thing.

Well, if you run it on a preclear, you will just run out a few of 
his incidents of his doing that, but it's a cut communication the 
whole way.

When you deny your fellow man, the only thing which you can deny 
is to deny him communication. I don't care how solid the particle 
is or how light and airy the particle is. You say "no"; you say 
"be mean," you say "be very positive," do this and do that; the 
truth of the matter is that you are denying him communication, 
one way or the other -- being tough.

The only thing you should ever be tough about is insist that the 
other fellow ought to stand on his own feet, too. And the only 
way you will ever communicate that to him is to communicate it to 
him in a very nice way. Then he's liable to receive it.

Being mean is simply going out of communication with things. And 
that's always -- always will be and always has been -- very 
aberrative.

So I've got the question answered and have a standard for conduct 
at least from a standpoint of aberration. The individual who is 
kind, who is decent and who does communicate and who is nice and 
who isn't averse to conversation and saying this and doing that, 
who is tolerant, and so on, we find gets along beautifully. We 
find the things that he runs into in life run out. They don't 
pile up on him and swamp him.

But the fellow who's mean and who's ornery and who's cutting 
comms all the way along the line, and so on, we find he's in the 
soup.

Now, I don't know anything about testing, but all testing must be 
conducted against a hidden ideal or a known ideal. But if it's 
hidden, somebody must know it. Somebody would have to know this 
ideal.

You could test a fellow against a hidden ideal where you knew the 
answers to the test and he didn't, but you had better know the 
answers to the test.

Therefore, I can tell you tonight that a test which is measured 
on the basis of human kindness as a high and human meanness as a 
low is a standard of human optimum performance. That sounds very 
silly, and that's a very obvious sort of a thing to discover, but 
nevertheless it's a discovery.

I don't know anything about testing, but now I think I know how 
to make one. I think I know how a decent fellow would grade and 
how a bad one would grade because I know the answer at last to 
whether I should have been mean all those times or whether I 
should have been more kind. And I know I should have been more 
kind.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]




FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 11 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

===============================================

THE CONSEQUENCES OF ORGANIZATION

A lecture given on 22 November 1956


[Start of Lecture]

Well, we don't have actually very much going on today in 
Scientology. There's hardly anything happening. There's very, 
very little to talk about. Things have settled down for the long 
haul, you know. There's little excitement, very little 
excitement, very little randomity.

As a matter of fact, I can make a very truthful statement. There 
actually is so much less confusion in the organizations than 
there used to be -- in spite of the existing confusion that's 
still there, of course -- but so much less than there used to be 
that I feel a little strange in America now. I feel just a little 
strange. There's something missing. Something missing.

But I'm going to be developing here, I suppose, some kind of an 
appetite for confusion if this much confusion is missing.

The truth of the matter is, we are in a circumstance today which 
has probably never before been beheld by any single group 
anywhere in the world at any time. Now, that's very peculiar.

Many groups have existed on earth who had a certain amount of 
know-how on how to push people's faces in the mud. And those 
groups... Well, I'll give you an idea: the priesthood of Chaldea, 
Babylon and Egypt. These priesthoods were very expert at that.

Take some other groups. There were some space-opera boys fooling 
around earth here, and they were very expert at pushing people's 
faces in the mud. And there were some chaps around that were 
running a government down in Italy someplace that you might have 
heard of I think the name of it was Rome. It's just a bunch of 
ruins now, but they were very expert at pushing people's faces in 
the mud. I mean, they were all expert.

And more laterally, there was a group called -- something to do 
with Castoria. Oh yeah, nuclear physics! And this group -- this 
group -- has inherited all these abilities of pushing people's 
faces in the mud.

And matter of fact, the technology of how Homo sapiens is 
depressed face down into silica negras is very, very extended and 
very, very accomplished.

It's no wonder that they now feel that man comes from mud!

But these groups, as you would expect them to, did a very, very 
good soup-dunk -- very good. They are not with us any longer. 
They are stumbling around. The last one I named -- the nuclear 
physicist -- is now a captive group. They're held without ransom 
by several governments, and so on. They knew too much about 
destruction so governments couldn't resist them.

Today if you were to quote one of Einstein's formulas out loud on 
the steps of the capitol of any one of about four countries, you 
would undoubtedly be thrown in the clink at once for releasing 
confidential information.

But these groups, one and all, had this wonderful accomplishment, 
they could succumb. And from our standpoint this was really their 
best technology, their best art. They themselves could succumb, 
and so we're not troubled with them anymore.

But across the world, man has seldom seen a compact group 
possessed of an ability to pick men out of the mud. Not 
particularly for their own deserts and benefits, but just have 
the ability to pick man out of the mud. Not to sell him pie in 
the sky, not to put him into further mud, no further pitch.

So man, you will discover, has something today, I hope, to be 
thankful for. I hope.

But there's something very, very remarkable, very remarkable 
about this, is I don't think he can understand this. And that, I 
think, is our greatest single difficulty in Scientology that 
produces the maximal randomity.

Man has lived so long as a bedfellow to such groups as I have 
named, that he is not quite capable of believing that a group 
exists that could do something else. So that every time we say 
we're going to do something, he compares it to the mud groups. 
And he says, "This must be a pitch. This must have a large, wide 
curve on it. There must be some english on this ball which I do 
not at once detect."

It's fabulous. His reaction goes from a reverse reaction to a no-
reaction. It has seldom risen to a positive reaction.

In other words, he sort of has a "Let's classify it all as 
something else," alteration, alteration, "Let's classify it all 
in some other way" or "Let's just not face it at all."

The numbers of reactions which have come on the upper positive 
level of "Say, see here, there is something we can do" are very 
few.

It's quite interesting, as an example of this, that one of our 
fellow Scientologists has been involved for some time with the 
project of the British Olympic team. And he graduated up from 
just the status of special coach right straight on up.

They tried to break the team apart at one point, and he was 
talking to air marshals and brigadiers and British brass. You 
know British brass is really "brass." All that is upper snob 
about the American brass is just a feeble effort to copy British 
brass.

And here we had a scene which was enacted at Aldershot -- not 
many months ago -- of the highest and the mostest and the 
brassiest of the British Army, Navy and Air Force, gathered 
around to take to pieces the Olympic team. Because they did not 
consider that it would be successful in Melbourne.

And one lone Scientologist, using communication, stepped forward 
and held the team together. That was quite an accomplishment, in 
view of the fact that they wanted to fire everybody on the team 
since there had been a lot of interservice jealousy.

The army had the dominant role there. One of the chaps, by the 
way, fell and broke his shoulder. That put him out of the 
running. He was the star. And the rest of the chaps then saw, in 
the other services and other parts of the British Commonwealth, 
"Here's a wonderful opportunity to leap in here and tear the team 
all to pieces because, you see, it has a weak point." They wanted 
their people in there, you see. And they didn't have their people 
in there.

And so this lone Scientologist, using nothing but the formula of 
communication, managed to get them all talking to each other and 
blew out the interservice animosity.

In other words, he was facing here what they were using in lieu 
of a war. That their tempers must have been terrible is easily 
demonstrated by the fact that a few weeks later, they did go to 
war, those very men. But they didn't go to war over the Olympic 
team. He just smoothed that out.

Well, he went from the status of hanger-on to special coach to 
the team and then went further to that person in charge of all 
training activities of the entire team. Now, that was quite 
interesting, since he had no athletic background. Like most of us 
Scientologists, pushing a newspaper away from the face and 
pulling it back again is about the totality of his gymnastic 
accomplishments.

Now, he used nothing but Scientology to coach this team. He made 
them, for instance, beat a British team by explaining to them 
game condition.

Now, he says, "There's games condition and there's no-games 
condition." It was a navy swimming team that the Olympic team was 
going to go up against just for practice. And the navy boys were 
pretty good. And again, this interservice jealousy could have 
entered in and destroyed the entirety of the operation.

So, he explained this to the Olympic team -- game conditions and 
no-game conditions. "Now, a no-game condition is win. If you win 
you are in a no-game condition. See, that's part of it, see."

And the boys thought this over and then these fiends circulated 
amongst the navy swimmers before the race and said, "Huh, well, 
you boys have won. You've got it." And promptly, what do you 
know, the navy lost worse than anybody had ever lost. And thus 
with Scientology, he averted some more jealousy amongst the 
services which would have run in a new swimming team, you see.

So, here he was, in there pitching. The Association, the HASI, 
actually was paying his way. He had all obstacles, and he was 
aided and abetted, however, by necromancy -- pure necromancy.

I'll give you an idea. I mentioned this chap who had his shoulder 
broken. Well, they didn't think the chap had his shoulder broken. 
They didn't think that his shoulder was broken. So, they were 
perfectly willing to bandage it up as a sprain. And the 
Scientologist looked it over, and he sent the boy over to the 
medico and he said, "You'd better look this fellow over more 
carefully."

How did he know that he must have a broken shoulder? An athlete 
is usually very easily processed and after a couple of minutes of 
processing this fellow's shoulder wasn't completely well. So he 
said, "There must be something more wrong with it than I 
thought." And sure enough, the collarbone was broken badly 
enough... You see, a sprain, he could've taken care of like that. 
But it didn't go away. All right.

The collar bone was one and one-half inches off axis on a break
-- that much. Now, that's the end, as far as an athlete's 
concerned, isn't it?

Well, they took X-rays, and he took the boy in charge and he 
processed him and pushed him on through with a little bit of 
randomity -- because the chap had to keep up his exercises all 
the time he was doing this.

After he processed him and was squaring him around and everything 
was getting along fairly well, the team coach, the regular coach 
of the team, saw these X-ray plates, and the medico was standing 
there saying, "Nah-h-h-h-h!" and "This is really serious."

So they sent at once for a Harley Street specialist. Harley 
Street: that's the Park Avenue of London. That's where everybody 
goes when they have too many bones or brains.

And they had this specialist come down and he examined it and he 
said, "Well now, we'll have to set that and he will be six or 
eight weeks at least in a cast and that is the end of your 
athlete."

So they got a hold of our coach and they said, "That is the end 
of the athlete and so forth. But what do you think?"

And he said, "Well," he said, "I'm just going to need four or 
five more hours to straighten this out."

And he did so, and the chap's shoulder mended entirely, so that 
it didn't even show up on an X-ray plate.

This all happened, by the way, before the randomity occurred with 
the air marshals and brigadiers and so on. They had already seen 
a witch doctor -- they had already seen one, in this 
Scientologist. A broken shoulder had mended in about ten days, 
and the chap was right back in the running again. All right.

They had seen some other interesting things. They had seen the 
national pistol champion go from his standard usual score to 
double that score after processing. And they had witnessed this 
interesting mechanism and manifestation. One of the chaps was out 
there on the firing line. One of the team marksmen. And he was 
firing, and our Scientologist interrupted his conversation with a 
brigadier who had come down to watch all this, and walked over to 
the fellow. And he said "Hmmmmuh." And the fellow said, "Oh, yes 
sir. Yeah, okay," and started firing again: bullseye-bullseye-
bullseye-bullseye-bullseye-bullseye. See?

"What did you do?"

"Well," he said, "that's just Scientology."

Actually, what had he done? Always before, in firing, marksmen 
have depended on a training pattern laid in by the gruffness of 
sergeants. And the essence of firing a pistol has to do with 
keeping it from going away. They don't pay much attention to the 
fact that the pistol leaves at every shot, you see -- recoil, 
recoil, recoil.

And as a matter of fact, this Scientologist and I had a 
conversation about this, and we analyzed what was wrong with 
pistols, just as what was wrong with horses and things like that. 
And we had a lot of conversations about this.

And so if you keep the pistol from going away, you see, it just 
becomes rock still!

And the boy had neglected to keep the pistol from going away 
while he was firing. And our Scientologist had noticed this and 
had simply called it to his attention.

The brigadier's ears and eyes became excessively large. He said, 
"What did you do?"

Our boy said, "Why, that's just Scientology" you know, "so it'd 
be over your head a little bit."

And in subsequent conference he was able to point out the fact 
that "Well, you have seen that a small amount of correction or 
coaching on the firing line did improve somebody's marksmanship. 
You have seen this and you have seen a few other things. And 
therefore, I think you should take a couple of my recommendations 
more seriously," which they did.

And he really moved in on this outfit to such a degree that I 
will eventually be able to go down to the War Department down 
here -- this is a dirty trick -- and say, "By the way, did you 
notice what happened to your socks in Melbourne?"

And they'll say, "What about Melbourne?" This will be a sore 
subject; this type of thing.

And I say, "Well, they got knocked off. Didn't you notice?"

"Yes, yes. We -- we did notice that. What's that got to do with 
it?"

"Well, that was Scientology that did that. Now, in order to ever 
win another Olympic..." That will be that.

Now, when you start to double people's scores and push people 
upstairs in terms of sports abilities, this becomes a foul and 
fiendish plot from our standpoint.

If you were to take the football Cards, or the baseball Cards or 
any one team, and give it a heavy shove in the direction of 
better ball playing, you would at once, of course, find that the 
opponents had no other choice but to get a heavy shove in the 
direction of ball-playing. See, no other choice.

We haven't started this program yet in America. We're looking 
around for some volunteers to go on payroll and go up and haunt 
one of these baseball clubs or football clubs. And just do 
nothing but process the boys and so on. A very interesting 
project.

Because, of course, they will then take all pennants, awards and 
TV programs. And then we can then go around to their archenemies 
and say "See what happened."

It's quite interesting. In spite of the fact, however, that you 
can demonstrate these things, people still regard this with some 
askance, some suspicion. They do not know quite what to do about 
it. But they are aware at this day and age that there is 
something to be had from Scientologists. There is something to be 
gained. The Scientologist can do something for them, and they 
don't quite know what. They can't fit it in to any frame of 
reference they have ever had or have ever read about in their 
history books.

It's not quite the same thing and they keep expecting us to push 
man's face into the mud or to do something odd or peculiar or 
spectacular at any given moment. It is absolutely true that 
Pavlov the Punk got his expected 22 percent in his brainwashing 
cases.

You know, 22 percent of humanity, if you give them flour and 
water, if you wave a magic wand over their heads, if you let them 
listen to an ad on the radio, get well. It doesn't matter what 
you do to them, whether it's surgery or hypnosis or psychotherapy 
or otherwise, 22 percent recover from almost anything that's 
wrong with them. That's the expected gain.

Now, we have to improve that figure considerably before we start 
putting any stock in what we're doing ourselves. And we improved 
it originally to about 50 percent, and that was way above the 
expected 22 percent, so we knew we were doing something.

In other words a practitioner could do nothing and get 22 percent 
cures, you see that?

All right, we're at any moment, by the way -- just as an aside 
here -- we're going to send a letter to the American Psychiatric 
Association, and we're going to ask them why they don't get their 
allocated 22 percent, you see? Explain to them they must be doing 
something there that is cutting down their expected result.

Well, anyway, you've got to do better than this figure. You have 
to do a lot better than this figure in order to command any 
attention. But if you do too much better than this figure, you 
fall into an unawareness band.

People cannot be aware of this. You have to be reasonable with 
what you offer them. Don't better the 22 percent too much. If you 
do, you pass out of the realm of credulity. They cannot accept 
this. They cannot be aware of it. It is not something then that 
they are able to accept.

Just by doing what you can do routinely in the field of assists 
is beyond man's ability to conceive. He cannot conceive that a 
woman who has just delivered a child after a great deal of ardure 
could be made to recover from that delivery in a matter of a day 
or two with some Scientology. He could not conceive that anyone 
in this room at this moment could go to a hospital right here 
where somebody is hemorrhaging in some fashion -- hemorrhaging 
and is going to die -- and could shut it off. There isn't anybody 
hardly in the room here that couldn't do that.

That is beyond their level of belief, their level of acceptance. 
There's never been a training pattern. There has never been any 
training pattern laid down in the society by any group.

There has been the man-to-mud training pattern. There have been a 
lot of people around who said they could do miraculous and 
wonderful things, and then never lugged any bacon in the front 
door. The public even stopped waiting for the bacon to come in. 
So that you can show -- in graphs and figures -- you can show 
your results, you can show changes in personality, gains in 
intelligence that are quite spectacular. That is the bacon they 
were promised two thousand years ago or ten thousand years ago.

See, that was what they were promised a long time ago, and nobody 
ever delivered. So, now you come in, dragging this great big side 
of bacon and you say, "See?" There's no audience. They've all 
left long ago. They know that you can't do it even though they do 
it.

Like the farmer; the old wheeze -- the farmer who went to the zoo 
and he stood there looking at a giraffe for a long while and he 
finally said, "There ain't no such animal." We all know the 
cliché but it certainly is terrifically applicable here.

We show them these results and they say...

Now, here's something very weird; here's something very weird. We 
show an individual these results -- he gained them on a gradient 
scale, he rather knew what he was looking at, he'd attained a 
higher level of awareness, and we expect at the end of that line 
that he will say, "Well, now, that's really wonderful what 
Scientology can do." He really doesn't say that. Do you know what 
he says?

He says, "Isn't it wonderful what we Scientologists can do?" This 
is his reaction. He leaves group public and joins Scientology. 
You never make any advance into the public!

And we finally get around to what I wanted to talk to you about 
tonight.

Now, this Olympic team phenomena actually should have made an 
enormous advance into the British Army. It did, a little bit, on 
a very high echelon. As a matter of fact, I have been tapped very 
quietly on the shoulder wondering whether or not I wouldn't write 
a master textbook on brainwashing for the British Army which 
would be their standard textbook. And I have said, "Well, no. 
Well, I'm busy, you know."

Because you can't write about brainwashing without making it 
possible to do brainwashing. And present man doesn't have good 
technology on how to do brainwashing. And if you teach them how 
to undo brainwashing without making Scientologists out of them, 
you merely taught them how to do brainwashing. So we have a 
certain responsibility for our information. All right.

Why, at once though, with such spectacular results, with a 
national marksman doubling his score, didn't we at once -- didn't 
we at once -- have the British Army at our beck and call? That 
doesn't say we won't have the British Army at our beck and call. 
Right now they're busy down in the Suez but we expect to call 
them back any time.

These fellows, however, are not at our service, but several 
people who were wholly British Army are now wholly or partly 
Scientologists. And that is what happens; that is what happens.

You never make any advance into another organization or the 
public. You might as well just forget about making an advance 
into the public. It is totally a games operation.

They will never understand you, don't ever expect them to do so. 
In order to understand you, they would have to understand 
Scientology, and if they understand Scientology, they are 
Scientologists!

It's very interesting that we ourselves should look ahead and 
understand this a little bit better, because we might not then go 
on doing some of the more interesting activities we have engaged 
upon. They're mainly interesting because they fail.

We expect the public at large to accept what we are doing. The 
public at large may accept our position. They may accept our 
dominance of a field. They may accept the rumor that we know what 
we're doing, maybe. They may accept that. Maybe. But there it 
gets doubtful.

The public at large, however, will never accept what we're doing, 
itself, until they become it. This is a fantastic mechanism that 
we face.

We place ads in newspapers. Thin, tiny response. It doesn't 
matter; it doesn't amount to anything. We place ads in magazines 
-- "We do this; we do that; we do something else" -- and we still 
don't have people beating in our doors.

That's because we had a slightly curved error here. We were 
trying to get a public to remain a public and accept what we were 
doing. And that will never work. Six years has proven this.

It's a raid. It's a game condition. It's a matter of two teams: 
one brighter and smaller, and the other, larger and dumber.

We have never carved any wide swath into organizations. Some of 
us sometimes go down to the Rotarians and decide we will give 
them a peppy talk and tell them how to "rotar." We have done 
this. We actually have factually done this and, for some reason 
or other, we never get any phone calls afterwards. And we say 
"Why?"

That's perhaps because we maybe intended to take the whole of the 
Rotarians. But if we intended merely to assist them -- if we 
intended merely to assist them, as a group, and leave that group 
intact and untroubled (except for the little dabs and odds and 
ends we would do for them), we would never win, and we have never 
won.

I'm afraid that we had to look to the right and the left, as we 
were sitting at the table, and put the guy on the right and the 
guy on the left in our pockets, quietly, without the rest of the 
Rotarians noticing, and then work on down the table.

We are far too prone to fall for the idea of organization. Now, 
I've talked to you twice about organizations, and another facet 
about organizations here is very interesting. And that is that an 
organization is composed of individuals where we are concerned. 
An organization never buys anything, whether that organization is 
General Motors or the public or anybody else.

It is not the organization that ever buys anything. It is an 
individual in the organization.

Organizations are groups of individuals; they respond 
individually.

You can, of course, erect a facade called an organization. You 
can erect a designating canopy that spreads over the head of a 
number of individuals. You can do this, but these people are 
still individuals. They're still individuals. And by and large 
the individuals of the world are too poorly united under their 
organizations for the organizations even to be called 
organizations.

We have this loose word communism which is spreading across Asia 
at a mad rate. And yet I imagine if I got a hold of one of my old 
friends in Peking whose son or somebody has since turned to the 
ranks of the communists, and I asked him rather closely, "Now, Pu 
Yee," or somebody, "what is your boy doing?"

"Well, it's pretty bad."

"Well, I know, but what is he doing? What is he doing precisely?"

"He's with a gang."

"Well, what's this gang?"

"Oh, it's just like warlords all the time, you know. Same thing. 
I mean, it always happens. And there's not enough excitement for 
the youth. And so they get to be a member of this gang." And so 
on.

"What's the name of the gang?"

"I don't know."

Communism's spreading across...

Get a hold of the boy and he would tell you that he was a 
communist. But one right next to him would not know he was 
anything except a member of a gang or something.

In other words, they don't communicate at all. Now, that is 
essentially a very weak push, actually -- communism is. It says, 
"Let's all be brothers and share the wealth -- particularly share 
the wealth. And we will divide this up with great equality. Ten 
of you will be workers and one will be a commissar. And we will 
forget about the commissar when we talk to other workers." A 
world for the commissar.

But this communistic push is so diversely and differently 
understood -- even by the communists themselves -- that their 
arguments in Moscow are now beginning to resound throughout the 
rest of the world.

I had the gen on this several days ago, by the way. And I noticed 
that it finally made the papers. I was wondering when our bright-
eyed young reporters would get around to noticing that the anti-
Stalinists and the Stalinists had suddenly decided to part 
company.

Now, of course, later events will demonstrate the decay and 
collapse of the Russian empire of communism. And that's because 
very few of those people were ever communists. They did, however, 
belong to an organization. They expected the organization to take 
all the responsibility for everything. And man is so willing to 
do this that, of course, it has some success. Even that can have 
some success.

In order to succeed in any thrust across the face of mankind, it 
is necessary first to have a program that doesn't push man's face 
in the mud. That's quite necessary -- Wide success attends 
picking man up and disaster always succeeds pushing him down.

Therefore, communism, its emphasis on organization, its emphasis 
on pushing his face into the mud eventually, getting some more 
work out of him and so on, is of course doomed to failure. And 
there are many of us here that know that communism really rose 
and fell in our own lifetimes. One doesn't have to be too old to 
have seen its rise and its decline.

The communist didn't have the direction which would win 
eventually. He can talk to the workers of the world, have a 
wonderful time talking to them. Talk to the longshoremen, get 
them to tie up everything. Talk to this one, talk to that one. 
And then, behind his back, the world for the commissar -- which 
was the real thing that was happening -- suddenly gobbles up a 
country called Hungary. And they are not smart enough to realize 
that force of arms will never conquer anyone's mind in the final 
analysis.

So, while they're spreading their message of goodwill and the 
brotherhood of man out through the rest of man, man is set, at 
large, this tremendous example -- this very revolting example -- 
of a country being smashed merely because it wanted to vote. And 
that, of course, counteracts practically every argument that any 
communist provocateur could make in any country on earth.

They were not sincere. They had something else to do. They had 
other catfish to fry. Something else was going on. And man 
realizes that he has looked once more at an activity which was 
calculated to put people down. To push people's faces in the mud. 
And so they will turn away from that activity.

The last thing in the world I would want to be at this moment 
would be a communist provocateur out on some outpost in, let us 
say, Arabia or someplace; expecting my funds from the Kremlin, 
expecting my support, expecting shipments of arms and tanks to 
back up the promises. Oh, wow! Man, would I be nervous! That 
would really be a nerve-racking thing.

Because I would know for one thing, that the mission which I was 
trying to accomplish was not the mission my masters were trying 
to accomplish. And there would be that much argument in my own 
mind, that I myself could never give my full effort to my 
activities. I would always have a reservation.

Every time I'd talk to a group I would know that I was giving 
them a pitch. Do you understand that? Therefore, I could never be 
entirely outspoken. Therefore, my strength could never be great 
enough to carry over the real rough spots. Do you see that?

A man in such a position over there in Syria right now 
undoubtedly is worrying about how he's going to get some of the 
rubles appropriated for him, under the pose of getting them 
appropriated for the revolution or something. He's trying to 
feather his nest in some way so he can cut from under, he can get 
and gone.

Some of them are probably sliding casually out of sight under 
John Smith as a good, common name that would call no attention to 
them at all. Achmed Abdulla, I'm sure is -- that's John Smith 
back in those countries.

Now, this man, then -- he really couldn't have very much thrust. 
Because his own level of trust, even if it were great, would be 
so interrupted by his view of the Kremlin's action against 
Hungary, that he would not any longer be able to countenance all 
of his own actions.

Therefore, we get this beautiful view of twelve communist 
divisions rush into Hungary, and they start shooting Hungarians 
in all directions. And then all of a sudden we find the officers 
are tearing off their epaulets, and so are the soldiers, and 
they're sliding over to the enemy.

So the Kremlin reinforces this army that went into Hungary and 
reinforces it very gorgeously. Twenty divisions. Lots of troops 
and tanks and guns and money and everything pouring in there, and 
these divisions are now tearing off their epaulets and joining 
the enemy. As they throw in more troops they get more enemy in 
the country!

Now, what explains a breakup of this character? It is the fact 
that somebody does not feel that there is any sincerity behind 
the promises, vows and actions of the central government of 
Russia. There must be a feeling that it is wanting in sincerity. 
Therefore, nobody is willing to go at it whole hog. Do you see 
how that could be?

Well, there is currently a man-into-mud campaign going forward, 
following its usual curve. Of course, you know, even a dying 
alligator is liable to knock your head off with the last thrash 
of his tail. You know, these people are not particularly tame. 
They don't die easily, they writhe. A lot of people are liable to 
get hurt before this one is over.

But one more man-into-mud campaign is fading into history -- not 
finished completely, but the highlights of that activity are 
finished. They were finished because another group, that first 
professed to do a great deal for people and then simply rocked 
them into the mud, didn't. They didn't do anything for anybody in 
the long run. They hurt people in the long run.

It could be said that a group is as great as its ethic remains 
high. But there's been no group on earth which was capable of 
either understanding or maintaining an ethic. It's an awfully 
broad statement, but it's true. It happens to be true.

One had to know that an ethic is there. A man is ethical. A 
person is ethical and then becomes unethical in order to change 
his ethical standards.

Dr. Upholstered -- he's in charge of the rest home for feeble-
minded government officials here in Washington -- Saint 
Elizabeth's. Dr. Upholstered has just made a great speech which 
made the front pages. And I was very proud, very proud, of our 
newspaper friends and allies when they put it on the front page. 
He explained that a child is born without any conscience and then 
is beaten into acquiring one. This must have been great news, 
because it made the front pages of the papers.

Well, there is another group that is fading into history. We 
wouldn't have to do a thing to these people, not a thing. We 
wouldn't have to push them around like we're doing. We wouldn't 
have to drive them into the arms of their local minister like 
we're doing. By the way, to have them expire -- and it is 
actually just our own (and maybe even my own) like of playing a 
game and so on, that causes us to be at all overbearing in that 
direction.

The things we have done in the last year or two to these people 
hardly bear repeating. But all we have done to them, in 
actuality, was try to keep them from pushing their own faces in 
the mud, and it has slaughtered them. What are we doing?

Originally we made anything we knew available to psychiatry, 
psychology -- anything we knew. They were just as happy -- they 
could come in; they could walk in; we'd let them walk on our 
floors. (We'd sweep them up afterwards.) We'd let them observe 
sessions. Hardly anybody here hasn't been pleasant at one time or 
another to a psychologist and so forth. It just shows you how far 
we'll go!

These chaps are not in our frame of reference and we refuse to 
understand it.

The awfullest time a psychiatrist of my slight acquaintance ever 
had was about an hour I spent giving him a session -- only he 
didn't know I was giving him a session. I was trying to make him 
tell me what his goals were in psychiatry. And you don't believe 
me sometimes when I tell you that our goals and their goals 
aren't the same goals.

Psychiatry is an organization that heals people. We're stuck with 
this. But psychiatry doesn't know this!

For one hour I tried to make this psychiatrist break down and 
find some reason beyond "keeping them all quiet." He finally came 
up with that and was fairly satisfied with it, but would not 
agree with me when I said, "Well, don't you intend to make them 
sane? Don't you intend to heal them in any way?" He could not 
agree with me that that was a desirable goal.

The last part of the conversation went something like this:

"Well now, Doctor, don't you think that it might be desirable if 
you took the insane in your charge and returned them to sanity 
and social awareness? Don't you think this would be a good 
thing?"

"No! Good God, no!"

And I said, "Why not?"

"Well, you want to turn all those insane people loose on 
society?"

I said, "No, Doctor." I said, "You didn't apprehend what I said. 
I said, 'Make them sane and return their social awareness so that 
they could cooperate with their fellows.'"

And he said, "Yeah, what's the matter with you? That's the 
trouble with all of you do-gooders," he says to me. He had me 
classified, see? "...the trouble with all you do-gooders. Do you 
realize what insane people do in a society?" He just never could 
accomplish this one little quirk that they would change and then 
be turned loose. He couldn't envision them changing in any way, 
except getting a little more quiet.

I talked to a psychiatric patient one time who had been given a 
series of treatments which were quite rigorous, including a 
transorbital leucotomy and so on, and I said, "Did you learn 
anything from these things?"

And he answered me very quietly out of the corner of his mouth. 
He says, "I've learned to keep my mouth shut."

Now, there is a group -- there is a group that is busy destroying 
itself. It comes out with a "new drug cure" and presents in -- I 
think its official journal is now Life Magazine, isn't it? Used 
to be the Reader's Digest; now it's Life.

And they come out with a series of two cases. And that's usually 
two more than they ever have. And they give this drug which is 
going to have tremendous, far-reaching effects.

No drug, not even a drug that we dream up, will have any far-
reaching effect. Its effects will decline, it will deteriorate. 
It will run the DEI cycle because it is MEST.

You couldn't, I'm sure, dream up any kind of cure for anything 
that would stay a cure for any length of time at all. It just 
won't.

You'd have to patch it up with processing and, of course, then 
you could maintain it as a cure. But if you added processing to 
it, you could take tennis balls and make them a cure for 
anything, see! You could just get the guy up to a point of where 
he could identify tennis balls with things and could have tennis 
balls, and could, you see, get the sequence and logic down that 
tennis balls cure things and so forth. You know, he'd toss a 
tennis ball against the wall a couple of times every morning and 
he would be well of whatever he had. The only trouble is he'd 
also be well of having to use tennis balls! See, there isn't any 
way to really halt on this line upwards. One starts going and 
there he is.

So, the drug cures, the arduousness of treatment and other things 
of that character, going along with a tremendous greed -- which 
we ourselves don't see too much of, because we don't make a habit 
of studying the Congressional Record. But the amount of greed 
connected with that particular organization will itself defeat 
it. We don't have to do anything about that at all.

It is not even a team. It is not even an opposing team. It is 
nothing that we should pay any attention to. But it is another 
example of a group expiring, who had as a goal, "Man in the mud, 
if you please. Keep him quiet."

Therefore, one would say offhand that in order to succeed, it 
would be absolutely necessary for a group to understand -- person 
by person and individual by individual -- the ways and means of 
patching up a broken ethic, an understanding of ethics at large, 
an understanding of honesty and decency.

All people sometime in their lives ask whether or not honesty and 
decency are really in the price range they can afford. Sooner or 
later somebody's going to ask, "Isn't it true that honesty is a 
sort of an obsessive thing? Isn't it pretty aberrated? Isn't it 
true that I am being honest simply because I'm afraid to be 
dishonest?"

Well, if he's being honest because he's afraid to be dishonest 
he's about four harmonics south. And it's a cinch that on his 
road up in processing he will experience the desire to go out and 
murder, rape and burn, the like of which you'd never heard of. 
But because you turned it on in processing it doesn't turn on in 
life. That of which one becomes aware, one can confront. A very 
important mechanism.

All right. Now, here, here we find then that no group could have 
succeeded anywhere on earth, even if it had had the knowledge of 
how to turn on an ethic, how to stay honest, how to stay decent, 
unless it had also maintained the widest possible communication. 
It had to be able to communicate all of these things to its 
individual members. It must've been able to do so.

If it didn't do that and if it couldn't do that, its central 
knowledge of how to do that would be as nothing. Maybe it would 
become classified. Maybe it would become secret. Maybe it would 
become shut off or forbidden or banned. Maybe they'd say, "Well, 
only at the seventy-first degree do we get that process!" 
Exteriorization processes would only be taught when one had 
reached the tenth degree. Do you understand that?

This creates a difficulty, to make all processes available to all 
people. They do the damndest things with them. They do the 
wildest things with them!

I've had Scientologists come into the office and look at me, and 
shudder at the thought... I was going to tell them, "Well, I'm 
putting that in the next book."

And they'd say, "Oh, no! You're not going to release -- you're 
not really going to release Over and Under in a standard public 
textbook! Think of what will happen to some preclears!"

Well, my reply on it is "Sure, something will happen to some 
preclears." Even though I know that no auditing is much worse 
than bad auditing. Some bad things are going to happen to 
preclears, certainly, because we put this out in casual hands. 
But remember this, remember this: What will happen if we don't 
put it out? What will happen to the auditor? And that's the one 
we think about.

What would happen to the auditor if much of our information 
became very restricted? What would happen to our own people if we 
suddenly had categories of information which were only available 
to Boy Scout First Class or something? What would happen if we 
started to impose censorship on what we know?

Well, even with what we know we would then succeed in becoming a 
group that was pushing man's face in the mud. Do you understand 
that? It would merely be the openness of communication. Because 
sooner or later how to turn on an ethic and keep it turned on 
would become obscured.

A group containing scientific information is as good as each of 
its people have that information available and can use it. A 
group is as good as each member of it understands well its modes, 
purposes, activities and skills. It is only in that way that a 
group can maintain a high level of dominance amongst its own 
people.

We don't care about a group dominating other groups particularly, 
because if they dominate with complete honesty and complete 
communication, they never dominate. That is one of the wilder 
things. It's sort of like "The perfect way to have cake is to eat 
it," you see.

The perfect way to dominate, of course, is to fully communicate, 
to give one all the information one has, to hide nothing, to 
pitch him no curves, to play on him no stunts or tricks of any 
kind. And then, of course, you don't dominate at all. Of course, 
you've dominated totally. Of course, you've made something 
worthwhile to dominate. But only a person who is not interested 
in dominating would do it. So it wipes itself out cleanly.

Well, therefore, in this day and time we are having our 
adventures. The main part of those adventures actually consist of 
our errors. We make the error of thinking we are going to impress 
something called "the public," we are going to impress something 
called "the city," we are going to impress something called "the 
radio stations," or something of that sort, with what we are and 
what we know. And we always fail.

They know what we are. We're a group of bums. That's what we are. 
Nobody could know that much and not harm people, even if they did 
grant that we knew anything. So naturally, it must follow that if 
we made a strong effort to convince people of these particular 
actions or activities that they would then wind up very 
unconvinced. That is not the way to go about it.

Wide advertising is not the way to go about it. We can put an ad 
in the paper and ask somebody, "Are you looking for a better job? 
Call so-and-so." Bring him in, give him some intelligence tests, 
put him through a PE Course and get him an appointment with an 
employer. But we put him through a PE Course.

Ten percent of those people will stumble back and say, "Now, wait 
a minute," do a little bit of a comm lag and say, "What was going 
on here? What... just exactly what do you people do?"

Well, you say, "There's a book." And he's on his way.

You can help people then, and as you help them, some of them -- 
the better ones -- step sideways into your ranks.

You can always help people. There's nothing wrong with that. But 
you could not possibly take them over and eat them all up. It's 
just not possible at all.

So, our activities against the society, against the opposing team 
and so forth, is an activity of pillage, of theft, of kidnapping.

We look at somebody, he's walking around in a fog, he's elected! 
And if we continue this action, piece by piece, we'll have done 
it.

But I'm afraid if we continue it on a basis of merely trying to 
broadly impress the public that there is such a thing as a 
Scientologist, we won't have done anything.

We are, whether we like it or not, the organization three feet 
back of society's head. And society at large is never going to 
notice. When it gets down to two or three people we'll have done 
it!

Thank you.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]





FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 12 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

===============================================

THE DETERIORATION OF LIBERTY

A lecture given on 22 November 1956


[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

I usually come fully prepared to lectures. Occasionally, though, 
I don't. And this particular instance is one of those occasions. 
I did want to round off for you these talks on organizations -- 
pushing home the idea, which is extremely valuable to all of us, 
that organizations are composed of individuals.

An organization itself is simply a series of communication lines 
and communication terminals with a common goal, and you use 
organizations to get things done. You assume the post of a 
terminal, you see, and you use the terminal and so on, and it 
assists you in getting things done. But the organization itself 
is nothing. I wish you could get a full appreciation of that.

You sometimes talk about the HASI, and so forth, does this and 
does that. HASI never does anything. People in the HASI do this 
and do that, and some of them are fair, and some of them are good 
and some of them are real good. And some of them are on easy 
posts, and some of them are on mediumly difficult posts and some 
of them are on completely impossible posts.

But here we have an example of it. Certification is good or 
certification is terrible. You mean the person who is doing 
certification is good just now; the person who is doing 
certification is poor just now.

Well, because people think of an organization as a continuing 
thing, they begin to believe that it itself has great command 
power because it outlives them. It never does! The semantics may 
outlive something, but that's about all.

The semantics are quite interesting. We talk today about freedom. 
We talk about freedom. That's a very important thing. Wow! You 
couldn't overstate the importance of freedom. Couldn't. But 
freedom 1776 reads a lot different than freedom 1956. It's a 
different word. And we get one of the fundamental tricks of the 
agent saboteur, which is change the meaning of the word: Don't 
change the word; define it differently.

You could take a whole people and bankrupt them of any freedom or 
civil liberty simply by changing the definitions. Don't change 
the words.

Now, a president we had, President Frankie, used to talk about 
"freedom from." That isn't the way it was defined in 1776.

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? That is a 
fascinating document. And with what fascination I read the other 
day the Supreme Court's opinion of the Declaration of 
Independence. You didn't know that it had an opinion, but it 
does. "This Declaration of Independence has never been used to 
clarify decisions presented to the Court," it says, "because it 
is not considered a legal or fundamental document of the United 
States of America."

Audience: What?

That's what they said. It is not a legal document. It is not that 
thing upon which American liberty is founded. American liberty is 
founded on the Constitution of the United States, which is 
founded, of course, on the most recent civil-rights bill. Oh, 
this is fascinating.

You couldn't put a case before the Supreme Court on the grounds 
that the Declaration of Independence said so-and-so and so-and-
so. You couldn't. The Supreme Court would not accept it as an 
argument because they would tell you that the Declaration of 
Independence is not a legal or fundamental document in our 
government. But they take it out and wave it in front of you all 
the time in school and say, "See, see, see. This is what you are. 
This is what citizenship means."

As a matter of fact, it's left to persons like myself to complete 
these cycles of action like Declaration 1776. Not just the way 
you thought here. If you notice here, wearing a little coin -- 
this tiepin here. Saw this in a shop over in London and realized 
that a cycle of action had never been completed. One of our great 
revolutionary heroes said that he was going to finish the 
revolution by bringing home the head of George III.

Well, anyway, this head of George III which I'm wearing here I 
did bring home, which shows you... Actually that's a third of a 
sovereign. It's no sovereign at all now, you know, none at all.

But the Declaration of Independence says certain things. It says 
something about in-unalieni-a-e -- excuse me, unalienable... That
-- I -- I got it out! Unalienable -- that means no aliens must
have these rights. Rights to freedom and the pursuit of happiness
and things and stuff, you know.

Well, actually, what they really meant was that the politician 
has the right to say what he pleases when making campaign 
promises. That's actually what that all means. It means the 
pursuit of happiness is an office of the government. See how you 
could explain this all upside down?

In 1776, these better-minded men had no reservations on what they 
meant for the people of the country. They didn't have a lot of 
reservations. But the Constitutional Convention got together. 
They closed the doors, and having closed them with a dull snick, 
they did not even permit scraps of paper to be kept from session 
to session. The chamber was entirely cleaned out. It was in 
complete secrecy. No one was admitted to the convention.

And the only roster or notes which were ever kept were those of 
James Monroe which were published almost -- correct me if I have 
the length of years wrong -- almost fifty years after the fact. I 
don't know exactly when they were but I think James Monroe was 
either dead or almost so. And the country had been going for an 
awful long time at the time they finally published his incomplete 
notes of the convention.

We have then created a mystery. What was meant by our Founding 
Fathers? Now that is usurped by the Supreme Court as their 
mission to tell us what was meant by the men who wrote that 
convention document -- the Constitution of the United States. 
Otherwise, it's a total mystery.

No minutes of their meeting, no opinions, no expressions of 
reservation are alive today for the use of anyone for their 
interpretation. It's an interesting thing. Why would they so 
cripple and abet a future redefinition of terms?

Freedom to them meant freedom. It didn't mean freedom from. It 
didn't mean the freedom to tax. It didn't mean the freedom to 
exercise our police duties without restraint. It didn't mean some 
people will be citizens of the country and some won't be. In 
matter of fact, it says in the Constitution of the United States 
that all persons in the United States shall be citizens. And a 
citizen is somebody who has the right to vote, and he's somebody 
who has this right and that right. And because right after the 
Constitution was published and adopted people were still cloudy 
about some of these things, they tacked on ten clauses which we 
call the Bill of Rights. Ten amendments, just to classify and 
clarify what these rights were. And there we had a pretty good 
definition of what a citizenship meant.

What was a citizen entitled to? He was entitled to these first 
ten amendments. And with what glee does the government thereafter 
reinterpret, redefine these various phrases and words.

If you were to take freedom and redefine it, if you were to take 
democracy and redefine it, if you were to take taxation and 
redefine it, as the right to seize the body, if you were to take 
legislation and define it as that action taken by an executive of 
a nation...

They do this in Brazil, you know. You know how they do this in 
Brazil? It's very interesting. It used to be this way. I don't 
know, they've had a revolution or two since. But all they had to 
do was publish a law in the newspaper. The executive of the 
country dashed it off in a moment of pique or something like this 
and he just published it in one obscure newspaper up in Sao Paulo 
or something like that, and it became the law of the land. Nobody 
ever had to know what it was. They could be arrested, tried and 
hanged on that, and they never would have heard of it. That you 
could define as legislation.

You could take each and every name or word in the Constitution 
and redefine it or you could take these common catch phrases that 
are used by the politicians -- I'm sure most of them believe 
these things are simply catch phrases -- and define them quite 
adequately and arduously, and you could have yourself a complete 
slave dictatorship with the greatest of ease.

And yet people could be so reasonable with you. They say, "Well, 
you say you're a citizen. You know what a citizen is? A citizen 
is somebody who is employed on public works without pay."

Now, you take involuntary servitude. You know what involuntary 
servitude is. It means the employer has no right to change the 
government pay rates. You'd say it means involuntary. Well, 
involuntary -- that means unchanged.

Now, anybody who commands police and armed forces can define 
anything any way he pleases.

At once upon a time the citizens of the United States were armed. 
A man who didn't have a couple of spare horse pistols was not 
considered a gentleman.

You know, I knew a fellow once that was snubbed, absolutely 
snubbed, in Charleston. His dueling pistols were old, very out of 
date -- matchlock. Not the new flintlock. The matchlock, of 
course, had the interesting mechanism, you see, of going off for 
a long time before it fired, and you could duck. And the fellow 
was actually considered a coward because he maintained that these 
were good enough for his father, they were good enough for him.

Squirrel rifles, muskets, shotguns were very, very much around. 
Powder was very easy to come by. Lead was very easy to come by. 
People made their own bullets, had their own bullet molds. You 
didn't go down and buy a bunch of "catridges" at the general 
store the way they did a few decades afterwards.

When this country was founded, everybody had his bullet mold, and 
he used to go down and get a couple of pounds of lead, and if 
nobody gave him a couple of pounds of lead, and if he couldn't 
get a couple of pounds of lead, well, there was always that 
little figure outside the Peaceful Arms Inn that he could 
suddenly knock off and put in his pocket and go his way. There 
was lead around. And he could always melt up the wife's pewter. 
There were numerous things he could do. And there were parts of 
the country where the lead mines had not been sufficiently 
developed, but what you couldn't pull off the dumps, some rocks, 
and put them in the oven and have lead.

Furthermore, it may seem incredible at this time of high 
development of arms, but all powder consists of is the niter 
which accumulates underneath a pile of manure and some charcoal 
and a bit of sulfur. You can always get sulfur for somebody's 
cough, and there was sure plenty of uh... of um -- certainly was 
-- lots of charcoal. You could make gunpowder.

Today, as close as you can get to making gunpowder is taking a 
new deck of cards, scraping it carefully with a razor into little 
shavings, and you'll have gunpowder. That's right, the plastic on 
those cards shaved thin enough is an explosive. It's 
nitrocellulose -- or some such chemical compound. Maybe playing-
card companies have been restrained from doing that however.

But at one time we had a considerable number of arms. 
Furthermore, the military was armed exclusively with government 
issue, and it didn't care whether it fired or not. It couldn't 
have cared less. Somebody handed me something once that was made 
in 1835 at Springfield Armory and asked me to fire it, and I did 
a double take on the thing. I was perfectly willing to fire an 
old pistol. But I said, "Where did you say it was... Oh look! 
U.S. Heh! Dragoon pistol. Well, very interesting, very 
interesting piece. Why don't you put it up above your fireplace 
someplace. How are we going to draw the ball out of this thing 
quietly?" What was it going to do?

But the very best arms were simply comparable to the public arms. 
In other words, an armed uprising was a real danger. The city of 
Washington, DC, at this moment is built and planned to keep 
people from pouring down the streets and hitting the White House 
unannounced. Each one of the circles with their radiant streets 
is actually a field gun emplacement, and a field gun placed at 
those junctures, and crammed with a whiff of grape, would do a 
great deal to discourage petitioning of the government.

Now, they've gotten some holes dug under some of them -- 
underpasses of one kind or another. They must feel a little bit 
defeated about the whole thing, or maybe they feel terribly safe. 
Maybe the government feels awfully safe. What would justify it in 
feeling safe?

The public at large, under the Sullivan Law and other laws, is 
not really permitted to own arms. The government itself is armed 
with subcaliber machine guns and all kinds of other anticivilian 
weapons. They're called antipersonnel in the war, and in peace 
they're called anticivilian.

Large armies are maintained, not to restrain aggressors, but to 
keep populaces in place. That is the real reason armies are 
maintained, although they are usually pointed outwards with a 
State Department creating enough commotion on the outside of the 
borders of the country to make it seem reasonable.

But armies of large size have as their first mission the 
restraint of armed uprisings amongst the population. And if it 
was only foreign aggression that worried governments at large, 
there would seldom be armies because they're expensive. They cut 
down the amount of pork you can take out of the barrel. You 
could, of course, go on manufacturing tanks, weapons, guns, and 
parking them in fields and keeping a militia, but a standing army 
does have as a primary use and mission the restraint of 
populations.

But what kind of a population is it today that one would have to 
restrain? It's not a population that's any longer equipped with 
pistols and weapons, swords, and so on. And any sporting rifle 
that you happen to have is unfortunately very inadequate against 
a Garand or other types of weapons which fire a rather fast, 
heavy slug. Submachine guns are very discouraging. I admit that 
you can fire a .45 with greater accuracy and almost as fast as a 
sub-Thompson machine gun. I've done so, but at the same time it 
is a particular skill, and there aren't even very many .45s 
around.

So we see that the arms are no longer held by the public and are 
held by the government. In other words, a difference of armament 
has come into being whereas you have a heavily armed government 
and an unarmed public. In such situations, you get a 
deterioration of the pride of the individual citizen. That is all 
that deteriorates, by the way: his own pride. He recognizes "I 
can have no effect upon. I can be shot at. I cannot shoot back. 
There is no threat from me, no threat whatsoever. I am unarmed. I 
have no voice that can spit fire." And, as such, he then goes 
into apathy. He permits his liberties to be redefined for him. He 
pays his taxes without protest. He does not any longer raise a 
large voice of outrage.

The idea that an armed uprising could win today without exterior 
help in armament or without a large part of the army itself 
defecting to the public cause would be just folly. You would have 
to have a very different strata, a very different parity, or lack 
of it, in order to have liberty. Nobody is restraining the 
government from putting FBI offices all over the country which 
are armed with tear gas bombs, submachine guns, automatic 
shotguns, and other weapons which aren't even good anticivilian 
weapons. These FBI offices look like arsenals. What are they 
afraid of? -- which is really all I'm talking about. Of what are 
they afraid?

They must be scared or they wouldn't be so prepared to shoot. 
There must be somebody around hunting them. The politician must 
feel uneasy. Is it in his conscience? Is that what's uneasy?

I myself have gone the length and breadth of this world amongst 
the most savage people you ever cared to sit down and gnaw a 
human thighbone with. And nobody's ever laid a hand on me in 
anger -- outside the United States. But in the United States I 
have actually had to calm down, on about three different 
occasions, police officers. They were nervous! I had to give them 
a talk at once, straight out of their own manuals about the care 
and use of firearms.

I remember one silly cop down in Los Angeles who made me sit 
sideways from the seat of my automobile. I was parked at the 
curb, and he made me sit away from the seat clear at the extreme 
side of the right-hand side of the car so that he could reach in 
the window and pick my keys real carefully out of the lock and 
get back out of the road.

And I said, "What's the matter with you, boy?" I said, "I don't 
bite."

And he said, "Well, we'll see about that."

And he went stalking back to his own car, and he put in a radio 
message straight to headquarters. I wasn't doing anything. There 
was no reason for all this. He put a radio message back into 
police headquarters, Los Angeles City, and of course he got back, 
"Officer, United States Naval Intelligence, Special Officer Los 
Angeles Police, Lafayette R. Hubbard."

And he came back and he said, "Here's your keys, sonny. Whatya 
doin' sittin' here parked?"

And I said, "Well, is it illegal to park here?"

And he said, "No."

I said, "I was wondering whether I should go and get an ice-cream 
soda or not."

But what was he scared of? Of what was this man possibly afraid?

Another one which I've commented on before: A Federal marshal 
grabbed me off a lecture platform. There are some people right 
here I think right this minute who were present on that occasion. 
There was a hell of an uproar going on this because they wouldn't 
present their credentials. But up in the office he was waving 
around a pistol with the most wild abandon. He didn't know what 
to do with it.

You don't draw pistols against unarmed men, not unless you're 
scared. You'd have to be real scared though to draw a .38, and 
then real dumb to put it in the belly of somebody who has been 
trained in judo. You don't stand, you know, two feet back from a 
guy with a muzzle of a pistol in his stomach, not in this modern 
age. Civil populaces have become educated enough in some 
countries of the world to realize what you do with pistols that 
are held two feet away from a man's body by him. You eat him up. 
In the first place, you can move before he can pull the trigger. 
He's completely helpless. I put his pistol back in his holster. I 
told him to be good. But what was he scared of?

One day a man walked up to me, and grabbed me by the shoulder and 
told me I was under arrest. I said, "For what?"

He said, "Never mind that. You're under arrest."

I said, "For what?"

And he started to get real mad and real upset, and I finally made 
him tell me for what I was under arrest. It was the wrong man. 
But, boy, that fellow was uneasy. He was nervous.

Noting this condition many years ago in studying the subject of 
Dianetics, Scientology -- putting them together, working with 
them -- I thought it might be an awfully good thing to become a 
member of a police force for a little while to find out what they 
were scared of. And I did -- became a Special Officer in the Los 
Angeles Police, as I just mentioned. I wanted to find where these 
vicious criminals were that were making them so frightened.

I had a beat down on South Main Street. They didn't know who I 
was. I was careful to talk colloquially -- like I do in lectures. 
And they were very friendly with me because I was something they 
could understand -- a policeman.

But down on South Main Street amongst the gyps, grifts, and the 
dopes, the hopheads, the tea eaters and the rest of them -- the 
lowest strata of humanity that comes across from the lowest 
strata of Mexico to mingle with the lowest strata of Los 
Angeles... And boy, that's low! Los Angeles is the only city in 
the world that deserves psychiatrists.

Amongst these people I thought I would find my answer. I was in 
bars and dens and things where I didn't know man could go that 
far south. I only had one fellow ever give me any real trouble, 
and that was a Mexican who was awfully drunk after having been 
high on marijuana. And he kept coming alongside of me and 
grabbing my gun out of its holster because he wanted to shoot his 
best friend.

In view of the fact that the gun was unloaded (never bothered 
with a loaded gun -- the cartridges are heavy), I kept taking it 
away from him and putting it back in the holster and snapping it 
down -- explaining to him that that wasn't what you did with 
friends. But he couldn't understand this, and I finally sat him 
down over in the corner of the cafe. He grabbed once too often, 
when I had my back to him after he hadn't bothered me for half an 
hour, and I gave him a push, and he knocked down a couple of 
tables.

And I apologized to the proprietor, and took him over and sat him 
down back of a table and poured him a glass of warm water filled 
with salt. And I told him that was the best Scotch and soda he 
ever drank, and it was on me. Well, after he had gotten rid of 
it...

He came around, my next time past that place, and he told me that 
he had decided something. And I asked him what he had decided, 
and he said he had decided that one should not shoot his friends. 
This was a wonderful thing.

Now, Los Angeles has the lowest strata there is. That was the 
only man that ever gave me trouble, and he actually didn't have 
any real malice in his heart at all. It was just sort of a sport 
he was engaged in.

Now, I've been down amongst one of the finest bodies of police 
you have ever cared to meet -- the Federales. They're pretty 
tough, and they occasionally do take more away from you than 
seems quite just. They patrol the northern border there -- 
they're to be found a little bit into Mexico -- and when they go 
off the payroll they have to get their pay where they can find it 
as they have done in a revolution or two of past days. But these 
are fine men. And yet the criminals which they handle are really 
pretty easy to handle. Those men are real tough, and they really 
never have to be tough.

Where are all these tough human beings?

I admit that some man occasionally will become afraid and will 
become totally gripped by the belief that there is menace in 
every fellow man. I admit that a human being can become so 
aberrated as to constitute a menace to the bulk of the society, 
and that in such a case it is necessary to reacquaint him with 
society. But I will not admit that there is a naturally bad, evil 
man on earth.

It's a very amazing thing that the only men I have found in this 
society or any society who were dangerous were cops. And they 
have uniformly been afraid -- they're nervous.

There are good cops. There are many, many good cops. There are 
cops who are not afraid. There are cops who are taking life 
easily. But I haven't met very many of them. The percentage I 
have met were by and large fellows who sat around and worried 
about what weight of brass knuckle they should sew into their new 
pair of brass-mounted gloves; cops who were upset because a 
recent regulation made it possible that the lead in their billy 
would be detected. I've seen cops who were nervous and cops who 
were afraid, and I've seen people who governed cops and handled 
cops and ordered cops around who were afraid. But I don't meet 
many anyplace else, even amongst criminals and cannibals.

A fellow comes out of a jail. He'll always tell, "You know, I 
don't understand why any of those men are in jail. That's the 
finest crowd of men in that jail you ever met. Swear by any one 
of 'em. Give 'em my last dollar, and I know I'd get it back."

I was with a bunch of criminals one time as a ranger, a ranger up 
in Montana when I was a kid. Rangers have to take over crews of 
tramps and so forth, sometimes, in order to fight forest fires. 
You suddenly find yourself with numerous fellows who have 
recently left Joliet without being properly discharged. You find 
yourself with fires occasionally set by tramps who need a job. 
You find all sorts of interesting complications, but very little 
viciousness. And there was a fellow there who kept telling me 
that he was on the run because he had taken a knife to a fellow 
and stabbed him in the belly. He kept telling me that this was 
why he was on the run. And he told me often enough until I 
finally realized that he was real worried about it. He wasn't 
running because he was wanted. He was running because he'd hurt 
somebody.

Now, these criminals and bums did a pretty good job fighting 
fire. Criminals can't work. That's mainly what's wrong with them, 
and you have to work real hard with criminals to get them to do 
work at all. However, one of them got his boots practically 
burned off his feet, so I loaned him a pair of boots that I had, 
an extra pair of boots. He was on another crew by the time I left 
the area, and I went back to Helena. And when I got back to 
Helena, I said to myself, "Well, I'll never see those boots 
again." This fellow stole a car and drove two hundred miles, and 
he returned me my boots. And then he drove the car back and left 
it parked and went his way. They have strange ways of transacting 
business in life, but they are seldom scared.

They are scared of police, however. Just look that over for a 
minute. Here you have a bunch of people who are scared, so they 
go and get themselves a job and then talk their superior into 
believing that they have to be armed to the teeth, with steel 
teeth. And then you have a bunch of fellows who are scared of 
authority and orders -- get that, they're only really scared of 
orders. They're really only afraid because they can't take 
orders. Because orders have gotten them into too much trouble, 
and they fly back from them. And you get these two elements 
opposed, and you get newspaper stories, you get crime, you get 
all of the histories that you read in the FBI files, and you get 
this problem called criminality.

I don't know what would happen if you suddenly removed all the 
police. I don't know really what would happen. I don't know what 
would happen to police if you suddenly removed all the criminals, 
but I can guess. They would start, as they are doing today, 
attacking the common citizen. They evidently rarely arrest the 
criminal today. They will arrest, however, the honest citizen.

If you read of some honest citizen being shot, you'll read in the 
next paragraph how the police are investigating him. "Minister 
shot, the police are investigating his past." Not a word said 
about where the fellow went that shot him or whether the police 
were onto them or not.

Watch that, because it is a symptom of police closing terminals 
with the criminals. It's the deterioration of the game called 
cops and robbers. Television is televising it out of sight. When 
the cops and robber game is gone, then there will be no other 
plot that anybody can film for television. They've already worn 
out the cowboy in the white hat and the cowboy in the black hat. 
That's gone. I mean nobody will look at that anymore. They just 
say, "Well, I know how that's going to turn out. The fellow in 
the white hat's gonna win." They've been conditioned to believing 
this, so it's a no-game condition. It's against the law to have 
the fellow in the black hat win in those cowboy pictures, and 
they've ruined the game.

All right. It's against the law to have the criminal win in the 
crime pictures, and so, of course, that game will go by the 
boards too -- even though the criminal has won out in the 
society.

The criminal might be walking around tomorrow, wearing a gun, in 
control of all those submachine guns, tear-gas bombs, automatic 
shotguns, calling himself a cop. And who would know the 
difference if all the words had been carefully redefined as to 
what was liberty, what was freedom, what were civil rights.

Cops and criminals have a tendency to swap valences, close 
terminals. When they do that thoroughly, you have the beginnings 
of a slave state.

A state caves in along the bridge that connects it with its lower 
elements. That bridge is police. The police close terminals with 
the criminals and then turn on the citizen. And only the police 
or people who are so turning would be interested in redefining 
the words of the Constitution of the United States. Only those 
people would be interested in redefining those words, because the 
rest of the people wouldn't be that afraid.

When you have to reduce liberty, it means you must be scared. 
When a man is afraid, he doesn't perceive, so it almost always 
happens that that of which one is afraid doesn't exist.

Definition: Fear is a state of imperception; fear is an 
unwillingness to confront.

If one cannot confront, he cannot become aware of. So, if one is 
unwilling to confront, then he doesn't know what he is 
confronting, and he doesn't see what is in front of him, and he 
can dream up this mirage called "the viciousness of man." He can 
dream up this big production about "the government must be all-
powerful so as to keep these people in their place." He even goes 
as far as to make emplacements and wide streets so that populaces 
petitioning the government with some velocity can be whiffed a 
bit by grape. Do you see that?

Those are symptoms of terror. It is true that a mob can be talked 
to by a man who is afraid and can be talked into believing that 
there's something awfully bad over there, that they have no 
havingness of, and can be momentarily turned in that direction 
and made to run amok. But I don't notice many sheriffs standing 
there very long with shotguns to stop them. Occasionally we hear 
of heroic stands where lynchings have been prevented, or some 
such thing, by a lone lawman. But usually it's been my experience 
that he was out having a drink while it all went on and the jail 
was knocked down and the lynching was done. While the riot was in 
progress, there never could have been less police.

Of course, it's usually unfortunate that the police do get there, 
usually unfortunate that they do -- in the first place, when they 
arrested the guy. What have they got him in a cage for? Are men 
supposed to be kept in cages? Well, evidently police think so.

Well, they must be very imperceptive, because if they go down to 
the zoo and look, they won't find any men in cages down at the 
zoo, and yet they think men should be kept in cages. They think 
that's what you're supposed to do with men. And I think that's 
rather dull. I don't think anybody's ever taught them any 
different. Nobody's ever walked up to them and said, "Hey, do you 
know something? You keep wild animals in cages, and you don't put 
men in cages. They don't belong in cages."

And I bet an awful lot of cops would look at you and say, "We 
don't put men in cages. We put 'em in jail. It's different."

I don't know how this would be different, however, since I have 
never known a criminal to be bettered by being put in jail, and I 
have known many to be worsened. They drop down below apathy by 
being put in jail, and their criminal tendencies are then totally 
in control of them.

There hardly exists such a thing as a one-time prisoner. They're 
repeaters -- that is, in the ranks of criminals.

So the society at large could be said to exist in pretty good 
shape, going its way, doing the best that it can, floundering 
along into this rut hole and out of that one, helping their 
fellow man and being helped -- except for two or three odd 
elements in it.

One of those elements is the insane. We can do so much about this 
particular one that there's hardly any use to talk about it. What 
we lack is facilities. If you were to process people who were 
insane in the society -- if you were to take them -- you would 
find it was absolutely vital that you sever their immediate 
connections with the society for a period of time, because the 
society is what is bothering them. The society is bothering them. 
You must keep them unbothered for a little while, and in addition 
to that, you must keep them in a state where they cannot injure 
themselves for a while until you can set them up straight.

And then you must be able to take your own sweet time about 
processing them, because their span of attention is so 
instantaneous, so momentary, that to grip it for three or four 
minutes at a brace is rather -- it's rather big; that's rather 
something. To get an insane person to give you his undivided 
attention for thirty seconds is not rare, but for him to give you 
sane attention for about four minutes -- well, it's practically 
impossible. And yet an auditor auditing them in any other place 
than a proper institution would discover that he was spending 
four hours of the five hours of processing doing nothing but 
trying to keep the guy quiet so the neighbors wouldn't be 
bothered, and that doesn't have anything to do with processing 
him at all.

You could do various things with a criminal. One of the things is 
to give him some rest. Give him some rest, give him some food, 
let him walk around, cut him away from the things that are 
worrying him a little bit. And a great many people with that 
treatment all by themselves would recover. Others would recover 
if you simply walked them into exhaustion so they could then 
sleep. Others would recover if you simply had an area that was 
very quiet, that they could go and sit down in.

It's quite amazing. If you didn't bother them with interviews and 
didn't bother them with this, that and the other thing, how many 
would snap back to battery -- completely apart from any 
processing.

People, for instance, with electric shocks get out of 
institutions three weeks later than people who are [not] given 
electric shocks, on an average throughout the country. In other 
words, his incarceration is increased by three weeks by reason of 
having been given an electric shock. That is what you read into 
that figure. In other words, an electric shock deters his getting 
well.

All right. There are other things you can do, tremendous numbers 
of things you can do. If you had a motionless object floating in 
the air in some room, the criminal could go in and look at it for 
while. You'd find something odd happening. He'd just look at the 
stillness until he could accept that piece of stillness, and by 
the time he could actually go in that room and stay in that room 
quietly for a while, he would be well on his way.

In other words, there are ways of treating insanity which don't 
even require an auditor, but require an auditor's careful 
supervision: An auditor who knows enough not to get as desperate 
as they are. An auditor who knows that it is exactly the opposite 
-- the insaner they get, why, the quieter and easier you get. Not 
the more frantic you get.

But this problem is not actually a tremendous problem in the 
society. It's being sold as one for the benefit of appropriation. 
I don't know how much an insane person is worth to the medicos 
and the rest of them that fatten on this particular line, but 
it's a real nice sum of money. That's why they give them electric 
shocks and extend them I guess.

But the amount of money one insane person costs in terms of 
appropriation -- state, county, city and Federal -- is not 
available but... I wouldn't even be able to guess at what the 
thing is, but it's a very high figure. It'd astonish you. You'd 
say, "If I had that much, I could take it easy and drive nothing 
but a Cadillac."

So, where do we have much of a problem? Well, we have a problem 
in a group of people who are redefining insanity. Insanity is 
becoming a new thing all the time. Insanity is a new group of 
words. There's schizophrenicmelancholia. And that's a new 
condition. It means a man who doesn't like to sit at a desk, or 
something.

You watch psychiatric classification and you'll find that 
insanity is apparently increasing all over the country, until you 
examine the increase of symptom classification. And when you go 
and look at this new list of symptoms and classifications of 
insanity, you'll find that this huge array is growing and getting 
huger continually.

And so the village idiot who used to be able to sit quietly on 
the curb and whittle or something; the fellow who would go into a 
sort of a trance every fall and go around throwing leaves on his 
head and playing like they were gay nymphs out in the forest or 
something; the fellow in the spring gets out on the desert in a 
full moon and dances like a rabbit, something like that (hardly 
anybody hasn't, see) -- but these now become insane 
classifications.

And people can say to the wife, you know, "You know uh... have 
you ever taken this up with George? Uh... have you ever watched 
that? You know it's very, very unusual. You mean he actually does 
come home and he isn't cross with the children? That's very 
abnormal." That's called "non-crossis with the kinder." It's... 
So they get him a psychiatrist and an institutionalization. This 
is the way they do it.

The number of insane in the country are continually increasing, 
then, according to the statistics. But the statistics are, of 
course, totally obedient to the number of classifications and 
this opinion: What is insane? What is insane?

Now, I read the other day a psychiatrist testified in court. If a 
psychiatrist has a patient, you know, he can now give whatever 
the patient told him as testimony in court to get the patient 
convicted. Did you know that?

Audience: No.

Yes, that was passed recently as a Federal law -- that the court 
can use as evidence anything that has been told to a psychiatrist 
in confidence by a patient. So they convict them this way.

And a young fellow who was quite mad was trying to get off of a 
criminal charge by pleading insanity, the psychiatrist said, 
because the patient had admitted to him that he was feigning 
insanity. It's the most interesting case I've read in a very long 
time, since I wouldn't put any stock in anybody's statement who 
was in the condition this person was in.

So this person wasn't insane merely because it suited the court, 
but he really was insane. He sat in the witness box batting a 
baseball all the time -- was still wound up in a baseball game 
someplace, even when he was convicted.

But the psychiatrist had had him as a patient, came into court, 
testified that the patient had once said that, and that of course 
put him on a criminal count. That was very interesting.

Conversely, they say uniformly, down here in the District, that 
the only mad people that appear at the sanity hearings are the 
psychiatrists. The psychiatrists always look and act crazier than 
the patients. You hear jurors say this. I mean this is their 
considered opinion. And the psychiatrist has become almost 
uniformly a legal entity, under recent legislation and custom. He 
is a legal entity. You do not find him today very far separated 
from the courts and law. You find very few psychiatrists in 
attendance in institutions, very few.

They're always trying to train some psychiatrists, and then the 
psychiatrist will take over as the county psychiatrist, which is 
a legal entity.

The psychiatrist is closing terminals very rapidly with the 
police. So we have that problem as a problem which is next door 
to the criminal problem, and even its legal practitioner is, of 
course, sort of a cop today.

All right. Now we take, then, these two classes -- the criminal 
and the insane -- and we have compared with those, then, the 
psychiatrist and the police.

And the psychiatrist is very nervous about insane people. There 
was a fellow one time...

It would amuse you, by the way: there's a huge organization in 
this country that watches our programs and everything like a 
hawk. And they even get out their literature, and so forth, now 
in exact format, but very fancy. They must pay thousands of 
dollars to get print jobs that we pay hundreds for. They fancy it 
up, you know. They assign exactly the right type and so forth. 
For instance, they now call their meetings "congresses," and they 
have "first day," "second day," "third day" and "fourth day." 
They have "group seminars." Yes, fantastic business.

And now they've even gone so far as to hire a group 
psychotherapist to take over the sick companies, and so forth. 
They can't have what we really have, you understand. They can 
only have as much of what we have as they can understand, which 
is a program form.

This is a... It's quite amazing. The speed with which they send 
us all their literature, too, is quite amusing to us. It's almost 
as if they're asking us for our approval. Two or three times I 
have been tempted to write on one of these programs or releases 
which they put out -- they're a tremendous organization; they're 
knee-deep in Wall Street -- and I have been tempted to write on 
them, "That's fine. Ron."

But this organization falls off in the direction of trying to get 
it all down to being crazier, trying to get it all down to being 
a little nuttier, trying to get the "Now businesses go crazy." 
This is the new idea they've got. And they're getting 
psychiatrists for businesses. Don't you see?

This is quite amazing. It's a trend of the society that we see 
here, an amazing trend. But it is actually being put off on the 
average person that the performance of the policeman and the 
psychiatrist versus the criminal and the insane, form human 
behavior. And each one of these is so peculiar and particular in 
itself as a behavior pattern, that these games -- which are 
becoming really just one game now: the criminal against the 
honest citizen.

You see, you could get all four of these -- the police, the 
psychiatrist, the insane and the criminal -- you could say, 
"Well, that's fine, they're all wound up." And now they convince 
the legislator that this is the behavior of the average citizen, 
and you would then get, really, the criminal -- which would now 
include the legislator too -- and this group against the honest 
and general public, you see.

Here we've taken a peculiar set of manifestations -- insane 
manifestations, criminal manifestations, hate, fear; 
manifestations which cannot perceive. They cannot look at their 
fellow man. They cannot tell what their fellow man is like. And 
we're taking their opinion as the opinion of the human race and 
advertising it as such. And they are men who are afraid, and they 
are men who cannot see, and we notice that under their rule the 
problems of insanity and criminality increase continually. We're 
getting greater and greater problem here. We're getting more and 
more. So obviously, the sickness in the society, this bit of a 
cancer that is developing, is not getting less, it is getting 
greater. And it's getting greater, obviously, only because nobody 
out there has an answer to it.

This is mirrored in the newspapers. We see this crime, and the 
insane rape attacks and insane attacks by police on some honest 
citizen which resulted in a fight, or something of the sort, then 
represented as a terrible gun battle or something.

I remember right down here one time on 16th Street, a military 
officer's son was told to stop by the police. And it was a rainy 
night. He evidently didn't want to put on his brakes very fast, 
and the cops just grabbed a gun, shot him in the back and killed 
him dead. And his car then slithered over and ran into a lamppost 
with a dead body in it. And there was no criminal activity of any 
kind. But I happened to be on newspapers here in Washington at 
the time; I know what happened there.

And they turned in a report of a two-mile chase. And the 
witnesses were quite to the contrary, but nobody would listen to 
them, rather hurriedly, because this was a criminal action on the 
part of police. They had shot and killed an honest citizen.

We never hear of them doing that, do we? We always hear of them 
shooting and killing, or shooting and arresting criminals, don't 
we? And yet by the law of averages, they must, very often, pick 
on an honest citizen; very often. Well, we never hear of this, so 
we can assume, then, that it is carefully never advertised.

What is the state of crime? What is the state of insanity? What 
is the state of the society as a whole? The average citizen would 
not be able to answer these questions. And more and more, through 
what he is taught in the newspapers and on television and so 
forth, his opinion of his fellow man has deteriorated.

His fellow man, according to Freud, is a sexual pervert. If the 
fellow is artistic, it's because he's had continual sexual 
relations with his mother or something. That's the obvious 
consequence to being artistic, you see. It's just a downgrade -- 
a downgrade of the society as a whole -- advertised by people 
who, through their fear alone, advertise that they cannot 
perceive. So they wouldn't know what the society is like. They 
wouldn't understand the society because they'd have to look at it 
first. And they don't look at the society, and so they believe 
that criminality and insanity bring about the absolute necessity 
to create a police state to redefine liberties to keep the 
ordinary citizen under careful wraps, because he's liable to 
explode at any moment and tear them to pieces.

Now, the average citizen, finally learning this may someday do so 
-- but only when he has totally become criminal and totally 
insane. And that isn't likely to happen, because we're here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]





FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 13 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

===============================================

HOPE

A lecture given on 29 November 1956


[Start of Lecture]

Thank you. Thank you.

Well, it does seem that another Thursday night has come around 
and again, unfortunately, I don't have anything to talk to you 
about. But I'll try to think of something as we go along. And I 
think it'd be very good if I gave you one talk about nothing much 
-- sort of a third-dynamic sort of talk -- and then I talk to you 
about the latest developments in processing in the last hour. You 
might like to hear about that. So I'll talk now about nothing 
much.

And speaking of Eisenhower...

The facts of the case today in the world give us a very new 
perspective on Scientology. Scientology has taken a very new 
role. It was the role it always had previously, but many people 
did not see enough emergency or need for anything to take that 
role and so perhaps they did not view this role to the degree 
that they might have. But as I say, the role has always been 
there.

In Science of Survival you read of a world without war, without 
crime, without insanity. That's very interesting. Huh! That was 
our hope, but something new has been added, and that is a 
governmental atomic program which has as its end product a world 
without people. And this is something which then changes our view 
and changes our perspective. I don't like to back up the hearse
-- I leave that to the insurance business. They do very, very
well at that.

I recommended to an insurance man one time... You know he comes 
in and he says to the widow, "Now supposing" -- the to-be widow, 
you see -- "supposing your husband died. There you would be with 
the house payments, all of the children to support and no job, 
and so on. Well now, here's a policy. Sign on the dotted line." 
This was his favorite method of selling, you see. And he'd go 
around to some fellow and, "Supposing your wife died. There you'd 
have all these children left in your hands and all the expenses 
of the funeral and so forth, and sign on the dotted line."

So, I was in his office one day, and I heard him back up the 
hearse to one customer too many as far as I was concerned. So I 
said, "Say, you know, why don't you hire one of these old horse-
drawn hearses and just drive around town with your insurance 
address painted on the side of it?"

And he sat there for a long time and finally he said, "No," he 
said, "I don't think I'll do that." He said, "It would be too 
flashy."

So that almost anything I say now, no matter how dreary, would, 
in essence, be much too flashy compared to the possible future of 
the human race.

One has to be willing to confront a great many things in life in 
order to live it, and as he is willing to confront so he is then 
willing to cope. If he can confront something, he can cope with 
it. If he's unwilling, or if he finds it impossible to confront 
something, why, then he will not cope with it.

And man today is in a state of having developed something it 
cannot confront: atomic fission. It can't confront it. You go 
into a theater, they show the motion pictures of Bikini or 
something of the sort, and you will find people toward the rear 
will sneak out of their seats and will walk out into the lobby. 
You find other people will duck their heads. Interesting 
phenomenon.

I had to study this phenomenon because I wanted to know whether 
or not it'd do any good to release a manual on civil defense. And 
we found out that there was no point in it. Nobody would have 
read it. In other words, at that time we were interested mainly 
in the dissemination of Scientology, and we wished civil defense 
to front for us a little bit on some of the things we could do. 
(That was only two or three years ago.) But we did not publish 
the manual.

The manual was a very factual manual of material taken out of the 
technologies used by military governments in war-torn areas. A 
very realistic view of the situation. It isn't all going to be 
the way they say it's going to be in the civil-defense (quote) 
"manuals" (unquote) which are issued by the government. These 
civil-defense manuals of today start this way, "You will have to 
get used to the idea that after the dropping of an atomic bomb, 
you will be on your own. There will be nobody to help you."

Well then, who's -- what they sitting there for? What is this 
thing? Oh, I get it. It's some sort of a racket by which you can 
collect some salary from the government before the bombs go off. 
Must be, because their manuals are...

Now, you think I'm just kidding you now, drawing a longbow. I've 
had people tell me many times that they thought I was drawing a 
longbow and being very exaggerated or something of the sort.

One chap who went over to Ireland told me this. And he said, "You 
know... you know, all through my HCA Course I thought you were 
exaggerating things a little bit. But you know the other day I 
looked up this fellow Wundt." And he said, "That's impossible, 
but it's true!" He said, "I didn't think such a man existed. I 
just thought that was one of your jokes." Mr. Wundt did invent 
animal physical psychology in 1879 in Leipzig, Germany, and threw 
away all earlier psychologies. And this HCA student thought this 
was just my way of saying that it was kind of bad and we ought to 
do something about it.

So when I'm saying that we laid aside the civil-defense program 
or when I say the civil-defense program of the United States is 
not realistic, I'm actually not telling you a joke. And when I 
tell you that they start their civil-defense manuals by saying 
"This is all very well up to the moment a bomb is dropped, but 
after that you're on your own, 'cause nobody's going to help 
you." And if this is the basic, primary statement of civil 
defense, it says at once that there isn't any. Because civil 
defense would be the prevention of ultimate disaster to a civil 
populace by reason of a bomb having dropped. This would be the 
only reason you'd have civil defense, you see? So if they say 
there's nobody going to help you, they say they aren't even 
there.

Well, I read in this morning's paper about a multibillion-dollar 
program. It was the most beautiful headline I ever saw. It 
just... boy, was it meaningful! I said, "Man, somebody's got on 
the ball here. Somebody's going to get in and pitch. Somebody's 
right there." A multibillion-dollar program proposed by Icky... 
Ike, pardon me. I gave him the Russian pronunciation. And he says 
he's going to have shelters. They're going to have civil-defense 
shelters built all over the country, and they've lately been 
taking all sorts of surveys amongst industrialists to find out if 
they had enough concrete and iron and reinforcing materials, and 
so on, to build these shelters. And Icky -- Ike is going to ask 
the Congress for a multibillion-dollar bill or appropriation in 
order to start this air-raid program.

And I thought it was the most wonderful thing. And I read down 
the line: "Next year," it said, "only a few million dollars would 
be expended, more or less piloting the project. Just how long it 
would take this project to get under way, of course, is a matter 
for future decision. But many government experts believe this, 
and many government experts believe that..." An expert in what? 
What are these experts?

Well, they must be experts in being unaware, because if anybody 
is going to start on a civil-defense-shelter program that is only 
going to spend a few million dollars next year to find out how to 
build them, these boys aren't living in the world of today.

I'm not saying the atomic war is going to happen at all. But I'm 
saying that from a government viewpoint to leave a target wide 
open is to invite an attack. At no time when you're boxing do you 
ever -- particularly in championship fights  -- drop your gloves 
to your sides and say, "You see, I can't hit back. Got a broken 
arm," you know? At that moment your opponent says, "No kidding?" 
Pow! See?

So, to leave a country wide open with no planning, no adequate 
status for the populace if there is an enemy attack, is to ask 
the enemy to make an attack. The least they could do is to 
advertise the selection of another city as a second capital, a 
second command post. Instead of that they're burrowing into the 
West Virginia hills. There's a government department here and a 
government department there.

I was out on a long trail one day, and I came to a, you know, 
sort of dead end. And beyond that there were a couple of foxholes 
and so forth. And it said, "Defense Area." I thought this is an 
interesting place to be until I realized that I was probably 
looking at a new government department. They're being scattered 
down the length and breadth of the Appalachians and probably up 
and down the Rockies. You will see, undoubtedly, within a few 
months, some senator present a bill to get an emergency Senate, 
possibly in the Senate and House of Representatives. And he will 
propose that it be stashed away in Vermont or someplace.

This government is not acting to provide itself with a second 
command post. It is dispersing. And we have enough trouble in 
Scientology trying to keep communication up between downtown and 
the Distribution Center out in Silver Spring to realize quite 
adequately that if you were to put the White House someplace 
around West Virginia... There's two or three towns down there 
that are very, very good places for the White House. One of them 
is Harlan County. Harlan County. That's a very good place -- they 
shoot everybody.

And you have the White House there and the State Department is 
stashed up around Pittsburgh someplace, and then the 
communications office of the War Department is down in Georgia, 
and so on.

This will then be a government? Huh-huh! No, indeed. Couldn't 
possibly. There isn't enough communication centralization there 
in order to maintain its command of any given situation.

Give you an example: Right this moment, a secretary of state is 
in Key West. His second-in-command is in New York. There is an 
assistant to the assistant to the assistant down here, Herbert 
Hoover, Jr., who is holding the fort in Washington. And British 
and French representatives have for some days been trying to get 
in touch with the State Department in order to discuss some 
solution to the strained relations. And they can't find anybody 
anyplace.

The ambassador goes up to New York, but that fellow up there 
doesn't have any real authority. So... The ambassador hasn't got 
time to go to Key West so he comes into Washington thinking he'll 
talk to the president himself, but the president is in Georgia.

This situation just occurred. The premier of Australia was just, 
within the last twenty-four hours, very grossly insulted by not 
being able to talk to the president and was forced to talk to a 
couple of clerks down here. And he went off in a huff, believe 
me.

Now, there is an example of trying to do business on a dispersed 
basis. It's very difficult to do so -- extremely difficult.

Now, it would be difficult enough if you were doing business on a 
dispersed basis in some fairly, only-half-caved-in organization 
such as our own. See, we're eight times as good as any other 
human organization, and we're just shot to hell. And you get 
downstairs to a no-organization thing like the government and how 
is it going to even vaguely govern if it's dispersed all over the 
country?

In the first place, an atomic attack would then invite the 
government to do a dispersal and cease to be the government, 
instead of having a centralized command post somewhere else in 
the country, or two or three of such.

In other words, that's an invitation to attack.

They say, "Well look, all we have to do is knock out Washington 
and we will then be in, because the government will be so 
dispersed from that point there on that they will not be able to 
marshal adequate defense." That's an interesting invitation.

But there's no city in the United States equipped with air-raid 
shelters. There's no city in the United States with food or 
medical supplies outside its city boundaries. There's no city in 
the United States which has sufficient hospital supplies to care 
for one-tenth of its population if they were all hit at the same 
time.

And if the United States were to be hit in the dead of winter, 50 
percent of its populace would die, not of radiation but exposure. 
This is a fascinating view.

A military-government officer trained in World War II looks at 
this, and he says, "What children are playing here? They must be 
kids!" But it isn't a matter of that at all. It's a matter of an 
inability to confront the magnitude of disaster posed by an 
atomic weapon. They can't confront that magnitude of disaster, so 
they are not aware of it, and they don't do anything about it at 
all.

I'll tell you a juicy little item that just appeared in the 
papers here about three days ago. The Strategic Air Command -- 
about which we have seen great, colossal, technicolor pictures; 
which has been played up as this terrific thing that is going to 
drop bombs on the enemy -- is right there: "Boy, we'll retaliate! 
We'll show them if they drop bombs on us! That's the way we're 
defending the country. We'll threaten to blow them up." Of 
course, they're dealing with a suicidal enemy, and his entire 
intention would be to get blown up. But they disregard that.

Do you know that the Strategic Air Command has just within the 
last three days flown its first mission? It was in the papers the 
other day. B-52s can now fly sixteen thousand miles. Two B-52 
planes have just flown sixteen thousand miles. It is not said how 
often they were refueled in the air, but they have just flown 
these missions.

Oh, no! I don't know what censor let this get through, but some 
War Department censor was certainly -- or air-force censor -- was 
certainly sitting there with black goggles on. He's just said 
that although we have all these B-52s, we have no guarantee at 
all that they can take off from the United States and land in 
Russia without refueling.

During an atomic war, I can imagine... I can imagine how easy 
this is, you see: You just send one of the B-52s out to the 
middle of the Atlantic with a cargo of fuel; and then you send 
another one three-quarters of the way to Russia with another 
cargo of fuel, and it waits there, you see. And then another B-52 
gets over Moscow with a cargo of fuel, and it waits there. And 
then the B-52 carrying the bomb flies to the first one, refuels; 
second one, refuels; third one, refuels... And I'm sure they 
would consider this a practical plan, although they haven't 
considered how those three first B-52s ever get home.

Now, that is the most marvelous view you ever saw. And yet that 
is in a calm air-force despatch. It reads very nicely, and 
they're so proud that a B-52 has finally flown the Atlantic and 
come home again only being refueled -- well, it didn't want to 
say how many times. It was at least twice. Now, there is defense.

And I don't know who is supposed to be aware of these things, but 
has it ever occurred to you that maybe there's nobody supposed to 
be aware of them? Maybe this level of awareness is at a level 
that nobody notices it except people who are well schooled into 
being aware. And that would only leave us guys. Well, that's a 
dismal view! I'm no hero. I expended all my heroism in the last 
war. Expended all of it -- trying to confront paymasters, and so 
forth. I mean...

Look-a-here, this is an interesting thing. We people in Dianetics 
and Scientology are aware of being aware and aware of the 
component parts of awareness. Well, this follows -- it follows 
both ways: if you make somebody aware, then you can also make him 
confront. Although he might be very unhappy as he runs halfway 
through the engram, do you know that he's smarter and better off 
run halfway through birth and left, than he was not to run it at 
all? Now, that is a fantastic fact but is a matter of the most 
solemn and careful tests -- that these vicious things called 
engrams, as hard as they can bite...

You run a fellow halfway through an automobile accident. He got 
through this automobile accident three months ago, and he's still 
gimping around, sort of crippled up. And you say, "Well, it's 
quite obvious that he's still stuck in that automobile accident. 
He has a mental image picture of it, and he's gotten into it, and 
somehow or other it's restimulated." But he's not aware of it, is 
he? Well, the funny part of it is, he gets better if an auditor 
sits down and says, "All right, start at the beginning of the 
accident," and runs him halfway through, up to the moment of the 
crash, pats him on the head and walks off.

Now, that is the subject of the most exacting testing I ever want 
to supervise. I hate to sit down and test and test and test, and 
find that a fact I won't believe persists in confronting me. You 
see, originally I misunderstood this. I thought that the fellow 
had to dive into an engram and go on through the engram and would 
be worse for a little while that he was going through the 
engramic experience, and would then get better. But this did not 
prove to be the case on these tests.

The way these tests were given might amuse you. See, I had to 
find in the first place some auditors that were sadistic enough 
and some preclears that were masochistic enough in order to 
conduct this series of experiments. An auditor's impulses are to 
make somebody better, and these auditors were being told and 
coached to make somebody much worse. And they firmly believed 
that they would be making somebody much worse if they conducted 
this experiment.

The preclear was to be given -- he was to be seated at a desk, 
and he was to be given one of these short-form Otis tests. And he 
was to finish this test. And then the auditor was to run him 
halfway through any rough, vicious engram that the auditor could 
find and park him -- break the Auditor's Code -- and shove the 
second test under his nose and make him do it. Now, that was the 
procedure. And that was done very, very arduously.

I finally found auditors that were sadistic enough and preclears 
that were masochistic enough in order to conduct this experiment. 
And having done so, I could not believe the results, and had to 
run the experiment all over again. And I wouldn't believe those 
results, and ran the experiment all over again. Because it said 
that somebody, plunged into an engram and abandoned, was better 
off than somebody who wasn't plunged into one. But it also said 
that somebody who was plunged into one, and it was run out, 
became much, much, much better. Don't you see? But the bettering 
process began at the moment I didn't think it would: halfway 
through the roughest part of the engram and dropped. And people 
got better.

That experiment was run five years ago. And it's only been 
recently that I've been able to patch together what happened. 
Well, what happened was that if you get somebody to confront 
something, he becomes aware of it. And a person who is aware of 
it is better off than the person who had it but wasn't aware of 
it. Don't you see? It is strictly a problem in awareness.

And intelligence itself is a problem of awareness, and that's all 
there is to it.

This isn't necessarily true that a person gets smarter because 
he's given a dreadful experience, don't you see? That's 
different. He's smarter if he's given a dreadful experience and 
then it is attacked by Dianetic or Scientology techniques. Then 
he gets better. But because he finds out that he can confront 
such an experience secondhand through an engram, he discovers, at 
the same time, he needn't be quite so afraid of such experiences 
and so he is willing to be more aware. And that is his IQ. That, 
to a large extent, is his profile, although other factors enter 
into a profile.

All right. Here, then, we are confronted ourselves with this 
oddity that nobody is willing to look at the state of the world 
today. And it would be a very different thing for me in 1850 -- 
if this were 1850 right now here in Washington -- and I were 
telling you, "The world is going to the dogs. It is going to the 
devil. Ladies and gentlemen, it cannot possibly survive."

Well, you could listen to that. You say, "The man is an 
alarmist," see. "Nothing to that." It's easy.

But in 1950 it was not yet even visible to me that the cycle had 
already been entered. I already knew something was a bit awry and 
probably should be readjusted, but what else was discoverable?

Well, in 1956, we take a look around and we find that there was a 
side effect going on all during these years resulting from the 
explosion (test explosion only, as well as the wartime explosion) 
of atomic-fission weapons which was putting into the atmosphere 
unknown concentrations of deadly radiation.

Now, they are guessing when they say how much radiation a person 
can stand. They do not know this fact. They haven't any clue. 
They do not know this.

Modern science, as rough as it sometimes is, does not have the 
liberty of properly exposing people to this sort of thing and 
then observing them before and after. They are looking for... 
Now, this is the -- this will... I could say about the whole 
subject, "This will kill you." But this is an amazing fact.

The medicos (the pill boys) and the nuclear physicist (those 
people that are now drawing pay as nuclear physicists but 
graduated from English courses) believe alike that the upset is 
mainly due to, and effective upon, sexual activities and results. 
In other words, it's the sexual sector of life that they think 
atomic fission attacks. I think they've been reading too much 
Freud. They're afraid of mutation. Mutation has practically 
nothing to do with it. We don't care anything about this 
mutational angle. Good heavens! A man has to be shot to pieces 
with, I don't know, fifteen, twenty, thirty roentgen up close in 
order to have any mutational effect, and then it only lasts five 
or six days. Get that. It's one of these little mild effects. For 
only five or six days after exposure do they get two-headed 
babies.

No! The effect is quite different! And they have not studied it 
at all, and yet it's right in their textbooks staring them right 
in the face. And I suppose it's too horrible for them to 
confront, even though they have carefully recorded the physical 
manifestations of everybody exposed to radiation in Japan and so 
on. They don't confront their own figures. They don't become 
aware of them.

People get sick! That is what happens. It isn't that their second 
dynamic goes adrift and they start producing rats or 
psychologists or something. That hasn't anything to do with it. 
That's somebody's morbid... I don't know where they got the boys 
that made these tests, but I have my suspicions -- Hollywood, 
probably. But the main thing about it is, people become ill. But 
before they become observably ill, a malaise sets in which is 
very detractive of their energies. Their ambition goes to pieces, 
their ability to concentrate goes to pieces, long before the 
medico would begin to detect it.

If they were giving a series of tests of one kind or another to 
populace that has been closely subjected to atomic radiation they 
would have found this to be the case. They wouldn't have left it 
up to us to discover this. They would have been honest enough to 
say so.

But we have to believe that there are some honest men in the 
government. We have to believe this -- I mean, in spite of all 
the evidence to the contrary. We have to believe that they 
actually do present you with what they find. We have to believe 
that the papers which they write on the subject are factual from 
their standpoint. It's just that they haven't observed it, 
because they say these things all the time.

They describe radiation sickness. Very cute. They describe 
radiation sickness. It says, "The onset is a lethargy. And this 
drifts on to an apathetic feeling, and this goes on to nausea, 
which is followed by colitis or internal gastric upsets, which is 
followed by vomiting, which is followed by flushing or prickly 
sensations throughout the body..." They describe all these 
things, and this is what radiation does to people -- one, two, 
three, four -- and yet at no time do they say in their medical 
reports that it does anything in the sphere of sex. It's just 
that people get sick. That's what the medical reports say, but 
all of the preventive measures which they take are totally aimed 
at sexual activity or results.

Now, scientists usually aren't this bad off. We can only suppose 
that these boys have themselves been subjected to a bit of that 
lethargy and apathy. It must be, because they usually are not 
that inexact or unrealistic.

For instance, the U.S. government's answer to the widespread 
radioactivity in the world today is to give everybody a tag which 
shows how many roentgen he has been exposed to.

And this would add up all of his X-rays and other radioactive 
exposures, and exposure from the atmosphere or by reason of bombs 
or manufactures. And this would all be added up in terms of 
roentgen. How many roentgen -- this unit of... radiative unit -- 
how many roentgen has he been exposed to in his lifetime? And 
he'd then wear that tag.

This is the official answer. He would then wear the tag and 
anytime he was given another X-ray somebody would mark it on the 
tag and change his roentgen rating. And they've picked this 
number out of the air. They don't know where it came from, but 
it's ten roentgen. When he's been given ten roentgen, after that 
his state of case becomes questionable. And his right to marry 
would thereafter be regulated by the government. Honest.

No, that is not a despatch from Pravda. That is a despatch from 
"Vashington," DC. Now there...

That is the government solution: that after people are exposed to 
ten roentgen... This isn't a gag, by the way. This was on AP not 
very long ago. After people had been exposed to ten roentgen, 
why, you'd have to be careful in permitting them to marry, and 
the government would have to take cognizance over their rights to 
marry. And after somebody had been exposed to so many, why, he 
was liable to have two-headed babies or psychologists or 
something, and so you'd have to forbid his marriage. That's the 
tack they're taking. It's totally unrealistic.

Listen, if it gets that bad there won't be anybody in the 
government physically well enough to sit still long enough to 
administer any kind of a test.

They just discount this other factor: It makes people sick. 
That's what happens.

Now, it's a very funny thing. As people become ill with atomic 
radiation they become flighty. They become dispersive. They 
become a bit frantic. There's a period of franticness which is 
hit along the line which is quite interesting. They will discard 
their possessions. I'm reading now out of the Japanese 
observation records following the dropping of atomic bombs on 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They become dispersive. They throw away 
their belongings. They abandon things. They neglect their duties 
and actions, and their level of responsibility drops to nothing. 
They avoid and desert their own families.

It's quite interesting that the greatest civil-defense 
regulations ever written on the face of earth appear in the 
Bible. If you care to read the Bible over carefully, you will 
find what I am talking about. There are certain civil-defense 
regulations carefully listed in the Bible.

There's another full set of physical preventatives, civil-defense 
regulations, listed in another religion: the Brahmans. If you 
know anything about the Brahmans, each Brahman sits by himself, 
cooks his own food, nobody else must touch his food, he mustn't 
touch anybody else's food. And we've got all sorts of regulations 
that would apply at once only to a populace that had been knocked 
soggy with radiation. This is quite a curious, curious thing.

I'm not trying to be specific here at all in these. I'll look 
them up for you sometime and tell you chapter and verse. But it's 
one of the more amusing things to look back into the past; to 
look back, by the way, at recent discoveries whereby they found 
seven levels of civilization in the back of a cave -- went 
straight back through and then the last level had, underlying it, 
green glass. It's very possible... You see, an atomic bomb, in 
exploding, creates green glass.

Now, it's very possible that all of this has happened before, 
that maybe there have been other scourges on earth as great as 
radiation, so that we have such things as plagues and things 
which are of sufficiently overpowering magnitude so that they 
would put out a religion -- that they'd never explained to 
anybody -- they'd just put out this religion to keep people 
alive. And the people who followed that religion lived through 
it.

Now, let's say that Brahmanism wasn't caused by atomic fission, 
but maybe some plague of one kind or another that hit. And those 
that followed these directions with religious ferocity and stuck 
to them all the way through, they lived through it. And those who 
didn't, didn't. And so we would have the rise of Brahmanism.

And these regulations which you find Moses giving forth with, and 
so forth -- such regulations as those are perhaps directed at 
prevention of some other human catastrophe. Like, oh, I don't 
know, his prevention against pork and so on. Quite interestingly, 
it's merely leveled at trichinosis (a rather common disease). 
Maybe so many people got so sick from this that somebody had to 
put it into a religious code, when it was actually hygiene.

And maybe there have been, before, atomic attacks on earth. 
Maybe. Who knows? But the facts of the case are these: That it 
requires a certain education of a populace if that populace is 
going to survive, regardless of whether or not you have a cure. 
You've got to educate people into something or other that will 
let them get through. You have to say, "Drinking water will be 
contaminated." You have to say, "Certain types of canned food 
will be edible and certain types will not be. Frozen food kept in 
such and such a way will be edible." They'd have to be educated 
into seeing the difference between radiation contamination and 
the usual ordinary scourge of disease that sweeps through a 
populace on the heels of any disaster.

But that's an awful lot of educating. They can't even teach them 
the Bill of Rights, much less some of these measures which would 
have to be taken if a populace, at this time and place, would 
survive an atomic age.

There are a lot of lessons that would have to be learned. What 
are these lessons? Well, we'd have to work them out somehow or 
another. How would you teach them? Well, that is not too 
difficult. Who should teach them? Well, who should teach them? 
Civil defense should teach them, that's who! But you keep handing 
them the hat -- you say, "Look at this nice hat, nice brim, nice 
label inside it. Now, you put on that hat. That says 'civil 
defense,' and that means the defense of the individual or 
collective public against public menaces such as atomic war. Now, 
go on, you wear that hat and you do this and you do that."

And they say, "It's not my hat. In event of an atomic war, you're 
on your own. You'll just have to get used to the idea that 
nobody's going to do anything for you."

You say, "Hey, you just threw that hat down here in the dust. Put 
that hat on!"

"Nope." They say, "It's not my size." Or they say, "What hat?" 
And that's really the case at this time: "What hat? Is there 
anything going on? Is anything happening that has anything to do 
with radiation? You mean you're getting hysterical about the fact 
there may be a few two-headed babies in the world in the near 
future? Why, that's nonsense. Who cares? I mean, look at 
Eisenhower. No head."

You could explain to them in vain. You could explain to them and 
say, "People get sick. People become incapable of performing 
their routine duties when there's too much radiation in an 
atmosphere. And they get frantic. And they individuate. They fall 
away from one another. They will no longer work in groups."

Now, I'm not here to tell you that the difficulties in the Middle 
East and in Hungary, and so forth, are incited or caused by the 
too-high a roentgen count in the atmosphere of the Middle East 
and Europe, but I will tell you that the count is there. It is 
already too high. I won't say that these nations and their 
alliances are falling apart simply along the traditional lines 
which follow exposure to radiation. I won't say that this spirit 
of war, this "Let's all fight. No, let's don't fight. We're at 
war with Syria and South Africa tod -- Oh, no, no, that's wrong. 
Let's go to war with France and, uh... no, uh..."

You know, the Hungarian troops are the ones today who are 
shooting down the Hungarians. Silly! But this is a fact. We don't 
care who ordered them to do it. They are Hungarian troops, not 
Soviet troops. Soviet troops are also doing it, but Hungarian 
troops are also shooting Hungarians. See, this is sort of a wild 
mix-up.

There couldn't possibly be a war at this time, I figure, because 
nobody would be able to concentrate long enough on who he was mad 
at to fight him. By the time they'd called up the arms and 
ammunition -- and had informed the generals, which always takes 
some time -- the war would have passed, on that particular 
crisis, and they'd be mad at somebody else. You see how this 
could be?

And we have actually six or seven factions now developing in the 
United Nations. It's so bad that I haven't heard it on the radio. 
First flashes came through and that was all. When last heard 
from, the United Nations were breaking up into about sixteen 
different factions and parts, and then the morning newspapers 
carried nothing. I haven't seen the United Nations in the news 
since.

This is a fascinating thing. We're not operating under 
censorship. Don't get that idea. It's just that the government 
won't let them print certain things. It's different.

So anyhow, here we have this fantastic picture that maybe -- and 
I only say maybe -- maybe the world at this moment is 
sufficiently souped up with roentgen, with radiation, strontium 
90 and the rest of it, that people are walking already at this 
first level of non compos mentis. Maybe they're walking in small 
circles. I wouldn't tell you for a moment that the United States 
State Department's apathy at this day and age is anything 
different than it used to be. But it might be worse. They used to 
put up an act, and today they're not even putting up an act.

Silliest program I ever saw was a TV program of the colleges of 
the northern coast of the United States questioning the assistant 
secretary of state concerning his policies. And man, I never 
heard a fellow let so many questions go by in my life! He didn't 
just let them go by; he stopped other questions. He just was not 
in the same conference. I don't know what conference he was 
attending, but I think it had something to do with whether or not 
they shouldn't get Dulles's Cadillac repaired. It certainly had 
nothing to do with the Middle East.

I watched this, and watched this state of not-thereness, of 
"avoid, avoid, avoid; don't make any direct statement." And 
that's what I see these days, is "Don't stop it. Don't stop the 
question. Don't confront the situation." And it all boils down to 
"don't confront."

"Go to Atlanta. Go to Key West. Don't stay in. If anybody comes 
to see you, send him to an underclerk. That's the thing to do. 
Don't speak to him. That's dangerous."

You get this funny manifestation that might be occurring. I don't 
say it's occurring at all. I make no claims on this. It's just a 
coincidence that all of a sudden we have a world situation which 
is different than any I have observed in my own current lifetime. 
And that is, we have people who are very anxious to go to war, 
but they can't find out with whom. And they're having an awful 
time here. And they can't even be consistent enough with their 
allies to count on having a good war, so they just keep quitting 
all the time.

Now, what kind of an international situation is this, but a very 
confused one? We can't make head or tails out of this 
international situation. So I have decided, as my stable datum in 
that confusion, that unless two fellows find out that they're mad 
at each other they won't fight each other. See, they have to find 
who they're mad at in order to get a fight going.

Now, it's true that if you get a fellow who is about to fight 
somebody and grab him suddenly by the arm, he's liable to swing 
at you. That's true. But he does it sort of half halfheartedly 
and he really doesn't put his whole heart into it. In order for 
there to be an international conflict, a couple of sides would 
have to line up. I don't think a war can exist with more than 
three sides fighting each other.

There was such a war one time. We had one in this country. It was 
a triangular war. If you've ever read Midshipman Easy, you've 
read of the great triangular dual where the three midshipmen 
couldn't decide which one should have the shot at whom, and so 
on, so they stood in a triangle, and each one in turn shot at the 
other one, and it came out wonderfully successful. Everybody's 
honor was... They had to argue one fellow into it, you see, 
because nobody was mad at him. He was just mad at other people.

Now, there was a triangular war here in the United States one 
time. It's quite an amusing one. It had to do with the Gadsden's 
Purchase. You know the Gadsden strip down there in Arizona 
that... After we stole California, Texas (Texans had already 
stolen Texas) and other large chunks of continent, somebody got 
very moral and they bought something from Mexico. I think 
that's... They paid cash for it. And that was the Gadsden 
Purchase. They wanted a railroad to go through there.

But while that thing was going on, why, the Americans were 
fighting the Mexicans, and the Indians down there were fighting 
both of them, and both of them were fighting the Indians. And you 
had a triangular war going on there for some little time. It was 
very funny. And finally the motto got to be that if anybody put 
up his head you shot at it. That was the way they got that war 
fought. It was quite an amazing war.

Well now, you could envision something developing out of this 
international situation whereby somebody would drop a bomb on the 
United States and the United States would drop a bomb on South 
Africa and South Africa would bomb India. But we haven't got any 
planes that'll fly that far, they say now, and South Africa and 
India don't have any bombs, so it sort of falls apart on logic. I 
think everybody would get tired and quit. That's the way it sums 
up to me. I think the amount of activity they enter upon will be 
less and less. That is at least my look at the situation.

I haven't any idea what will happen to the radiation. If they 
laid off, if they stopped dropping bombs at this moment, no more 
test bombs, perhaps in many years you would get a settle-out. 
It'd go into seawater, or it'd get embedded in the hills and that 
would be the end of the fallout. I'd say perhaps within the rest 
of our lifetime, something like that.

But the U.S., on its last few bombs, has rather blasted that one 
because they've now invented one that blows everything straight 
up into the superstratosphere where it won't come down for ten 
years. They say that's the best thing to do. That's their new 
bomb. It blows all of its waste products straight up into the 
superstratosphere -- and takes it ten years to come down, they 
tell you. So my calculations on that went all to pieces. I went 
into apathy on that myself. I couldn't see any end to the 
fallout.

But I say, perhaps in many years, why, if they stop dropping 
bombs, why, the fallout would fall out and that would be the end 
of that. But it doesn't seem like they're going to stop. In spite 
of all the hue and cry and protest, Russia put up a big peace 
proposal and blew off a bomb the same day. I thought that was an 
interesting thing to do. They don't rattle sabers anymore; they 
rattle Geiger counters.

So, where we have these bombs being continually tested, if they 
continue with these tests... And Icky says they have to. I'm not 
quite sure why.

I've been reading the newspapers, and I know they explode. I've 
been on the verge of writing him a letter and saying, "Dear Ike: 
Just for your information, several clippings are enclosed. The 
bomb does explode. It does explode. People set them off and they 
do explode." And that's obviously the only thing you'd want to 
know, is do they explode? And they found that out, but of course 
his briefing secretaries haven't given him the word. He wasn't in 
the Oriental theater, you know. He was over in Europe, and so on. 
He didn't find out.

Anyway, here's the crux of the situation. Somehow or another 
somebody must put a curve on the communication lines to say 
"Stop!" somebody saying "You shouldn't go on testing bombs. That 
at least cuts out the increasing amount of count in the 
atmosphere."

Now, who's going to do it? Well, who knows it? You got that? I 
mean, that has a lot to do with it. Who knows it? Well, 
Scientologists know it. But they're aware enough to be aware. And 
other people aren't aware enough to know that. So, who you going 
to tell it to? Well, the Scientologists of course.

There's an amazing problem, you see? That's an amazing situation. 
We could look this thing over... And actually what I'm telling 
you now, I've heard you say here and there. You've said, "Gee, 
you know, there's certainly an awful lot of bombs going off. 
Sooner or later somebody's going to get hurt." And all the time 
we were in Phoenix, why, the kids kept watching the reports on 
fallout, and they would be convulsed. Not because of anything I 
said, or anything else, but they were just convulsed at the 
government bulletins.

The government bulletins read this way: "There's no need to worry 
about the fallout. It is being carefully observed." And nobody in 
the government could see that this was a nonsensical statement. 
Who cares who's watching it? "This lion that's running down the 
street, we're observing him carefully. What's the matter? Why are 
you worried?"

So anyway, we have some inkling that something is going on in the 
world that's just a little bit different than it was before. We 
have in our graphs, in the effectiveness of processes and so 
forth, certain records to this effect. We notice world behavior 
has altered to a marked degree.

But our role has changed. It has changed definitely from a role 
of "Well, let's just try to make people better and cut down the 
crime and, you know, help people out and pat them on the back." 
Our role has changed to something else. Our role might even have 
-- it hasn't, but it might even have changed to simply a role of 
self-preservation as a group. See? It hasn't changed to that, but 
that would be the least to which it has changed. It certainly is 
true that a Scientologist has 5000 percent better chance of 
surviving it than anybody else. See? That's true.

All right. But that of course would not be the limit of it. What 
our role becomes is not a role of going around and waving 
invisible particles in people's faces which they can't see 
anyhow, but our role would be in (1), trying to work out some 
sort of a regimen, a hygiene or health conduct that people could 
follow without being aware of anything. See, that's the least we 
could do. And the next one would be to try to teach them some of 
the fundamentals of existence and at least get them aware of the 
fact that they're alive, and then maybe they will have some idea 
that they might continue to be alive. See, this would give them 
some impetus toward continuing to be alive. And at least we could 
do those things. Now, those are two there.

Now, another thing that we could do that would be intensely 
practical, and so on, is talk. That doesn't sound practical. I 
mean, talk is just talk. But you see a lot of people. You see a 
lot of people. Well, there's no reason to tell them things that 
will simply worry them. About the only thing you could do is tell 
them there's some hope. Now, that we can always tell them.

Somebody asked me one day, "What is para-Scientology?" Well, 
para-Scientology is your reality on Scientology. To a fellow that 
hears it for the first time, he now knows that there's a word 
Scientology, and that is Scientology, and everything else we know 
is para-Scientology. Got it? And then he knows that it offers 
some hope. So Scientology to him and the reality of it, the 
science itself, is just what he knows and no more, and that would 
be that there is a word Scientology and that it does offer some 
hope. See, now that's Scientology. Everything else we know is 
para-Scientology to him.

And eventually he finds out that it'll turn off a toothache -- 
big reality on something like that. So para-Scientology, then, is 
everything in Scientology except maybe the process that turned 
off the toothache, that it offers some hope, and there is a word 
called Scientology. Get the idea?

So somewhere or another we have to enter this wedge. Eventually a 
tremendous amount of our knowledge will become Scientology to him 
and a very little of it will remain para-Scientology. And that is 
the way it works out.

But now, here's something very odd. Here's something very 
peculiar. He doesn't start on that track at all, and his 
awareness is zero, up to the moment when -- right up to the 
instant -- when he hears this word Scientology and that it offers 
some hope. See, it's about all you can really say to somebody. 
You can explain to him a lot of things, but he'll miss all these 
things.

He'll eventually walk away from almost anything you tell him the 
first time, and he'll say, "You know, there's something called 
'Scientology.' There must be, because this fellow's been talking 
about it. And it seems to offer some hope. He said it would work 
on my Aunt Agatha that I told him about. Yes, it might offer some 
hope about Aunt Agatha. Probably won't do anything for her, but I 
could hope it would."

Now, there's the entering wedge. Well now, there are numerous 
ways you could give people hope. Numerous ways. And one of them, 
you could say, "You know, you know this A-bomb thing..."

The fellow says, "What about the A-bomb thing?" and so on.

You say, "You know there's an outfit that's got this taped, got 
it all squared?"

"Who's that?"

"Scientology." See?

He says, "Oh, there has?"

You get this as a very crude approach. He would then have the 
idea that there was somebody someplace that had some answers 
nailed down on this subject, you see? Now, that's very difficult 
to do and isn't very feasible, because he doesn't know there's a 
subject called radiation. He just thinks there's new H-bombs and 
they're big TNT bombs. See? And that's all he knows about it.

Well-known scientists in the country today are not aware of these 
things, which is quite amazing. A teacher at Columbia University 
said, "Well, I needn't worry about it. When it comes," he said, 
"it'll come with a big bang. And I'm all ready to get buried in a 
few years anyway. It doesn't matter whether I'm buried in a hole 
with the rest of the city or in a hole in a graveyard." He said, 
"It's all the same to me. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha." This guy was 
teaching college students at Columbia University.

I said, "What's your subject?"

And he says, "Chemistry."

I said, "Chemistry. Oh, I see. And that's the way it is, huh?"

And he said, "Yeah." He says, "Doesn't matter really one way or 
the other which happens. Now, does it?"

And I said, "Well, aside from the fact that you've got to come 
back and live it all over again, it doesn't matter a bit."

And he said, "What are you talking about?"

And I said, "Well, it's like this," and I let him have it between 
the eyes, and shook him up enough and was sufficiently convincing 
enough so that he knew he'd been talking to somebody. And he 
wasn't at all sure that a hole in the city or a hole in the 
graveyard were comparable data. Now, that was a nasty thing for 
me to do.

I did something I've told you time and again never to do. Don't 
back up para-Scientology to them. But let me excuse myself. That 
was in a period before people had a Messianic complex, before 
people had the Messiah level. They're now only grabbing for crazy 
answers.

One of the things you could do is pose as a crazy answer. You're 
the only sane answer there is. You get that? People who are not 
aware of something, yet are surrounded by it, only grab crazy 
answers. So give it to them! I found out it works.

So tonight I would like to pull the wraps off whole track, 
exteriorization and all the other bric-a-brac that you shouldn't 
talk about, because the society has finally gotten into a state 
of mind where it will only believe what it thinks is crazy. And 
it thinks this is crazy and so it'll believe it.

Remember, the last full page I had in Time magazine was because I 
was telling people they were seventy-six trillion years old. And 
that's the last full page. There have been mentions since, but 
not a full page. So I'm publishing in hard-covers now History of 
Man, known better to you as What to Audit.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]





FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 14 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

===============================================

THE SCALE OF HAVINGNESS

A lecture given on 29 November 1956


[Start of Lecture]

Okay. Well, now just on the off chance that you were restimulated 
in any degree about a discussion of radiation... You see, 
radiation is quite restimulative. People don't understand it. 
Heh-heh. It consists of invisible particles. It is a hidden 
influence. Naturally, this says you can't understand it.

It consists of filling in space. And there's the space and yet 
there's something of menace in it and one can't quite tell what 
it is. Well, if you recognize a thetan in that, why, you've 
gotten awfully close to it. Many people can't stand to conceive a 
static. That consists of looking at nothing. They have to 
conceive a nothingness, and their concept of a nothingness, of 
course, makes them nervous. Just the idea of having to view a 
nothingness or look at a nothingness -- they get very, very 
nervous.

Well, all right, if they get nervous looking at a little 
nothingness, a nothingness that can do something to them is 
practically totally unviewable. Well, this of course accounts for 
the fact that nobody becomes aware of it, because by definition 
it is not something of which somebody becomes aware, except by 
diverse means such as a Geiger counter or something of the sort. 
You see?

By the way, this material I'm giving you is not really a very 
complete preview of the congress which will be held in December, 
but it's an inch up on it. And I want to tell you tonight that we 
have this problem pretty well licked. It's not even a very 
difficult problem now.

We have it licked in the first place from a stopgap point of 
view. We have something which does some strange things with 
radiative engrams. An individual who's been in a radioactive area 
for quite a while reacts very weirdly to a potion which we have 
concocted and called Dianazene.

Now, I won't try to tell you that the administration of a drug or 
a vitamin or something of this sort will cure somebody absolutely 
of having any slightest effect of radiation, but I will tell you 
that in the absence of processing it would definitely have a 
beneficial effect.

If you didn't have anything else at all, you could at least run a 
fellow a little bit flat on this sort of thing. And if somebody 
had descended, because of cumulative radiation, down to a point 
of where he was continually nauseated, you could give him some of 
this Dianazene and he'd at least change to merely being 
continually sunburned. If you gave him some more, he would even 
run that out and maybe only continually have a little headache. 
And then you'd give him some more and he would get back another 
type of nausea or maybe a feeling of exhaustion for a while, and 
then that would run away. You could change these symptoms around 
and, to a marked degree, eradicate them in their severity. In 
other words, you could make him functional. You got that. You 
could make him functional.

Now, I'm not saying you would do his personality curve any 
benefit; I'm not saying that you would raise his IQ one iota, 
because the contrary has rather proven to be the fact. You get 
rid of rather nagging, upsetting manifestations and you inherit a 
slightly lower profile. Got that? I mean you pay in terms of some 
personality factor for the loss of a headache.

Now, here is what's peculiar. After, however, you have given 
somebody some Dianazene, you can give him some processing of a 
particular kind and repair his havingness. And when you repair 
his havingness, his IQ goes up above where it was. In other 
words, the potion, compound -- or however else the Food and Drug 
Administration wishes to classify it, because that it is involved 
in doing this very moment -- regardless of how this is 
classified, the truth of the matter is it could not do otherwise 
than reduce havingness.

If you've got five hundred very beautiful sunburns, if you take 
Dianazene, you'll lose them. Anything is better than nothing 
according to a thetan, so one sunburn is better than no sunburns 
and five hundred is five hundred times as good. But a body, of 
course, doesn't function with five hundred sunburns. When you 
remedy his havingness, however, he is perfectly willing to take 
some other mass in exchange for sunburn. See that? He's perfectly 
willing to give up a significant or painful engram in return for 
some nonpainful mass.

You watch a little kid playing on the floor, you get the same 
manifestation. Little kid pulls your .45 out of a drawer, and 
he's busy cocking it and snapping it and so forth. And there's no 
bullet under the chamber, they're just in the clip. No bullet in 
the chamber, they're just in the clip. And it's not a safe thing 
to watch, so you take a toy pistol and you hand him the toy 
pistol, and you take the .45 away from him, and you're all right. 
He's then happy, cheerful. He goes on snapping the toy pistol. 
He's perfectly all right. He's set here, he's not upset at all.

Now supposing, however, you simply took the .45 away from him and 
you didn't give him anything back at all. He'd be unhappy. He'd 
mope. He's liable to say, "Look what you did." He would assign 
cause, in other words. So, what's the right answer? Of course, 
it's to give him another kind of mass.

Well, you give somebody Dianazene, it takes away the loaded .45 
that could kill him. But only processing would return to him -- 
because Dianazene burns up these old engrams, that's all -- and 
you then have to give him some other kind of mass. You have to 
let him possess other mass before he is happy about the whole 
thing again. But because he's not in pain he can work and he can 
function -- because he's not in pain.

All right. Where we look over the human scene, we find that if 
people could not understand what was happening to them, you could 
give them something that would get them out of the apathy, 
exhaustion, vomiting or inertia of a physical condition and get 
them to functioning again. So on a broad, mass-administration 
basis, we do have something. But having handed it out, remember, 
we will have dropped the profile on people, and then they'd have 
to have auditing. Inevitable.

Well, we're more honest than other people because we don't have 
to be dishonest. That's the only reason I really can think of for 
being honest, is if you don't have to be dishonest you can be 
honest and you're all set, you see? I don't know of any real 
difference between honesty and dishonesty than this: that people 
who cannot confront honesty have to be dishonest.

So here we have this problem and here we have this compound that 
we're calling Dianazene. Well, actually, it's composed of several 
old-time compounds that themselves were sold freely across drug 
counters, and it doesn't contain anything very dangerous. But one 
of these compounds was mis-described. The description of that 
item in there was wrong. You look up in a pharmacopoeia and it 
tells you that nicotinic acid is toxic, and if taken in excess, 
will turn on flushes.

Well, whoever wrote this wrote a masterpiece of understatement. 
That's a masterpiece! Only a biochemist in the last stages would 
have ever written this particular description of nicotinic acid, 
because what kind of a toxicity is it that only turns on the 
patterns of bathing suits? That seems like an awfully strange 
toxicity, doesn't it?

That was where I connected with this particular item. I found out 
that nicotinic acid turned on the pattern of bathing suits and I 
thought wasn't it interesting that this very toxic drug which 
turned on flushes, and so forth, would leave white on the body 
where the straps and trunks of bathing suits were customarily 
worn. So therefore, I adjudicated that it didn't have anything 
whatsoever to do with the toxicity of the drug, but the drug was 
reacting very solidly against sunburn engrams and had an affinity 
for them and ran them out. And that proved to be the case.

Well, we dropped it in 1950. Didn't pay too much attention to 
that because nobody is much bothered with sunburn, and didn't pay 
too much attention to it. But as the years rolled on and when 
recently we needed some other answer, I all of a sudden cognited 
with a long blue flash that there was something which affected 
one type of radiation, namely sunlight; something that affected 
the radiation of sunlight on the body. Something caused an effect 
there, and that was nicotinic acid.

Well, there it was. So an experiment was run, and it was found 
that nicotinic acid today, after six years of public exposure to 
fallout and other things, reacted differently. It had a different 
action. Now, what sort of a drug is this that in six years 
changes its toxicity? See, I mean it isn't quite straight.

The observation here was that first it ran out, with some 
prickliness (which possibly was radiation at the time, since 
there'd been many years of radiation or radiative atmosphere up 
to 1950, so some of it would have run out), but that dominantly 
concentrated on sunburn; six years later concentrated a bit on 
sunburn but with such things as sunburned livers, sunburned 
kidneys, sunburned lungs. Oh, no. No, no. There's something wrong 
here.

So we looked it over a little bit further and we found that many 
people came up with stuck views of areas that were known to be 
radioactive. They were blowing bombs off down in Nevada when we 
were in Phoenix two hundred and fifty miles away, like kids 
firing firecrackers on the fourth of July, with just about the 
same amount of responsibility. They were just blowing these bombs 
off. And the atmosphere used to get so hot around there that you 
couldn't put a Geiger counter away. It'd bother you all night. 
It'd just sit there and whir.

Some chap invented a Geiger counter that only "geigered" when it 
was actually confronted by radiation. In other words, it turned 
itself on and began to tick, and these became very embarrassing 
items because they just ran all the time and ran themselves down. 
You could find a uranium mine in any piano. People were filing on 
orange groves, filing on the courthouse, and filing on everything 
down there -- filing for uranium claims because everything was 
hot, everything counted. Radioactive materials had impregnated 
into almost the totality of the atmosphere.

Now, this is a very, very curious thing -- very curious -- that 
these people got a different reaction than people who had not 
been in that area. Very peculiar, isn't it? And that four of 
these people transplanted to London, England, after the Russian 
H-bomb explosion, became violently ill and continued to be ill 
right down to the moment that they began to take Dianazene, when 
they started to get better and be able to function.

In other words, some of our people who had gone to work in the 
London office were working amongst people who had not been so 
intimately exposed, and only the people who had been exposed in 
Phoenix became ill of a strange virus infection, and that strange 
"virus infection" (quote, unquote) turned off only when they 
started to take Dianazene.

Now, another case. It runs out X-ray contamination. A little 
baby, X-rayed before it was born, was discovered to run out, on 
administration of Dianazene, the X-ray. And it ran out and ran 
flat, and that was the end of it -- very curious mechanism. X-
ray, you see, and gamma and so on, these are more or less the 
same breed of cat.

Now, all America sits in front of television sets and these 
television sets exude, I am sorry to say, a considerable amount 
of radioactive material. It's not huge, you know, but it's enough 
so that people who have made a habit of watching TV, on taking 
Dianazene, get the TV radiation. In other words, it picks out all 
kinds of radiation, and of course that includes sunburn. The 
reason I put this together was quite interesting. I found out 
that the sun burned people. And what do you know? The sun happens 
to be fission. That is why the sun keeps lighted. It's a fission 
item. And if it's a fission item, then we're getting some 
byproduct of fission as that, and that does cause sunburn. We get 
ultraviolet burns and other types of burns, but these things are 
basically radiation burns.

All right. Now, we look over this Dianazene in a very critical 
eye, very critical (you should be very critical of anything like 
a drug because it's something else doing it), and we find out 
that it does something new and strange. It turns on and magnifies 
all of the effects of having received too much radiation, and a 
person discovers that he can confront them. And discovering that 
he can confront them, he becomes less afraid of them, and you get 
a mental side effect on this which is quite interesting. People 
begin to feel contemptuous to some degree of radiation. They have 
done something to themselves which caused the radiation reaction 
to be more severe than it was. In other words, they've done a 
process, haven't they?

By the mere act of taking a handful of pills and throwing it into 
their mouth and throwing it down the throat -- knowing very well 
that this was going to turn on flush, flash and all the rest of 
it, and still confronting that and saying, "Well, we'll have to 
go through it," -- their morale on the subject of radiation 
picked up quite markedly. And this is quite interesting to note 
that this is the case.

Here and there amongst us somebody has flinched. It got too much 
for him, and he stopped halfway through a course of it because 
that was all, brother. He didn't want to go through that again. 
Well, the joke is the next dose he took would probably turn on 
practically nothing because, again, this is a strange drug, this 
Dianazene. It doesn't turn on the same toxicity a second time. It 
runs another one. And they're all slightly different and they're 
all burns, and drugs don't act like that, see? You take arsenic, 
you get arsenic poisoning. Well, not Dianazene.

So, you get these different reactions. And actually one never 
quite knows -- it's quite adventurous -- one never quite knows 
just what reaction he's going to get.

After somebody has been on it for a couple of weeks, it is quite 
amusing, very amusing, that he says, "Well, I've got that all 
flat, you know? I've got that one flat. I ran that out and I'm in 
good shape now, and maybe I've just got to run a little 
exhaustion off or something." (You know, you feel exhausted or 
something. You have to take some more of it and then you don't 
feel exhausted.) And he'll say, "Well, I've got to take some more 
of it," and he turns on a brilliant lobster flush, you see, that 
was twice as bad as the first one, and then that runs flat and 
there he is.

Well, where do all these burns come from? Well, that is a subject 
which I think you will find the answer to in What to Audit or The 
History of Man -- same book. Radiation has been with man and with 
man's genetic line for a very, very long time, and you run them 
out way on down the track.

Now, how much radiation you can run out of anybody, I wouldn't 
even guess. But I know that after a while you take the stuff and 
it doesn't jolt you anymore. Well, that's a funny thing, isn't 
it? You take the same amount of something every day and after a 
while it gets without jolt. That doesn't work that way with 
alcohol. You take a pint of alcohol every day, you will 
eventually get twice as drunk. You also get hobnailed livers.

I went to a W.C.T.U. lecture one time and the principal speaker 
there discussed only hobnail livers. I thought this was one of 
the more interesting things. She had pictures of hobnail livers. 
She had great big ones! I mean they were that big. And then the 
lantern slides came on. These were just prints, you see? And then 
the lantern slides came on, and these were hobnail livers, too. 
And boy I certainly saw enough hobnail liver, and it would have 
made a complete teetotaler out of me except for one thing: I saw 
her out back after she left the stage and she opened her handbag 
and took a drink.

Well, here's this peculiar, peculiar reaction. Only a Dianeticist 
accustomed to running lots of engrams would actually realize how 
many engrams there can be and somebody can still be alive. But 
when a person is being confronted continuously with an engramic 
situation, such as roentgen count in the atmosphere, he could 
expect every few months to get, not the same violent reaction, 
but some reaction from something like Dianazene. He could expect 
to get it.

If they stopped exploding H-bombs and so on, why, obviously this 
would wipe out and there would come a time when there wasn't any 
further need for such a thing. In other words, the fallout would 
be so slight in the air that nobody would pay any attention to it 
again.

But here's the essence of such a thing: It reduces the actual 
amount of energy mass in the body. It isn't that it causes 
anybody to reduce, it simply reduces the mental image pictures. 
And a thetan likes these, and they get burned up. Now, if you 
were to process somebody up above and beyond needing anything 
like this -- which today I think is possible -- he of course 
wouldn't have to take any such assists at all. There wouldn't be 
anything to this. It would be an easy, calm attitude toward all 
of this radiation in the air, and he wouldn't really be bothered 
with it at all. In other words, he could handle it.

Now, evidently this is the case. In other words, somebody could 
be processed up above being affected by it. Because it seems to 
be the case that the body experiences these particles going 
through it. And the body is capable of experiencing these 
particles going through it, and in that experiencing, it suffers 
a sense of loss and tries to hold on to them and puts up an 
active resistance then to radiation particles -- and only then 
stacks them up.

Now, I'll tell you why this is fascinating. It takes the 
cooperation of a thetan to get radiation poisoning. He has to 
cooperate by resisting it. He does. He has to cooperate madly.

And you could actually talk to a population on the subject of 
radiation and its dangers to a point where you would have 
everybody awfully sick, even if there was no radiation in the 
present-time environment at all. They would resist it on the 
backtrack. They would resist the X-ray machines and the 
television sets, and so on, to such a degree that they would stop 
the stuff.

Because here is the spooky thing about it. I gave this a lot of 
study last year, and the first thing I came up with is this 
imponderable: gamma rays can go through anything. That's right. 
They can go through anything. Concrete doesn't slow them down 
much. Well, isn't this peculiar? If a concrete wall a couple of 
feet thick won't stop a gamma ray, then what are you doing, less 
than two-feet thick and merely flesh, stopping a gamma ray? Uh-
huh. And that was the first significant fact that fell out of the 
hamper of this research.

What the dickens is this all about? How come the human body stops 
one of these invisible particles? You can't see them. It can't 
see them. But it can experience a secondary reaction. And gamma, 
not resisted, would never harm anybody.

But if a person has a fear of the unknown, of a hidden influence, 
he then, every time he experiences one of these rays going 
through the body, the body then, on a secondary reaction, braces 
itself and makes a picture of the ray passing through. And the 
ray never stops. But the picture does. And Dianazene then does 
not burn up gamma rays or X-rays or any other kind of rays, 
because there aren't any in the body. And the joker -- excuse me, 
I mean the honored, revered, scientific personnel of the Atomic 
Energy... Some joker down here on some low salary has dreamed up 
the fact that strontium 90 supplants calcium in the body. This is 
a very cute theory, but I suspect it thoroughly.

The body, in the first place, does strange things with calcium. 
The ringing of the ear is actually a symptom caused by a calcium 
deposit underneath the little hammer that is in the ear there, 
that regulates in the ear -- continuous ear ringing is just a 
little deposit of calcium. The parathyroid gland, I believe, is 
the gland that regulates the amount of calcium in the 
bloodstream. And when the parathyroid gland goes out, then you 
get such things as ringing in the ears, and you get arthritis, 
which is a calcium deposit, and so on. Strange things happen with 
calcium when the glandular system cuts out.

Cancer is not caused -- never has been and never will be. It is 
not a caused mechanism by the external environment or some 
physiological activity. But certain cells of the body individuate 
and try to build a body when the second-dynamic genetic line is 
blocked. They say, "We cannot go on from here. We cannot have any 
babies. There cannot be any more of this. And therefore we, 
completely independent of the body and its activities, must 
create a cellular entity." And they proceed to do so. And that is 
cancer.

It always requires a second-dynamic or sexual upset, such as the 
loss of children or some other mechanism to bring about a 
condition known as cancer. This is cancer at the outset. I have 
examined too many cases not to have recognized this, because it 
is present in every single case that had cancer that I've ever 
examined -- real wild curve on the second dynamic. And where we 
have helped a case with cancer we have processed such things as 
wasting babies and accepting babies, and mocking up babies and 
throwing them away, and doing suchlike and so on, and we have had 
a considerable change in the condition of the case. However, a 
person can get so far gone that he can hardly be processed or not 
processed at all, and when this is the case, why, the cancer gets 
him.

Well now, strontium 90 may or may not do anything except inform 
the bone cells "This is the end of track, brother, because 
somebody has invented and is using radiation on this planet." 
Extent of message to the body, then: "Radiation has been 
invented. It does exist. This is the end of the genetic line. Get 
off the streetcar, or try to continue on in some wild or peculiar 
form that we will experiment with in order to make it possible to 
go on, which is impossible."

Now, that's what cancer is all about. It isn't a strange 
sickness. It is the effort on the part of a few cells to not 
surrender, and to go off and make a pattern of their own in any 
way, shape or form they can. Therefore, you must demonstrate to 
somebody that it is not the end of track. And if you can 
demonstrate to somebody that radiation does not mean end of 
track, if you can break up that identification, you evidently can 
break up the total effect of radiation upon the human body. If 
you can break up that identification, you've done it. Now, it's 
quite interesting to be aware of this. That is a triumph in 
itself.

Of course, then, radiation is a "causative" (quote, unquote) 
factor in cancer and such illnesses. Of course strontium 90, or 
any other byproduct, coming along and hitting the body and 
jolting the body is telling the body that this is end of track, 
there will be no more genetic line from here. Second-dynamic 
mutations, births of peculiar animals instead of babies, is, of 
course, merely the total effort of the body itself to create 
something that can survive in spite of radiation. And that is 
evidently what mutation is all about, and that is all it is 
about.

It says, "We can't survive the way we are. The way we are has 
proven to us that we are so dopey, so stupid and so incapable of 
thought, planning or organization, that we have permitted 
ourselves as a race to come into the hands of a bunch of bums who 
are using radiation. And therefore we cannot survive in this 
form. Let's all be gophers," or something of the sort. Don't you 
see?

It means that there must be a violent change of line. And, of 
course, the genetic line doesn't confront; it simply says, "End 
of track," you see? It goes into a wild dispersal down here 
someplace, and then finally admits that's the end of track and 
just quits. So you get this wild dispersal. And the wild 
dispersal area on the part of nations, individuals or groups, as 
they individuate themselves and separate themselves from others 
under the impact of radiation; and the effort of the cell to 
separate itself from other cells and do something different than 
they're doing, is in itself an individuation. That's all cancer 
is, malignant growths, other such things.

All right. As we look over this, it's interesting that we know 
this much about it. That's how much has already fallen to our lot 
in examining various radiation cases and materials and so on. So 
there is some hope. So there is some hope.

Well, if there was just that much hope and we had Dianazene we'd 
still be all right. But we've gone on from there. Wow! Right on 
upstairs.

And we have found how you go about taking any case -- I won't 
tell you how many hours, because this is a long look now -- you 
take any case and you walk it upstairs along a certain new scale. 
And walked upstairs on this scale, you bring him into a condition 
where he can confront space or invisible particles in it. And 
when he can confront space and the invisible particles in it, 
radiation neither bothers himself or his body. Neither one is 
bothered now by radiation. He couldn't care less when a couple of 
cosmic rays go whizzing through.

So what? So it's just a cosmic ray. He is not stopping this stuff 
anymore; he is not worried about it; he is not trying to avoid 
it, and as a result, it simply passes on its way. There is no 
stopping of it and so no consequences because of it.

Well, then it becomes this contest for the auditor: How do you 
put somebody in a frame of mind that he can look at space, 
invisible particles, hidden influences, and say, "So what? I 
could confront it if it's there. I am aware that it exists. I 
don't have to be at all." How do you put somebody in this frame 
of mind?

Well, you possibly could put somebody in this frame of mind by 
educating him into what happens. That is a method of giving him 
awareness, isn't it? You don't cut somebody to pieces because you 
teach them something. Never get the idea that you do.

Never worry about telling somebody about birth and 
tonsillectomies and so forth. So they come down with measles 
three days after you've talked to them about measles engrams. You 
said, "Do you know when you were a little kid and you got the 
measles? Do you remember that?"

"Oh, I didn't ever have the -- oh, yes, I did too have the 
measles," the fellow said.

"Well, do you remember when they pull the blinds down?"

And you go right on through it, see? And don't bother to take him 
up to the moment he came out the door and he felt good and he was 
all happy and well again. Just skip that. Just take him through 
to the moment when the blinds were down and he was feeling like 
hell. Three days later, he's liable to come up with a case of 
measles which is nonvirulent. This has actually happened.

Very often somebody in reading Dianetics: The Modern Science of 
Mental Health will give it a cursory glance, find an engram in 
the wife, run her halfway through the engram just to see if there 
is such a thing as engrams, be very surprised and say, "Well, 
whattaya know? There is something to this book after all," put it 
down and go to bed. Couple of days later, the wife has a case of 
measles. Take the wife to the doctor. The doctor says, "This is a 
very strange case of measles. It has everything connected with it 
except measles." This has happened many times. We've had that 
happen.

Well now, what happens here? What happens here on radiation? You 
could make people aware of the existence of radiation. In the 
first place, there is very little known about it. Most people 
think it's carried by the winds or dust or something of the sort. 
Actually, invisible particles couldn't care less. When they put 
an atom bomb nine feet under the ground and blew it up -- or an 
H-bomb -- out in Nevada, of course it blew radioactive dust all 
over the Southwest. And this was very uncomfortable for a while, 
but nevertheless it doesn't require much of a carrier.

In the first place, probably some action like this occurs: The 
bomb goes off in Australia, and a 360-degree sphere of ionosphere 
(which is up there not too high above your heads, not too many 
miles) flashes. In other words, the flash in Australia, this 
ionosphere flashes. People get a secondary kickback from the 
ionosphere just as though they were standing next to the bomb, 
don't you see? Something like this may happen.

Another thing is you may get an earth wave of some sort or 
another, a surface wave. The studies of Nikolai Tesla, whose 
works were once in my hands -- his family tried to give them to 
me. They said they didn't know any better place to put them, and 
I convinced them that I was not a worthy recipient of all of the 
pursed and original manuscripts of Nikolai Tesla. I have no place 
to put them. They're to me, you know, like handing me great big 
chunks of gold and saying, "Well, put it in your old Mackinaw," 
you know? If I remember rightly, they went to a museum where they 
belong.

But anyway, Nikolai Tesla did certain ground wave experiments 
that demonstrate that radio waves, FM waves, any other type of 
waves that he could isolate at that time, will travel just as 
easily along the surface of the ground as they will travel 
through the air. In fact, air is a pretty good conductor.

So Nikolai Tesla was out there in Colorado one time. He was an 
old scientist way back when. I think he died not more than ten or 
twelve years deep into this century. He's the fellow that 
invented alternating current. He mocked up an alternating current 
machine in his head and let it run for two years to see what 
parts of it were weak, and then he replaced those and built it in 
actuality -- and that is alternating current. The guy is a 
wonder.

Anyway, he put a generator into one side of a valley and started 
it running with its electrode shoved into the ground. (This is a 
very crude description of this.) And he put an electric-light 
bulb in a spot a long distance from there, and the electric light 
bulb lit up. See, instead of using wires to conduit, he just used 
the surface of earth.

So you could say maybe a bomb burst down there in Australia and 
you get a momentary flash over the entirety of earth, don't you 
see? Something like that could act as a conductor. This has not 
been studied.

If you were to go up to Columbia or MIT or someplace, and you 
just in an off moment go up and see prexy, you know, in charge of 
electronics or something, and you'd say, "Say, uh... tell me what 
you know about ground waves."

And he would say, "Well, ground waves, you mean earthquakes, 
don't you?"

You say, "No, no, no. Electronic ground waves. The ground as a 
carrier of electronic and radio waves."

And he would say, "Oh, let's see, uh... that's... Oh, you're 
talking about some of Tesla's work."

"Well, where are your textbooks on it?"

"Well, I'm afraid we don't have any textbooks on it," he'd say. 
"Very little known about it." And boy, would he get you out of 
there in a hurry, because it violates everything he knows about 
electronics. It invalidates the whole works.

So there are a lot of possibilities as to what happens when an H-
bomb goes off, but there's no reason why these can't be studied 
and looked at directly. But it doesn't much matter to you how it 
hits the body if you know that when it hits the body, you stop it 
and then it does something. You got that? If you stop it, it will 
then do something.

Well, it isn't even a problem of you getting yourself out of the 
way to let it go through. See? You'd have to be in a state of 
mind of "I couldn't care less" or "Whee! Look at that, another 
mega-megavolt charge. Ha-ha!" You know? "Whee." You have to have 
some sort of a frame of mind which, we might say, matches up to 
the situation.

Now, how does a fellow get in that frame of mind? Well, it's all 
right to say, "What's the matter with you? Can't you change your 
mind to say, 'Electronic energy?'"

"Ah, that's all right. That's acceptable. It lights the place."

"All right. Nuclear energy?"

"Uhhhh, yeah, that's all right. Nothing wrong with nuclear 
energy."

But in order to change his mind, he'd have to know more about it, 
wouldn't he? He'd have to know what he was changing his mind 
about.

Well, the funny part of it is you know all about it. That's 
what's fabulous about anything in Scientology. You know all there 
is to know about life. I couldn't teach you anything about life 
unless you knew all about it.

But you know about it as a shadow somewhere in your 
consciousness. And when I tell you something about life -- direct 
observation of some kind or another -- the only way I could 
really relay it to you at all is by you, in some tiny fashion, 
remembering it. You get it back again, and then as you become 
aware of it, you look it over and it begins to have less ferocity 
where you're concerned.

We tested a whole ACC once. I did nothing but lecture to them. 
Didn't group process them, didn't do anything. And they did very 
little auditing amongst themselves, and their IQs came up 
beautifully. That's a wild thing, isn't it? It just shouldn't 
happen, but it did happen.

One has to become aware of something, to some degree, before he 
knows what to change his mind about. You can ask somebody, "All 
right, now change your mind about the democratic system as used 
in Poland."

Fellow says, "What am I supposed to change my mind about?"

"Well, change your mind to believing it's all right."

"Well, I couldn't do that."

"Why can't you do that?"

"Because I don't know anything about it."

Well, after he knew something about it, if he remembered, he 
could then change his mind about it. Don't you see?

In order to change one's mind a certain amount of awareness is 
requisite. So you'd say the first condition of changing one's 
mind is being willing to be aware of many things. So what would 
you change somebody's mind about to make him H-bomb proof? Well, 
you'd have to show him the component parts of the menace. And 
then he could change his mind about it, and only then could he 
change his mind about it.

Right now most people are afraid of space. To give you an extreme 
example, a lunatic becomes terrified of space quite ordinarily. 
You put him out in too much space and, man, he's had it. Some 
other lunatic might be crazy on the subject of closed spaces, and 
you put him in closed spaces and he's had it. Don't you see? They 
cannot confront, really, either one or they wouldn't be crazy.

All right. Now, we look over these problems of awareness and we 
find that somebody, to be aware of an invisible particle in 
space, would first have to be aware of space. But in order to be 
aware of space he'd have to be aware of mass. He'd have to be 
willing to confront mass. And, to be willing to confront mass, 
one must be willing as well to confront the various vagaries of 
mass. It does things. Automobiles rush down streets and do all 
sorts of things. They're very frightening items to some people.

All right. So we would have to have a review of what one is 
willing to be aware of Well, how would one possibly do that? By 
processing. How long? I don't know. But I can give you something 
that we have today that we didn't have a few days ago. And it's a 
very valuable acquisition because this material puts into place 
some things that we knew but didn't find ourselves able to 
totally fit.

Why is it that a thetan has to have something? That is utterly 
insane! Why should he have to have something? You know, he's an 
invisibility which is looking at a mass. Now, he is not mass and 
he's looking at a mass. Well, this is wild. He can't look at 
mass, because he'd have to totally duplicate mass in order to see 
mass, wouldn't he? Well, he'd actually have to be willing to be 
mass in order to see mass. But if you could coax him to see mass, 
then you would also coax him to be it -- be willing to be it. And 
if you did that, he could see the walls. You've got 8-C. That's 
the workability behind 8-C.

But what is this crazy thing that he has to have it? You mean a 
thetan who consists of nothing -- a spirit -- you mean, goes 
chomp, chomp, chomp on walls and ceilings and floors and things, 
eats them up? Well, it's the wildest thing you ever heard of, and 
yet he does. If you've ever seen a high-school boy, you'll know 
doggone well that he'll eat an automobile. You lend him yours, 
there'll be nothing left of it. Big bites in the fenders.

Well, why does he have to have anything? Well, he only has to 
have those things which he can't look at.

I'll read you the basic law back of this. Would you like me to do 
that? This is really a brainstorm. This you'll say, "I should 
have known this all the time. This is too easy."

I looked at it in another way than you will look at it. I looked 
at it as our first proof of the truth of the definition of space. 
The definition of space we know is true, but it has never had a 
correlative datum. It has stood all by itself. We say space is 
the viewpoint of dimension. Well, if you haven't got anything 
looking, then there isn't any space; if you don't look, there is 
none. Space is the viewpoint of dimension.

Well, there's another crazy phenomenon. When you ask somebody to 
solve a problem -- have him dream up a problem, mock up a problem 
out here and then solve it and solve it and solve it and solve it 
and solve it -- it marches right straight in on him. It gets 
closer and closer to him. Every time you ask him to solve it, if 
he's aberrated at all, he feels that you are asking him to avoid 
confronting it. And if you ask him to avoid confronting it, ah-
ha! there's less space.

We knew this phenomenon existed. I've observed this phenomenon 
here for a year or more and have been very intrigued with it. I 
got very intrigued with it for an entirely different reason. The 
reason I got intrigued with it was because it was the first -- 
well not the first, but a major error I had made in research. It 
was a major error. I even published it in a bulletin -- that you 
mocked up a problem and then had the preclear solve it a lot of 
times, and you gave him some practice in solutions and he'd get 
fine.

That's about the only time I've ever used my own case as a basis 
for a conclusion. And that's the way it worked on me. Mock up 
this problem and solve it a few times, and I felt fine. There's 
nothing wrong, but the problem stayed right there. It didn't go 
anywhere. That's because I don't mind problems. I don't have to 
solve them, you get the idea? I don't solve them because I can't 
confront them. There's a game called solving problems. Entirely 
different motive.

Well, I found a tremendous number of people were doing something 
entirely different, after I'd made this publication. I'd gotten 
some auditing. I'd observed this phenomenon. It seemed so usual, 
so standard, that I just knew it was true. And for the first time 
really, I suppose, used my own case observation as a basis for 
some of the data of Scientology. And boy, was I wrong!

Because you have the usual preclear mock up a problem out here 
and solve and solve it and solve it, and it hits him in the face. 
He finally goes completely by the boards. He gets sicker than a 
pup. Why? Because every time he solves something, he thinks it's 
because he can't confront it. He has to get rid of the problem 
because it's not something he can view. So he's on an obsessive 
solution.

Well, you don't have to be on an obsessive solution to solve 
things. You can solve anything you like. But if you have to solve 
them because they are so dreadfully diabolical, they'll kick your 
teeth out.

Now, Confrontingness as a process works because space is the 
viewpoint of dimension, and that which is not confronted tends to 
contain no space. Hence, it collapses upon the person. And that's 
valences; that's what a valence is. You couldn't get something to 
confront anything else, and so you got less and less space 
between you and it. You couldn't get it to confront anything. You 
couldn't get yourself to confront it. Eventually you were it, 
which is no space. Because you weren't looking from you to it, it 
then was where you were. You couldn't confront it. Space is the 
viewpoint of dimension. Therefore, there was no space, so 
therefore you occupied the same spot. See that?

Mother was always chopping you up one way or the other and you 
couldn't look her in the eye. And one day you wake up and find 
yourself chopping everybody up in Mother's tone of voice. And you 
say, "What's happened to me?" Well, you couldn't confront Mother, 
and she's where you are, and you act like her. That's all there 
is to it. See that? Just no space. This horrible simplicity is a 
fabulous simplicity. It's one of these that's just too simple to 
be true, but it happens to be true, this one. Space is a 
viewpoint of dimension.

Now, the other thing is, those things which you can't confront, 
you're unwilling to be aware of. In other words, awareness is the 
action of confronting something. To be aware of something you 
have to be willing -- in some way or another -- to confront it. 
Just to be frightened to death of something, you have to be 
willing to some degree to look in that direction. You have to be 
willing to know about it to be afraid of it. How many things are 
people frightened to death of (or way below being frightened to 
death of) which they aren't even aware that they're frightened to 
death of? But one day you'll come along and you'll say, "Look at 
that over there. Isn't that dreadful?"

They'll say, "What?"

And you'll say, "That!"

And they lo-o-o-ok at it, and all of a sudden they go scre-e-e-e-
eam. They're much better off screaming than they were before. 
That I guarantee. I'll give you that as a complete guarantee. 
It's truthful. They're better off screaming than they were 
standing there calm. Because they weren't calm, they were being 
totally apathetic on the subject. They knew it was there all the 
time and they were below terror, and you at least got them up to 
a point where they'd scream. People who are screaming are more 
alive than people that are not screaming.

Where you have an unwillingness to confront, you have a 
nonawareness of If a person has been in too many automobile 
accidents, one fine day he walks out, there's two lanes of cars 
parked in the street, one on each side of the street, and he 
can't see any automobiles in the street. And this actually 
happens. People look straight through things.

Ambrose Bierce wrote a thing one time called The Thing of No 
Color. It was a monster which wasn't any color but which was 
awfully deadly, and it went around eating everybody up. But 
nobody could see it because it wasn't any color.

Well, people believe at last that the world is full of monsters, 
but they don't even dare be aware that it's full of monsters. If 
they brightened up their perception, they would someday see one 
of these monsters and that would kill them. Only the monster 
they're scared of died 150 thousand years ago and is now in a tar 
pit down on La Brea Avenue. You see what all this is about and 
what it leads to.

Now, if people have been attacked too many times by atomic 
fission, if they've been wiped out on too many planets and in too 
many places, if they've been knocked off, if their genetic line 
in coming up the track from amoeba to maybe... too many times by 
radiation or something of the sort, they no longer are willing to 
confront it at all, but they suspect something horrible is going 
to happen to them if they scent any tiniest particle of it. Don't 
you see?

The horrible things that are going to happen to them because of 
radiation have already happened, Lord knows how long ago, and 
aren't in progress at the moment. But they smell a little bit of 
radiation and they say, "Uh-uh." One wandering gamma with about 
enough horsepower in it to propel itself comes limping on small 
crutches across the room in this direction, and the fellow says, 
"My God the whole city has blown up!" You get it? But he isn't 
sufficiently capable of looking at a blown-up city to see whether 
or not the city is blown up. You get it? So he says, "Well, we're 
all through, boys. Let's quit. We're done."

It presents a rather silly picture of a fellow who has had an 
experience of dying of thirst on a desert. He died of thirst on 
the desert. And when he died of thirst, why, there was bones 
lying there and horns, and so on, of an old cow that kicked off 
first. And one day he's walking down the street, and he looks in 
the window of a shop, and he sees a skull and some horns in the 
shop. And he lies down on the sidewalk before the public fountain 
and dies of thirst. And that is his exact action in radiation.

These little ingredients themselves do nothing, but they sure 
upset a guy's backtrack. He can't look at any of that. So you 
have to bring up somebody in terms of lookingness. Now, in order 
to bring them up in terms of confronting such a thing as that, 
you have to get them to be able to confront things in general, 
and you have to make practically the whole sweeping job of Clear 
a fact. It's that big a look, just now.

Now, my task is to find out how fast to do it. But I can tell you 
the exact scale he has to come up. The first of this scale, at 
the bottom of it, is Waste. The next up the line is Have. The 
next is Substitute. The next is Confront. And the next is 
Contribute To. And the next is Create. And that is the Scale of 
Havingness.

And there are some little interlocking points on that scale which 
turn up while you're processing him. And you run all these things 
objectively and you really boost him on up through the top. When 
he can confront space, he's in pretty good shape. When he can 
confront space and invisible particles and anything else, and 
masses and so forth, he's in terrific shape.

Now, a person who is in a body, of course, is in that thing he is 
least willing to confront. That is the law: People occupy that 
thing they are least willing to confront. Well, a person is not 
stuck in a wall. If you notice carefully, you're not stuck in a 
wall. You got that? You're not stuck in a dog. And if you look 
quick in a mirror, you're not stuck in Mother. You're stuck in 
you. You're stuck in the body you're occupying, you see? Or you 
at least got hold of this body if you're exteriorized, don't you 
see?

That tells us at once what you're least willing to confront. 
Awful comment. A person has closed terminals most thoroughly, 
then, with those things he is least willing to confront. The 
least space exists between him and what he is unwilling to 
confront, what he's most unwilling to confront. Don't you see? So 
that is interiorization. And what a horrible beast a fellow must 
think he looks like who is dead in his head. That fellow who is 
dead in his head must have an idea that Lon Chaney could have 
used him with profit as a model.

All right. So there is our profit here. We get the person all the 
way up and on his way. If you did this and ran this whole scale 
with objective processes, you would wind up at least with a 
thorough exterior. And then of course as an individual, he 
couldn't be worried less about the civilization. And then because 
he's worried less about it, anything that happens to it won't 
affect him, and it's the first time he will be effective in 
handling it and doing something about it.

So we Scientologists have several missions on our hands. Some of 
those consist of educating people, and some of them consist of 
processing people. And, by and large, the first of them consists 
of getting ourselves in good shape, and we'll all live through 
it, and this talk won't have been in vain.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]





FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 15 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

===============================================

MONEY

A lecture given on 6 November 1956


[Start of Lecture]

We have a subject on which there is no basic agreement, and about 
which, none of us don't know much, evidently.

A subject however which is quite current. A subject which we find 
doled out from time to time. A subject which makes or breaks men 
with the greatest of ease. A subject which is really the root of 
a great many love affairs. A subject which is quite convertible. 
A subject for which there are probably more slang terms than any 
other subject in the language. That subject is money.

We have in our midst some small samples of this particular 
commodity. But if any of you have your acquaintance with it 
strained or if you have not recently been introduced to it, why, 
I'll tell you what it is, and thus give you a much greater 
familiarity with the subject. Just a minute.

Well, I don't have any myself but you know what the stuff looks 
like. You know what the stuff looks like. It's uh... well, I've 
got kind of a foggy recollection actually. I think it has the 
United States of America on it. And over in England it has the -- 
I distinctly remember it had something on it. Yeah, yeah, it said 
that the controller of the treasury as an individual would pay to 
anyone who challenged him the same bill that they paid him. I 
remember that.

U.S. notes vary, they're different. The money is much better than 
English money because there are more vias. American money is much 
better than the English money because there are more vias.

Now, English money is issued by an organization which is part and 
parcel of the British government. In other words, there was some 
authority to issue the money. But in America that's not the case. 
Money in America, most of it that you have issued to you is 
issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York City, which is a 
very private organization. I know, I tried to walk in there once 
(I thought there might be something lying around loose). And only 
after I had shown them my Intelligence cards, only after I had 
shown them my citizenship papers, had answered up on a lie 
detector, did they then throw me out. Boy, are they exclusive!

Well, this is a private organization and it issues pieces of 
green paper which are beautifully engraved. Of course, the whole 
subject of engraving is in disgrace, you realize that. Because 
the best engravers of the country are in jail. This is so much 
the case that the Bureau of Printing and Engraving, when it wants 
somebody to make some money for it, you know, they go down to the 
local pen and parole somebody onto their payroll. Actually, 
that's how it got to be known as the Federal payroll.

Anyway, the difficulties attendant to the issuance of money are 
as many as the money is good. That becomes obvious doesn't it? 
That's the first thing we have to learn about money, is that the 
difficulties attendant to issuing it are the validation of it.

In other words, here's British money issued by the British 
government, and it says that if you give them a pound note, 
they'll give you a pound note. Boy, is that direct. That's really 
direct. That's right there, you know. And they're having trouble 
with their money. They've had trouble with their money ever since 
it became issuable directly by the government.

They didn't have trouble with their money as long as they had a 
few more vias on the line. But people can look at that now and 
say, "Hah, we know where that came from. It came off of a 
printing press. It came directly. The government said, 'We'll 
issue some money,' they issued some money and we're expected to 
take this stuff? Ha ha!" Obviously, has no value because it isn't 
crooked enough.

So, the point is that American money is better. It's better. It 
buys more things in the world than British money does, and that's 
only because American money has additional vias on the line. Now, 
the British system of releasing currency is very short and to the 
point. Parliament says, "We authorize currency." And the Bank of 
England authorizes the printer to run some off and they get 
somebody to make some plates out of their local Dartmoor, you 
know, and he comes over and they run off the plates, they run off 
the money and they bring in bales of the stuff, wheel it in on 
carts. And people throw it across the counter at the Bank of 
England. Anybody can see this happen and their money's gone down.

Well now, American money is much more valuable and it is not 
issued by the government. We never see bills relating to the 
publishing of bills, nobody quite traces where it came from or 
how, and I thought you might be interested in how it came to be 
money. Would you be interested?

Audience: Yes.

Well, it's quite an amazing story. It has to do with a fellow by 
the name of Alexander Hamilton, who was killed in a duel. And 
this is not why he was killed in a duel. He was killed in a duel 
because he was... Well, his name had been closely associated with 
George Washington's. As a matter of fact, he'd been an aide-de-
camp. And when George used to sign official orders, "All soldiers 
must be ready to cross the Delaware by two o'clock," you look 
over in the corner and it said "Alex Hamilton." It said 
"Official, Alexander Hamilton." It's quite interesting. I mean, 
after a while, anything that Alexander Hamilton signed was 
official, see? Get it?

So when he proposed this cockeyed system of banking, everybody 
said, "Well, that's contrary to the Constitution."

And he said, "Well, ha, it's official." And so they adopted it. 
And the U.S. from that day to this has never had money as 
authorized by the Constitution. And it just isn't legal. That's 
why it's so valuable.

That's right, that's right. You think I'm joking. I'll show you 
how this happens.

The Constitution said that Congress shall have the power to coin 
money. And Congress never has. They don't coin money. I've been 
up there on the Hill looking for their coiner. Closest I can get 
to it is flipping quarters, heads or tails, with some of the 
senators. I get some of the Middle-Western senators -- they're 
the only ones that will flip coins with you and let you use your 
quarter. The Eastern ones don't. They insist you use their 
quarter. Of course, the Western senator, he's pretty liberal. 
He's more open-minded and he always says, "Well, we'll use 
somebody else's quarter." That's the general difference in 
districts of the country.

Anyway, they never have coined any money. They have yet to do so. 
But they pass bills every once in a while saying, "It shall be 
coined." But they don't ever pass the bill and just exactly say 
that, you see? They say, "The secretary of the treasury," who 
isn't authorized in the Constitution, "shall as the executive 
branch of the government," duties of which are not defined in the 
Constitution, except that he shall be commander in chief of the 
army and the navy...

They've just gotten around to that recently, being 
constitutional. We have forthrightly a general. But he's not an 
admiral so he's only half legal. I haven't seen him in an 
admiral's uniform yet.

English manage these affairs much better. They don't bother so 
much about the rank but, boy, they sure issue uniforms. You get 
to ruling things around there and you're a lifeguard and a 
blackguard and all kinds of things, you know? A guy comes out one 
day as an admiral, another day as an air marshal, and so forth. 
Boy, I tell you, it's terrific! I'm going to ask them sometime 
when I see somebody around like that -- "You got your commission 
handy?" And you know, I bet he hasn't got a commission. If he 
has, he signed it.

Well anyway, U.S. money was found to be unissuable after 
Alexander Hamilton had talked to everybody up on the Hill. (The 
Hill was up in Philadelphia at that time. They've moved it down 
since.) And Alex talked to the boys. And I think he kind of got 
them off in a corner somewhere, and he says, "Now boys, you know 
very well that someday Hubbard's going to tell you that something 
is as valid or as incomprehensible as it has vias. Now, if 
anybody understands money its going to be worthless, you know 
that."

So the boys said, "Well, I don't savvy that."

And he said, "Well," he says, "you can make more out of it 
personally." Well, they bought that! -- immediately formed an 
organization called the Federal Reserve, which organization was 
composed of half a dozen bankers. In that day a banker could have 
good repute. It's terms that just don't go together today. But 
you'll have to stretch your imagination and realize that there 
was a time in the country when bankers did have good repute. 
People looked up to them. And these boys got together, and 
Congress authorized a bill saying that they could exist, and that 
any time it wanted to, the Federal government could buy all of 
its stock out at par value. You got that now? I mean, it's very 
interesting but that par value at this moment is 385 million 
dollars. That's the par value of the total stock of the Federal 
Reserve Bank which exists as a private organization in New York.

Well now, this Federal Reserve Bank issues money this way. You 
won't believe this, but this is the way they do it. They have a 
book, have a ledger. It's probably a common school-composition 
book, you know? And they get a stubby pencil, and they write down 
in it, "Owes us ten billion dollars." Got that? Who does? "The 
U.S. government owes us ten billion dollars." Well, that's the 
start of money. Now, it issues, then, ten billion dollars worth 
of stock, which the Treasury Department is permitted to issue. 
And then because they permitted the Treasury Department to issue 
these ten billion dollars worth of stock, then the Federal 
Reserve can issue ten billion dollars worth of currency that is 
backed up by the stock. You get that? That's backed up! See that? 
I mean it's backed up real good. It's for sure. There it is, see?

There's somebody around here looking puzzled. I mean, I'll go 
over this again.

They have this composition book -- ledger -- and they write in it 
with a stubby pencil, and they say, "U.S. owes us," see, "ten 
billion dollars." And then they say, "ten billion dollars worth 
of stock," you see. They issue it, but the Federal treasury 
issues it to them so that the Federal Reserve can then issue ten 
billion dollars worth of currency. You got that? Well now, that's 
valuable money!

Now, why is it valuable? Well, it's got more vias on the line, 
you see?

Now, when they retire money then they have to retire bonds. That 
makes it equal, doesn't it? You get it? That keeps it legal. Only 
we don't quite see how either the bonds or money were worth a 
damn, because in fact, by current economic theory, neither one 
represents real property, coin, specie, gold, silver or anything 
else. They don't even represent promise to pay. See?

Now, it says -- if you look at a bill -- the bill says, "The 
Federal Reserve promises to pay the bearer on demand ten 
dollars." Ten what kind of dollars? The same kind he's got his 
hands on. Well, this is a paper swap. Well, sometimes people like 
clean paper. Now, that's essentially it.

No, I was joking before about not having any money. I held up my 
wife tonight just so that I would have a couple of bills here, 
various kinds, so that I could talk about this more idiotically.

Now, if you look on one of these bills, you will occasionally be 
dumbfounded to find one of them headed, "silver certificate." 
That's not a Federal Reserve note. Well, what's a silver 
certificate? Well, a silver certificate is quite different than a 
Federal Reserve note. It is actually issued against the amount of 
silver down here in the treasury.

That's a different kind of money. That's the kind that was more 
or less authorized by Congress. But there's very little of this.

Now it says, "This certifies that there is on deposit in the 
Treasury of the United States of America, ten dollars in silver, 
payable to the bearer on demand." And you can walk right in and 
you can get yourself ten dollars worth of silver just like that, 
except they'll give you another bill. Now, that's valid money. 
I'm not joking now, that's what you know as money. That money is 
backed up as money and it does consist of money.

Now, here's the bulk of the money in the country. That was money 
that I just showed you there. This says, "Federal Reserve note. 
The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand ten 
dollars." You say, "Ten dollars? Now, just a minute, who will pay 
to the bearer on demand? The United States of America? Or the 
Federal Reserve note?" Now we see. We match up the print and we 
find out that it's the Federal Reserve. Probably, though -- 
probably -- the United States of America will probably issue it 
out for the Federal Reserve, but that makes the Federal treasury 
an agent of a private bank.

Quite amazingly, it has on its face the picture and portrait of 
Alexander Hamilton. Now, that is valuable. That is valuable. It's 
a nice engraving, it's a nice picture and it's worth money. But I 
don't think anything else here is. Unless money is just money.

Now, here's what makes it legal. It says right up here, "This is 
legal tender." It says, "legal tender," for something or other -- 
"for debts public and private." Well, that means if you don't 
accept it you get a bayonet in you. Well, I wish I had somebody 
around that would make my creditors accept my IOU's. But that's 
what it says, and that's what it is. Now, that is money.

The bulk of the cash in the country is composed of that. Here you 
see Federal Reserve note, a twenty-dollar bill. Federal Reserve 
notes are the usual thing. You see a few silver certificates and 
you see a few ones, fives and tens that are silver certificates. 
You see much more of them in Washington than you do any other 
part of the country for some reason or other. It isn't that the 
Washington government employee is more critical than others. He 
is not known to be.

Well, you see this stuff, it's money. See, here's... I've got a 
bunch of silver certificates here and that's really terrific.

Now we're getting up into sizable currency. Here we have a 
Federal Reserve note, one hundred dollars, that says that "The 
United States of America," evidently -- only it isn't -- "will 
pay to the bearer on demand one hundred dollars." In what? In 
this. It's the same show as the Bank of England, don't you see? 
Except it's a private bank that does it in this case. You throw 
them a hundred-dollar bill; they give you a hundred-dollar bill. 
You give them your hundred-dollar bill; they give you another 
hundred-dollar bill.

I'm going to stay down in one of these cages someday, just 
passing back and forth hundred-dollar bills. And maybe I'll find 
out after the thirtieth or fortieth pass that it suddenly turns 
into gold or something else. But it might not. I might be 
disappointed in that.

Well, I thought you might be interested in this singular fact, 
because all I'm really trying to teach you is not that Federal 
money is no good. It has become so valuable today, actually it is 
so terribly valuable today, that they have upped interest rates 
all over the place and it's very valuable stuff. It isn't no 
good. It's just money.

And what is the character of money? Money is a commodity. It is a 
substitute. It is a thing. It is something that people push 
around. It is something that is defined in economic textbooks. It 
is something which is exchanged. It is something which is 
printed, it is coined, it is minted. It is something for which 
people get killed. It is something that makes it worthwhile to 
become a robber. It is something with which you pay dues, tithes, 
taxes. It's, in short, the weenie in any given culture. It is the 
thing everybody is after. If you didn't have something that 
everybody was after then you wouldn't have any game.

And so we get down to one of the most fundamental agreements of 
our present society: that money is something everybody is after 
and very few people have. Now, it takes that stable datum. It is 
valuable. In order for a thing to be valuable, it is, of course, 
somewhat scarce. If you gave people enough money they would 
simply go on and buy produce and live happy lives and carry on 
and so forth, and you couldn't have that.

So you keep it scarce and they have a game. They get up in the 
morning worrying about how they're going to get another one of 
these pieces of paper. And they go to bed at night realizing that 
they've spent one of those pieces of paper that they shouldn't 
have spent. And they have nightmares that somebody has suddenly 
filled up their bed full of money and they wake up to find out 
that it's not money, it's bills. We get into all sorts of 
interesting complexities by which one man owes another man money. 
And he doesn't pay him the money, so the court gives him a 
summons and then they take him down to court and they have a big 
case. And if it's on a piece of paper and he had a piece of paper 
saying it, why, then of course the other fellow could pay him the 
money because he's got proof that the money didn't change hands 
when it should have changed hands. You get the idea? And you get 
a very nice game going that nobody can understand. And they can't 
understand it for the basic reason that there isn't anything 
there to understand.

Now, let's look at this much more closely. We put some vias on 
the line. Very nicely and neatly, we put some vias on the line. 
In other words we put some extra terminals. The Federal Reserve 
has the Federal government issue some bonds so that it can issue 
some money so that the Federal Reserve's bonds... Get the idea? 
Then we talk about the shortage of money and the scarcity of 
money and the superfluity of money, and we talk about inflation 
and deflation; we hire people to fill up pages in the newspapers 
concerning the business credits of this moment. And we have 
authorities and we teach economy in all of the universities.

And boy, we get more stuff piled up -- bang-bang-bang-bang. Much 
more. Thick, thick books. We get all kinds of things stacked 
together on this one subject called money, in the hopes that 
somebody will not penetrate the secret and split up the inner 
sanctum by saying "Money is as valuable as it is complicated. But 
when it is too complicated, it isn't. So money is the optimum 
level of complication that can still be, to some slight degree, 
uncomplicated."

Now, you may be taking a preclear apart someday, thinking fully 
that you are taking a preclear apart, and discover after Lord-
knows-how-many hours of auditing, that all you were trying to do 
was take care of his ideas about money. There was something there 
but there was nothing there.

You take a capitalista. This is a term... I don't like to use the 
term straight out, because it's gotten to be a nasty word. There 
are two nasty words in the society: the one is that one and the 
other is communist. Communist got to be a nasty word because it 
fought the capitalist. Capitalist got to be a nasty word because 
it was one.

Now, the capitalist got to be nasty because he put too many 
complications on the thing and he stressed it. He went overboard 
beyond optimum. Don't you see? He made money do more than money 
could do. He made money itself manufacture money. Now, that's 
different.

Now, it's bad enough to have the stuff issued someplace that you 
don't quite know about, and spread around, but how about the 
fellow that takes two dollar bills and then presses them hard 
enough with an iron to get three? Now, you see, that's pretty 
downgrade. That's pretty downgrade.

Fellow can't face outright creation. He hasn't the nerve merely 
to go and get a counterfeiter out of prison himself and just 
print some. Nor can he produce a machine or a building or a 
parkway or something which people then give him money for. That 
is not what a capitalist does -- something you should very 
clearly understand.

I'm not rabble -- rousing now on the side of the liberals, the 
socialists, the communists, and so forth. But the old saw, that 
if you were against capitalism you were at once a liberal, I'm 
afraid has worn all its teeth out a long time since. Just because 
you are a bit against the capitalist is no reason that you're 
even vaguely liberal. See, it's not necessarily true at all. 
Capitalism is something that you either laugh about or cry about, 
as it may strike you.

Now, here is this fellow who doesn't produce. He, in some 
fashion, accumulates some money. Now he makes the money make 
money, got that?

Now, the capitalist has sort of disappeared out of the society. 
He's been killed off. It's too unpopular an activity.

It's interesting that in that part of the country -- the New 
England states -- where capitalism was once pretty doggone rife, 
we had (before the advent of the white man into this country) a 
tribe of Indians which, of all the tribes in America, understood 
the charging of interest. There was actually a tribe of Indians 
up in Maine that knew how to charge interest and did charge 
interest on anything loaned. When they put out some wampum they 
wanted some wampum-plus back, you see? And that was up in the New 
England states. And the boys that came in after that, they got 
the idea that if you could just get some wampum together then you 
could make wampum make wampum and you were all set. But who is 
all set?

Well, obviously, the only fellow in such an arrangement who is 
all set is the fellow who is making wampum make wampum. That's 
the only fellow who is all set. Why? Because it's a drag on the 
actual existing currency, and a heavy drag on it, because it has 
a nonproducer who is totally a consumer, who then is quite a drag 
on the remainder of his community. It's just the same as having 
somebody there who is totally indigent, you see? But this total 
indigent now has authority in his community.

How would you like to have somebody down here who couldn't make a 
dime, he couldn't do a day's work, he couldn't do anything. And 
yet he insisted on being fed nothing but the finest of roast beef 
and pheasant's tongues, and he had to be driven everywhere in a 
golden chariot and that sort of thing. And you'd after a while 
say, "This guy is for the birds," and probably should be for the 
graveyard. And you'd say, "There's something wrong with that 
fellow." Well, the society as a whole has finally said, "Yes, 
there is something wrong with that fellow." The capitalist never 
produces anything. Now, don't ever then get capitalism really 
mixed up with the entrepreneur, the producer, the manager. Just 
separate those out.

What is meant by a capitalist is one who makes money make money. 
You see, that's all he does. That's his total philosophy.

Thorstein Veblen was mad-dogging around about this at the turn of 
the century in a book called Theory of the Leisure Class, which 
is one of the doggonedest books you ever cared to read in your 
life. You've got to have a leisure class to consume the goods of 
the worker, otherwise the society caves in. That is the theory. 
Oh yeah? Since when did workers not like to ride around in gold-
plated Cadillacs, huh? All right.

Now, let's look over this thing, the nonproducer. And we realize 
that somebody who stands there and simply shuttles money back and 
forth and takes so much of it is a bog in the economic world. 
He's a bog. He must replace the money he takes out with something 
-- service, good looks, winning ways, a pleasant smile, 
something! But if he puts nothing on that line the economy is apt 
to cave in, simply because there's somebody there who is 
consuming who isn't producing. And therefore, capitalism is not a 
sound theory of economics, and it goes up and down and people 
revolt against capitalism.

Listen, the peasants of France of the fourteenth century had 
never heard the word communism. Well, that didn't restrain them 
from revolting against the first capitalist in France who started 
to issue paper money. They revolted like mad! This doesn't 
restrain anything.

It doesn't matter what words you put on it; as long as you're 
dealing with this commodity called money, you get this phenomenon 
called capitalism. See, it's an interesting phenomenon. But just 
regard it as a phenomenon, not necessarily bad or good about 
anything but the economy. A capitalist is simply bad for his own 
economy, you get the idea? He's bad for his own economy, not 
necessarily a bad person.

All right. We take this whole lineup and we look at the other end 
of the scale that gets created thereby. A fellow is made to 
produce, produce, produce, produce, produce, and he can't have 
any of this stuff called money. Got the idea? And we therefore 
get a peasant or a worker class that is way subnormal.

So, when you get a fellow way up at the top who is taking money 
off the line without contributing anything to it, somewhere or 
another there's some fellow who is going to have to work twice as 
hard and get nothing for it.

And that's what starts revolutions in the world. That's really 
the basic woof and warp of revolutions. They're nine-tenths 
economic, only one-tenth political. And we see the whole of the 
world getting tangled up this way. Well, what are they tangling 
up over? They're tangling up over the fellow who can't work.

The Indian tribe that goes to pieces, goes to pieces because 
there are only fifteen men of the tribe who are hunting: there 
are ten other men of the tribe who are just eating. And the 
fifteen men after a while can't shoot enough game for twenty-five 
men and all the women and children that went along with it, so 
the tribe starts to starve to death. What made them starve to 
death? The guys who were eating without hunting. You see this? So 
we get an imbalance because of indigence.

Whenever you get this created situation whereby you get something 
that is only pulling off the line, it is only absorbing or only 
receiving and is never paying out, you get an imbalance in some 
other part of the system. You see this? It's rather clear.

All right. Let's look at this whole thing about money. You put 
enough vias on the line, it becomes valuable -- but only if it is 
somewhat scarce.

Now, how scarce should money be? Well, what is an optimum 
scarcity of money? Well, it has to be scarce enough so that 
people will consider it more valuable than the goods they're 
holding or making. It has to be just a little bit harder to 
obtain evidently than the goods themselves. Otherwise they'd 
consume their own goods to some degree, wouldn't they? You must 
have just a little bit more value.

Therefore, we have a situation in terms of money whereby somebody 
has to produce and receive money for. Well, this is all based on 
the fact that people produce different things and everybody wants 
a little bit of everything. So we use money as the communication 
line with which to adjust this economy. Now, horribly enough, 
when money is used for anything else, the whole culture goes to 
pieces.

That is actually what money is. That's all it does. That's all it 
could pretend to do. There isn't any, really, further end to it. 
It is simply a substitute. If you threw money into a little 
village it would seek the level of the production at which it was 
scarce. The prices would eventually range themselves so that it 
was scarce, just slightly scarce, so that people wanted it more 
than anything else. Well, why would they want it? It's because 
it's convertible into other items which they themselves don't 
produce. And therefore you have a system by which you can get an 
exchange.

So, if you've got to have a production-exchange system -- you 
see, that's not necessarily necessary -- but if you've got to 
have a production-exchange system, then money is a very good 
answer to this and so has remained in vogue.

But when we complicate money any further than that, why, you 
start to see shifts and imbalances of power. We finally find that 
the indigent can have power. How can they do this? Well, they 
start mixing up with this money, and without producing they yet 
can alter the flow of currency. And people sit around for a long 
time. They'll permit this. And they'll see this lazy bum that 
can't even step out of a carriage by himself, you see, driving in 
a carriage. They haven't got carriages. They see this fellow who 
never produces anything, he never made a witty crack in his life. 
He's produced nothing, see? And they look at that and they say, 
"What do you know? What do you know?"

Well, there are two answers to it: Either we will not work and 
see if we don't get more -- that's a strike -- and the other one 
is "Let's just knock off everybody." And the society sort of 
varies between these two decisions. "Let's gun everybody down 
that isn't working," see? "Let's take the capitalists and shoot 
them all up" or "Let's go on strike and refuse to work until we 
get more money."

What are they trying to do? They're trying to adjust by force 
something that is at best a flimsy idea. They're going to adjust 
by force this very flimsy thing called money. And I say if 
production is necessary, then money is a good answer for the 
exchange of goods.

Actually, "a promise to pay" is a sloppy definition for money. A 
promise to pay is only really valid if you say in what. A promise 
to pay is only valid from a person who can produce, not pay, 
don't you see?

So, what do we have in the final analysis? We have society in a 
commotion and in turmoil over an abstract commodity which itself 
doesn't have any more validity than how many vias are on it. It 
has a use. That doesn't necessarily give it validity.

Give you some kind of an idea of what you can do with economies 
and currency if you... You want to hear something about it?

There was a fellow by the name -- one time -- a fellow by the 
name of Christophe. Terrific man! The French had been holding 
Haiti for a very, very long time. And they had been killing off 
Haitians and burying them in the ground, and knocking them over 
the head and doing interesting things that were only interesting 
to them. And after a while the chaps there in Haiti got the idea 
that the French meant them very little good, if any, and decided 
to eject them from this island.

Well, there were several leaders rose, but the greatest of them 
was Christophe. And this chap was a tremendous figure of a man. 
He was about -- oh, I don't know how tall he was, but he must 
have been about six foot eight, six foot ten, something. To hear 
them speak of him, he's obviously that big. He might have been 
five foot two but he sure looked six foot eight or six foot ten 
to everybody. And this fellow decided that he could set up a 
better nation than the French. And after the revolt against the 
French and so forth, he proceeded to do so. And he did set up a 
rather successful one. He did this because the French didn't 
think he could.

The French thought, "Haiti will collapse economically the moment 
we are swept out of it." They were thinking only in terms of 
money, weren't they?

Do you know what Christophe did? He said, "Hereinafter, as 
aforestated, by command of what bayonet units and machetes we 
have to hand, all gourd trees become the property of the state of 
Haiti." And he sent his soldiers out, and they chopped every 
gourd they could find out of every gourd tree on the island and 
made every gourd tree sacred to the treasury of Haiti and carted 
them in, and the following morning-after it was all done -- 
declared the only currency current to be accepted for goods and 
produce was gourds.

And to this day, to this day, the notes, the money which you are 
issued in Haiti is called gourdes. And they have pictures of 
gourds on them. That was back in 1810, 1812, sometime back then. 
And a hundred and forty, fifty years later, why, we still have 
the money being called gourdes. You see?

It was basically an idea. There was a finite number of gourds in 
Haiti. So he established that as the economy, and it gradually 
sought its own level and there he was. And he had an economy.

And the French stood back absolutely flabbergasted. They said, 
"This man can't possibly succeed." Oh, yes he could! He had all 
the money there was in the country!

Well, here's another example. They were absolutely sure, down 
here at the other end of Sixteenth Street, that a fellow by the 
name of Schicklgruber could never succeed back in '33. And they 
laughed their stomachs sore, if you will excuse me ladies, after 
they heard that he was going to refinance Germany. With what? He 
didn't have any gold, he didn't have any silver, and he didn't 
have any credit, and he didn't have any produce. How in the name 
of common sense could he possibly do so? Obviously, Germany was 
broke, could not then rearm and could not thereupon ever become a 
menace to the rest of the civilized world.

Man, was this a pauperized notion of money talking! They knew 
nothing about money. They didn't even know enough to read the 
history of our own Western Hemisphere. They didn't even know the 
story of Christophe. They should have. Because what did Hitler 
do? He just issued some stuff and says, "This is money." And 
people disagreed with him and they didn't live long. And after a 
while, boy, that was the bestest money you ever heard of. And 
today the mark is worth about twenty-two cents and is the most 
stable coin in Europe. It is accepted right with the American 
dollar. It is much better than the pound, much, much better than 
any francs.

What is this mark? It's a mark. What's a mark? It's a mark! Of 
course, you can say, "Well, it's backed up by U.S. economy." 
Well, that I seriously doubt. Because if this economy over here 
is in any shape to back up anything, I haven't heard about it. 
It's in shape to back up.

No, here's this fabulous thing. This fellow, he had a lot of 
tricks, you know? But every one of his tricks went along this 
line of law: a via. He put another via on the line. The money was 
good because it had gone through somebody else's hands before it 
was printed, you see? The money was good because it had another 
kind of picture on it than somebody else's money. Of course he 
had a hard one to fight there, because they'd already learned in 
Germany that when you turn printing presses loose you eventually 
bought loaves of bread -- you bought great big loaves of bread or 
little tiny loaves of bread -- with wheelbarrow loads of money. 
See, and they'd had that. And that's inflation, that's bad! Huh! 
That is not inflation. Inflation is not defined as "That's bad!" 
See, it's a condition. It's a condition.

So we get to the other interesting thing. If we want to know all 
this about money, and we find out there isn't very much to learn 
about money, except money is money, what the devil is regulating 
the economy of any given country or preclear or president or 
businessman or anything else? What is regulating it? Is it money? 
No, it isn't money. It's produce, ability to produce, and 
existing production. That is all that can stabilize any economy.

Now, that is dependent upon manpower and natural resources. You 
must have men who are willing to work, and you must have natural 
resources to be worked. And if you don't have them you'd better 
invent something to produce that doesn't need them. But certainly 
we're dealing with something real. We're dealing with something 
that has solidity. We're dealing with mass. We're dealing with a 
commodity. Whether it's a pair of nylon stockings or the 
pasteboard boxes to put them in, it is a produced item. And the 
production must be wanted and consumable. You understand that?

A little clock, by the way, is consumable if it's just sitting on 
a shelf See, it's used, it's usable. Why is it sitting on the 
shelf? It doesn't even run. It's merely pretty. It's just because 
somebody wanted it, don't you see?

Desire for produce then creates the interchange. The produce 
itself establishes the possibility of an economy, the desire for 
it brings the economy into an existence whereby it is a third-
dynamic function.

So we get all sorts of fellows with long hair rushing around 
saying, "Woikers of the woild arouse." "Woikers, them capitalists 
consider youse is lice." I've heard fellows, by the way, that 
spoke with a perfect Harvard accent, off the speaker's platform, 
use English as bad as that. "He was a popular mug, see?"

They go around and they rabble-rouse. Why? They conceive 
themselves to be dealing with the only people who produce. And if 
they can get control of these fellows who produce, then they can 
loaf in the stead of the capitalist. See what a neat scheme it 
is? The only difference between a commissar and a capitalist is 
spelling.

Now, we have these fellows, we have these chaps who get this clue 
about production, and they themselves try to do it all by 
production. But remember, the production is nothing, as I just 
said before, without the desire to have the pretty little clock 
on the mantel shelf. In other words, there must be desire to have 
production. That must exist. So it does no good to stand up 
people against the wall and say, "We're gonna shoot you boys all 
down if you don't produce." If you do this to a whole nation, you 
eventually wind up, see, with nobody able to want anything. The 
desires of a corpse are measurable by worms alone.

So if you knock out the wantingness, if you knock out the 
consumingness and if you just stress producingness, the cogwheels 
keep turning and turning and pretty soon some worker asks, he 
says, "Hey Joe, hey Joe, what we making?"

And Joe says, "I don't know. What is it?"

"It's a little box, some kind here. Comes out at the other end. 
See, there's one."

"What is it?"

"I don't know. Hell, I only been here ten years."

You have this silly picture of everybody producing with nobody 
consuming and, of course, you don't have a third dynamic. You 
have a series of firsts.

So these great group social movements, based on "snare the 
worker," usually wind up as a first-dynamic action. See this? 
Totally first dynamic, you see? Everybody out for nobody. Not 
even out for themselves, by the way.

Do you realize, everybody out for himself is a better society 
than everybody out for nobody. At least you've got a possibility 
of fighting on the first one. When you yourself, you see, feel 
that everybody should be out for himself, you can go around and 
accuse people of this. But if everybody is out for nobody, then 
who'd care whether you accused them or not?

All right. So we look at this huge economic network and we 
recognize that a network does require a certain amount of 
consumption, but the consumption of course must be ranged 
somewhere along desire. And we mustn't take this automaticity of 
food. We must say, "Well, people must always eat." I don't know 
that people must always eat. I think it's a bad habit. I almost 
cured somebody of eating the other day in a processing session. 
Stopped just in the nick of time.

Here's this interesting fact: I don't know that any of these 
desires are anything more than somebody's idea that he wants. 
Well, you could ruin an economy two ways. You could ruin an 
economy by making the people cut their production down. See, 
"Don't produce that much Joe. You don't produce that much. We 
don't need all that. And you skip making that this year. And 
nobody wants any of that over here." And we just keep this up, 
see? Plow the pigs under, you know, sort of thing.

And then we would go around and say, "Now, all of you people 
should be self-sacrificing, and you shouldn't go around being 
greedy and wanting all these things, see."

It really takes both of these actions. Because if you don't have 
the second action then the first one will never get corrected if 
it goes out of line. In other words, if people did sag on 
production, you must still have another crew (even if they're 
just the women of the family, you know) to go around and say, "I 
don't care what it costs, I don't care how many miles you have to 
walk for it in snow; when I say mink, I mean mink!" There must be 
somebody there.

Now, this current economy has this interesting aspect: 
everybody's being hammered and pounded all the times with "must 
have" -- "can't have." You look at the TV ads: "Get into this 
beautiful new Cadillac. Drive down this smooth road."

At first you say, "Don't I wish I could." And after a while, 
because it's just glass with some light playing on it, you say, 
"All these rich dogs ought to be shot!" It's your next reaction.

And after a while, you would unfortunately say, "What Cadillacs? 
I don't even read the ads anymore." Do you get the idea?

You could overstimulate the desire to have and then not gratify 
it to such a degree that everybody would become apathetic about 
possession, and an economy would go bzzzsst! That'd be the end of 
that economy.

Now, the funny part of it is, the only thing I don't think you 
could do would be to overproduce variety. Of course, if everybody 
in the world all of a sudden started growing watermelons and 
wouldn't grow anything else but watermelons, and every plant 
would only manufacture synthetic watermelons, I think the economy 
would be shot.

A variety of production -- people producing what they can 
produce, producing consumable goods, goods that did fill various 
needs -- it's almost impossible to overproduce.

Now, just why you think somebody has to be a rich skunk to drive 
a Cadillac is, of course, traceable only to ads. Ads show rich 
skunks driving Cadillacs -- you know, the black-white plumed tail 
waving in the air behind the Cadillac.

No, it's a fact. It's a fact. There is no reason under the sun 
why this economy couldn't build a Cadillac for everybody that 
wanted a Cadillac. They're rather simple to build. They require 
no more metal really than a Ford. They just make it thinner. And 
you've got this vehicle.

Well, now, it is true that everybody in the society couldn't have 
a gold-plated Cadillac. There isn't that much gold. You'd run out 
of gold in very short order. You'd have to tap the government 
down here at Fort Knox and say, "Give us some of that stuff that 
belongs to us."

And they'd say, "No, no. We've got to have that to back up the 
money."

And you'd say, "What money?"

Of course, they'd say, "Oh, you're invalidating the currency of 
the United States. Well, that's a criminal offense." I think it 
is, too. Be the fifteenth statute I've broken today. Well, I -- 
anyhow...

Within the range that you didn't want a gold-plated Cadillac, 
then, I'm sure that everybody could have a Cadillac. You get the 
idea? Everybody that wanted one could have a Cadillac. Well, 
somebody would have to be producing gold, you see, for everybody 
to have a gold-plated Cadillac, because there are finite limits 
of gold available. Get the idea?

In other words, these economic checks are monitored by desire to 
have and ability to produce. And of course, if you don't have the 
raw materials you can't produce it. But the only wide-open track 
along the line that looks relatively wide-open is production. You 
can't overdo it and still maintain a variety of production. 
Unless you enter in a new number of factors.

Now, you can enter in this new factor which would have to do with 
money, scarcity of. You could tell everybody carefully, "Now 
listen, in order to get any produce you have to give money for 
it." Everybody learns this. That's a new lesson. They learn it. 
They learn it well. They go around, they say, "All right. I want 
a new Cadillac. That means I have to have ten thousand dollars 
and I pay it on the line here, and they give me a new Cadillac." 
Everybody learns that lesson well.

And then all of a sudden some cheap dog forgets to write down 
something in this composition book. See, they look at the 
composition book and say, "Well, that page is full. We're not 
going to issue any more money." And you look in your pocket and 
you don't have ten thousand dollars, you just have ten cents. So 
you don't get a Cadillac, you get a hamburger. Get the idea?

Well, supposing you were producing like mad, or supposing there 
wasn't enough money to pay you for your production. Supposing 
there wasn't enough money for anyone to buy your production. 
Ahrhyeah! So we find out there isn't much you can do about people 
from a production angle. And it wouldn't do anybody any good to 
monitor production anyway. The place to hit it is for money, 
money. You make the money scarce.

Now, there's two ways to make money scarce. Both of them add up 
to no value for money. Just print it by the billions of bills. 
Let it blow all over the streets. Show pictures of your president 
lighting cigars with thousand-dollar bills. Or don't print any. 
Everybody'll forget what it looks like.

The whole society might or might not stay on the subject of money 
if it weren't for the fact of taxes. There is a monobrained, 
puppy to the root -- well, monomaniac sort of an organization in 
the country. It's composed of tax collectors. And it only 
collects taxes in money. Does you no good to take down eggs. Does 
you no good to park that Cadillac out in front and say, "There it 
is." They'll only settle for money. You could print some money 
and give it to them, they wouldn't be satisfied. They got to have 
a special kind of money. They got to have their own money. But 
they didn't make any. How can you pay them?

Well, I'm afraid that's a problem that's being solved right here 
at this moment. It's being solved in this fall of 1956. How you 
pay taxes in money which isn't being manufactured.

The financial low of all time since the depression has been 
reached within the last four days on the subject of the amount of 
money available to buy Cadillacs. That ratio is now below 1931. 
There is less money in the economy for the amount of goods in the 
economy than there were since 1931. The money is getting scarce. 
The money is getting very scarce. It would be very unkind of me -
- who keeps my eye open (I should say who keeps me eye open) on 
things like this -- not to tell my friends about it, which is the 
only reason I'm talking to you tonight. Because this is an 
unsavory subject -- money -- because they got it so rigged that 
when you got no dough you don't eat. "No dough, no chow." That's 
the motto of this society.

But money is not production. Money is money. And if money is not 
produced, it doesn't exist. To that degree it is simply another 
production.

I'm not trying to scare anybody to death. I'm not trying to scare 
you anymore than... Mortgage brokers and other people are 
hysterical right now. As a matter of fact I'm trying to do quite 
another thing as far as you're concerned. I'm trying to show you 
why you shouldn't be particularly upset and alarmed, and perhaps 
you can understand what's going on in this society around you 
just a little bit better.

Yesterday, or a many yesterdays ago, you ordered a radio set. You 
didn't pay the fellow for thirty days. You forgot it. At the end 
of thirty days you gave him your check. You said, "Here's your 
check."

The fellow said, "All right, that's good."

Today you buy a radio set. Your checkbook does not come out of 
your pocket quite fast enough, the fellow's hysterical. You buy a 
commodity today and you have somebody on the other end of the 
line within twenty-four hours if he has not instantly received 
pay. Why? He's going broke! He has certain set, fixed expenses. 
People all around who want things. People all around want his 
produce. They want what he's distributing. But they haven't got 
any money to buy it. But he has to pay salaries. But he has to 
pay the manufacturer. But he has to pay rent. And above all he 
has to pay taxes. And he might be able to get away with his rent 
with a couple of new TV sets, and he might be able to square the 
beef in some other direction. But he can't square it with the tax 
collector in any other way than money.

So, he's apt to be on the phone within a week. And he's apt to 
have you in court within two weeks if you don't pay it.

In other words, hysteria. What's that hysteria based on? Not 
enough little printed pieces of paper such as I showed you at the 
beginning of this lecture.

Why should you get hysterical about little pieces of paper?

Well, everybody knows. It's just another one that "everybody 
knows." It is such a solid agreement that everybody has agreed on 
it.

What does this mean, perhaps, to the auditor? It really doesn't 
mean anything but good news.

When economies go bad, people become worried about themselves. 
People can find money to pay for treatment when they can't find 
money to feed their kids. Now, this is a horrible fact.

People have to become more able in order to survive. And the 
business of an auditor is really never better. So an auditor (of 
all people) should never become the least bit upset about a 
depression. It's in depressions that great movements move 
forward. It is in depressions that old regimes are overthrown. It 
is in depressions that people are willing to learn. And out of 
such a depression, a whole new culture might arise. This doesn't 
mean that we couldn't cry a little when we see how grim it is 
probably going to get within the next couple of years in this 
country.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]





FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 16 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

===============================================

A POSTULATE OUT OF A GOLDEN AGE

A lecture given on 6 December 1956


[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

I want to talk to you now about something else that is very 
vague, but something that might be of some interest and is 
certainly in the field of total speculation. Total speculation 
is, of course, seldom obtainable, but in this case it is. And 
that is the future. This we can say is in the realm of 
speculation.

Now, a person who is apt to be challenged by his peers or 
"infeers" is very apt to fly into the future for his very solid 
utterances. The only trouble with that is, although he can never 
be challenged at the time, the future has a habit of catching up 
with one. And you could describe the future as a discarder of 
discredited prophets, which becomes the past. So we then have a 
definition for the past: The past is an area which is entirely 
full of discredited prophets.

But when we speak of the future we normally think of ourselves, 
our family, a particular group. How about the future of society? 
Very seldom has a man ever walked forward and seriously discussed 
the future of any given culture. He has hoped for it. He has 
worked for it. He has speculated about it. But to make any sound 
pronunciamentos, on a cultural level, concerning any given 
society, is not usually done.

But when it is done -- no matter if it is badly done -- it is 
quite often fantastically successful. Why? It's because everybody 
is too timid to put down a postulate for an entire culture. Most 
people are too timid to do that. They're too afraid of becoming a 
discarded prophet.

But perhaps it is better in the minds of some men to be right 
only for ten days or a year, and to have made a postulate which 
did at least become right for some period of time, than never to 
have prophesied at all.

Now, there have been chaps on the track who did prophesy; fellows 
of very ill repute indeed. We have fellows like Hitler. His 
prophesies were not the prophesies for a culture. They were 
prophesies for an insatiable ambition.

There have been other fellows on the track who have made 
prophesies for an entire culture -- men like Hitler. And they 
have produced disaster, because they, again, were not really 
prophesying for an entire culture. They were prophesying because 
of ambition, and ambition alone. And so the ambition of an 
individual is crammed down the throats of an entire multitude, 
and necessarily then this becomes chaos. Wreckage is strewn in 
the wake of such an action.

Only in the field of -- well I hate to say religion -- in the 
field of philosophy has a prophesy of the future (laying down a 
postulate as to what the future would be like) ever been vaguely 
successful. And in this field we find the society going forward 
and not particularly disintegrating because of. And we find that 
from the field of philosophy we have achieved what future the 
culture does have.

It's an interesting thing to look back and isolate the source, 
usually, of any given era or period or political entity. We look 
back into Greece and we can actually spot the exact people and 
the exact statements which became Greece. We look at such chaps 
as Pericles. Pericles was just a politician, but we know him best 
because in his age Greek freedom and Greek art came toward the 
ultimate, and actually were never as good afterwards and had 
never been as good before.

But this chap had some interesting ideas, and he was not totally 
and only a politician. As a matter of fact, it's rather 
interesting to look over his record and discover he was a rather 
bad politician. So we must say he was a better prophet for his 
own culture than he was a politician for himself.

But he was a pretty good prophet. And he postulated the future, 
not only of Athens, but for other Greek states, for the Roman 
Republic (getting pretty wide), for France, for England and for 
the United States of America. Because he laid down a singular 
principle, and that principle was that the citizen should know 
more about government and should participate in it to the fullest 
extent. And this, carried forward -- as he carried it forward in 
his own government -- became the Age of Pericles. There was no 
higher level of Greek culture than this one age. "Everyone may 
participate. Every man's voice should be heard." And this was a 
wonderful thing, and so far as I know, had not been said before 
politically.

And so we have one man giving forth a postulate, since he just 
didn't say this should be, he said this will be. And he bent his 
own political efforts in the direction of making this come about. 
And even though he himself was not a successful politician, he 
put his postulate on the next 2300 years. He put his postulate on 
the world we live in much more solidly than another chap who used 
to give lectures by the Sea of Galilee. That's for sure. Because 
the great nations of the world which have since arisen, have 
arisen, actually, because they wished to emulate and follow in 
the path of free Greece.

The scholars of 150 years ago in this country were known as 
scholars simply because they knew about the Age of Pericles. If a 
man knew enough about that period he was learned, he was 
educated. If he could speak Greek as well, well, on a Sunday you 
might be able to touch him on the sleeve if you were lucky.

The learned men of the society studied these things. The Founding 
Fathers of the United States were themselves very educated along 
this line and practically no other. George Washington's aides 
were the glibbest chaps you ever saw in your life on the subject 
of what Greek general had done what, when. But they couldn't for 
the life of them have told you anything at all about what some 
American frontiersman had done fifty or a hundred years earlier. 
They were not educated in that. They were only educated in the 
classic tradition.

This very word classic tradition at one time meant only the Age 
of Pericles. Classic. What made it classic? Just that one thing: 
"Every man may have a voice and may express his opinion in his 
government and the actions of his culture. Men are entitled to 
that voice. And the culture itself should contribute to them the 
availability of information so that they can know what the 
culture consists of."

In other words, it was the duty of the culture to educate men 
into the existence of the culture. It was the duty of the 
individual, knowing these things, to contribute his own knowledge 
and his contribution to his own culture.

This was something new, and man had never learned this... had 
this before the Age of Pericles. Therefore, the great nations of 
earth since, which have sought to rise under the mantle of 
tyrants, have perished. They are dead. There isn't one alive 
today anywhere within the sphere of learning which we know as 
classical Greek history.

Now, we might point to Persia and say this wasn't the case in 
Persia. And I can point out to you that Greek history was never 
taught in Persia, any more than we now teach German history in 
our schools. They were enemies. The Oriental world was not taught 
any of this until recent times, and you'll find the entire 
Oriental world in foment. You find it bursting its bonds and 
leaping at the throat of every tyrant who raises his head. You 
find these people ungovernable. You find [the] entirety of Asia 
in a state of revolution today. Why? They just got through 
reading Greek history.

We read it 170, 180 years ago. Our learned men, our own leaders, 
the men who were to become captains and majors and generals, who 
were to become the fellows who wrote such things as the Articles 
of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the 
Constitution -- these men were learned only if they knew Greek 
history. And the very learning of it was really more than they 
could take, because they did not conceive within the compass of 
their own training that England was following through classic 
tradition.

Taxation without representation was not described as a sound 
principle in the Age of Pericles. Plato frowned upon it. 
Aristotle might have subscribed to it in a loose and drunken 
moment at a banquet of Alexander's, but never amongst his own 
friends. And so they frowned upon it. Across a bridge of two 
thousand years these men were taught to revolt against tyranny, 
and they did. And that is what the Age of Pericles did, and the 
postulate it laid on the future.

A fabulous thing to observe: We think "Love thy neighbor" has 
been the civilizing influence. It has not been. "Be free" has 
been.

The religious world may have dominated, at one time or another, 
the Middle Ages, but the religious world consisted in itself of a 
tyranny and was itself antipathetic to this very thing called 
freedom. Where we could have the word of one man saying, "All 
must now believe; all must now worship; you must keep your hand 
in your upper breast pocket while quoting Psalm 66 and in no 
other place," we did not have freedom. We had slavery.

And we also never taught very much about Greece until the day of 
the Scholastic. And it was an unhappy day that they reached into 
the tombs below the Vatican where they have kept all the books 
which were salvaged from the old Greek and Roman libraries, and 
brought out and gave to the world, like a little tidbit, the 
works of Aristotle as a scientific work, and formed the basis of 
what we called Scholasticism. And people read a little bit 
further and they found the rest of them. They found people like 
Plato. They found this fellow Socrates. They found these other 
chaps who had a lot to say. And all these chaps were talking 
about was freedom and there went the church. Boom!

You can recognize the truth of this. There was no stronger force 
on the face of earth, in 1400 and something, when Cesare Borgia 
was letting his sister poison some fellows so his uncle the pope 
could sell a few more seats in a few more monasteries. This was a 
tight, capitalistic, highly profitable tyranny, and it blew up in 
their faces. And it did an awful lot of very violent blowing up 
before we begin to hear about anything like freedom. Things 
started to blow up in sections, and they blew up in the face of 
religion.

We had such oddities as the entirety of Holland in revolt against 
tyranny. We had the oddity of Philip of Spain coming up to 
Holland and burning people in the streets for heresy. We had the 
people of Holland being butchered and run into the dikes, and we 
had them fighting down to the last man. With their preachers, 
they considered their first freedom, freedom of religion. And 
their preachers went about in the fields on a Sunday reading from 
a forbidden book called the Bible. And because Philip ran out of 
troops before Holland ran out of population, the yoke was 
overthrown. And that was the end of that particular regime.

And from there we had blowups the length and width of Europe. 
They were first striking for freedom for religion and out of that 
crew came the Puritan Fathers. It's very interesting, very 
interesting to trace it back, not as something speculative and 
not as something that you or I would then guess about, but to 
trace it back with such heavy-heeled strides straight back to the 
Age of Pericles.

Religion became free. And when it became entirely free, it 
itself, as a last tyranny, began to blow up. Freedom of religion 
destroyed religion.

Now, where did the United States ever believe that it could at 
any given time set up a regime upon the backs of people who were 
taught to be free? This would be one of the most adventurous 
actions ever taken by a man: to throw the United States under a 
tyrannical yoke. Oh, he might get away with it for five years. He 
might get away with it for ten years -- if he had enough troops, 
maybe twenty-five years. But during that twenty-five years 
there'd be an awful lot of troops dead. And certainly at the end 
of that time man would have reasserted his birthright.

It would not really be possible to enslave the population of the 
United States. It would be possible to permit them to forget, or 
to teach them so much that was otherwise "very important" that 
the data would become swamped. You could over-educate them, swamp 
and drown these lessons of freedom, and gradually ban all the 
books that mention the Age of Pericles, the classic Greek, the 
history of Rome. You could throw these data away if you did it 
very carefully, but with what care it would have to be 
undertaken.

Chaps like me would have to be shut up first. That takes some 
doing.

Now, it's an interesting thing to look at a stable datum and 
discover that that stable datum has been the resulting cultures 
for some twenty-three hundred years. And that stable datum was, 
"I have a right to know about my government, to voice my opinions 
concerning it, to contribute to and participate in the political 
and economic activities of my age, time and people." Man believed 
that. Somebody told him he could. And that was back in the days 
of the classic Greek. And nobody's been able to stamp it out or 
handle it since. Wasn't that a terrible thing to do?

Think, think, think of what an awful thing this was to do. Think 
how mighty some of these rulers might have been. Think how 
overwhelmingly huge and beautifully carven their thrones might 
have been. Think of the architecture we've missed in their 
palaces and shrines of worship which were never built. Think of 
these poor chaps that dedicated to an enslavement of man, without 
any capabilities and no man to enslave. Awful. You can just see 
these fellows now. The uniforms they would have worn, never 
manufactured. The gallows they would have erected, never built. 
The prisons they would have filled, never even planned. I think 
it's a dirty trick on these fellows, don't you? What ambition has 
gone to waste here, because they've never managed it.

We have just gone through a considerable cataclysm that none of 
us really understand for what it was. The cataclysm was World War 
II. Why do we pay attention to World War II and not pay much of 
attention to the Korean War? Well, you could say one was fought 
by the United Nations and the other was fought by the United 
States. Yes. Yes, yes, that's true, except we lost all the troops 
in the Korean War.

No, the Korean War was not for any outright principle that we 
ourselves could define as part and parcel to our own beingness, 
so we had very little in common with the Korean War beyond the 
boo-boos of a few politicians who are since demised. These chaps 
are not politically active today. One of them tried to advise his 
own party about something just a few months ago and they laughed 
themselves sick.

Well, no, there was a difference between these two wars. They 
were quite similar in casualties. You may not realize that the 
Korean War lost three hundred thousand young Americans, but it 
did. It was a big war. We certainly didn't pay much attention to 
it. That's because it wasn't on the line of our own principles. 
But World War II was. We thought that that war was right down our 
alley and had to be fought when we really got busy fighting it. 
Everybody was insulted that he wasn't permitted to personally end 
the war. That was an interesting war.

Why? Because it was a war against tyranny. Because once more 
somebody had risen up within reach of our culture, and had dared 
to say "A tyranny shall exist. Men may not speak. Religion may 
not be free. No one has a right to either understand, participate 
in or contribute to his own government save as he is told to do 
so." And boy, we fought that one with enthusiasm. And boy, did he 
get killed! Wow! He got killed so hard his people doubted he's 
dead! He went into an inverted kill!

This guy Hitler had done something that was an anachronism. It 
was out of time and place. He thought he was living back in 450 
B.C. He got stuck on the time track, and he set up a tyranny. And 
the next thing you know, everybody started shooting at it. Why? 
Because Hitler was a bad man? No, I dare say he was quite a 
clever fellow. Probably very nice to meet socially. You needn't 
have put out your best rugs, but probably got along all right 
socially. Chewed the rug, of course, and raved a bit, but he 
probably wasn't too bad. This fellow became -- well, to put it 
very mildly -- non persona grata. He was...

It's interesting that long before he became unpopular with 
Chamberlain over in England, that two or three hunters from 
England had already gone over to Germany and conducted still 
hunts on Hitler. Why this strange enthusiasm? Why Hitler? Well, 
he was handy and he had certainly set himself up as a target.

And thus you have the definition of it. A man who perpetrates a 
tyranny does not set himself up, if you please, anymore, as a 
tyrant. He sets himself up only as a target. Big difference. Once 
he set himself up to be invulnerable. Now he sets himself up to 
be vulnerable, and shot.

Look at the way this culture is educated. The die is cast and 
there it sits motionless in time. It says, "Man is destined and 
dedicated to freedom. He's destined for a long future span of 
self-rule, and that span shall not end until the knowledge itself 
of man has ended."

Now, today, just as in any other time, we do have amongst us men 
who believe it is possible to become tyrants without becoming 
targets. There are always psychotics and fools in any society, 
and they do set themselves up, and they do try to conduct 
themselves in this fashion. Whether they conduct themselves this 
way as a little Napoleon in some capitalistic level of a factory, 
or whether they conduct themselves as the manager of some cell 
down in the West End, or whether they conduct themselves in some 
tyrannical fashion even in their own home, they still set 
themselves up and they still get knocked down. In fact, I don't 
know what we'll ever do for tenpins if such men cease to set 
themselves up. It has become an unpopular action, no matter 
whether it's conducted on the second, third, fourth, fifth, 
sixth, seventh or eighth dynamic. It's unpopular.

I imagine if you were to describe God in a popular fashion today, 
I'm afraid you would have to describe him as a fellow who let you 
make up your mind. I'm sure that would restore some of the 
popularity of this. Because he's not popular today. The 
government down here says that it was founded under God, but it 
doesn't believe it. The Senate opens itself in every session with 
a chaplain. They have an awful time keeping the senators quiet. 
It's an interesting world we're living in, They're still paying 
lip service to something, but they're not following it through.

Everywhere we have these small efforts to tyranny, and everywhere 
we see them fail. Do you know once upon a time it was entirely 
different than this? A man was only an important man in his 
village, he was only an important man in his area, if he was a 
tyrant, if he knew how to act like a tyrant. That was the way one 
had to know how to act. One had to know how to act like a tyrant.

How does a ruler act? Well, "Off with their heads. Nobody must 
think. Everybody must bow down." Oh yes, he was a good ruler. 
Every time he walked down Main Street, why, everybody knelt and 
bowed his head to the ground as he passed. That was a twenty-
five-hundred-year-ago description of a good ruler. He was very 
well liked by his people. Nobody tried to assassinate him during 
his entire reign. Do you see this? In other words, a man that was 
a good ruler or a good family man or a good something or other 
was tyrannically good. He oppressed everything. He smashed down 
anything that came in his path. He was totally dominant where 
anything in his surroundings was concerned. And that was a man 
before Pericles.

He's not a man today. He's a target. And wherever he lifts his 
head: "Knock him off! Kill him! Shoot him! Drown him! Arrest him! 
He's crazy!" Oh, but this was once the socially acceptable thing 
to be and do -- tyrannical, completely unreasonable, utterly 
didactic, completely conscienceless, without mercy -- that was 
the way one acted. But not today.

Well, how do you suppose a society operated in those dark days? 
How do you suppose men really acted in those dark days? How did a 
society respond or not respond back in the days when every ruler 
had the right to cut off the head of every citizen without 
further protest of any kind whatsoever? Did man prosper? Nope. He 
prospered so badly, to tell you the truth, that he seldom wrote 
records about it. Now that's below writingness.

Every once in a while we read on a pyramid the saga of King 
Hamaradahugabunga, and it's all about King Hamaradahugabunga, but 
it's not about any subjects. It doesn't tell you, "Thirty-five 
thousand six hundred and ninety-two point three peasants were 
killed building this pyramid." Doesn't tell you that. It says, 
"Hamaradahugabungy built this pyramid as a toast to his own 
regime." Big guy. Big guy. When he walked through the streets he 
had people who walked before him with long whips and beat the 
populace out of the road. Great man. Quite a boy. He's awful 
dusty now. They dig up his mummies now and then, and dust them 
off and say, "This is Hamaramahugabunga." Put him in a museum for 
the little kids to sit and look at and suck lollipops and say, 
"Huh." They say, "Look Mummy: mummy."

Now, did they fare well? Yup. Society ran on an entirely 
different stable datum. Stable datum was this: that a society 
consisted of a number of slaves who work for a ruler. See? 
Simple. That's all you had. That's all there was to it. And some 
of the fellows who work for him are a little more in-team than 
others. They can wear hats. Otherwise, it's total oppression.

Well, did these societies succeed? No! Hamaramahugabunga 
succeeded, and maybe some of his guards succeeded, and maybe some 
of his torturers got good practice, but the society as a whole 
never did.

Those societies rose and fell with remarkable rapidity. They 
seldom became populous. They were engaged in petty wars and 
warfares which decimated them. They overran each other madly in 
all directions and wiped each other out. Why? Well, 
Hamaramahugabunga's army couldn't have cared less, to tell you 
the truth. And life didn't mean anything to them so they might as 
well chew up and slaughter any town they went through. Who cared? 
They didn't. Nobody cared about them, why should they care about 
anything else? And you had in action a society of criminals 
without responsibility or decency, and their arts have not 
endured.

Now, you could say, "Well, somebody dug up a bunch of stuff down 
on an island in the Mediterranean and it was great stuff. And it 
showed the Cretan society and the Minoan and the bull and all 
kinds of things, and they had nice palaces. And look at this 
beautiful society, because here we've just uncovered this 
beautiful palace. And it had eighty-nine rooms and, golly, it 
must have been quite a society." You bet it was quite a society! 
What did they dig up? They dug up the palace of 
Hamaragahugabunga. Sure. You bet it's a good society! From his 
viewpoint. Naturally it was a big palace. Where did the slaves 
live? Well, there are no real remains of those. You can 
occasionally find the remains of the officers' quarters.

Well, what happened to the people at large? Well, they didn't 
last, and these other people didn't last either. And their reigns 
rose and their reigns fell.

Well, what's amazing is the very few arts which they developed 
per century -- the few arts which were developed per century. 
You'll find one art hanging on, rather badly done. Listen, you 
can talk a lot about the fancy cloth they used to have but you 
wouldn't wear it in a sports jacket. Nah. Leather is nice, but 
not for stockings. You wouldn't have put up with it. You would've 
considered it a hardship.

And yet they'd use that cloth and wear that cloth. You take the 
dye that used to come out of Tyre all the time, this indigo. They 
had a bunch of bugs there under the sea and they'd squash them 
and they got indigo dye. Now, that's the truth. That's why Tyre 
was so popular. And this purple, as absolute requisite for a 
Roman emperor and for other people, that all came out of this 
town called Tyre. And you know it wasn't sunfast? I hate to tell 
this on them. But it sure was popular for about a thousand years. 
For a thousand years? A sunfast color might have been popular for 
a thousand years but certainly not one that wasn't. That doesn't 
show very high progress, does it?

Well, I'll tell you how they did it. They had a boss, you see, 
and he was grabbed off by the King of Tyre, and this boss had a 
bunch of slaves, and they walked around and walked on the bugs 
and squashed them into the dye vats and that was the stuff. And 
then they sold that produce, and that was that. And that was the 
way they produced it and...

Well, you talk about tyranny of production. There was no self-
determinism used in squashing those bugs with your feet at all. 
Somebody would say, "I'm only going to use my left foot today." 
Huh-unhhh, that didn't go. Somebody would say, "You know, I don't 
like purple feet."

They'd say, "Get in there, bum."

That was the dye industry of Tyre. And it went on that way for 
about twelve hundred years, I think -- that I know about 
personally. Of course I don't know what the history books say. I 
never do. I don't read them. I either invent my history out of 
whole cloth or remember it. Because I find most historians are 
liars.

For instance, I'll tell you all I know about self-determinism and 
so forth taught in an academy. We had an academy that was up the 
street. It was about three blocks above Plato's old place. It was 
kind of fallen into disrepute at the time. And if you missed a 
question during the interrogation period you were given full 
power of choice. You were permitted to fight, with staves, the 
toughest boy in the school. You didn't miss many questions but 
you became a pretty good soldier.

They taught self-determinism. They say it was the biggest crime 
in the world not to make up your own mind on a question. It was 
an interesting thing. It was an interesting thing. It was an 
academy, a walking academy. Academy means a place where you walk 
around and talk about it.

I'm not to be quoted as an authority for history, because my 
memory gets spotty. But I can tell you this, I can tell you this 
for sure: that Tyre didn't change its manufactures, quality of 
production, and didn't much change its quantity for twelve 
centuries. Its revenues from this were very high, but never 
adequate to the feeding of the people of Tyre and no other 
industry was invented.

This is a culture? This is a forward-looking, active, producing 
culture?

Somebody walked into Tyre one day, and he said, "You know, I have 
some political opinions" -- about 1000 B.C. -- "political 
opinions." People didn't know what the word politics was, so they 
assumed that he was selling something, so they wanted to know 
where he kept the opinions and so forth. And he just got more 
wound up and more wound up, and the next doggone thing you know, 
they hanged him. The population hanged him. Why? Well, they 
couldn't understand him.

But after fifteen or twenty fellows like him had walked into 
Tyre, somebody got the idea one day. And he said, "What do you 
mean, political opinions? You got political opinions. You mean a 
person could have opinions on government? I get it! I get it. You 
could have an opinion about government. I'll get this in a 
minute. Now, a government -- let's see, an opinion -- a 
government could be good or bad, and I could say my opinion is 
the government could be good or bad."

Oooh! This is pretty revolutionary. Made him awful nervous. It 
was actually during the reign of that great democrat (heh-heh), 
Alexander the Great (who finished off, actually, the Age of 
Pericles), that Tyre fell. First use of the submarine. Alexander 
put some fellows in buckets and made them go around and saw down 
the piling on which some of the walls of the city stood, and that 
was the end of Tyre.

To show you how apathetic the joint was, by the way (it was very 
apathetic), Alexander, when he came by, gave some sacrifices out 
on the plain to the gods of the city, and the priests in the city 
nailed their own images -- gods -- to the altar and maligned them 
for wanting to betray the city to Alexander. See? I mean real 
high toned. You know? Lot of savvy. You know, smart.

And the population, seeing the priests do this to the idols, then 
knew it was all sunk anyhow and you couldn't get the walls 
manned. That was the end of Tyre. I mean, a good high state of 
enthusiasm, you know? Get in there and punch, you know?

Well, today you don't find too many of these bogholes, but that 
was a boghole. Nothing invented, nothing produced, nothing 
changed, no opinions, nothing to talk about, no-game condition, 
straightforward. You uncomfortably lay out under the sun and 
fried, and that was about the end of that culture. And I don't 
think any of you would say this was a good culture.

It was a culture without ice-cream sodas. But worse than that it 
was a culture that had no desire for ice-cream sodas even when 
they're extended. And that's pretty low down as a culture. I've 
even taken a Chinese culture in the lower villages of China, and 
so forth, and got them slap-happy on the subject of ice cream. I 
mean, ice cream you can pick up anybody on.

What and where does such a culture as that which grows under a 
tyranny -- what and where does it do? Go? What happens to it? It 
never goes anyplace. It doesn't invent anything. It has no 
future. It's only future is represented by the many tombs of the 
tyrants which you see planted nakedly upon the plains where once-
great cities stood. The tombs of the tyrants; that's about all 
that remains of those cultures.

But, by golly, you wouldn't say that this is all that remains of 
Greece. Do you know that very recently there was no archaeology 
outside of the Age of Pericles? Do you know that within the last 
seventy-five years a school had to rise and say, "There were 
civilizations before and after the civilizations of classic 
Greek. Why don't we study them?"

Everybody said, "Ho-hum. That's not archaeology." Archaeology was 
totally and completely anchored in only one spot -- the high peak 
of Greek culture and the little period before and after it. And 
that was archaeology. That was the definition. It was the study 
of Greece. There was just nothing else.

And when this Mycenaean culture was finally discovered here at 
about the turn of the century, nobody would confess that it was 
an archaeological discovery because it wasn't related immediately 
to ancient Greece. And that famous businessman that dug it all up 
down there, this chap (this was right at the turn of the century) 
actually had to invent a bunch of fairy tales and get Achilles 
and the Trojan Wars and so forth all tied up with some of the 
Mycenaean discoveries to get anybody interested in them at all. 
Total thing was a total fabrication of fairy tale. He had to 
relate it to Greece before anybody would believe that it was 
archaeology that he was studying. Do you follow me?

Well, you can't say that that society that taught us to be free, 
at any time along the line, is only a collection of ruins. 
They're still shooting down there. The commies are fighting with 
other people and so forth. They're still shooting things up. 
They're still messed up one way or the other. After World War II, 
no great peace has descended, but those are not really the same 
people who lived in that period. But it is not a bunch of ruins. 
It is a bunch of ideas. It is a tremendous society.

The ideas in the Age of Pericles extended out to an entirety of 
the known world, and are here, and are around us today -- this is 
a rather fabulous thing -- to such a degree that I don't think 
anybody could set up a tyranny no matter how hard he tried. 
Hitler tried. Thirty million dead men later, he's failed. That 
took an awful lot of shooting, didn't it?

Well, all right. If you're going to set up a group, if you're 
going to set up a practice, if you're going to become active in 
any political sphere, then you'd better remember what succeeded. 
You'd better remember what has succeeded. The basic data of the 
last twenty-three centuries is still the basic data of a culture, 
and it is that basic data which will determine the future of this 
culture.

If the future is to be turbulent and upset it will be because 
some tyrant has become overly ambitious and his tyranny fails 
because of revolt against it. In other words, the turbulence of 
the future will be determined on the basis of whether or not 
somebody tries to upset this tradition or not. And if somebody 
tries to upset this tradition, then this culture is going to 
collapse, to the degree that it revolts.

Now, the only way you could get a total lose was for everybody to 
be dead, but there won't be any tyrant who will be able to impose 
his will upon any of the modern cultures to this degree now. Such 
a thing is all but impossible.

So you can predict that the future may have some wiggles and 
wobbles, and the future may have some wars, and the future may 
have some manning the barricades and shooting in the streets. But 
short of obliterating mankind with one bomb (the ambition of the 
AEC)... No, I beg your pardon, that's a confidential remark I 
made there. I miss these things. You're not supposed to mention 
the AEC. Let's see. What's something that can't fight back? 
Atomic science is one bomb that wipes out everybody at once. 
That's their ambition. Or one fallout that cripples everybody at 
a longer period. Now, that's their ambition.

All right. Now, that of course does vary the future. If that is 
continued in existence, and if that motto and hope for 
everybody's demise is permitted to continue, then it will have 
wiped out all parts of the game, and that will be that. And we 
won't have to worry about the future at all. And we won't have to 
worry about the trends of the culture and which way it's going 
and which way it's not going.

Well, I can tell you that there's one thing that would wipe it 
out as a threat, and that would be the same postulate as began in 
the Age of Pericles. Men have a right to political opinions on 
any subject, and they have a right to express those opinions 
freely in any place to anybody.

Now, given that, let's take a look at the AEC -- excuse me, I 
keep mentioning that word. These bastards down here on the other 
end of this -- these fellows actually are less information, less 
freedom of expression, confidential, secret, top secret, super-
frantic-hysterical secret, don't even let yourself know when you 
read it. These chaps are going in the direction of a tradition 
which was dead twenty-three hundred years ago. Do you think 
they'll succeed? No. No.

They're trying to use "science," the new religion of this 
century, as a means by which to impose a tyranny upon the world -
- but it is just another tyranny. That's all it is. It's just 
another tyranny. I don't care what kind of clothes it's wearing, 
it is just another effort to do more or less the same thing -- 
deny people their right to speak to whom they wish about what 
they want to speak about. It's just another action.

You get a bunch of atomic scientists together, you'd find they 
were almost human. They'd talk amongst themselves. They'd 
exchange opinions. They wouldn't care whether it was Russian or 
British or French or American or anything else. You throw them in 
a room together and they'd yackle-yackle and get across the 
language barriers -- probably talk with sine waves or something, 
you know. They wouldn't care less.

But people can make political capital of these boys. They can 
say, "You have something that's very secret. It is so secret that 
it appears nowhere except in every textbook in every library on 
the subject of atomic physics, in every library in the world. 
It's very secret. It would take a moron with an idiotic case of 
amnesia, days to figure out your most secret formulas. So 
therefore, you boys being possessed of this secret, mustn't talk. 
So that we (some unnameable we) can then impose our will on the 
communication lines of the world." Which is a tyranny.

"Now, if we could create a depression at the same time, then 
people would be willing..." (Ha. You see? See how the reasoning 
goes?) "...then people would be willing, you see, to accept a 
little further yoke, you know, a little government handout here 
and there and we could tell them where they are supposed to work 
and how they were supposed to work, and we'd give them money if 
we wanted to and if we didn't want to..." Real nice.

And they expect this beautiful, idyllic society to grow on the 
beauties of that new postulate. "We have secret weapons and 
secret sciences and people pretty soon will be in want so they 
will have to accept the mandates that are handed to them."

Yeah. The people will accept them. Did you ever hear little 
Johnny imitating gangsters and machine guns? Yeah. People will 
accept them. Um-hm. As a matter of fact, people never fight until 
they're desperate. Things have to go pretty wrong. It has to be 
pretty obvious. There have to be a couple of citizens hung on a 
lamppost. There has to be darn little bread in the locker. There 
have to be a lot of things present before people really look up.

And when they do look up and when they do notice, at last... The 
French Revolution's typical of this. They said, "You know, I 
wonder..." (along about days before the Bastille; years before 
the Bastille fell), you know, they sit around and they say, "Do 
you suppose that fellow that lives up in that big house that 
calls himself Sieur de Montaigne, do you suppose he has anything 
to do with the... with us not feeling exactly relaxed?" And 
finally some guys came along and they dug up the Age of Pericles 
in the textbooks and got them reprinted into "peasant." And they 
sold them under the counter and the next doggone thing you know, 
why, the French Revolution started when people stopped wondering, 
"Do you suppose there's any effort around here to suppress us?" 
It was how you defined suppression at the time, you see?

And one day they said, "You know, I'm sure there is. I'm sure. I 
could swear it. And Joe, Jacques, Jean! What do you know? You 
know I bet somebody's trying to keep us from speaking our right 
mind!" And boom! No Bastille. Boom! No monarchy.

And they got in the habit. And for just years, anything that put 
its head up that -- somebody came up and wanted to sell you some 
crackers, all you had to do was point at him and say, "Tyranny -- 
guillotine." Madame Guillotine made another widow. It was a most 
amazing reaction. All Europe was upset.

England was upset at the time, too. England was saying, "What do 
you know? That canaille has roused up and is killing our sacred 
brothers and we don't do a thing about it." They didn't, either. 
They quickly liberalized their laws. Very, very significant 
change. There was practically... By 1804, why, people were 
treading very cautiously politically in England, and by 1834, 
why, newly arisen King William quickly signed the Reform Bill, 
which restored freedom to everybody in all directions, fast. I 
think there was one riot. I think he was hit by one piece of mud. 
He signed that bill quick. In other words, tyranny had been 
educated to fall fast. And so it did.

Well, the soil in which a tyranny is sown, of course, is not when 
everybody is in want. That is the soil in which revolution grows. 
Tyranny is sown in times of plenty, when people exchange their 
rights for some material gain -- they think. Tyrannies are sown 
at times when nobody is very watchful; where everybody has a full 
stomach; where everything is calm; nothing much appears on the 
surface, and then tyrannies show up and become very obvious when 
individuals, growing a little hungrier, a little less possessed 
of production, suddenly notice that there is somebody saying they 
mustn't talk, somebody saying they mustn't have opinions. And 
when people notice this they begin to get very restless. And if 
after that they get very hungry, there is a total fatality as far 
as the tyranny is concerned. That total fatality will ensue.

Now, it may take years for people to find these things out. But 
we're in such a period today -- a period artificially imposed. I 
don't suppose there's any individual anyplace who wants actively 
to impose a tyranny on the United States (except a bunch of sons 
of bitches I've ran against recently).

Ah, these boys who do this today merely want gain for themselves. 
They say, "It'd be very nice and I would be very safe if," you 
know, "if I could suppress certain opinions being spoken. If I 
could do this." They nibble away just a little bit, you see. And 
then one fine day you look up and find a whole sphere of 
knowledge partitioned off for some good, adequate, reasonable 
reason.

What is this sphere of knowledge? Well, it's science. You say, 
"But we're supposed to have science. That's progress."

All of a sudden they see an electronics engineer and they say, 
"You know, you're supposed to be over there in that uh... behind 
that barbed wire over there." Well, the electronic engineers of 
the country have not yet noticed that they're inside barbed wire 
-- they are -- that they go backwards and forwards past armed 
guards to get to and from work.

I wouldn't work under these conditions. A fellow offered me a job 
one time. He said, "All you have to do is walk in here, leave 
your gun at the gate, walk in here and you're supposed to walk 
around for eight hours a day, and do so-and-so and so-and-so."

And I said, "In where?"

He said, "In that enclosure there."

And I said, "What's the difference between that and a prison 
camp?"

"Oh," he says, "you're nonsense. You get paid in there."

That was the first and only time the government offered me a post 
as a nuclear physicist. That was the end of that. The government 
offered me that post. They tried to kidnap me on another one, by 
the way.

They said, "You know you're still in the reserves and we can call 
you back to active duty on research in the field of the mind."

"You're still in the service," this admiral said. "Ha-ha. You 
change your mind any time, you know, about coming in. You can 
volunteer. Of course, I can put you back on active duty at any 
time, so you'd better volunteer. You'd probably feel better in 
there making seventy-five hundred dollars a year" -- rather than 
whatever officers get these days -- twenty-five cents an hour or 
something.

And I said, "Well," I said, "if you put it that way," I said, 
"I'm overwhelmed." I said, "There's nothing much I can do."

Here is actually a proposition of a person being seized because 
of his own knowledge, just the way you might seize a fellow who 
carved ivory well, back in the Dark Ages. He carved ivory well so 
he was seized. He was taken away and put into a position that he 
couldn't object to and he was made to work at a trade that he was 
good at but didn't particularly like. What's the difference? 
What's the difference?

Not very much. Except maybe I walk with faster feet sometimes. Of 
course, it was impossible at that time to resign from the 
service. A reserve officer had to continue as a reserve officer 
from there on out. But I was down to the Potomac River Naval 
Command, and I was through Bureau of Naval Personnel. It was 
Monday when he came to see me, and he was going to come back and 
see me Thursday. And when he came back and saw me Thursday he 
said, "Well," he said, "you've decided to come into the service 
as a civilian?"

And I said, "No, I haven't. I decided not to."

And he said, "Well," he said, "I'll have to call you back to 
active duty."

And I says, "Try and do it," and handed him my resignation, 
accepted. He was crushed.

But do you know that immediately predated, by one week, the 
opening of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation of Elizabeth, 
New Jersey. There would have been no Dianetics, there would have 
been no Scientology, and there would have been no publications on 
the subject anywhere had this succeeded. Interesting, isn't it?

They didn't want to prevent Dianetics. They didn't want to 
prevent Scientology, the publications of books. All they wanted 
to do was get a piece of research done which they in their 
tyrannical fashion had decided was far more important than any 
other research that could be done. They wanted me to work on a 
project to make men more suggestible. Can you imagine me working 
on such a project? You can imagine me working on admirals to make 
them more suggestible, but not on people.

No, even in myself or any other scientist, in any engineer today, 
there is this background, there is this tradition: That man has a 
right to his own opinions, has a right to study them, has a right 
to know his government and his duties as a citizen, and to 
exercise himself in performing those duties. And he has a right 
to contribute to the society. And this we've known for twenty-
three hundred years, and so today call ourselves a civilized 
race.

But in only the last six years have we known why. Only in the 
last six years have we actually directly contributed to this 
stable datum to make it more stable. Only in the last six years 
have we found the methods and modus operandi by which to make 
this future culture come true; the future culture in which men 
are actually all permitted to do this.

Men can become so depressed that they are not themselves capable 
of exerting their own self-determinism, because it doesn't exist. 
We can give it back to them. We can give them that thing which 
twenty-three hundred years ago, it was stated they must have in 
order to continue to be free. Therefore, we have a stake in the 
game, too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]




FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 17 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

===============================================

CONFUSION AND THE STABLE DATUM

A lecture given on 13 December 1956


[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

Well, I as usual don't have a single thing to talk to you about. 
But as we go along, why, we may dream up something. Something 
might occur.

Now, I've given you several talks on the subject of organization 
here in the last few weeks, and it is highly possible that these 
talks might have found some small interest, since a Scientologist 
should be totally capable of taking over an organization and 
straightening it out for people who can't. After all, what is an 
organization but third-dynamic sanity? That's all it is.

If you were to go up to General Electric right now you'd find a 
madhouse. And I don't advise you to do it. Go over to Saint 
Elizabeth's for a conducted tour instead.

Of course, there is this difference between Saint Elizabeth's and 
General Electric: At General Electric they're below dramatizing. 
They just sit there and shuffle the pieces of paper. Then they 
shuffle them back and pass them on to somebody else.

Any one of these big corporations is subject to an enormous 
amount of confusion.

Now, what is a person subject to when he is mad as a hatter? 
Simply confusion, nothing else. That's all.

One of the most fantastic processes you're ever going to run. on 
anybody is simply, "Mock up a confusion." That's all. "See that 
chair? What kind of a confusion could you make with it?" You run 
that in a complicated enough version so as to suit the appetite 
of your preclear for complication and you're liable to have some 
interesting and wonderful things happen.

In the first place, every stable datum, every fixed stable datum 
which comes into being as an aberrated datum to your preclear, is 
an island of refuge in an endless, pounding sea of confusion. And 
they're on the island because the sea was tumultuous. And so you 
find somebody saying, "Well. Where do horses sleep? They sleep in 
beds."

And you say, "Oh, come now, do they really sleep in beds?"

"Yes, of course they do." He believes this. He believes this 
utterly.

How did he come into possession of this datum? Oh, very simple. 
The situation was so confused that only by assuming this datum 
could he himself feel even vaguely safe.

I really shouldn't tell you about this particular instance, 
because it happened. His wife was from Warrenton, Virginia, and 
they have horses down there, you know. And his wife was mad about 
horses, you know, and never paid any attention whatsoever to her 
husband and did pay some attention, though, to the chauffeur. He 
liked horses too, he said.

I shouldn't tell you this story, really, because this tape will 
go through the U.S. mails, right? It's not you that I worry 
about. It's the postmaster general. He can't stand these things, 
you know. I mean -- sensitive, sensitive. He has a stable data 
that "Purity is the only way to get a letter through." I don't 
know what it has to do with, but it's set. Even religious 
magazines like Esquire have been barred the use of the mails. 
Well, that's a religion. It's a religion known as man. Many 
people subscribe to it.

Anyway, as you look this over, this picture of "horses sleep in 
beds..." I've never really told you the whole story about this 
before. I've mentioned the incident, but I haven't told you the 
real lowdown. We'll take a chance on the postmaster general.

Anyway, he walked in and the bed was all rumpled up. Well, that 
was the end of his life, wasn't it? He'd have to shoot the 
chauffeur, divorce the wife, you see? One of these situations, so 
forth. But he looked in the bottom of the bed and he found a 
horseshoe. Obviously, it explained the whole situation.

And years afterwards when she had finally done everyone in, he 
went to work for a livery stable and one of the first things he 
ordered was, of course, a number of four-posters for the horses.

From what confusion did he retreat? See? The confusion of marital 
infidelity, the confusion of all the surroundings being upheaved 
and unsettled and so forth. So he grabs this datum. It explains 
everything. He doesn't have to take any action. And he himself, 
however, has to sell himself his own total conviction on the 
subject.

Now, one day -- I hate to use these dirty words, but as long as 
we've ruined this tape anyway, let's just go whole-hog -- a 
psycho-anal-ist gets hold of him and says, "Now, what is this I 
hear about you insisting that all horses have innerspring 
mattresses, and turning people in to the Society for the 
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals if they don't give their horses 
innerspring mattresses and Simmons beds?"

He says, "Well," he says, "doesn't everybody think this?"

And the psychoanalyst says, "Well, no, as a matter of fact, 
nobody thinks that but you."

And fellow says, "But, please, don't horses occasionally sleep in 
some bed somewhere?"

Psychoanalyst, being a good therapist, says, "Never! Under no 
circumstances. You mustn't get these ideas, because everybody 
will think you are peculiar. And in view of the fact that 
psychoanalism is a good subject and it's nice and it's kind to 
people, and so forth, I won't be able to give you an electric 
shock; but my psychiatric friend across the hall, he's got a 
machine all ready for you. Now, you do still believe that horses 
sleep in beds?"

And this fellow says, "Heh-heh, no. No, horses don't sleep in 
beds."

Now what happens to him? Instantly all the confusion which this 
datum held in abeyance collapsed on the guy. Got it? Boom! And 
now he's very confused. Although this is twenty years later, he 
has the entire sensation that he has just been jilted, messed up, 
betrayed. Get the idea? But there isn't anybody in his vicinity 
to betray him. Not twenty years later. So what's the final 
analysis? Now he is crazy. He has no stable datum to support all 
that confusion.

Now, if you wanted to play it in the quiet way as a 
Scientologist, all you'd do is have to give him some stable data. 
You'd just say to him, "When did you have this trouble?"

And "Well," he said, "it all happened when I went to see this 
psycho-anal-ist. All happened then."

Of course, you know it didn't happen then. Something got 
unsettled then, but what happened, happened earlier. So you would 
suppose then that your best gambit in this particular case would 
be to simply invalidate the invalidator. You see? If you wanted 
an immediate result, the best thing to do is to prove to him 
statistically that all psycho-anal-ists are psycho-anal-ists, and 
nothing worse could happen to anybody. You see?

And the fellow says "You know, he did have a goofy look in his 
eye."

"Oh, yes," you'd say. "Yes, yes, absolutely. It shows you right 
here according to the British Colonial Shipping Board -- British 
Colonial Shipping Board has it here as an entire proof of the 
subject, but it shows that every 2.3 people who go to see a 
psycho-anal-ist become one."

And the fellow says, "Do you suppose I became one?"

"Well, I don't know. I don't know," you'd say. "That's up to you. 
But they're all crazy, because all they do is tell you you're 
wrong."

"That's right," the guy says. "That's right."

And now you run him a little bit more with some two-way comm, and 
he will confide to you very cautiously, "Is it possible for a 
horse to sleep in a bed?"

And you say, "Pff. Why not? Why not?" You'd say, "What did you 
say?"

"Oh," he says, "horses -- do they ever sleep in beds? You know." 
You can get the pleading in his voice as he says this, you know.

And you'd say, "Absolutely. I can prove to you statistically..." 
You've got the other side of the incident. You got it?

Now, here is a whole picture, if a humorous one, of the rest 
point and the confusion. Now, every strange idea that every 
person has is in itself a stable datum for a much wider area of 
confusion. If you destroy every stable datum a person has without 
doing anything at all to the confusion, you'll leave them very 
confused. Do you see that?

If you had an idea of a river flowing along as usual within a 
quarter of an inch of the top of the levee, and the levee 
eighteen hundred feet above the level of the plain... I think 
that's supposed to be the optimum condition the Army Engineer 
Corps has for the Mississippi, isn't it? The levee is eighteen 
hundred feet above the plain and the river's within two inches of 
the top of the levee. That's for normal-waters condition. Of 
course, in floods that's something else.

The way this happens, you know, is the river keeps coming along 
and depositing floods and spilling over and finding weak spots in 
the levee and pouring out into the plain, giving Eisenhower 
another excuse not to give any farm relief.

What happens if you have a weak point?

Now, the whole levee, let us say, is built out of mud, and 
nothing but mud from one end to the other. And you see a trickle 
of water coming through this levee, and you take a rock and you 
shove it into this particular spot. Well, it's stopping a big 
confusion of river.

Now, we admit that it should have been mud all the way along the 
line and everybody should have been sane. But you did take a 
piece of rock.

Now the U.S. Army Engineers Corps says, "Somebody has been 
throwing rocks at our levee. And there's a five thousand dollar 
fine for anybody to push any rocks at our levee. Remove it at 
once." Boom!

The trickle becomes a torrent. The torrent becomes a raging fire 
hose and suddenly there's no levee. You got the idea?

Now, the mud, you might say, in human relationships is the fellow 
didn't know there was that much confusion. He suddenly discovers 
that there is that much confusion by punching a little hole in 
his ordinary, routine ramparts of life. A little hole occurs. He 
plugs it up quick. See?

He learns how to do this, and seventy-six trillion years later 
he's still in the same universe. All around him is endless mud 
dikes. Not only do we find stones in his levees, but we find 
bricks, bits of mortar, chips of glass, old bodices, anything you 
could think of that was handy at the moment to shove into the 
hole when it happened. You got the idea?

Now, let's get another analogy on it so that it's a little 
different. Let us say that a whirlpool is annoying to somebody. 
Now, there's no particular reason why a whirlpool would be 
annoying to anybody, but some people find them annoying.

As a matter of fact, I had a friend once, E. A. Poe. He was a 
writer of minor stuff, so forth. Got two cents a word. That's all 
he got. That's not very high word rate. But this fellow Poe -- 
well, he was a good pulp writer in his day, you know. This fellow 
Poe wrote something about descent into a maelstrom, and it sold 
extremely well. People were very happy with this. They bought the 
magazines even though it didn't make him any more money and it 
made the publisher a fortune. Descent into a maelstrom. And an 
awful lot of people then must have considered this very 
forbidding to have bought so much of it.

You get the argument. People only buy what is annoying to them; 
they read it to get rid of it. Probably the whole philosophy back 
of reading.

Anyway, here's this whirlpool, you might say. And a fellow one 
day finds out that if he says "Abracadabra boo" at it, all of a 
sudden there's no more motion in the whirlpool. It suddenly 
becomes very calm. And he says, "What do you know about that? 
What magic is contained in this 'Abracadabra boo'? Hm!" So he 
goes around and he finds another whirlpool and he says, 
"Abracadabra boo." It stops, too.

Well now, he's doing this because he didn't like whirlpools. 
Actual fact of it is, he mocked up the whirlpool this way, see. 
And then he said, back here someplace, "Abracadabra boo equals 
still whirlpool," see. So he says, "Abracadabra boo"; whirlpool 
becomes still.

That's very interesting, intrigues him mightily, keeps him amused 
for half a million years. Great magician. Great magician. He can 
go all around and still whirlpools and raging torrents and back 
up the tides and all sorts of things. Probably, he gets overly 
proud as a matter of fact and gets a big turret, drags young 
girls off to it. These magicians are -- I mean, it's a sad 
career. None of you, of course, have ever indulged in this 
particular sport.

But one day he meets a psychoanalyst, see? And uh -- uh pardon 
me, a psycho-magicless -- and this fellow says to him, "Under no 
circumstances should you permit yourself to believe that 
'Abracadabra boo' is an adequate and sufficient charm to still 
whirlpools. Actually, it takes some bath powder. In fact, here's 
a little box of it here."

The fellow says, "Will that do it?"

"Oh, yes, yes, nothing to it." See?

So he says, "Well, all right, I'll try it."

Not only goes on whirling, froths up the place and drowns him.

In his next life -- in his next life, he sees a whirlpool and he 
says, "I know how to do something with these, but I'm not quite 
sure what it is. But I'm sure that if I said something, and 
didn't put anything in it that it would be all right."

So, after a while he says -- he finds a still pond and he says, 
"You know that's an awful confusion. I'll try out this magic." So 
he says, "Spooie." It's still. (Still pond in the first place, 
you see.) He says, "It worked!"

Now, what do you think he did? What do you think he did?

Well, in the first place he didn't dare unmock or still the 
thing, so he had to choose something that could be unmocked and 
stilled. And he was very careful after that to stay away from 
whirlpools, see, but he would tell people how he had stilled the 
waters in ponds that were already still. He would make some sort 
of dodge about this whole thing. He would try to hold on to the 
illusion that he still had some power, but he wouldn't quite make 
it.

One day you come along and you're running some process on him, 
and all of a sudden the fellow says, "There's a word keeps 
occurring to me."

You say, "What?"

Fellow says, "'Abracadabra boo.' I don't know where this came 
from, but it's a silly word. Silly word."

So you, obliging, use repeater technique on him. You say, 
"Abracadabra boo. Abracadabra boo. Abracadabra boo. Abracadabra 
boo. Abracadabra boo." And the preclear drowns in the chair. 
Well, anyway...

The most fantastic nonsense can stem out of this rest point and 
stable datum proposition. But the greatest nonsense is this: that 
people don't like confusions. And that's a great piece of 
nonsense. That's classic!

What's the matter with a confusion? Nothing wrong with a 
confusion. People don't like them. Makes a game.

Well actually, it goes further than a confusion. Motion, just 
motion all by itself is the basis of it. A thetan basically fools 
around with motion because he doesn't like it very much.

You see, he can't duplicate motion. It's one of the things he 
can't duplicate best. He is actually himself, still. He is quiet. 
He is not in motion and when he sees things in motion, to make 
them duplicate him, he tries to make them quiet. After a while he 
gets things obsessed on the subject of quietness and here we go 
with the "Nonduplicative is bad. Things which will not duplicate 
me are evil." And when you get a lot of motion that actually 
attracts his attention very thoroughly, he decides that's very, 
very bad. So we get his not liking a confusion.

How does he stop confusions? With such nonsense as postulates, 
with getting onto one particle and saying, "Look. It's 
motionless." It's going around at a mad rate, see, but he's 
riding it. He says, "See? That's motionless. But look at this 
room spin." "Room is a terrible confusion," he says. "Demolish 
it."

All kinds of oddities could occur as you look at this, but the 
basic of it is, and the basic idiocy of it all is, a thetan 
doesn't like a confusion. He likes order. He doesn't like a 
confusion. And if he fights enough confusions, he himself becomes 
one, of course.

Now, this whole problem goes as far as pain. What is pain? Pain 
is a very simple thing. Pain is too much confusion in too close a 
space. That is all pain is. Because you start running confusions 
on somebody and he starts hurting.

Now, with a sadistic eye most auditors like to see a somatic turn 
on in the preclear. It tells them something is happening. What is 
this somatic that turns on? It is a confusion starting to unroll. 
Here we have the mechanics of the whole situation. There's no 
more, no less to it than a mechanical application of postulates.

These things were basically postulates. Now, he didn't like 
disorderly postulates. He wanted his postulates in a line of 
logic. A thetan is very good at this. And his postulates should 
be in an orderly parade. They shouldn't be all mixed up. So when 
postulates get mixed up and the wrong writing on the wrong walls 
start to occur, he considers that a confusion. Well, that is the 
basic confusion.

And now you might say this can be envisioned as a solid, and we 
do get such things as whirlpools, hailstorms -- any rapid, 
disorderly motion. And a confusion is simply that: a disorderly 
motion.

A thetan can tolerate, to a marked degree, an orderly motion. But 
everyone has a different idea of what an orderly motion is. And 
if we could agree thoroughly on what they were and what they 
weren't, why, we would have a much different-looking society.

For instance, what does a policeman consider an orderly motion? 
It would be a mile-long chain of cars, backed up behind a red 
light that he held the switch of and was never going to turn.

Now, that is a proper state of motion to a traffic cop usually. 
He himself has never learned the lesson that if you're going to 
handle traffic you have to get it off the streets. You have to 
get it rolling. You have to move it, and then it is not very 
confusing if it's moving. But if you just stop it and stop it and 
stop it, why, then it stays on the streets and is in one of the 
more interesting confusions.

Now, usually you consider things confusing that are moving 
rapidly, but this is not anywhere near as trying as a confusion 
that is happening slowly. A slow-happening confusion is one of 
the more maddening things that can occur to anyone. Modern 
American traffic -- it's a slow confusion.

Here you have the idea of disorderly motion. You have the idea 
that a thetan doesn't like this. And now his remedy for it is 
usually to conceive a datum or counter-motion which explains or 
holds in check the existing motion. In other words, he doesn't 
like this disorderly motion so he explains it or arranges 
something mechanical to hold it in check. Now, having done this 
he then is able, you might say, to as-is the confusion.

Well, he never as-ises the confusion. To get a stable datum for a 
confusion is to alter-is the confusion. And so they persist with 
what gorgeousness.

Now, that is a bank. That is what you call an engram bank. It is 
"the periods when I stopped a confusion." You got it?

There was a confusion going on, fast or slow, and there's some 
moment in it when it just stopped, just like that. Ha! That's a 
win.

Oh yeah? It leaves the guy with the picture for the rest of his 
days.

See, he says right at that last moment, just as the dentist is 
getting right down to the root of the thing... He manages, for 
instance, in his last glimmering gasp of consciousness to put his 
hand or elbow out so as to restrain the dentist for just a 
moment. You know? He held it in stop for just an instant. That's 
it.

You run this moment out and you get the moment when the tooth 
stopped the dentist for just an instant. And there he sits in the 
middle of a confusion. You got it? All other motion was 
intolerable, but there is a moment when it didn't hurt. In other 
words, there is a moment when it didn't confuse.

Now, if you go on defining hurt as pain -- as in Peanuts; he said 
the other day, "Well, pain hurts" -- this is not an adequate 
definition for Scientology. You can't take it apart on this. But 
if you say that pain is one thing and a disorderly motion is 
another thing, you never can unsnarl a case.

The fellow holds on to these rest points, and every time you 
shatter them or move them the tiniest bit, this movement causes 
the next disorderly motion in sequence to take place, which of 
course turns on pain, and he grabs for a new rest point. So if 
you ran an engram directly, it would be: rest point, somatic, 
rest point, somatic, rest point, somatic. You get the idea? And 
if you didn't give him some new rest points somewhere along the 
line, his rest points would continue to be totally in the terms 
of bank.

Now, you could probably make a preclear feel lots better by 
having him stand up and stamp on the floor for a while. Stamp, 
stamp, stamp. He'd say, "What are you doing?"

"Well, just go ahead and stamp," you'd say. "Stamp some more. 
Stamp more. Does that floor seem solid to you?" That's just 
thrown in, see.

"Well," the fellow would say, "well, it shakes a little bit."

"Well, come on outside here where we got this concrete walk. Now, 
stamp. All right, stamp some more. Stamp. Go on, stamp some more. 
Stamp! Oh, you can stamp harder than that."

The fellow says, "Yes, but I'm liable to hurt my leg."

"Oh, go on and stamp."

He says, "This is the funniest technique I ever heard."

You say, "Cures gravity. Go on. Stamp some more."

And he'd be stuck in the session, but the session was relatively 
painless. And he could substitute the session's rest point for 
the engram rest point. Couldn't he? Well, that is swapping rest 
points by substitution. Very simple mechanism.

Now, a preclear starts to fly into flinders in the middle of a 
Stop-C-S sequence, something like that. If you were to simply 
grab him and give him a hard shove and slam him against the wall 
and hold him there for a couple of minutes -- I mean, bodily with 
your two hands, you know. You could give him a verbal holder: 
"Hold on, here," you would say, or something of the sort. "Stop 
it, now," something on that order.

This is not good auditing. But it is actually better than letting 
him fly to flinders. Got that? I mean it's actually a bit better. 
What have you done? You've given him a rest point in the middle 
of the session.

Now, he wouldn't necessarily have come through this. He would 
have found a rest point. Of what kind? Out of the engram bank. So 
you give him one before he reaches for the engram bank. He merely 
gets nervous; you shove him up against the wall; you hold him 
there. You've given him a rest point, haven't you?

Now, you could actually pin somebody there with a very simple 
mechanism. (I'm not telling you this is good auditing; I'm just 
giving you examples.) He stands here. We hold him against the 
wall, and then when we've got him pinned there real good, we 
shove his shoulder with this hand and then give him a bunch of 
motion, and then shove him some more, and then give him a bunch 
of motion. Got the idea?

This is confusion in front of his face, see? That's a rest point. 
He'd come out of it. He'd tell everybody from there on out that 
you were a very forceful auditor. He'd be stuck right there, see. 
But maybe it was better to get him stuck there than in his 
tonsillectomy. Got the idea?

This is not good auditing. It's merely a substitution of rest 
points, just to show you what a rest point is and what a 
confusion is.

This is all based, however, on the idiotic fact that a thetan 
does not like confusions.

Now, let's get this real good, see? He doesn't like confusions. 
He considers something confusing, therefore he wants to get rid 
of it. So therefore, he will not confront a confusion; so 
therefore, no space will then exist between him and bank 
confusions. If he won't confront a confusion then he gets no 
space, because space is the viewpoint of dimension which puts him 
in the confusion. Have you got that?

Now, it isn't necessarily true that all Scientologists dislike 
confusions. Not true at all. Because we have run processes, one 
kind or another, and we've seen confusion in the bank and we have 
finally, most of us, said "So what?" We get a big engram suddenly 
swings into restimulation and causes the left hind leg to jerk or 
something of the sort for a couple of days, and we say, "Well, 
that's just that damned engram I was running, you know." Not 
impressed. And it fades on out.

Why? Because we're to some degree confronting it. We understand 
it. We are able to communicate with it.

So therefore, we're not subject to the same reactions. But 
nevertheless, we still don't like confusions in magnitude that we 
call aberration.

Now, I've talked to you about these other confusions, but I 
haven't talked to you about thought confusion; disorderly thought 
patterns. We don't like those. They're illogical. They're 
professorial. They're scientific. We don't like those disorderly 
confusions.

Somebody says, "Well, I'm very glad that you came over to the 
house. I'm very glad you came over to the house because yesterday 
I ate ice cream."

We say, "Well, it's about time somebody called the little white 
wagon here," if this fellow insisted on this pattern.

Well, to a certain degree we are, then, hypercritical of a 
disorderly thought pattern. Well, see that a confusion of matter 
or a confusion of particles just moves upstairs one jump and it's 
a confusion of thought. Get the idea?

Now, you can actually have somebody with a confused thought 
pattern. He can't get his thoughts aligned or in a logical 
sequence. Has practically nothing whatsoever to do with any 
material confusion, see. So this is a lighter one.

Now, the individual is fixed into a bunch of fixed ideas by 
material confusions. You might say he doesn't have a time track. 
He has a consecutive series of aberrated rest points surrounded 
by untolerated confusions. And this sounds awfully logical to 
him, you see. "I'm glad you came over to see me. I ate ice cream 
all day yesterday."

You wait in vain for some explanation. You say, "Well, what's the 
matter? Have you got a stomachache? You want me to audit you?" 
Something of this sort.

"No, no, no. No," he said "I feel fine. What's that got to do 
with ice cream?"

And you said, "But you said ice cream."

"Oh, yes, but that was yesterday."

Well, here is a whole new aspect. Here's a whole new aspect as 
far as you're concerned. You don't like this because it throws 
him out of communication. So he becomes out of communication to 
some degree as far as you're concerned, and because he's out of 
communication, then, you're not sure what you're confronting. And 
in view of the fact you're not sure what you're confronting you 
don't confront it and it tends to close terminals on you. You got 
it?

That which you do not confront snaps in on your physiognomy. This 
is because space is the viewpoint of dimension. One makes space. 
That is the hottest proof of that subject you ever heard of.

We never had any proof of this, by the way, until fairly 
recently. Space really is the viewpoint of dimension because when 
a man won't look, there's no space. And we get the phenomenon of 
problems closing in on people, and so on.

It's quite an interesting series of phenomena which occur here. 
We get the whole phenomena of valence. The whole phenomena of 
valence comes out of this: Those things at which we will not 
peek-sneak.

One day we wake up and we say, "Well, I'm so glad you came over 
to see me because I ate ice cream all day yesterday."

Why? Well, we couldn't confront this.

Well, there is a method of confronting it. There is a method of 
confronting it, actually and factually. There are two processes. 
One, which is "Mock up a confusion," and another process which 
talks wonders to a Scientologist, if he can get it run on him, is 
"Mock up aberrated people." Total auditing command.

You know, he'll see nothing for the first half hour of the 
session. Why?. He hasn't confronted them, he's made them well. 
Get the idea?

Now, when one cannot get a mock-up, it is merely that he has not 
confronted the basic image he is trying to approximate in his 
mock-up. And when he has not confronted this image, the mock-up 
is blank. So to say "He can't get mock-ups" is an incorrect 
statement. "He can't get confronts" is a correct one. You see 
that?

There isn't a case in the world that can't get mock-ups. One does 
not exist. That I assure you.

But there are cases who have so negligently not confronted a 
great many things, that when you say, "Now, mock up a cow," and 
he says "Moo" -- we would have an extreme case, wouldn't we? But 
he'd sure get no mock-up of a cow.

Now, some people don't moo; they just get a blank out there. You 
know, and they get another blank. They get something black. They 
get another blank. They get shields, screens. A screen is just a 
symptom of "I won't look at -- I'll put a screen there."

By the way, the liability of ever putting a screen between you 
and anything you won't look at is you never know when it leaves.

I remember this about a lion one day. Well, anyway... Four or 
five days later I said, "What the hell's that screen doing there? 
What's that screen doing there? I don't even know what's behind 
it. It says here 'Don't look.'" Picked up the screen, there 
wasn't anything behind it.

Well, a totally black case has got total screens, none of which 
he must lift.

Now, you ask him to start mocking things up that he can't 
confront or won't confront or has used a screen on, and he gets a 
screen. Or he gets a blank. And you can ask him to go on for a 
long time and he won't get any mock-ups. But all of a sudden he 
gets a stray shoe or a hoof or a bit of tufted tail out here 
somewhere.

The best auditing command, of course, is something of -- take 
this -- "Mock up as much as you can of a lion." Be diplomatic. Be 
real. Let the preclear obey your command by making the command 
obeyable.

All right. Now, if we're going to go in on processing 
Scientologists, you find something they can't mock up. You'll 
find there isn't one, I don't think, who can mock up (you know, I 
said plural) aberrated people. See? They'll mock up something 
maybe, see, get a blank, and so forth. They get zeros.

Why do they get zeros? Well, they haven't looked at aberrated 
people. They've looked at potentially sane people. Got the 
difference?

It's quite amusing. The second that you're able to mock up a 
tremendous number of aberrated people, just mobs of them you 
know, and so on, you become in essence a very able auditor. 
Because you don't care whether you drive this guy stark staring 
mad, or operating serenity. Get the idea, though? You don't care 
which way you go. In other words, there's no pressure on you to 
do either way, and you will improve him for the better.

If you have to process him because you can't confront him as he 
is, you're going to get minimal results because you'll never be 
processing the preclear who's sitting in front of you. As a 
matter of fact, he gets kind of dim.

I remember when the first preclear disappeared in my auditing 
chair. I started to check up on this. He got thin. He got awfully 
thin. I couldn't quite see the chair pattern through him, but 
almost. And I said, "See here, what is this?" And because I 
didn't care whether he was crazy or what, I looked at him real 
hard and he got thick again.

But I've always remembered this peculiar phenomenon and I have 
seen other auditors experience similar phenomena. I have seen 
auditors have times when the preclear just sort of fogged out on 
them, you know? "Preclear looks foggy. Head looks foggy. You 
know? I wonder what is happening to that preclear?" Well, it 
isn't anything happening to the preclear. The auditor just isn't 
confronting something about this case. Get the idea?

Well the remedy for it is a very simple remedy. "Mock up a 
confusion," of course, is the basic command. "Mock up aberrated 
people, just swaths of them" is, of course, quite another 
command.

Now, the mechanism of closure on a mechanical level is 
wantingness. You want somebody to talk or you want somebody to 
say something, or you want something. Wanting is simply the 
mechanical expression of the postulate "close distance." When you 
want something you want a distance closure. So that which you 
want you wind up not confronting.

The child gets a toy -- throws it away the next day. Why? He 
wanted it. It closed the distance. So he identified this with 
confrontingness. He said, "Well, if it's that close to me, I 
can't confront it. I'm not confronting it. Something is wrong 
with this. I must be afraid of it. It must not be what I want 
after all."

So we get those old-time 8008 postulates: "What you want, why you 
don't like," and so on.

Well, this is a very simple thing to see and understand. But the 
entire pattern of aberration in a preclear's mind or in an 
organization's organization is totally a basis of a rest point 
surrounded by a confusion. And the more confusion there is, the 
more fixed the rest points become.

If you want to stop somebody on the street and practically have 
him freeze in his tracks, just walk up to somebody and start 
waving your hands in front of his face like this. And the guy 
will just go, freeze. It's quite interesting. It's an interesting 
phenomenon.

This is the basic explanatory phenomena back of all mechanics. 
This confrontingness, the confusion, the rest point, and so 
forth. Now, whether that's applied to a huge struggling 
organization like General Electric or a preclear, you're just 
applying it on a different dynamic.

It works the same on each one of these dynamics. There is the 
same phenomena of disorderly thought, and below that level -- 
with a thought solidified -- a disorderly pattern of particles, 
which we call a confusion. And a thetan doesn't like the thought 
in a disorderly pattern and he doesn't like the particles in a 
disorderly pattern, and he doesn't confront either of them.

In order to get him to confront them, it is only necessary to 
have him mock them up. He'll eventually find out there is some 
part of them that he can confront. Naturally his mock-ups for a 
long, long time are totally unreal.

The fellow who has a spook out there is simply proving -- you 
know, a mock-up that he can't get rid of -- he's just proving he 
can confront it by not confronting it ever. He sort of tells you, 
"Yes, I -- I know I've got a -- I know I've got a mock-up of my 
mother out there. It's right there." Only he never swivels around 
inside of his head and looks that way. When his face goes this 
way, he goes that way. Get the idea?

Now, somebody must have dreamed up the idea that there was 
something wrong in having a disorderly thought pattern. There 
must have been phenomena involved with this which made it 
intensely unpleasant in some fashion or another in order to get 
out of this, pain. And you wonder about the mystery of pain. 
Well, the mystery of pain is simply the mystery of confusion. 
It's how much confusion is there and how invisible is this 
confusion. That's about all there is to pain. It's an invisible 
confusion. Obviously it'd have to be invisible or he wouldn't get 
so close to it that he could feel it. It's quite amazing.

If you were to look at any pattern of flesh that hurt, you would 
see that it was in a constant confusion all the time it was 
hurting. That the particles were running into the particles which 
were running into the particles which were running into the 
particles, and this bounced back and forth creates a sensation we 
know as pain. We can approximate it just by throwing random hot 
particles, random cold particles and random electrical particles 
together in the same package and touch somebody's arm with it and 
he'll be in agony at once. We can synthesize pain by making a 
synthetic situation of a confusion.

Of course, cold particles and hot particles -- you don't expect 
one or the other to be with the other. See? Things that are hot 
are hot. Things that are cold are cold. That's orderly. But hot 
things that are cold things, that's kind of mixed up, see.

Now, hot things and cold things obviously aren't electrical 
things. But if you throw electrical things in there too, the 
confusion is sufficient -- so actually, merely touching somebody 
on the arm with hot and cold and electrical particles at the same 
time won't make a mark, but he will swear that his arm has been 
drilled by a Mauser bullet or you've just sawed it off or 
something has happened, see? It's agony. Some day for a fee, why, 
you might teach a fraternity this.

Where we have the phenomena, then, of disorderly thought or 
disorderly particles, we also get the phenomenon of fixed thought 
and fixed particles. You got it?

The phenomena of disorderly thought and disorderly particles: in 
other words, confusion in the field of thought, confusion in the 
field of mass. Where we have those two things, we have the thetan 
answering them with a fixed thought for one, or a fixed mass for 
the other one. And naturally, we'd expect to find mass confusion 
full of disorderly thoughts; we would then expect to find the 
fixed particle that was resisting all that confusion to be full 
of thought, too.

Well, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. Sometimes you take 
apart a mass on a preclear, a ridge like that, there isn't a 
thought in it. See, it's simply a mocked-up mass there to resist 
that much moving mass and that much confusion. And sometime we 
take apart a thought pattern expecting to find a key thought, and 
we find a ridge or a mass. See?

And sometimes we find a huge area of particles all in motion one 
way or the other, and instead of any mass resisting them, why, 
there's a thought resisting them. See? In other words, we get the 
thought sometimes goes with the masses of particles. Sometimes a 
mass goes with the disorderly thought pattern. And sometimes they 
combine. It just happens the way it happens. It too is a 
randomness because it is the subject of randomness.

Now, the intolerance of disorderliness and the intolerance of 
confused masses, alike, cause aberration, alike cause pain.

You see, it isn't that pain proceeds from this and a thetan 
doesn't like pain. Don't draw the pattern that way. That's a 
crooked course, see. A thetan dislikes a confusion and when it 
gets too tight and too confused he feels his dislike. Get the 
idea? In other words, the confusion gets confuseder and 
confuseder and tighter and tighter and closer and closer and one 
fine day, why, he hurts. It hurts.

Now, you take a series of cells on the hand, let us say, and 
these cells are in a nice, orderly pattern. They are all well 
arranged; they are doing fine; the conduits, communication lines 
are all fixed up fine. And you jab them with a needle; you feel 
pain. Why do you feel pain? Well, you've interrupted -- no more 
than this -- you've simply interrupted the orderliness. You have 
caused some random particles at a very tight level and you've 
caused this to be a confusion then. And that confusion is minute 
and it is experienceable as pain.

Big organization experiences some confusion. What actually is its 
expression? It feels like it's being hurt. Now, we get used to 
reorganizing things around here. We get used to it. We get inured 
to it. Just like we can stand somatics, we can stand 
reorganization every few days. It's a healthy symptom. We know 
what's going on. We know we'll be able to get our work done as 
soon as the desk gets put down. And we try to keep other people 
from finding out where our desk is now because for days a great 
calm is liable to ensue before somebody catches up with the 
proper baskets. It's the only way you ever get a vacation in 
Scientology, is get your desk moved by a reorganizational plan.

But this isn't true in somebody like General Electric. They are 
in such a tight-packed, total confusion, knowing very little 
about organization, that if you disturb one piece of paper, pain 
is expressed in all directions. That's for true.

If, for instance, an invoice for repair parts on some unit were 
to be displaced in the communication lines, probably the least 
that would happen is that somebody would be threatened with 
starvation. In other words, he'd be fired. See? They run a "taut 
ship." They run such a taut ship, and everything is so close 
together, and it's so confused anyway, that the only way to get 
along in this taut ship is not to move anything.

The best thing to do is to sit there. Don't put pieces of paper 
in your baskets, because they're liable to get on lines and 
interfere with people. Shuffle them under your nose. You know? 
Next week start through the same pile.

Of course, you always run the chance that somebody may find out 
some directive that was issued three or four years ago that said 
that your particular post -- Engineering Draftsman's Clerk, or 
something like this -- that said that your post took care of 
where the coffee machine was to be located.

And then it's up to you to become a lawyer and prove that the 
thing was outdated by reorganizational plan 865, wherein it was 
clearly stated that... You'd have to get out from under, under 
your own steam. Nobody's going to help you get out from 
underneath anything in General Electric, let me assure you. They 
just help you drown.

Well, they don't get much done. What's phenomenal, what is 
utterly phenomenal, is that sets and things and stuff move off 
their assembly line, and advertisements appear in the papers, and 
stuff gets put into the hands of distributors. This is phenomenal 
-- that people issue stocks and bonds someplace in this vast mass 
and finance things. You see? This is fantastic that this happens. 
That's because new blood keeps coming into the firm, and finds 
out eventually, and gets settled down -- and they get new blood 
into the firm. So actually, there's as much action as it is 
expanding.

You look that over carefully, you'll understand the U.S. 
services.

In time of war it's quite common to look around -- you know, not 
to confront the beachhead or something like that -- look around 
and find out who's with you on this invasion, see. Who's with you 
on this trip? "Why, there's Joe over there. Hi, Joe! How you 
doing?. Haven't seen you since Guadalcanal. Ah, yeah. Fine, 
fine."

And you look over this way: "That's Pete. Hey Pete. Hey Pete, 
your ice-cream machine running? Oh, you haven't got it this time. 
Oh, you got a bigger one. Oh, fine, fine. Be over to see you 
right after we hit the beach, you know."

And after a while you say, "Now, wait a minute. You know? Pete, 
me, Pete. You know this is my fifteenth invasion? Hmm. I always 
see Joe and always see Pete. I'm always here. I'm seeing them, 
and then there's Oscar, and then those Aussie pilots that always 
show up." And you say, "What's the total manpower in this 
invasion? Let's see. It's probably -- oh, let's see. Per ship, so 
on, there's probably about twenty-two thousand men. Hey now, wait 
a minute. It's the same twenty-two thousand. But I just read in 
the papers back home that there are now four million men in the 
navy. Where are they?"

Well, it takes that much turnover of new blood coming in from 
civil life... They know a war is going on and they want to get 
something done, and in those few weeks before they're detected, 
they ship enough to this group that's carrying on the invasions, 
you see (you see how this works), so that another invasion can 
happen. You see? And that's how a war goes on. It goes on in 
exact ratio that the navy gets bigger. You see? Because it always 
takes this much new blood.

You think I'm joking, don't you? It seems incomprehensible to you 
perhaps that this is the case, because you know that when you 
join the services you immediately go to the front. No, you go to 
the desk. They have a worse fate for you than the front.

You see how this could be? Here you have a big organization, and 
its communication lines are fixed up so that they have to move in 
a very exact pattern or it apparently causes pain to somebody. 
See? This goes down the line and it hurts somebody. It goes off-
line or it moves too fast or it moves too slow. And there's nag, 
nag, nag, chop, chop, chop, you see, all the time. Evidently the 
organization is already in pain or there wouldn't be this much 
bad feeling going on.

Well, their lines are too tight, too badly planned and there's 
too much incipient confusion, and every stable datum there is 
simply curing some horrible malady that is immediately over the 
horizon and still exists. See? So we have this whole mass of 
maladies held in check by a few stable data. You got it?

This huge number of things that could go wrong -- being held in 
check by a huge number of regulations that must be obeyed. And 
finally we get one regulation per one thing that can go wrong, 
you see? And you're up to the optimum, then, of having a stable 
datum for every particle. And the same time this happens, then 
the person considers every particle that exists capable of 
hurting him, capable of confusing him. So you have a one-particle 
confusion, and that's pretty hard to achieve. Real hard to 
achieve.

But here's this whole problem. Now, I want you to see this, that 
on a third dynamic you would have a regulation to hold in 
abeyance certain confusions. Do you understand that? In a 
preclear you would have a stable datum or a thought or an idea, 
"Horses sleep in beds," to resist another area of confusion. Do 
you see that?

Now, the confusions may or may not exist. They may or may not be 
real. But one never finds it out because he's never facing the 
confusion. The confusion might or might not be there.

And in an organization the size of General Motors or something 
the size of the United States Navy, nobody's looked for years and 
years and years. You walk in, you take a look, you don't see 
anything there. They say, "What's this silly regulation about 
'all employees who have coffee at the coffee break must file past 
the supervisor's desk which is now in building fourteen.' That 
makes a coffee break twenty minutes of walking past the 
supervisor's desk and one minute getting some coffee. What is 
this all about?"

"Well, that's a regulation," they tell you, because that's their 
stable datum. A regulation is a regulation.

Well, no, it's holding in abeyance some confusion. But when did 
the confusion generate? Well, it generated, actually, in 1914 
when there were only five employees, and the supervisor's office 
and room and desk were all there, right by the coffee pot. And he 
wanted to make sure everybody came back to work. There were only 
five guys so he could check them off -- you know, one, two, 
three, four, five. They're back to their posts, see.

But now there's two thousand in the same room and they have to go 
over to another building to file by. You'd say, "Gee, this looks 
silly. What's this all about? What would happen if they didn't 
file by this desk?"

Don't ever ask that question. It gives everybody pain. You see 
why? Something painful is liable to occur. But what?

And they won't be able to tell you what. And it becomes one of 
these fascinating studies in resisting things that aren't 
present. And you, walking in from the outside, look at all the 
not-presentness of the situation. You see? You see everything is 
running along. You see the willingness of the workers to work. 
You see the willingness of people to sit down at their desks and 
shuffle the papers, and the willingness of guys to watch the 
assembly lines roll. And you occasionally hear them after hours, 
and they've got some ideas they'd like to put into effect, but 
they sure better not.

And you say, "Why not?"

And they look at you like "You stupid fool. Why not, he says. Ha-
ha."

Why? Well, you can't see the confusions that are not there. So if 
you're ever going to psychoanalyze an organization -- which would 
be removing all of its stable data -- remember that you have to 
give them more stable data, not less, in order to have them even 
listen to you removing any confusions.

Now, that works for a preclear, works for an organization -- work 
for any dynamic.

You've got to put more stable data there than you take away or 
they won't let you remove any confusions. In the final analysis, 
however, you're trying to make people face patterns of confused 
matter or patterns of confused thought. And if you can get them 
simply to confront these things, then space occur between 
themselves and those things. And they're no longer upset, in pain 
or aberrated.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]




FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 18 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

===============================================

RANDOMITY

A lecture given on 13 December 1956


[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

Well, I'd like to talk to you now about something that is a 
little more pleasant than aberration. But I don't know what it 
is.

It's very difficult to generalize, you know, on the subject of 
aberration, because preclears, you know, are really all 
different. Now, I've told you they were all the same this 
evening. I told you they were all the same. Now, I just might as 
well tell you they're all different.

Every preclear is different than every other preclear. They 
aren't the same at all. They don't respond the same way. Why? 
Because they'd have different tolerances for randomity.

Now, this is an old word, an old word. There's plus and minus 
randomity. Fascinating stuff, this randomity. Because out of 
randomity you get a game. And what makes all the preclears 
different? Well, it's a very interesting thing: they're all 
playing a slightly different game with this plus or minus 
randomity.

Now, "randomity" is a formidable word. When it first came out 
they called it "rondamity." There's "randomity" and 
"automaticity." These are two very formidable words. But yet 
they're very, very easy to understand.

One of those words rondamity, excuse me, randomity, is a simple 
statement of too much or too little confusion -- if you just look 
at it that way. Random: It means a non-set pattern. How random is 
it? Well, it could be not random enough, or it could be too 
random. Well, who's to judge that? The preclear. And that's what 
makes them all different.

"What game are they playing?" is modified by "What speed?" Now, 
this fellow goes to this small, sleepy town and there's nothing 
at all happening at all in the town. And there's a dog asleep in 
front of the general store, and there's one horse, walks down the 
street of the town at a slow pace. And this fellow, if he's from 
New York, says, "Oh, my God. How can anybody stand this sa-a-oo-
oo! It's going to drive me mad listening to all this silence all 
night." See?

Another fellow happens to be from a farm over at Hoot-n-holler. 
And he comes in and he sees that dog asleep there, and he sees 
that one horse start walking down the street. He has a nervous 
breakdown. Goes to see a psychiatrist. Too much motion for him.

Now, this would merely be a difference of what they thought 
motion should consist of. So you'd have the identical situation 
being plus to the fellow from Hoot-n-holler and minus to the 
fellow from New York. So we got plus and minus randomity -- all 
in the same situation.

So it comes down to consideration. What is the person's 
consideration of what is too fast? What is the person's 
consideration of what is too slow? When you establish these two 
things, you then have established his optimum randomity, but that 
is only established for him.

Now, it can vaguely be established for a class of people. A 
motorcycle club, for instance, has an interesting reaction to 
spills. They're all tearing down the highway, one after the 
other, and they're somewhat mixed up: they're only hitting 
eighty, and some guy goes off the curve at eighty miles an hour. 
"Imagine it!" And he breaks his leg, and they drag him out and 
untangle him from the machine, and so forth, and set his leg and 
shove him in to a doctor. And he's out next Saturday with a 
stader splint, riding his motorcycle, see? Hardly anybody yiekle-
yackled about this at all, see? Nothing. Nothing to it.

Well, somebody driving a Cadillac -- driving it mainly to hold up 
traffic, is why I think most of these people drive Cadillacs. You 
always find these big vehicles capable of doing Lord-knows-what 
miles per hour, always doing some other miles per hour. And you 
get this Cadillac, and it's driving down the street, and the 
fellow driving it stops just a little bit rapidly. He stamps on 
its power brake, you see. He almost rushes the light. And the 
lady in the back seat of the Cadillac goes forward just a slight 
little bit and her handbag drops on her toe. See? Cadillac stops. 
Chauffeur gets fired. Goes to see the doctor to have X-rays 
taken. Is in the hospital for a week, you know. Goes to see a 
psychiatrist to see if it had deranged her mentally. Get the 
idea?

Totally different ideas obtained. Now, you consider that 
ridiculous. Actually I saw that happen.

So you want to watch these Cadillacs, by the way. You want to 
watch them. They're the dangerous cars on the road. Driving at 
fifteen miles an hour or twenty-five miles an hour, when 
everybody else is doing fifty, you know? They get in your road, 
and it's an obstacle. And obstacles, when run into, are damaging 
to wheel alignments and things.

Anyway, here is a different viewpoint. So we can assign just this 
nebulousness to class: there is a slight tendency in these 
classes to follow a certain pattern. Just as there was one person 
in the motorcycle club who thought that must have hurt Joe a 
little bit when he went off the curve, so there might be somebody 
riding Cadillacs who would think that it was just a little 
extraordinary for her to have gone to a hospital for a week 
because her handbag dropped on her toe. You get the idea? There 
would be variations within the class, even. And because there are 
these variations we can make this remark: "All preclears are 
different."

What is their optimum randomity? When we say "optimum randomity," 
we're saying "game" in a complicated fashion. But game has more 
in it than motion. A game has purpose and a game has the idea of 
freedom and barriers. But the speed of the game would be what we 
consider random. A game must be to some degree random -- in other 
words, slightly unpredictable.

What is a random particle? It is a particle that we cannot quite 
determine the future course of. That would be a random particle.

All right. If everybody knew that the navy was always going to 
beat the army in football; and it was always going to be a score 
of fourteen to nothing; and the plays were all going to be run 
off in a one, two, three, four; and in the second quarter, first 
play they're going to use a T formation, you know -- nobody would 
go to those football games. They'd go down here to a high school 
in northern Virginia and watch some real football. Because there 
you can't even predict that they're going to play football.

Now, as we look over the entirety of games, we ourselves find it 
rather difficult sometimes to believe that somebody who is in a 
remarkable state of disrepair -- psychosomatically -- is actually 
playing a game. That is his level of game, and the motion which 
he tolerates to a marked degree matches his level of game.

He has a psychosomatic ill: Every time he smells wet paint he 
becomes violently sick at his stomach. You know? You say, "Well, 
it's not reasonable." No, it's not reasonable! It's 
psychosomatic. But it is part of some sort of a game he is 
playing. This is his defenses to some degree. This is the way he 
becomes a formidable object.

If you were to pass a law saying that all people who were 
suffering from an illness known as "woofosis," whereas they 
walked down the street and barked every few paces like a dog 
(woofosis, very deadly disease), and all those people were no 
longer subject to taxation or some such thing, you in a very 
short space of time, I'm sure, would see people walking down the 
street a few paces and barking, and walking down the street a few 
paces and barking. They would go on doing this. You got the idea?

Why? They have a game mock-up. They're in a game condition. That 
is to say, they can almost play this game. But they have a mock-
up which doesn't play a game they can't tolerate. See, the mock-
up won't be able to play that game, but the people in that game 
won't play against them either. See? "Taxation will be canceled 
if..."

Well, there are lots of citizens around who'll still play this 
game called taxation. You know, government issues the money and 
takes it back and issues it and takes it back and so forth. 
Called the ebb and flow of nonsense.

Anyway, this thing called taxation is a game and lots of people 
play it. I know there are millionaires around. They have whole 
teams, rooms full of accountants. You have to get a Mount Palomar 
scope to look down the lengths of the desks. And what are all 
these guys for? Well, their aggregate payroll is, let us say, 
$8,622 a week. To keep from doing what? From paying $1,260 worth 
of taxes. See? It's just a game. Just a game. Nothing more and 
nothing less than a game. It isn't even important to the fellow 
whether he pays these taxes or doesn't pay these taxes, but he 
spends all of his time sitting around figuring, figuring, 
figuring, trying to get some way whereby he can beat somebody out 
of some taxes, see. He's just mad.

Another fellow takes an entirely different approach. He just 
reaches down and pulls a hold of the corner of the rug called 
"government" and gives it a jerk. Somebody else plays that game 
in a different fashion. But it's a game. Don't think that it 
isn't a game.

Of course, it's not a game to an Internal Revenue employee. So we 
don't know who it's a game to on that side.

Way back down the line, sometime in the past, somebody didn't 
like millionaires and he passed a law. And we're probably still 
playing the game with that person. See? Karl Marx -- somebody 
like that. We're still playing the game with him even though we 
apparently have a bunch more players out here. Well, those 
fellows aren't players, they're pieces. Get the idea? On a 
chessboard you have pieces, not players.

Now, in life, an individual is apt to be used as a piece one way 
or the other and be shoved around without any slightest 
determinism on his own part. And sometimes he makes a game out of 
thinking he is a piece. He's being shoved around against his own 
desire.

Funny part of it is, if a fellow ever suspects he's a piece, he 
isn't one. That's the cute one. If he ever gets the idea, "You 
know, I'm just being shoved around here," he isn't a piece. 
Pieces don't think. They never find out. So although he may be 
involved in some game called "soldier" in which he is a piece 
that never suspects he's a piece even vaguely, the game he knows 
he's playing and the game he's being used in are usually two 
different things.

So we have a condition whereby this individual who is a soldier
-- obviously just a piece, in what game he doesn't know. Somebody 
says, "Attack the citizens of Clinton, Kentucky," you know? And 
he goes and attacks them. He doesn't know what game he's in. He 
didn't realize he was winning a presidential election reverse-
wise or... He didn't know what he was doing.

But his game would be, perhaps, in obfuscating the sergeant. You 
know? He's got some game going with the sergeant and he is really 
a player in this game, see, a terrific player in this game. The 
sergeant rolls them out in the morning, you know, and he's got it 
all fixed up so that somebody sings out, "yere" to his name, see.

Sergeant says, "Smith," and one of his buddies says, "Yo," you 
know. And the sergeant never looks up from the roll call, see. 
He's still in bed, see? He gets blackmail on his partners in the 
company -- his other soldiers and so forth -- to make them do 
this, you know. He wins at cards. He amasses large debts to 
himself and so forth, so that when his name appears up there for 
a digging detail, it's Jones that goes out, not Smith.

It isn't because he's lazy at all. He's playing a game with the 
sergeant. He knows he's playing it. With what glee he lies there 
in his bunk and listens to the calisthenics going on outside the 
tents, you see. He knows he's playing that game.

Well, because this condition can exist, many of us become 
suspicious that we are in some sort of a game that we know not 
what of. We're being used in some fashion, and we start looking 
around to find some game we're being used as a piece in.

Well, the funny part of it is, there's a role lower than "piece." 
It's "broken piece." Nobody's using it. And many a time we begin 
to look around and worry about what game we might be being used 
as a piece in and we find out we're not being utilized. Well, 
because this would be too much of a blow to us, we normally can 
be expected to cook up something.

Now, an example of that is a fellow talks about the between-lives 
area. Now, he himself has no real concept of the between-lives 
area. But he says, "The last time they sent me down here..." see? 
He's heard of somebody running this engram or something like 
that. He's trying to get into a game condition even to the extent 
of being a piece, you see. He considers that a little more game. 
And he'll talk about this. As a matter of fact, there's a grave 
possibility that many are used in this category. There's a grave 
possibility that people around are shot from hither to yon for 
this purpose or that, in some game they know not what of at all. 
There's a definite possibility.

One of the oldest whole track gags was to take somebody, knock 
him out, and tell him he had to go over to some other place and 
do something or other that would louse up the enemy in some 
fashion. And the fellow does it, by the way. I mean, he'll go 
ahead and be a piece in a game to this degree.

Well, a few thousand years later he's not in any particular big 
game. He's completely lost from this old game and he runs short 
of games, so he goes around telling people that he has a mission. 
See, he dreamed it up, and the Archangel Mike or somebody is 
sitting two feet back of his right shoulder sending him 
telepathic or teletype messages, and he has a mission.

Well, you want to look at this with some askance, because the 
truth of the matter is that I happen to know Mike, and he's not 
careless with who he picks out. And he doesn't pick out guys that 
blab, you see? If anybody was executing a mission for the 
Archangel Mike, you can make a very sound investment in a bet 
that he wouldn't know anything about it at all. Otherwise he 
wouldn't be a piece.

Now, therefore, when people begin to suspect that they're being 
used in games of one character or another, the usual thing that 
one suspects in return is that they have lost their last game and 
they're dragging an old one into view.

Funny thing how a thetan can actually play a game and not play a 
game at the same time, how he can play a game that he doesn't 
know anything about, how he can be multivalenced on this whole 
subject. It's quite amazing.

But this comes about because every now and then there is only 
himself. Now, those things which are the least admired tend to 
persist. And being all by yourself is not much admired. So people 
eventually drift into an "only one" category, and they begin to 
believe they're all by themselves in some fashion. But they will 
dream up some multivalence situation whereby they are playing 
chess with themselves. And they go from the idea that they're the 
"only one" -- in other words, they run out of games and opponents 
and roles to play -- into playing a game with some mysterious 
opponent. And boy, this guy's really mysterious.

"Every time I go to bed at night something whispers in my ear." 
Get the idea? This is a mysterious opponent. "Something tells me 
that I had better not go down that road." Look! If it said it 
that well, you're the only one who articulates that expertly.

And you've got the phenomenon of the fellow playing chess with 
himself. He sits on one side of the chessboard and he says, "Now, 
let's see. I'm Joe now. Let's see. Uh... well, let's see. I move 
my knight to king's pawn five, there. I think that's very good." 
He says, "I'm not Joe now. Get over here." Bill now, you know. 
"Look at that dog! He moved his knight to... Well, I'll have to 
counter that one way or the other."

Eventually, if he keeps this up and keeps himself from knowing 
he's playing both sides of the board and swapping roles all the 
time, he merely winds up in the center of the board stalemated. 
But he's run almost completely out of game.

But this is very hard for a thetan to do. He's always got a 
couple of games on tap. The game might be called "headache." The 
game might be called "distraught wife." The game might be called 
"caved-in worker." It's played in Russia a great deal: caved-in 
worker. Or "betrayed commissar."

"Here I was, deeply sincere, tried to give my all for the people, 
and look at me now. Here I am sitting here in this office that's 
a hundred square yards on the side, and I have to keep all those 
guards with the machine guns outside the door because everybody 
is after me." As a matter of fact, in a well-run communism, 
nobody would find out he was commissar, see -- I mean, really 
well run.

His game condition develops from the conditions he finds himself 
in. But all of these things are established, in the main, with 
what he himself has come to consider as too much or too little 
motion. Got that?

I should have suspected something about myself one time. I was on 
an expedition up in Alaska. And I was lying in my bunk, and 
everything was going along very smoothly, and we were homeward 
bound and everything had been done. The ship wasn't leaking a 
drop. The stores were all dry. I mean, everything was going 
along. The people on deck were totally competent. There was 
exactly nothing to do, and I realized there was nothing to do. 
And I had this stray thought. I said, "You know, I'm practically 
out of a job. No emergencies at all. There's nothing going on. 
You know, that's an awful situation to be in," I said to myself. 
And forgot all about it quite promptly, walked up to the chart 
table, looked up the tables for tides going through inlets and 
narrows, read the Canadian tide table -- which some days before I 
had noted was an hour and a half different than the American tide 
table for the same waters -- established the route through Dodd 
Narrows at full flood spring tide with a survey vessel.

Now, that's a fantastic thing for a guy to do to himself, because 
it meant that all of a sudden the ship was in a millrace. And we 
got through it all right -- got out the other side. I didn't 
think we could make it, but I happened to remember that... Get 
the idea? I mean...

One sailor we had that was terribly brave, terribly brave, had 
the helm just come loose and just start to spin idly in his 
hands, because both tiller lines had become unmoored from the 
rudder. And there was an auxiliary bar back there and a couple of 
us jumped back and put the bar in place and steered her on 
through. But that randomity wasn't necessary either.

I thought about it afterwards very carefully. Thought over the 
whole thing and tried not to remember that about eight or nine 
days before I had noticed that the tiller lines were almost 
through. Fantastic. But you sometimes catch yourself playing a 
game. Beware of sliding into a condition whereby you are going to 
get some rest or relax, or you're going to do something else now 
that's quieter or better.

Medical doctor plays on this all the time. Matter of fact if he 
didn't, he probably wouldn't ever have anybody in the hospital. 
He says, "Now," he says, "Uh... Mr. Smith, uh... Mr. Smith, uh... 
you're in very bad shape. Your heart, you know. So you've got 
take it easy. You've got to be quiet. You gotta take it easy here 
one way or the other. And uh... you mustn't overexert yourself. 
And don't worry. Above all, don't worry. Yes..."

Of course, Mr. Smith's wife hears this and makes sure that this 
is carried out. And then Smith all of a sudden is back in there 
in a bankruptcy or something of this sort. Or incipient 
bankruptcy, working twenty-four hours a day in order to keep 
things... How the devil did a bankruptcy happen?

Well don't look at that too carefully. The guy was run down, you 
see, into minus randomity -- not enough motion. So he omitted a 
couple of very obvious, logical steps somewhere along the line or 
antagonized the very people that he should have stayed friends 
with, and the next thing you know he's got a plus randomity on 
his hands. He's trying to adjust that minus randomity. Got it?

Every preclear, then, is as different as he runs at different 
speeds. He is as different as he will not tolerate no-motion and 
not tolerate excess motion. See, his intolerances determine his 
optimum speed.

Now, he likes a certain amount of action or motion, and he will 
work things until he gets somewhere in its vicinity. And he is 
only really unhappy -- regardless of the expression he wears on 
his face -- he is only really unhappy when he is missing it too 
widely.

How fast should he drive? How fast should he walk? You got the 
idea? How fast should he eat? How slowly should he read?

I saw a fellow almost go to pieces one time on these read-it-
faster classes. You know, every once in a while the whole country 
goes into a spree that it should be able to read faster. I don't 
know why this is. They'll just eat up the existing reading 
matter. A book costs three dollars. All right. Now, it takes a 
fellow twenty hours to read the book. Well, you divide twenty 
into three hundred, and you get the price per hour of the 
entertainment. Don't you see? Or the three into the twenty.

You get the idea? Now, if he reads faster, his entertainment 
costs him more money. So I don't see what it's all about, myself.

But you see people around with "Reading Faster Self-Taught", you 
know. You'll see people avidly reading this in subways. "How To 
Read Faster". I don't know why they want to read faster. But they 
claim they can absorb more the faster they read. It doesn't work 
that way with me.

I was on a train once doing 105 on a test run and I didn't see 
any scenery at all. I knew I was going 105 though. So I guess 
that's what these people do. How to become aware of less, more 
quickly.

So anyhow, you'll see people speeding up on this. And in one such 
class where... Obviously these chaps were much too slow. They 
couldn't read all of the homework assigned, and so forth, and 
were given this class. And they were all supposed to speed up. 
And I saw this guy just start to crack up. He would read, you 
know, "I see the cat," or something simple like this, you know? 
And you could just see, just as he got about to "cat," why, his 
teeth...

They were forcing him to pass his attention across more in less 
time, you see. But he had something on the order of "I see the 
cat," and he couldn't get "I see" through faster, and he'd just 
go all to pieces. And all of a sudden you'd see him start to 
jerk. Well, I know what was happening to him now. His optimum 
speed of reading -- the safe speed of reading -- was what he was 
reading at. He felt comfortable at this.

Well, there's typists -- very often you think there are slow 
typists and fast typists. No, there are typists who are 
comfortable typing slowly and typists who are comfortable typing 
swiftly.

I knew, one time, a court reporter. And this person just couldn't 
type slowly. It was just a physical impossibility. Didn't feel 
like she was typing at all unless the typewriter was going 
brrrrrrum! jumping, you know, off of its stand, and brrrrr! and 
so on. She'd be sitting there quite happy, you know, chewing gum 
and everything was fine.

Another person comes along and he's being pushed to type, one 
finger, you know. Peck. Peck. Why didn't he relax and write at 
the rate of one letter per minute -- the right, optimum speed?

Now, you could say, then, life would be livable at the speed a 
person had decided it was livable at. Got that? Life is livable 
at a safe speed, or life is livable at an optimum randomity, or 
life is livable so long as one's randomity did not become less 
than or greater than what he thought was comfortable.

It isn't really safe. "Safe" isn't really good, because this 
assumes that everybody considers it necessary to protect himself 
-- which, if you look at these drivers out here and so forth, you 
realize that it's an incorrect premise. Because those fellows 
aren't -- they're not only not protecting themselves; they're not 
even protecting police. It's really bad, because I think the 
society should protect police. It shouldn't be open season all 
the time.

Anyway, where we have, then, one slowed down or speeded up, we 
get maladjustment. What is maladjustment? It's being slowed down 
or speeded up.

Now, here's an awful trick you can play on somebody. You want to 
throw somebody way down Tone Scale? You can throw him down in one 
of two ways.

This individual walks at a certain rate of speed. Well, you walk 
along and carefully accustom your speed to the individual, see. 
Carefully walk just as fast as he's walking, you know. And 
because you're so well adjusted, you can take hold of his arm, 
and he feels very comfortable at this. And then slow down 
imperceptibly, see, pulling him back just a little bit. Meantime 
talk about something innocuous -- politics or something else 
unimportant, you know -- and you'll just observe the fellow... He 
never notices exactly what's happening if you're very adroit, but 
he goes right on down Tone Scale on the subject he's talking 
about.

Now, you can do the same thing the other way: You match your 
speed to his, and now you make him walk just a little bit faster 
-- not much -- than the speed which he set and which he evidently 
finds comfortable. And again talk about politics. And what do you 
know, he'll go right on down the Tone Scale again.

But he will hit it in a different fashion. It'll be hectic. You 
know? He'll feel a little hectic about it, and then he'll slide 
on down. He'll get just as apathetic being speeded up as he was 
slowed down.

In other words, what we're looking at here is a comfortable speed 
of walking. A comfortable speed of working. How much is too much 
chorus girl? See? How much is too much chorus girl? How much is 
too little chorus girl. Somebody goes and sees the Rockettes. And 
I don't know, they've gotten it up to a thousand girls, haven't 
they now, in regimental front? And he sees these Rockettes, and 
you can take him away, and you bring him away from the music hall 
and you say, "Well now, how'd you like the show?"

He says, "Well, the movie was good."

"Well, what did you think about the Rockettes?"

"Oh, oh yeah," he says, "there was some dancing. You know, that 
movie was pretty good."

Interesting. Fascinating. There were too many of them. They were 
moving too fast. They spread out in all directions, and so forth.

You take the same guy down to a burley-burley show and there's 
just one chorus girl, you know. And he sits there and drools, 
drools, drools.

Well, that was evidently enough chorus girls, you see, in one 
direction. Well, how much is too little chorus girls? Well, you 
can't get him out of the theater. You've at once seen too many 
and too few -- optimum in between -- in just one striptease 
artist. You get the idea? See? Less than that -- he doesn't like 
that, so he won't leave. More than that -- well, he resents the 
"in between the acts." See? It would be right on the button.

Well, most people have this, and that is what we know as taste.

Somebody walks into a room and... Park Avenue. Park Avenue: they 
have one color -- one color carpet, one color on the bedspread, 
one color on the wall, one color in the vase, one color in the 
drapes, so forth, and... Gray, see. And it's perfect. Perfect, 
you see. And a decorator comes in and puts one willow sprig with 
a slightly different gray, you see. Person says, "Pretty wild. 
That's a pretty violent thing!" They say, "It's bad taste, 
garish!"

Now we go down in the village, and a girl's got this half of the 
door painted chartreuse, the other half Chinese orange, see? But 
in the middle of the wall, from there to the floor, it's 
brilliant purple. You know? And we go on from there, see.

She herself is wearing scarlet pajamas with a bright green 
turban, you know? Somebody walks in and says, "You must lead an 
awfully dull, quiet life." It would just be the amount of 
randomity in the color spectrum. This establishes taste.

I don't know what good taste is in general, but I could say what 
good taste was for anybody who was tasting. That could be 
established.

So when we try to be too sweeping in our generalities concerning 
preclears -- below the level of stable data, disorderly data, 
stable mass, disorderly particles, and this formula of randomity 
-- when we drop down below that and get into other material, we 
can't really tell exactly how the hat fits until we have looked 
it over. Because this individual says he has a terrible 
intolerance for women.

You say, "Well, all right. What's so bad about women?" you would 
say -- you would not say as an auditor, but if you said, "Now, 
what's so bad about women?"

He'd say, "Well, hair."

"What about their hair?"

"Well, they wear it long."

Because you have a different idea you would say, "Now, just a 
minute. Now, just how does he add this up? There must be some 
deep significance back of this." No, it's just a matter of too 
much hair. I'm sorry, it's just there is no more significance in 
it than that. He doesn't like women because women wear long hair. 
He knows that long hair shouldn't be worn. When the wind hits it, 
it makes a motion. Get the idea?

Same fellow. Doesn't like Roman troops. Why not? Well, they have 
short hair. When the wind hits it there's no motion at all, don't 
you see?

Well, what is the proper length of hair? Well, it's obviously 
somewhere between a crew cut and a pageboy. You're liable to come 
up with some coif of one kind or another and say, "Well, is that 
it?"

"That's fine."

Then he'd go tell his wife, "Listen, honey, this guy's got 
peculiar ideas. Get your hair cut just slightly above the lower 
lobe of the ear, you know? Just about there."

And he says, "My God, you're gorgeous, dear." He's happy with her 
for the rest of his life, see?

This is a completely wild, wild thing because you say it couldn't 
possibly make that much difference. Well, we don't have to 
inquire into the deeper significance of it. A person finds life 
as livable as it matches his idea of an optimum randomity. What 
is an optimum motion? What is an optimum abundance?

You take somebody who's been living in a palace all his life and 
set him down before a turkey dinner served in a middle-class 
home, and he'd wonder, "These poor people. How could they 
possibly get along?" because they were always starving to death. 
There wasn't enough food on the table.

Conversely, you take some guy who's used to eating out of tin 
cans and show him the same dinner and he'd get sick at his 
stomach. He can't understand how people gorge themselves so. And 
he begins to be very upset about people gorging themselves.

Well, mainly people miss in understanding other people and begin 
to look for many more hidden things than this simple 
consideration: How much is too much? How much is too little? How 
little is too little? Well then, what's just right?

Well, if you could get this fellow to get his "just rights" on 
every consideration, and if life was modeled in that fashion to 
match his consideration perfectly, you would see a great 
relaxation. He'd really be relaxed.

I saw an example of this one time. There were a bunch of 
promoters. Real high-pressure, high-speed -- oh, man, they were 
really promoters. They worked in oil stocks and things like that 
up in New York. Whee, you know? They didn't think they were doing 
a good day's work unless they'd taken some widow's last ten 
thousand before breakfast, you know? They were real fast, 
positive con men. They were playing cards. And they were playing 
cards at a rather stiff rate of speed, see? The place was 
absolutely blue-green with cigar smoke, you know. The chips were 
scattered all over the place. They had a radio turned on, and it 
was loud enough to make the people three floors above keep 
calling the police, who kept knocking on the door.

Now, these guys were all talking and the radio was going and they 
were playing cards and it was all totally disrelated, and a guy 
walked in. And he was just back from the Midwest where he had 
gone for his health. And he walked in and heaved a sigh of relief 
and he sat down to the table, sailing his hat into the corner, 
picked up a drink out of a dirty glass, grabbed a cigar, sat 
back, unbuttoned his shirt, you know, and he says, "Boy," he 
says, "It's good to be home to a restful place."

That was home. That was calm. I could get the idea as far as I 
was concerned, you see, of a complete desert stretching out in 
all directions and not a sound on it anyplace, you know, and just 
nothing but rest. No pressure. That was home. That was the way it 
ought to feel.

Well, sometimes you talk to a preclear and he doesn't seem to 
think you're a good auditor. Well, this is just What does he 
consider the optimum amount of sympathy?

I have occasionally surprised the living daylights out of some 
preclear by giving him too much just on purpose. Make him wake up 
to the fact that all he was doing -- he wasn't running at all -- 
he was just sitting there begging for sympathy. Oh, I've done 
such things as get up and throw myself weepingly upon the couch, 
you know, and just sob and say, "My God, how it breaks me up for 
you to have been treated in this fashion. How could they have 
done it!" You know.

The guy would look at me...

That's too much, so he questions it. But imagine my surprise one 
day for it to have been just enough for one preclear. Just 
exactly right. The person never had confidence in me before. From 
there on, boy, I was something. I knew people.

I've known people, their idea of the proper amount of sympathy 
was actually a curled lip of contempt. Only you never would have 
interpreted this as sympathy at all, but they did. That was 
enough minus randomity on the subject of sympathy, you see. That 
was enough minus sympathy -- nonsympathetic.

You'll see troops exercising this. And it becomes immediately 
familiar to men when I say this. Some guy just gets smashed up in 
some fashion and the cracks that are made at him, he interprets 
as sympathy. And, actually, to some degree they're intended as 
sympathy.

Now, this then opens up a new field, a new view to anyone that 
people could all run on the same rules actually, but at different 
speeds. People could all stem from the same component parts, from 
the same sources of aberration, the same mechanical components 
going into their makeup, with a different consideration as to 
what was enough.

Now, you get the young Thor draining the horn of the giants, and 
that was enough to drink, you know. It wasn't enough to drink for 
the giants, though. They considered that was pretty bad "he 
thought." In other words, he had one idea of how much was enough 
drinking. They had another idea of how much was enough drinking.

Here we have the alcoholic. Now, let's really cut in on this one 
on a real tight curve here. We've got the alcoholic. The 
alcoholic once upon a time had an idea of how much was enough to 
drink. Somebody has disturbed that. They have forced it north or 
south, so he has a violent reaction to drink in certain 
quantities, don't you see?

Now, at one time, then, he had a tolerance for a certain quantity 
of liquor. But this, having been violated thoroughly, leaves him 
without a tolerance and with no consideration on the subject. In 
other words, he has been overwhelmed on his consideration of how 
much was enough to drink. He's overwhelmed.

How much is too little? Well, a man can have some appalling ideas 
on this subject of how much is enough to drink. I've been out 
with "Scandihoovian" sailors, you know. And they think a pint's a 
drink. You hand them a pint and they drain it, and say, "Thanks," 
walk on down the street without the faintest reel. That was 
enough to drink, for one drink.

Now, when we look it over, it doesn't explain on the basis of 
tissue absorption. How the medicos would love to explain it all 
on the basis of "Enzymes go around the gemzynes, and little 
bacrobics do this and that, and that manufactures the cross-
paralytics," or whatever -- you know, some nonsense -- "It does 
something medically."

No, it doesn't do anything medically unless you're tuned up to 
that wavelength, you might say.

They throw these data away, by the way, rapidly. They don't look 
at these data. They throw them about, because they're too random; 
they can't be confronted. Obviously, opium is an opiate. It is an 
opiate because opiate is a derivative of the word opium. They 
would explain this to you carefully. Then we get technical on the 
subject and they say, "In it's effect it is soporific. It 
produces a lethargic reduction of consciousness, you see."

And you'd say, "Oh, you mean it knocks you out."

Well, he would be amazed. He would be amazed. Now, he's got it 
all in his pharmacopoeia that so many milligrumps of opium knock 
out somebody. That's what he's got. It says right there.

All right. He takes somebody and he gives them this many 
milligrumps. The fellow sits there, swallows them -- nothing 
happens. Takes another couple of them, throws them in -- nothing 
happens. Takes some more, throws them in, and he says, "Look, 
it'll happen all at once" -- nothing happens.

This guy doesn't happen to have the consideration that opium is 
an opiate. He hasn't read the dictionary derivation. He hasn't 
been overwhelmed by the idea that it's a soporific. It doesn't 
overcome him. It is simply some pills.

If it's explained to him carefully how he has just consumed 
enough to kill him, and show him statistically -- statistically 
demonstrate to him -- that that much opium poured into a small 
dog would have turned him a bottlegreen purple, fellow's liable 
to say, "Well, I guess I'm wrong." Bloo! And out he'd go.

This is an amazing reaction. You take somebody who is nonhypnotic 
and then explain to them that being nonhypnotic is a 
manifestation of being insane. People who are nonhypnotic are 
insane. Prove it to him conclusively. The next time you say 
"abracadabra" or something, he goes "Daaa." Get the idea?

In other words, you have to actually overwhelm that basic 
consideration before you get a violent or non-normal reaction. 
Have you got it?

He's got the idea that so much is all right; so little is all 
right. Now, that has to be overwhelmed before he himself gets 
overwhelmed. Do you get the idea? You've got to really shove in 
his own considerations. But as you do shove his own 
considerations, his considerations narrow -- and narrow and 
narrow and narrow and narrow -- until it becomes very critical 
how much is too much and how much is too little. Got the idea? He 
gets critical about this.

You'll find the fellow measuring out arsenic with suspicion, you 
know. You'll find him taking a pair of gold-balance scales 
that'll measure a gnat's sneeze and being very careful about the 
arsenic content of a drink, or something like that. The fellow, 
in other words, narrows his tolerance to the extent that his 
tolerance itself is overwhelmed. Now, can you enlarge it after 
that basis?

In other words, you've got to disturb a person's basic 
considerations on any given subject before you can overwhelm them 
with that subject.

He considered that being able to read a book every week, being 
able to take a walk -- that was an exciting life. Somebody has to 
come along and convince him it's a boring life before he begins 
to suffer from it. In other words, there's got to be an opposite 
and contrary opinion. That has to be shoved around. That has to 
be moved around. And when his ideas of tolerances are altered, 
then you get him into what we call an aberrated condition. Up to 
that time you can't consider it aberrated.

So aberration is a third-dynamic phenomenon. It is taken apart 
with a third-dynamic activity called auditing. It's not a first-
dynamic phenomenon. Aberration never has been, never will be. 
When the individual faces too much or too little motion within 
his consideration and something bad happens to him as a result, 
then that bad thing that happened to him as a result is actually 
narrowly based on somebody having sold him the idea that his 
considerations were in error.

He had to be made wrong before he could be wrong with regard to 
his considerations. And the more he is made wrong, the more 
narrow his tolerance of any given speed, motion, action, thought, 
belief, custom or moral becomes.

I get a very big kick out of some old fellow that comes along 
and, boy, he's moral. Wow! You know? Oh, man, is he moral! I 
mean, it just hurts, you know, to listen to this fellow. What a 
beating he must take from the daily paper. What a beating he 
would take from the Christian Science Monitor. And he's pretty 
moral. He's very strait-laced. He knows what's right and he knows 
what's wrong. And man, he's got it measured with a micrometer 
caliper. Hey, has he got a past! Mm, wow! Whew!

You start auditing this boy and you start increasing his 
tolerances on what is and what isn't moral, and he's liable to 
take a wild dive on you with regard to his reactions to any given 
question. You find out, well, he wasn't really bad off. He wasn't 
really bad off until he strangled his younger brother. And then 
it sort of settled in on him, as his mother explained to him that 
this was wrong... You got the idea?

Somebody, then, who was intolerant, or you might say has a very 
narrow tolerance in life -- "People must all run at an exact 
speed, neither too fast nor too slow," you know. "Things must be 
done not too good or too bad but just uyu-vhuh. And things must 
be done in just exactly..." "The way you set the table is to put 
the knife there with it's handle touching the edge of the table 
(not in any), you know, with its blade pointing over toward the 
right. The spoon sets in with its handle exactly level with the 
bottom of the knife." This is the way you set a table, see.

Somebody explains this to you. It's all right. A guy in 
terrifically good shape would simply practically toss the 
silverware down and it'd wind up in an aligned fashion. You got 
the idea? But this person goes over and moves it into this and 
explains how it must be that way and practically screams every 
time it is some other way: You can assume that there's been a lot 
of adjustment of opinion on the whole subject of eating. Got the 
idea? We must have had a big adjustment of opinion, because the 
tolerances are very poor. Got that?

So, the consideration itself, broadly then, at first, must be 
viewed as something that was pretty doggone wide. In other words, 
anything in driving between twenty and eighty could be considered 
as a nice, comfortable speed. After a while, you will find that 
it doesn't necessarily have to be fifteen. A person doesn't slow 
down that way. A person slows down to thirty-five and slows up to 
thirty-five. You got the idea?

The eighty became thirty-five. The twenty became thirty-five. 
They become a fixed speed. Riding at that speed they say, "Oh 
well, that's a comfortable speed." You're driving. You're 
driving. You watch their toes. You go thirty-eight miles an hour. 
You see those feet start down there, hitting the imaginary 
brakes, you know. Broad four-pass highway, no traffic. You go 
thirty-eight and their foot goes up there to find the imaginary 
brake. "Well," you say, "well, I'm going too fast for them." Slow 
down to thirty-two. They get restless.

You'd say here was somebody that had really been mauled around 
and had really mauled around other people on the subject of cars 
-- and you would be right. The narrowness of the tolerance is 
measured by the amount of violation of randomity. All speeds are 
bad but thirty-five. Got the idea? Thirty-two is too slow. 
Thirty-eight is too fast. Thirty-five is just exactly the right 
speed.

Now, other people can go just as silly on an upper band, because 
it's just a matter of consideration. It doesn't necessarily 
settle in a mean at all. Somebody who at one time considered 
between twenty and eighty just fine, has been overwhelmed to the 
point where only 118 is a proper speed. It's a new consideration. 
But it's 118. You go 105 and they get nervous. And you say, "I'm 
going too fast." So you go ninety-five. They almost die!

I had a fire-engine driver one time: He was a very, very fine 
driver, but unfortunately fire engines are evidently supposed to 
travel at exactly sixty-two miles an hour around town. I don't 
know why, but it must be, because that's the only speed this guy 
could drive.

Well, I had a car that did well at ninety. And it was a broad, 
straight, unbending, unfrequented highway. He drove sixty-two. So 
I said, "Well, he's being conservative." And we came to a country 
town which had narrow streets which turned like pretzels. It was 
full of wagons, carts, strange vehicles. We went through it at 
sixty-two.

Now, this is also expressed in terms of heat. Heat expresses 
itself this way, too. Originally a person has a very wide heat 
tolerance. Doesn't bother him, particularly, thirty degrees 
above. Wouldn't worry him too much with no jacket. It wouldn't 
worry him too much with a jacket on at 100. See? But, gradually, 
heat becomes associated with wrongness. Various low degrees and 
various high degrees become associated with wrongness. He 
associates these things so that he moves off any consideration of 
his own and only adopts some other consideration on the subject. 
Because he's misowning the consideration, it, of course, 
persists. He eventually decides, as most of the human race has 
decided, that about seventy or seventy-two is pretty good.

But America, oddly enough, has decided something new. And that's 
that seventy-eight is all right inside with a coat off, you know, 
but seventy outside is all right with a slight fur parka over 
your head. I'm fascinated. I see people going around all wound up 
and so forth outside. And I go into their homes you know and you 
wonder what the hell is this, Death Valley? It's hot! You know, 
and the thermometer is way up there and the place is smoking and 
so forth.

Now, this could, then, become specialized. After it's being 
generalized that exactly seventy-three is the right temperature 
everywhere, then you could break this down and it'd become 
individuated again, and temperature could become: inside one 
temperature is correct, outside another temperature is correct. 
Well, that's kind of a silly thing, but you get an individuation 
of the generality and a further complexity thereof.

Well, what is this thing called randomity?

The optimum randomity of a person is what he thinks it is. But 
any fixed, superfixed randomity is apt to be the result of his 
own considerations having been overcome. And if motion produces a 
marked, violent effect upon him, depresses him or pushes him into 
some different state of mind that is quite marked and quite 
violent, then you must assume that his own opinions on the 
subject have been overwhelmed and that the level of wrongness of 
these nonoptimum motions is fantastic.

Now, why a thetan couldn't tolerate -273 degrees centigrade or 
+1600 centigrade with equal calm is a mystery. But they get into 
a body and it varies ten degrees either way and they start to 
scream and call the waiter and leave the place and buy fur coats 
and... You know? It's crazy.

But you get a phenomenon of a person's own considerations being 
overwhelmed, and then you get what we call aberration and so 
forth.

Well, let's look at this in terms of merely a disorderly set of 
ideas. They considered this set of ideas all right. Too hot, too 
cold -- didn't matter particularly; didn't worry them. Now we get 
a disorderly datum into this lineup, and it says that too cold is 
too cold, and too hot is too hot, that there is such a thing as 
too hot, that there is such a thing as too cold, there is such a 
thing as too fast, there is such a thing as too slow with regard 
to any given object.

And they try to straighten that datum out because it is not 
particularly an optimum datum. But they may borrow it because it 
makes a game. And they begin to hold on to a set of ideas that 
they specialize in. And they will eventually find all ideas on 
the subject of heat and cold random or confused or disorderly 
except one: seventy-eight. See? And then seventy-eight -- it has 
to be just exactly seventy-eight or they're miserable. Hotter, 
colder, they're miserable.

Well, all ideas on the subject of heat and cold are disorderly, 
or they came from disorderly sources and so are themselves 
disorderly. So therefore, it must obtain here that only one idea 
of temperature is correct. And of course, that's obviously 
nonsense.

Well, as we look over this whole subject of randomity we discover 
then that all preclears are different, but they're only different 
in terms of their considerations of too fast, too slow, too 
disorderly, too orderly.

Thank you.

[End of Lecture]





FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 19 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

===============================================

GLOSSARY [for tapes #1 - 9]


abetting: encouraging or supporting by aid or approval.

A-bomb: abbreviation for atomic bomb, an extremely destructive 
type of bomb that uses the splitting of atoms to cause an 
explosion of tremendous force accompanied by a blinding light.

aboriginal: existing from the beginning or from the earliest 
days.

Academy: that part of a Scientology church in which courses and 
training are delivered.

account, called to: asked for an explanation of.

accrue: to arise or spring as a natural growth or result.

Achilles' heel: a portion, spot, area, or the like, that is 
especially or solely vulnerable. The expression comes out of the 
Greek legend of Achilles. As a child he was dipped into the 
waters of a magic river which made his body invulnerable, except 
for the heel of the one foot by which he had been held. This heel 
could be attacked and injured by enemies.

adjunct: something attached to something else but in a dependent 
or subordinate position.

administration: the communication lines, flow lines and 
information lines of an activity.

adrift: without any particular aim or purpose.

Advanced Courses: at the time of this lecture, courses which 
consisted of twenty or more hours of instruction, divided equally 
between the communication formula and its use, and the Tone 
Scale. Advanced Courses came second in the Scientology training 
line-up. The first services were one-to-two-week courses which 
took people who had or had not heard of Scientology and gave them 
their first reality on the subject. -HCO Technical Bulletin of 12 
September 1956.

aerodynamic: relating to aerodynamics, the science that deals 
with the movement of bodies (airplanes, rockets, etc.) in a flow 
of air or gas.

aesthetic: beautiful. -Scientology: 8-80.

agent provocateurs: people hired to join labor unions, political 
parties, etc., in order to incite their members to actions that 
will make them or their organizations liable to penalties.

airfoil: a part with a flat or curved surface, as a wing, rudder, 
etc., designed to keep an aircraft up or control its movement by 
reacting in certain specific ways to the air through which it 
moves.

air, hang up in the: remain in an unsettled or undecided state.

Allen, Fred: (1894-1956) original name John Florence Sullivan, 
U.S. comedian whose unique style, dry wit and superb timing 
influenced a generation of radio and television performers.

amassed: accumulated (especially wealth).

ambulant: moving about; walking.

anarchists: people who believe in or support anarchism, the 
theory that all forms of government interfere unjustly with 
individual liberty and should be replaced by the voluntary 
association of cooperative groups. Anarchists attempt to 
accomplish this through resistance, sometimes by terrorism, to 
organized government.

anaten: an abbreviation of analytical attenuation, meaning a 
diminution or weakening of the analytical awareness of an 
individual for a brief or extensive period of time. If 
sufficiently great, it can result in unconsciousness. (It stems 
from the restimulation of an engram which contains pain and 
unconsciousness.) -Scientology Abridged Dictionary.

Andrea Doria: an Italian ocean liner which sank in a collision
with a Swedish liner in July 1956.

Angelicans: a play on the word Anglicans, a term for the people 
who uphold the systems or teachings of the Church of England.

antediluvian: very old, old-fashioned or primitive. It literally 
means before the flood.

APA: an abbreviation for the American Psychiatric Association.

aplomb: self-possession; composure.

appropriated: set aside for a specific use.

arbitrary: operates on preference, notion, whim, etc.

arduous: requiring great exertion; laborious; difficult.

ardure: enthusiasm; eagerness.

Argentinean: referring to the language of Argentina, a country in 
southern South America.

argumentation: the act of forming reasons, making inductions, 
drawing conclusions and applying them to the case in discussion.

ascorbic acid: another name for Vitamin C, a vitamin found in 
citrus fruits.

as-ises: causes (something) to vanish or cease to exist. This is 
accomplished by viewing something exactly as it is, without any 
distortions or lies. -Scientology Abridged Dictionary.

assay balance: a sensitive balance (scale) used in the analysis 
of gold, silver and other precious metals.

assayed: attempted; tried.

assimilation: the absorption and incorporation (of something) 
into one's thinking.

associative: in a way that tends to connect, bring into relation 
or unite two or more things.

at large: fully; in complete detail; in general; taken 
altogether.

Atomic Energy Commission: a former federal agency (1946-75) 
created to regulate the development of the U. S. atomic-energy 
program.

atomic fission: the splitting of the central parts of atoms with 
the release of great amounts of energy. This is the principle of 
the atomic bomb.

atomic fusion: the combining of the centers of two atoms to 
produce a center of greater mass. Atomic fusion releases vast 
amounts of energy and is used to produce the reaction in the 
hydrogen bomb.

atomic physicist: atomic: of or pertaining to atoms. Physics: the 
science which deals with the relationships between matter and 
energy. Thus, an atomic physicist is a scientist in that branch 
of physics which deals with atoms, their structure and the 
behavior of atomic particles.

attachés: people with special duties belonging to the official 
staff of ambassadors or ministers to foreign countries.

axioms: statements of natural laws on the order of those of the 
physical sciences. -Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental 
Health

backtrack: see whole track in this glossary.

Bacon, Francis: (1561-1626) English philosopher and author who 
was famous for what were considered to be concise expressions of 
practical wisdom and shrewd observations.

balled-up: (slang) bungled; muddled; confused.

ball, on the: lively and attentive; well able to do one's job, 
organize, etc.

band: class, rank or order; range.

basalt: a hard, dense, dark-colored rock of volcanic origin. Used 
figuratively in the lecture to make a point.

bayonet: a detachable, daggerlike blade put on the end of a rifle 
for hand-to-hand fighting.

B complex: a group of unrelated substances found in liver, yeast, 
etc., used as a vitamin supplement.

beam, off: wrong; incorrect.

beating (their) brains out: working hard in an attempt to solve a 
problem.

beef: (slang) to complain or protest.

beef up: increase the power of, strengthen.

befoozle: to fool (someone) thoroughly.

belies: contradicts; shows (something) to be false.

bill of health, cleanest: the best record; the most favorable 
report.

biochemical: relating to the chemical substances occurring in 
living organisms.

birds, for the: (slang) ridiculous, foolish, worthless, useless, 
etc.

black cases: cases which can't run engrams because they can't see 
them. -HCOB 14 January 1960.

blue, into the: into the unknown.

boards, trod the: acted on the stage, especially professionally.

boiling over: losing one's temper; getting excited.

bone, bred in the: as part of one's nature.

Borks and Snorgelberg: a made-up company name.

botanical gardens: places where collections of plants and trees 
are kept for scientific study and exhibition.

botany: the science, a branch of biology, that deals with plants, 
their life, structure, growth, classification, etc. See also 
classification in this glossary.

bottleneck: that point at which movement or progress is slowed up 
because much must be funneled through it.

braced (myself) up: summoned (my) strength or endurance.

brainwashing: subjection of a person to systematic indoctrination 
or mental pressure with a view to getting him to change his views 
or to confess to a crime. -HCO PL 20 December 1969 VIII.

breechblocks: movable pieces of metal for closing the breeches 
(the parts of guns where bullets are inserted) in certain 
firearms.

bric-a-brac: odds and ends of any sort.

Brussels: the capital of Belgium, a small country in western 
Europe, north of France and east of Germany.

Buffalo Bill: a nickname for William Frederick Cody (1846-1917), 
U.S. plainsman, frontier scout and showman.

bugaboos: persistent problems or sources of annoyance.

bump (themselves) off: (slang) to commit suicide.

bush league: (slang) any group, person, area, activity, etc., 
thought of as lacking skill, finish, etc.

buttonholed: held in conversation; forced into listening.

buzz bomb: a type of self-steering aerial bomb launched from a 
large land-based rocket platform. This type of bomb was used by 
the Germans in World War II over England and was noted for the 
loud buzzing sound that came from its engine.

by and large: in general; on the whole.

cable: a telegraph message sent under the ocean by cable; 
cablegram.

cadaver: a dead body, especially of a person; a corpse.

calculus: (mathematics) a way of making calculations about 
quantities which are continually changing, such as the speed of a 
falling stone or the slope of a curved line.

camouflaged hole: a hole in an organization's line-up that 
appears to be a post, yet isn't a held post because its duties 
are not being done. It is therefore a hole people and actions can 
fall into without knowing it is there. Camouflaged means 
"disguised" or made to appear as something else. A hole in the 
line-up of an organization is camouflaged by the fact that 
somebody appears to be holding it who isn't. In the lecture Ron 
is referring to a camouflaged hole in the entire field of 
organization as opposed to just one organization or post. See 
also post in this glossary. -HCO PL 10 September 1970.

cannibalistic: of or characteristic of cannibals, people who eat 
human flesh.

capitalism: an economic system in which all or most of the means 
of production and distribution, as land, factories, railroads, 
etc., are privately owned and operated for profit.

cap pistols: toy guns which explode little paper percussion caps.

carom: to strike and rebound, as a ball striking a wall and 
glancing off.

casino: a public room or building for entertainment, dancing, 
etc.

castigated: punished or rebuked (someone) severely, especially by 
harsh public criticism.

catalyze: to bring about or hasten a result.

catatonic: still, stiff and unmoving. -Lecture of 13 October 
1964.

cavil: trivial objections; unnecessary faultfinding.

Central Organization: a Scientology service organization.
-Lecture of 28 December 1958.

chap: fellow; man or boy.

chapter: a branch of a club, organization, fraternity, etc.

chew: meditate on; consider deliberately.

chitter-chatted: talked lightly and rapidly about trivial 
matters.

chromium: a shiny, hard, brittle metallic element that does not 
rust or become dull easily when exposed to air.

Cinemope: a made-up name for a movie-making process.

Cinerama: in motion pictures, a process which uses three 
synchronized movie projectors, each of which project one-third of 
the picture on a wide, curving screen.

CineScope: a shortening of CinemaScope, a film-making process in 
which a motion picture is projected on a screen, with the width 
of the image two and a half times its height.

circuits: parts of an individual's bank that behave as though 
they were someone or something separate from him and that either 
talk to him or go into action of their own accord, and may even, 
if severe enough, take control of him while they operate. (Tunes 
that keep going around in people's heads are examples of 
circuits.) -Scientology Abridged Dictionary.

class: a social level or rank sharing basic economic, political 
or cultural characteristics.

classification: the practice of assigning organisms to groups 
within a system of categories distinguished by structure, origin, 
etc.

clauses: groups of words that contain verbs and their subjects 
and are used as part of a sentence. (Example: We went home after 
our work was finished.)

clinic: referring to an organization operated by the Hubbard 
Association of Scientologists International (HASI) that 
demonstrated to the public by a series of solved cases that 
Scientology worked. It acted as a public dissemination line. See 
also HASI in this glossary. -Ability Major 1.

cliques: small, exclusive sets or snobbish groups of people 
within larger groups.

closed terminals: become identified, one with the other. -
Professional Auditor's Bulletin 63.

cloud nine: (slang) humorous reference to a condition of great 
joy and bliss.

codify: to arrange (laws, rules, etc.) systematically.

cognizant: aware or informed (of something).

cogwheels: wheels with their rims notched into teeth which mesh 
with those of other wheels or of a rack to transmit or receive 
motion.

colossus: a nation vastly larger and more powerful than those 
near it.

commissars: heads of government departments in the Soviet Union.

commissions: groups of people lawfully authorized to perform 
certain duties or functions, as government agencies.

comm lag: (figurative) proceed in a slow or halting manner. 
Technically the term stands for communication lag (delay), which 
is the slowness of response or the brightness or dimness of 
reception; the length of time it takes one to perceive after he 
should have perceived. -Lectures of 25 March 1953; 5 January 
1954.

common denominators: qualities, characteristics or attributes 
shared by all the persons or things in a group.

communiqués: official communications or bulletins.

Communists: members of the Communist Party, a political party 
that supports the theory or system that society should be 
classless and stateless, with the equal distribution of economic 
goods, and that this can only be achieved through revolution and 
dictatorship.

concatenation: a connected series; chain.

congregation: the body of persons who belong to a particular 
place of worship.

congress: an assembly of Scientologists held in any of various 
cities around the world for a presentation of Dianetics and/or 
Scientology materials. Many congresses were addressed directly by 
Ron. Others were based upon taped LRH lectures or films on a 
particular subject. A congress also sometimes included seminars 
and co-audits for attendees. -HCO Exec Letter 12 October 1964; 
HCO PL 4 September 1964; HCOB 27 September 1960.

Connectedness: a Scientology process which establishes the pc as 
cause over MEST by establishing the pc's ideas as cause over 
MEST. See also MEST in this glossary. -Scientology Clear 
Procedure, Issue One.

consignment, on: on the condition that the goods sent to a 
retailer are paid for following the sale of those goods.

consolidate: to make strong, stable; firmly establish.

conviction: a fixed or firm belief

Cooper, Gary: originally Frank James Cooper (1901-61), U.S. 
motion picture actor whose portrayal of plain, unpretentious 
characters established him as a glamorized image of the average 
man.

Coppermine: a town in northern Canada, in the central Northwest 
Territories, just south of the Arctic Circle and the North Pole.

copperplate: a handwriting characterized by lines of sharply 
contrasting thickness achieved through the use of a very fine pen 
applied with varying pressure.

cornerstones: basic or essential parts; foundations.

corpuscles: any of the red cells or white cells that float in the 
blood. (Red corpuscles carry oxygen to the body tissues. Certain 
white corpuscles kill harmful germs.)

counting: registering radioactivity, as on a Geiger counter (a 
machine which measures nuclear radiation).

course, in due: in proper order; at the right time.

Creative Processing: the exercise by which the preclear is 
actually creating the physical universe. It consists of having 
the preclear make, with his own creative energies, a mock-up. See 
also mock-ups in this glossary. -Lecture of 23 February 1965; The 
Creation of Human Ability.

criteria: standards of judgments or criticism; rules or 
principles for evaluating or testing things.

Crockett, Davy: (1786-1836) U.S. frontiersman, politician and 
folklore hero.

cube root: (math) a number that, multiplied by itself twice, 
produces a given number (4 is the cube root [4 x 4 x 41 of 64). 
Used figuratively in the lecture to make a point.

cucumber: calm and self-possessed. (From the expression cool as a 
cucumber.)

cull: examine carefully so as to select or reject; pick over.

cult: a devoted attachment to, or extravagant admiration for, a 
person, principle, etc.

culture: the ideas, customs, skills, arts, etc., of a given 
people in a given period.

cumbersome: hard to handle or deal with because of size, weight 
or many parts; burdensome, unwieldy or clumsy.

customshouse: referring to the government organization 
responsible for the collection of taxes on goods brought into a 
country and the clearing of ships entering and leaving, etc.

cut and run: leave as hurriedly as possible; flee.

cycle of action: the sequence that an action goes through wherein 
the action is started, is continued for as long as is required 
and then is completed as planned. The cycle of action of the 
physical universe is create, survive (which is persist), destroy. 
-HCO PL 17 June 1979; Lecture of 20 August 1954.

cynical: disposed to deny human sincerity and goodness.

Dale Carnegish: of or characteristic of Dale Carnegie (1888-
1956), American lecturer and author; wrote a book called How to 
Win Friends and Influence People (1936) which was a collection of 
ideas on human relationships taken from psychologists, tycoons, 
students, politicians and an advice columnist.

dame: (slang) a woman; female.

dashed (it) off: wrote it quickly.

dead ducks: persons that are beyond help, redemption or hope.

debarred: prohibited.

deity: a divine or godlike character or nature.

delirium: a state of uncontrolled excitement or emotion.

Democrats: members of the Democratic Party, one of the two major 
political parties in the United States, the other being the 
Republican Party.

despatch: a written message.

devaluation: the lessening or reduction of value, importance, 
etc., of something.

Dianazene: a formula combining nicotinic acid, vitamins and other 
minerals which runs out radiation. See also nicotinic acid in 
this glossary. -All About Radiation.

dicalcium phosphate: a substance used as a mineral supplement 
(calcium and phosphorus) in the Dianazene formula. See also 
Dianazene in this glossary.

diffidence: lack of confidence in oneself, marked by a hesitancy 
to assert oneself; shyness.

dire: dreadful; terrible.

directives: orders or instructions as to procedure.

Director of Processing: the head of the Hubbard Guidance Center 
(HGC), under whom come all individual cases. The D of P is 
responsible for auditors, assignment of preclears to auditors and 
states of cases. See also HGC. -HCOB 26 September 1956; HCO PL 14 
February 1961.

disabused: set free from mistakes, as in reasoning or judgment. 
Used ironically (contrary to what is expressed) in the lecture.

discursions: deviations or wanderings (from something).

disenfranchisement: the depriving of a privilege, right or power.

disenturbulates: causes (something) to cease to be turbulent or 
agitated and disturbed. -Scientology Abridged Dictionary.

disheartening: tending to depress the hope, courage or spirits 
of; discouraging.

do (all that) up: to arrange (all that).

done in: (slang) killed or murdered.

dope, all the: (slang) all of the information, data or news.

down: mastered; perfected.

dramatization: a thinking or acting in a manner that is dictated 
by masses or significances contained in the reactive mind. When 
dramatizing, the individual is like an actor playing his dictated 
part and going through a whole series of irrational actions. -
Scientology Abridged Dictionary.

drill press: a machine tool for boring holes, usually having a 
frame in which the drill turns and is lowered toward the work.

droves: large crowds or masses of people.

dub in: to add in.

Dublin: the capital of Ireland and seaport on the Irish Sea.

dummy: something made to resemble the real thing; imitation; 
counterfeit.

dyed-in-the-wool: complete; thorough. (The term derives from the 
dyeing of material while it is in its new or raw state so that 
the color is deeper and lasts longer.)

ear, thrown out on his: suddenly dismissed from a job, etc.

echelons: one of a series of levels or grades.

egg, lay the most dreadful: fail very badly.

8-C: the name of a process. Also used to mean good control. -HCOB 
23 August 1965.

Einstein: Albert Einstein (1879-1955), American physicist born in 
Germany and winner of the Nobel prize for physics in 1921.

Eire: the Irish name for the Republic of Ireland.

electropsychometric: of or having to do with the E-Meter, an 
electronic device for measuring the mental state and change of 
state of Homo sapiens. -E-Meter Essentials.

electrotype plates: metal printing plates known for their 
durability and ease of storage.

Elizabeth's, Saint: Saint Elizabeth's Hospital, a government 
psychiatric hospital in Washington, DC.

enamored: charmed; captivated.

esoteric: intended only for people with special knowledge or 
interest.

exchequer: one's financial resources; funds.

excommunicated: cut off from membership in a church; expelled 
formally from the fellowship of a church.

exonerate: to free from blame; declare innocent.

exteriorized: moved out of the body (as a thetan). -Lecture of 13 
December 1966.

extraneous: not pertinent; irrelevant.

extrapolation: the act or practice of speculating as to 
consequences on the basis of known facts or observations.

Fac One: an incident known as Facsimile One, or the "Coffee-
grinder," which involved the use of a machine loosely resembling 
a camera (boxlike, two-handled with an exit hole for blasts in 
front and a peekhole in back). This was used for administering a 
push-pull force beam to the body. -Scientology: A History of Man; 
Lecture of 18 September 1962.

fallout: the descent to earth of radioactive particles, as after 
a nuclear explosion.

ferret: to search for persistently and discover (facts, the 
truth, etc.).

field: any thing interposing between a pc (thetan) and something 
he wishes to see, whether MEST or mock-up. Fields are black, 
gray, purple, any substance, or invisible. See also MEST; mock-
ups in this glossary. -HCOB 1 February 1958.

field mouse, deader than a: dead beyond a doubt.

figure-figure: a particular type of aberration that consists of 
always having to have a "reason for" or a significance. Given a 
fact, there must always be a reason for the fact. Hence we get 
figure-figure-figure. Professional Auditor's Bulletin 24.

fitted: supplied with what is needed (in order to do something); 
equipped.

flattened: run until it no longer produced a reaction. -HCOB 2 
June 1971.

flop: a failure.

fluid: able to change easily; not fixed or firm.

flyboy: (slang) a pilot of an aircraft.

fog: a state of intellectual darkness; a confused or puzzled 
condition.

foothold: a secure position from which it is difficult to be 
dislodged.

Ford: an American automobile manufactured by the Ford Motor 
Company.

Ford coils: the induction coils used in Ford automobiles. 
Induction coils are tightly wound coils of wire used to increase 
the low battery voltage to the much higher voltage required by 
the spark plugs.

forte: a thing that a person does particularly well; special 
accomplishment or strong point.

fortuitously: happening by good luck; fortunately.

.45: a firearm which loads automatically and fires each time the 
trigger is pulled, with nothing further required of the shooter. 
The .45 refers to the caliber, or diameter of the bullet, which 
is .45 inch.

freewheeling: an early method of processing whereby the somatic 
strip and the file clerk were put to work running out somatics, 
grief, terror or anaten between sessions. -Intensive Processing 
Procedure, November 1, 1950.

full-blown: completely developed.

furtive: stealthy; sneaky.

game condition: an aberrated activity which is reactive and being 
performed way outside one's power of choice and without one's 
consent of will. It is characterized by a fixated attention, an 
inability to escape coupled with an inability to attack, to the 
exclusion of other games. -Lecture of 20 July 1961.

gamma: a high-frequency, penetrating type of radiation emitted 
from radioactive atoms.

gastric: of or pertaining to the stomach.

Geiger counter: a device which is used to measure radioactivity.

genetic-entity line: the evolutionary track of that beingness not 
dissimilar to the thetan that has carried forward and developed 
the body from its earliest moments along the evolutionary line on 
earth and which, through experience, necessity and natural 
selection, has employed the counter-efforts of the environment to 
fashion an organism of the type best fitted for survival, limited 
only by the abilities of the genetic entity. The goal of this 
line is survival on a much grosser plane of materiality 
(concerning the material or physical). -Scientology 8-8008.

glee of insanity: a specialized case of irresponsibility. A 
thetan who cannot be killed and yet can be punished has only one 
answer to those punishing him and that is to demonstrate to them 
that he is no longer capable of force or action and is no longer 
responsible. He therefore states that he is insane and 
demonstrates that he cannot possibly harm them as he lacks any 
further rationality. -Scientology 8-8008.

glibly: in a way that is readily fluent, often thoughtless and 
insincere.

go, from the word: from the start.

going off. moving; running; working.

good roads and good weather: an attitude or a viewpoint 
characterized by warmth, calmness and friendliness.

gradient scale: a gradual approach to something, taken step by 
step, level by level, each step or level being of itself easily 
surmountable-so that, finally, quite complicated and difficult 
activities or high states of being can be achieved with relative 
ease. -Scientology Abridged Dictionary.

graphic: realistic; vivid.

Gregg Business College: a college in the United States founded by 
John Robert Gregg (1867-1948), American educator, author and 
inventor of the Gregg system of shorthand.

groove: a habitual way of doing something; settled routine.

groove, jumped out oh malfunctioned; departed from proper working 
order (as a phonograph needle which jumps out of the channel or 
track of a phonograph record).

group audit: to administer auditing techniques to groups of 
children or adults. This is done by a group auditor. -The Group 
Auditors Handbook, Volume 1.

guinea: a former English gold coin, last minted in 1813, equal to 
twenty-one shillings (about 105 British pennies): the word is 
still used in England in giving the prices of luxury items.

Guk: a combination of vitamins and minerals taken by a preclear 
to help in auditing. The formula of Guk is variable but is 
basically 100 mg. of vitamin B1, 15 gr. of calcium and 500 mg. of 
vitamin C. -HCOB 27 December 1965; Research and Discovery Series, 
Volume 4.

gyrate: move in a circle or spiral, or around a fixed point; 
whirl.

Hale, Nathan: (1755-76) American soldier in the Revolutionary 
War. He volunteered for hazardous spy duty behind British lines 
(1776). He was captured by the British, September 21, and hanged 
the following morning. His last words are said to have been "I 
only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."

Hamlet: the hero of a play of the same name by English writer 
William Shakespeare (1564-1616).

HASI: Hubbard Association of Scientologists International. Around 
the time of the lecture HASIs were individual service 
organizations. See also Central Organization in this glossary.
-HCO PL 28 October 1960.

Hastings, Battle of: a battle that occurred in 1066 in the city 
of Hastings, located in southeastern England. It was the decisive 
battle in William the Conqueror's conquest of England.

hats: slang for the titles and work of posts in an organization. 
It comes from the fact that jobs are often distinguished by the 
type of hat worn, such as a fireman, policeman, railroad 
conductor, sailor, etc. Hence the term hat. See also post in this 
glossary. -HCO PL 1 July 1965; HCO PL 13 September 1970.

hat, talking through my: making irresponsible or foolish 
statements.

havingness: the concept of being able to reach. By havingness is 
meant owning, possessing, being capable of commanding, taking 
charge of objects, energies and spaces. -Lectures of 29 March 
1962; 14 August 1963; 13 December 1966; Scientology: The 
Fundamentals of Thought.

H-bomb: abbreviation for hydrogen bomb, a very destructive type 
of bomb whose enormous force comes from the energy given off when 
atoms of a heavy form of hydrogen are fused with each other under 
the extraordinarily intense heat and pressure created by the 
explosion of an atomic-fission unit within the bomb. See also 
atomic fission; atomic fusion in this glossary.

HGC: abbreviation for Hubbard Guidance Center, that branch of the 
Technical Division of a Scientology church which delivers 
auditing to preclears. -HCOB 12 April 1972.

Hitler: Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), dictator of Germany from 1933 
to 1945. In rising to power in Germany, he fortified his position 
through the murder of real or imagined opponents and maintained 
police-state control over the population. He led Germany into 
World War II, resulting in its nearly total destruction.

hold the fort: keep things in operation.

Hollywood and Vine: an intersection of two major streets in 
Hollywood, California, the center of the American motion-picture 
industry.

home, too close to: too near to someone's personal feelings, 
wishes or interests.

Hubbard Communications Office: during the time of the lecture, 
the Hubbard Communications Office was the office whose purpose 
was to do broad dissemination and drive business in on the 
Central Organizations by any means within its power. It was in 
charge of (a) technology and its proper performance, and (b) 
promotion of Scientology widely by books and ideas and creating 
communication lines. Abbreviation: HCO. See also Central 
Organization in this glossary. -HCO PL 28 October 1960.

hump, over this: over this worst or most difficult part.

Hungary: a country in central Europe. It came under Communist 
control in the late 1940s, but revolted against the Soviet Union 
in 1956. The uprising was suppressed by Soviet troops.

Hyde Park: a public park in London noted for the public meetings 
on popular issues that take place there.

hydroelectric: producing or having to do with the production of 
electricity by water power or by the friction of water or steam.

hypercritical: too critical; too severe in judgment; hard to 
please.

ideological: of or concerned with ideology, the doctrines, 
opinions or ways of thinking of an individual, class, etc.; 
specifically, the body of ideas on which a particular political, 
economic or social system is based.

idiosyncrasies: structural or behavioral characteristics peculiar 
to certain individuals, groups, etc.

impunity: exemption from punishment, penalty or harm.

individuates: forms (something) into individual or distinct 
parts.

indoctrinated: instructed in a doctrine, principle, ideology, 
etc.

indolence: laziness; idleness.

infantile paralysis: a disease occurring mainly in children that 
attacks the central nervous system, causing paralysis and often 
deformation. Also known as polio.

ingratiate: make acceptable.

inquisition: any harsh or arbitrary suppression or punishment of 
dissidents (people that are not agreeable, as in opinion or 
attitude) or nonconformists.

integrity: adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness 
of moral character; honesty. It comes from the Latin word 
integritas, meaning untouched, undivided, whole.

intelligentsia: the people regarded as, or regarding themselves 
as, the educated and enlightened class; intellectuals 
collectively.

intensive: a specific number of hours of auditing given to a 
preclear over a short period of time, as a series of successive 
sessions at regularly scheduled intervals. Around the time of the 
lecture, the types of intensives that were given were five-hour 
intensives and twenty-five hour intensives. -Scientology Abridged 
Dictionary; Operational Bulletin No. 13.

interim: the period of time in between; meantime.

intimated: hinted; indirectly suggested.

inverted: backwards. -Lecture of 13 December 1966.

inviolable: that cannot be violated; indestructible.

ionosphere: the outer part of the earth's atmosphere which begins 
at an altitude of about twenty-five miles. It is made up of 
layers of gases that have been ionized (changed into groups of 
atoms that have electrical charge).

iota: a very small quantity.

irradiated: exposed to radiation.

itinerant: traveling from place to place or on a circuit.

Jersey: a British island in the English Channel: largest of the 
Channel Islands.

joint: (slang) any house, building, etc.

ken: range of knowledge; understanding.

kickback: a payment given to someone for their help in making 
someone else a profit.

kick (this) around: think about or discuss (this) informally.

kicking back: recoiling suddenly and in an unexpected way.

kilo: abbreviation for kilogram, a unit of weight and mass, equal 
to 1,000 grams or 2.2 pounds.

Kiwanis Clubs: an organization of men's clubs throughout North 
America, founded in Detroit in 1915 to promote community service 
and higher standards of business and professional ethics.

knocked off: murdered; killed.

knock off: leave off (work).

know-how: knowledge of how to do something well; technical skill.

knowingness: awareness not depending upon perception. One doesn't 
have to look to find out. For example, you do not have to get a 
perception or picture of where you are living to know where you 
live. -Lecture of 30 November 1953; Lecture of 29 December 1953; 
Lecture of 6 August 1963.

Know to Mystery Scale: a scale which includes: Not-Know, Know, 
Look, Emotion, Effort, Think, Symbols, Sex, Eat, Mystery, Wait, 
Unconsciousness. Everything on the Know to Mystery Scale is 
simply a greater condensation or reduction of knowingness. See 
also knowingness in this glossary. -Professional Auditor's 
Bulletin 49; Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics.

Kools: plural of Kool, the name of a brand of American cigarette.

Kremlin: the government of the Soviet Union.

Krokokinov: a made-up name for a certain type of barrel.

lackadaisical: without interest, vigor or determination.

Lebanon: a country in southwestern Asia at the east end of the 
Mediterranean.

leukemia: a cancerous, usually fatal, disease characterized by an 
excessive production of white blood cells in the blood.

libelous: containing injurious statements that tend to damage a 
person's reputation or hold him up to public ridicule or 
disgrace.

license: freedom of action, speech, thought, etc., that is 
permitted or conceded.

lick: to overcome or defeat.

line, all the way along the: at every point.

line-charges: has a prolonged spell of uncontrolled laughter or 
crying which may be continued for several hours. (Once started, a 
line charge can be reinforced by the occasional interjection of 
almost any word or phrase by the auditor. The line charge usually 
signals the sudden release of a large amount of charge and brings 
about a marked change in the case.) -The Creation of Human 
Ability.

line, out of: in disagreement with what is accepted or practiced.

lip service: the expression of agreement (to an idea, statement, 
etc.) without sincerely meaning it or without taking action in 
support of it.

lock, stock and barrel: completely; entirely; including every 
part, item or facet, no matter how small or insignificant.

Logics: a method of thinking. They apply to any universe or any 
thinking process. They are the forms of thought behavior which 
can, but do not necessarily have to, be used in creating 
universes. -Lecture of 10 November 1952.

longbow, drawing a: exaggerating.

lumbago: a backache in the lower part of the back.

Magna Chartas: documents that guarantee certain civil and 
political liberties, such as the ones that King John of England 
was forced to grant in 1215 A.D. by the English barons of that 
time.

magnitude, order of:  how large or small something is in relation 
to other things. -HCO PL 13 April 1982.

main, in the: mostly; on the whole; chiefly.

maligned: spoken evilly of; slandered.

maxim: a statement of a general truth.

mechanism: any system or means for doing something by which some 
result is produced.

mediator: one who acts as an intermediate between parties to 
bring about an agreement, truce, peace, etc.

medicos: doctors, physicians, surgeons, etc.

medium: an intervening thing through which a force acts or an 
effect is produced.

MEST: loosely, property or possessions. The word is coined from 
the initial letters of Matter, Energy, Space and Time, which are 
the component parts (elements) of the physical universe. -How to 
Live Though an Executive; Basic Dictionary of Dianetics and 
Scientology.

milling: moving slowly in a circle, as cattle, or aimlessly, as a 
confused crowd.

Miners Quarterly: a trade publication for a miner's union.

minus zero: referring to a point on the minus Tone Scale, the 
subtones below the Emotional Tone Scale which are so low as to 
constitute by the individual a no-affinity, no-emotion, no-
problem, no-consequence state of mind on things which are 
actually tremendously important. Scientology Abridged Dictionary.

mock-ups: self-created objects which exist as themselves or 
symbolize objects in the MEST (physical) universe. They are 
things that the thetan puts up and says are there. We call mental 
image pictures mock-ups when they are created by the thetan or 
for the thetan and do not consist of photographs of the physical 
universe. See also MEST in this glossary. -Journal of 
Scientology; Child Scientology; Lecture of 14 January 1955, 
Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought.

Model-T Ford: (trademark) an automobile manufactured by the Ford 
Motor Company from 1908 to 1927. It began the era of the mass-
produced automobile in the United States.

modifying: limiting the meaning of; qualifying.

modus operandi: mode of operation; way of doing or making; 
procedure.

Mojave Desert: a desert in southeastern California.

molecule: the smallest physical unit of an element or compound 
consisting of one or more like atoms in an element and two or 
more different atoms in the compound.

Moscow: a city located in the central part of the Soviet Union in 
Europe, and the Russian capital.

motivator: an aggressive or destructive act received by the 
person or one of the dynamics. The reason it is called a 
motivator is because it tends to prompt that one pays it back-it 
"motivates" a new overt. -HCOB 20 May 1968.

Mystery band: a range on the Know to Mystery Scale. It is 
characterized by unprediction, confusion and then total blackout. 
Mystery is the level of always pretending there's always 
something to know earlier than the mystery. See also Know to 
Mystery Scale in this glossary. Scientology 0-8: The Book of 
Basics; The Phoenix Lectures.

nailing him: fixing (his) attention.

Nash-Wheelsy: a made-up name for a machine. It is a play on the 
name Nash-Healy, a sleek American sports car manufactured in the 
1950s by American Motors.

nebulous: unclear, vague or indefinite.

Newton: Isaac Newton (1642-1727), English mathematician and 
philosopher, formulator of the laws of gravity and motion.

nicotinic acid: niacin, a white, odorless substance found in 
protein foods or prepared artificially: it is one of the vitamins 
in the vitamin B complex. See also B complex in this glossary.

nil: nothing.

Nolan, Philip: the fictional chief figure in the story The Man 
Without a Country by Edward Everett Hale (1822-1909), American 
clergyman and author. In this story Philip Nolan, a U.S. Navy 
officer, is involved in Aaron Burr's treason. In a moment of 
anger he expresses the wish never to hear the name of his country 
again. His desire is carried out as a sentence. For fifty-five 
years, Nolan is transferred from vessel to vessel, never landing 
and never hearing of his country through people, books or 
newspapers. (Aaron Burr: an American officer who was a spy for 
Great Britain.)

Northwest Mounted Police: a constabulary (police force organized 
like an army) organized in 1873 to bring law and order to the 
Canadian Far West and especially to prevent Indian disorders. In 
1904 the name was changed to the Royal Northwest Mounted Police 
and in 1920 to its present title, the Royal Canadian Mounted 
Police.

objective: being, or regarded as being, independent of the mind; 
real; actual.

obsessive: of or characteristic of an idea, wish, etc., that 
fills one's thoughts and cannot be put out of mind by the person.

occluded: unavailable to conscious recall. -The Creation of Human 
Ability.

1.5: the tone level of anger. -Scientology 0-8: The Book of 
Basics.

open and closed: that can be clearly and easily determined or 
decided; very simple and obvious.

Opening Procedure by Duplication: a basic Scientology process. 
Its goal is the separating of time, moment from moment. This is 
done by getting a preclear to duplicate the same action over and 
over again with two dissimilar objects. In England this process 
is called "Book and Bottle," probably because these two familiar 
objects are the most used in doing Opening Procedure by 
Duplication. -Dianetics 55!

Optimist Club: any one of a number of clubs that make up Optimist 
International, an association of community-service clubs active 
in the United States, Canada and Mexico. Its members are 
business, industrial and professional men. Some of its purposes 
are to develop optimism as a philosophy of life, to promote 
active interest in good government and civil affairs, and to aid 
and encourage the development of youth.

oratorical: of or characteristic of skillful public speaking.

Othellos: referring to Othello, the main character of a 
Shakespearian tragedy of the same name. In this story, the title 
character kills his faithful and loving wife after being made 
madly jealous by the villain of the story, Iago.

Over and Under: one of the processes contained in SLP 8 (Six 
Levels of Processing), an auditing regimen which remedies a 
person's willingness to confront and to be there and find out 
where he is. In Over and Under a preclear is asked to choose an 
engram in the middle of his life and then to control, uncontrol 
and/or make more solid, facsimiles existing prior to (under) and 
after (over) that engram. -HCO Training Bulletin 30 November 
1966; Lecture of 14 November 1956.

packing: (informal) carrying.

panorama: a continuous series of scenes or events; constantly 
changing scene.

pantograph: an instrument for the mechanical copying of plans, 
diagrams, drawings, etc., on any desired scale.

participial: of or having to do with a participle, a verb form 
used as an adjective. (Example: The burning leaves smelled good. 
Burning is the participle.)

pat: exact.

Patrick, Saint: (385?-461? A.D.) British missionary credited with 
having brought Christianity to Ireland. According to one legend 
Patrick drove the snakes from Ireland into the sea to their 
destruction.

Pavlovian: of or related to Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849-1936), 
Russian physiologist; noted for behavioral experiments on dogs.

PE Course: a free introductory course for new Scientologists 
which educates them in the actual, simple facts of existence, the 
data of which is contained in Scientology: The Fundamentals of 
Thought. The letters PE stand for "Personnel Efficiency." -HCOB 4 
May 1959; Lecture of 18 October 1956.

pegged: fixed or held in a certain condition, position or place.

Pentagon: a five-sided building in Arlington, Virginia, in which 
the main offices of the U.S. Department of Defense are located.

per capita: for each individual person.

periodic chart: a table in which the chemical elements are 
arranged according to certain characteristics that each holds.

pervasive: tending to spread throughout (something).

pet: favorite; most preferred.

pharmacopoeia: an authoritative book containing a list and 
description of drugs and medicinal products together with the 
lawful standards for their production, dispensation, use, etc.

Philco: referring to the Philco Corporation, a manufacturer of 
radios, televisions and electronic equipment.

Philippine mahogany: the light to dark reddish wood of various 
trees of Southeast Asia and the Philippines (a country occupying 
a group of 7100 islands in the southwestern Pacific Ocean).

philosophically: in a sensibly composed or calm way; rationally.

phonetics: the science dealing with speech sounds and the art of 
pronunciation.

photon: a particle of light.

pin: short for linchpin, something that holds the various 
elements of a complicated structure together.

pitch: an angle; a selfish motive; an unethical way of profiting 
or benefiting.

pitching: talking so as to promote an idea, product, etc.

platters: (slang) phonograph records.

plumb: to discover the facts or contents of; solve; understand.

Poland: a country in central Europe, which passed over into full 
Communist control in 1947. In 1956 widespread riots against the 
Soviets brought about a period of increased freedom.

polarity: any tendency to turn, grow, think, feel, etc., in a 
certain way or direction.

policed: regulated, controlled or kept in order by or as if by 
means of police.

polytechnical: providing instruction in many scientific or 
technical fields.

ports: openings in the sides or other exterior parts of a ship 
for the purpose of admitting air and light or for taking on 
cargo.

post: an assigned area of responsibility and action in an 
organization which is supervised in part by an executive. -HCO PL 
28 July 1971.

postulate: that self-determined thought which starts, stops or 
changes past, present or future efforts; a conclusion, decision 
or resolution made by the individual himself. -Advanced Procedure 
and Axioms; Basic Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology.

pratique: a license or permission to use a port, given to a ship 
after quarantine or on showing a clean bill of health. Used 
figuratively in the lecture.

principalities: states ruled by princes, usually relatively small 
states that fall within a larger state such as an empire.

proof up: to make resistant or impervious (incapable of being 
injured or impaired) to something.

pseudomania: see pseudomania marititus in this glossary.

pseudomania marititus: a made-up term poking fun at psychiatric 
nomenclature.

psychoanalysis: a system of mental therapy developed in 1894 by 
Sigmund Freud. It depended upon the following practices for its 
effects: The patient was made to talk about and recall his 
childhood for years while the practitioner brought about a 
transfer of the patient's personality to his own and searched for 
hidden sexual incidents believed by Freud to be the only cause of 
aberration. The practitioner read sexual significances into all 
statements and evaluated them for the patient along sexual lines. 
Each of these points later proved to be based upon false premises 
and incomplete research, accounting for their lack of result and 
the subsequent failure of the subject and its offshoots.
-Professional Auditor's Bulletin 92.

push: an emergency.

puss: (slang) face.

pyrobenzo-amino-phyllaline: a made-up chemical formula for 
Dianazene. See also Dianazene in this glossary.

Q-and-A: to be undecisive; to not make up one's mind. -HCOB 5 
April 1980.

Q-bomb: a made-up name for a bomb. It is a play on Q or Q value, 
a term describing the energy released or absorbed during a 
nuclear reaction.

quintuplicate, in: in five copies exactly alike.

Ra: the sun god, and principal deity of the ancient Egyptians. He 
is usually depicted as having the head of a hawk and wearing a 
solar disk as a crown.

ramifications: related or derived subjects, problems, etc.; 
outgrowths; consequences; implications.

rampart: anything serving as a protection or defense.

randomity: the ratio of unpredicted motion to predicted motion. 
Scientology Abridged Dictionary.

rapport: a physical, compulsive mimicry. -Lecture of 27 October 
1953.

ratified: given approval or confirmation, especially an official 
sanction.

reactors: nuclear reactors; devices that start a chain reaction 
and keep it going in materials that can undergo nuclear fission 
(the splitting of the nucleus of an atom, with the release of a 
great amount of energy). Nuclear reactors are used to produce 
energy or radioactive substances.

realist: a person interested in what is real and practical rather 
than what is imaginary or theoretical.

rectohedron: a solid object with six rectangular sides, all right 
angles.

Red: of or having to do with the Soviet Union or any communist 
country.

Red Cross: an international organization to care for the sick and 
wounded in war and to relieve suffering caused by floods, fire, 
diseases, etc.

Remedy of Havingness: a Scientology process which remedies the 
preclear's native ability to acquire things at will and reject 
them at will. -HCOB 6 May 1972.

Republican National Committee: the chief executive agency of the 
Republican Party, one of the two major political parties in the 
U.S. It has general supervisory powers over the organization of 
the national conventions and the planning of campaigns.

Republicans: members of the Republican Party, one of the two 
major political parties in the U.S., the other being the 
Democratic Party.

resounding: high-sounding; impressive.

restimulated: reactivated (by reason of similar circumstances in 
the present approximating circumstances of the past). -Basic 
Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology.

rigged: put together, prepared or arranged.

Riverside: a city in southeastern California.

road, keep a show on the: to keep (an organization, plan, etc.) 
in active operation.

roentgen: a unit of measurement of radiation.

Rotarians: members of Rotary International, a worldwide 
organization of Rotary Clubs. Founded in Chicago in 1905, it is 
composed of business and professional men who meet to further the 
Rotary ideal of service, which is thoughtfulness of and 
helpfulness to others in business and community life.

rudiments: fundamental principles or skills in a field of 
learning.

running concerns: (U.S.) companies, stores, etc., that are doing 
good business.

running fire: a rapid succession, as of remarks, questions, etc.

Salk vaccine: a vaccine developed to prevent infantile paralysis, 
by Jonas E. Salk (1914-), U.S. physician and bacteriologist. See 
also infantile paralysis in this glossary.

satellite: a country under the domination or influence of 
another.

satiate: to satisfy to the full; gratify completely.

saving grace: a certain good quality or ability in a person or 
thing that keeps him/it from being completely bad, worthless, 
etc.

scareheads: exceptionally large newspaper headlines, for 
sensational news.

scat: with more than ordinary speed.

Schicklgruber: an early family name of Adolf Hitler. His father, 
Alois (born 1837), was illegitimate and for a time bore his 
mother's name, Schicklgruber. By 1867 Alois had established a 
claim to the name Hitler. Adolf never used any other name, and 
the name Schicklgruber was revived only by his political 
opponents in Germany and in Austria in the 1930s. See also Hitler 
in this glossary.

scratch, from: from nothing; without resources.

servomechanism: a mechanism which serves, services or aids 
something. -Lecture of 15 November 1956.

shade, you got it made in the: you are certain of success; you 
have all conditions favorable to your own success.

shilling: a British silver coin, equal to five British pennies or 
1/20 of a pound. This coin was discontinued in 1971.

shy off: avoid; seem frightened or nervous (about).

sidestep: to avoid by or as by stepping aside; dodge.

signal bridge: a platform above the main deck of a ship from 
which visual signals are made.

significance: importance; meaning.

silver: fluent; graceful; persuasive.

Silver Spring, Maryland: location of the Distribution Center of 
Dianetics and Scientology during the time of this lecture. Its 
purpose was to service people with books, tapes, brochures, 
memberships and information. -Professional Auditor's Bulletin 88; 
Ability Magazine 32; Ability Magazine 36.

skit: a short theatrical sketch or act, usually comical.

skunk cabbage: a low, broad-leaved, ill-smelling North American 
plant.

slide rule: an instrument for quick figuring made up of a ruler 
with a central sliding piece, both marked with scales.

slouch hat: a soft hat with a broad, drooping brim.

snapped terminals: see closed terminals in this glossary.

Snorgel and Fuggelbaum: made-up names.

Socialists: members of the Socialist Party, that political party 
which advocates having the means of production and distribution 
owned, managed or controlled by the state or by associations of 
workers.

Solomon Islands: a group of volcanic islands in the southwestern 
Pacific with a combined area of about sixteen thousand square 
miles, located northeast of Australia.

solvency: the financial state wherein outgo is less than income 
and a huge reserve is building against need.

soup, in the: in trouble.

space opera: of or relating to time periods on the whole track 
millions of years ago which concerned activities in this and 
other galaxies. Space opera has space travel, spaceships, 
spacemen, intergalactic travel, wars, conflicts, other beings, 
civilizations and societies, and other planets and galaxies. It 
is not fiction and concerns actual incidents and things that 
occurred on the track. See also whole track in this glossary.

sponge, threw in the: admitted defeat; gave up. (From the 
practice by a boxer's second of throwing a sponge into the ring 
to concede defeat.)

square (them) away: to set or put (them) right or in order.

squared up: made straight or right.

squirrely: altered or offbeat.

stable datum: one datum, one factor, one particular in a 
confusion of particles that keeps things from being in a 
confusion and on which other things can be aligned. Any confusing 
motion can be understood by conceiving one thing to be 
motionless. The one thing selected and used becomes the stable 
datum for the remainder. -The Problems of Work.

Stalin: Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), Russian revolutionary and head 
of the U.S.S.R. from 1924 to 1953.

stand to: wait in readiness; stand by.

statute books: books or other records containing the established 
rules or formal regulations for an area of authority.

stenographers: people skilled in shorthand writing; specifically, 
those skilled in the work of writing down dictation, testimony, 
etc., in shorthand and later transcribing it, as on a typewriter.

Stop-C-S: Stop-Change-Start, a Scientology process in which the 
auditor has the preclear stop his body, and then change his body 
and then start his body, in that order. -HCO Training Bulletin of 
30 November 1956.

storm, takes (him) by: makes a great impression upon him. This 
phrase originally meant to seize a castle, military position, 
etc., by sudden and violent attack.

straight-out: straightforward; direct.

strata: one of a number of portions or divisions likened to
layers or levels.

stride, take (everything) in their: deal with (everything) calmly 
and without needing to make a special effort.

strings: conditions or limitations attached to a plan, offer, 
etc.

strontium 90: a form of the element strontium which occurs in the 
fallout from a hydrogen-bomb explosion. It is extremely dangerous 
because it is easily absorbed by the bones and tissues and may 
eventually replace the calcium in the body. See also H-bomb in 
this glossary.

subjectively: in a way that proceeds from or takes place in an 
individual's mind. -HCOB 2 November 1957.

subjugated: brought into a subordinate or inferior position.

subzero scale: see minus zero in this glossary.

succinctly: clearly and briefly.

supplanting: taking the place of .

surreptitiously: secretly; stealthily.

Suzie: Mary Sue Hubbard, wife of L. Ron Hubbard.

Swan Theatre: an open-air theater built in London during the 
reign of Elizabeth 1 (1558-1603).

swath, cut a: attracted notice; made an impression.

sweetness and light: a humorous term which means pleasant, good-
tempered, etc. Often used to describe the case which cannot 
conceive of ever having done anything bad to anybody or anything. 
-Basic Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology.

swell-headed: conceited; arrogant.

synonymous: equivalent or similar in meaning.

synthesize: produce by combining separate elements.

tailor-make: to make or adjust (something) to meet the needs of a 
particular situation, individual, etc.

taped: fully appraised or summed up, completely "weighed up" or 
assessed; as if measured with a tape. When one has a situation 
taped, it also implies having things under control.

technology: the methods of application of an art or science as 
opposed to mere knowledge of the science or art itself -
Scientology Abridged Dictionary.

teeth, into the: directly into the face of.

tenets: firm beliefs, principles or doctrines of a person or 
group.

tenpins: pins set up to be knocked down in the game of bowling.

terminal: something that can receive, relay or send a 
communication. Scientology Abridged Dictionary.

thrashed out: settled by thorough discussion.

toes, on his: mentally or physically alert.

Tommy guns: Thompson submachine guns; lightweight and portable 
.45-caliber firearms. See also .45 in this glossary.

tongue-tiedness: a condition wherein one is speechless from 
amazement, embarrassment, etc.

top-flight: first-rate; foremost.

touchholes: openings in early firearms and cannons through which 
gunpowder was ignited.

trappings: ornamental coverings for horses.

trooper, like an old: with great energy, enthusiasm or display.
 
2.0: the tone level of antagonism. -Scientology 0-8: The Book of 
Basics.

two-way comm: communication between two people in which each one 
takes turns, while the other listens attentively, in expressing 
fully his ideas on a subject. This is, therefore, communication 
in two directions. Scientology Abridged Dictionary.

Ugveldt, Treaty of: a made-up name for an agreement between 
thetans.

undulate: move sinuously (with a wavelike motion).

United Mine Workers: the United Mine Workers of America, a large 
U. S. labor union.

valence: personality. The term is used to denote the borrowing of 
the personality of another. A valence is a substitute for self 
taken on after the fact of lost confidence in self A preclear "in 
his father's valence" is acting as though he were his father. -
Ability Major 4; Lecture of 18 October 1961.

vested interests: special interests in existing systems, 
arrangements or institutions for particular personal reasons.

VistaVision: a motion picture process developed in the 1950s that 
retained the color and image clarity of a smaller screen on a 
bigger and wider screen. This was an important development in the 
transition from smallscreen to wide-screen motion-picture 
presentation.

vivisection: surgical operations or other experiments performed 
on living animals to study the structure and function of living 
organs and parts, and to investigate the effects of diseases and 
therapy.

volition: the power or capability of choosing; willpower.

Wales: a division of the United Kingdom located in southwestern 
Great Britain.

Warner Brothers: a major U.S. motion-picture studio which 
finances, produces and distributes feature films.

way stations: intermediate stations between principal stations on 
lines of travel, especially on railroads. Used figuratively in 
the lecture.

wheels: the controlling forces or agencies.

whole track: the moment-to-moment record of a person's existence 
in this universe in picture and impression form. -HCOB 12 July 
1965.

willy-nilly: whether one wishes it or not; willingly or 
unwillingly.

wise, in this: in this way or manner.

workaday: commonplace; ordinary.

works, the whole: everything that can be included.

Wright brothers: referring to Orville (1871-1948) and his brother 
Wilbur (1867-1912) Wright, U.S. airplane inventors.

wroth: angry; wrathful.

Wundt, Professor: Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920), German physiologist 
and psychologist. He was the originator of the false doctrine 
that man is no more than an animal.

yeoman: a petty officer who does clerical and secretarial work.

YMCAs: Young Men's Christian Associations, world-wide youth 
organizations.

yoga: a Hindu discipline which attempts to train the 
consciousness for a state of perfect spiritual insight and 
tranquillity.

yo-heave, give (it) the: to eliminate, discard or get rid of 
(it).





FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

ORGANIZATION SERIES - PART 20 OF 20

[New name: How To Present Scientology To The World]

Brought to you by:
FreeZone Bible Association of Scandinavia

*Please see Part 00 for the Introduction & Contents

===================================================

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 freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  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 Judaism 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

===============================================

GLOSSARY [for tapes #10 - 18]


abandon: unrestrained freedom of actions or emotions.

abetted: encouraged or supported by aid or approval.

A-bomb: abbreviation for atomic bomb, a bomb that uses the 
splitting of atoms to cause an explosion of tremendous force 
accompanied by a blinding light.

ACC: Advanced Clinical Course. A theory and research course which 
gave a much further insight into the phenomena of the mind and 
the rationale of research and investigation. -Professional 
Auditor's Bulletin 71.

Achilles: in Greek legend, a hero and one of the foremost of the 
Greek warriors who fought in the Trojan War.

adjudicated: judged or decided.

adroit: skillful in a physical or mental way; clever; expert.

advent: coming or arrival.

AEC: abbreviation for Atomic Energy Commission, a former Federal 
agency (1946-75) created to regulate the U.S. atomic-energy 
program.

agent saboteur: agent provocateur: a person hired to join labor 
unions, political parties, etc., in order to incite their members 
to actions that will make them or their organizations liable to 
penalties.

aggregate: gathered into, or considered as, a whole; total.

aide-de-camp: an officer in the army, navy, etc., serving as an 
assistant and confidential secretary to a superior.

air marshals: officers of the British Royal Air Force, equivalent 
in rank to a lieutenant general (three-star general; a full 
general has four stars) in the army.

alarmist: a person who habitually spreads alarming rumors, 
exaggerated reports of danger, etc.

alchemy: an early form of chemistry, often mixed with magic, 
studied in the Middle Ages (500-1450 A.D.). The chief aims of 
alchemy were to change iron or lead into gold and to find a drink 
that would keep people young forever.

Aldershot: the site of a permanent (since 1855) military camp in 
Hampshire, southern England. In 1904-14 the center for English 
military training.

Alexander's: belonging to Alexander the Great: (356 -- 323 B.C.) 
king of Macedonia (ancient kingdom in southeastern Europe located 
in what is now Greece, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria). He was tutored 
by Aristotle. Alexander was one of the greatest generals of all 
time and one of the most powerful personalities of ancient times.

all: one's whole interest, energy or property.

alter-is: to alter or change the reality of something. Isness 
means the way it is. When someone sees it differently he is doing 
an alter-is; in other words, is altering the way it is. -LRH 
Definition Notes.

alternating current: an electric current that reverses its 
direction periodically.

amnesia: partial or total loss of memory.

amoeba: an extremely small, one-celled animal found in soil and 
water.

anachronism: anything that is or seems to be out of its proper 
time in history.

analogy: an explaining of something by comparing it point by 
point with something similar.

AP: Associated Press, a press association, maintained by American 
newspaper owners, which gathers news throughout the world for 
exchange and distribution among members and for sale to radio, 
television, news magazines and other news media.

Appalachians: Appalachian Mountains, a mountain system of eastern 
North America extending from Canada to central Alabama.

appropriated: set aside for a specific use.

arbitrary: based on one's preference, notion, whim, etc.

Archangel Mike: Archangel Michael: archangel, in the Christian 
story, is the title usually given to Michael, the chief opponent 
of Satan. In Muslim belief, Archangel Michael is the champion, 
who fights the battle of faith.

arduous: requiring great exertion; laborious; difficult.

ardure: a coined word from arduous; difficulty, laboriousness, 
strenuousness.

Aristotle: (384-322 B.C.) Greek philosopher. Taught in Athens as 
head of his own school (335-322 B.C.). His treatises (books or 
long articles each dealing with some subject in a detailed way) 
may be classified as works in logic, metaphysics, natural 
science, ethics and politics, rhetoric and poetics.

arsenic: a silvery-white, brittle, poisonous chemical element, 
compounds of which are used in making insecticides, glass, 
medicines, etc.

Articles of Confederation: the first Constitution of the thirteen 
original states (of the United States); it was adopted in 1781 
and replaced by the present Constitution in 1789.

as-is: to view anything as it is, without any distortions or 
lies, at which moment it will vanish and cease to exist.
-Scientology Abridged Dictionary.

askance: suspicion, mistrust or disapproval.

Athens: the capital of Greece, in the southeastern part. In 
ancient times this city was the center of Greek culture.

at large: in general; taken altogether.

atom bomb: See A-bomb in this glossary.

atomic age: the period of history initiated by the first use of 
the atomic bomb (1945) and characterized by atomic energy as a 
military, political and industrial factor. See also A-bomb in 
this glossary.

atomic fission: the splitting of the central parts of atoms with 
the release of great amounts of energy. This is the principle of 
the atomic bomb.

atomic fusion: the combining of the centers of two atoms to 
produce a center of greater mass. Atomic fusion releases vast 
amounts of energy and is used to produce the reaction in the 
hydrogen bomb.

atomic physics: that branch of physics which deals with atoms, 
their structure and the behavior of atomic particles.

Auditor's Code: a collection of rules (do's and don'ts) that an 
auditor follows while auditing someone, which ensures that the 
preclear will get the greatest possible gain out of the 
processing that he is having. -Scientology Abridged Dictionary.

Aussie: (slang) Australian.

automaticity: something set up automatically to run without 
further attention from yourself There are three kinds of 
automaticities: those which create things, those which make 
things persist and those which destroy things. -Lectures of 20 
November 1953; 9 December 1953.

averse: reluctant; opposed (to).

avidly: eagerly and enthusiastically.

B-52s: U.S. long-range heavy bombers, first flown in 1952. With a 
full load of fuel they can fly 10,000 miles without refueling.

Babylon: ancient city on the lower Euphrates River (river in 
southwestern Asia, 2,235 miles long). Probably in existence since 
4000 B.C., it became the capital of Babylonia (the ancient empire 
in what is now southern Iraq) in 2050 B.C. and chief commercial 
city in its area.

back to battery: a slang artillery term used to indicate somebody 
who is now fixed up; he will be all right for something, or what 
he had had will now be over. A gun after it is fired is said to 
go "out of battery," which is to say it recoils. Then after it's 
fired it's supposed to go "back to battery" which is sitting the 
way one sees them in photographs. -Lecture of 7 April 1972.

backtrack: see whole track in this glossary.

bacrobics: a made-up term for bacteria.

ball, on the: lively and attentive; well able to do one's job, 
organize, etc.

"Ball Street Journal": a made-up name for a newspaper.

band: class, rank or order; range.

baseball Cards: the St. Louis Cardinals, an American professional 
baseball team.

Bastille: state prison in Paris, stormed and destroyed in 1789 in 
the French Revolution (1789-99). See also French Revolution in 
this glossary.

bayonet: a detachable, daggerlike blade put on the muzzle end of 
a rifle for hand-to-hand fighting.

beat: a habitual path or round of duty.

beck and call, at our: obedient to our wishes; at our service.

Bierce, Ambrose: American journalist and short-story writer 
(1842-1914), reputed as a witty and caustic writer. His later 
works became cynical, often bitter and gruesome. He disappeared 
in Mexico in 1913, fate unknown.

Bikini: small island in the southern Pacific Ocean. It was the 
sight of U.S. Atomic Energy Commission nuclear-weapons tests. See 
also AEC in this glossary.

billy: a policeman's club.

biochemist: an expert in biochemistry (the study of chemical 
substances occurring in living organisms).

black case: a case which can't run engrams because he can't see 
them. HCOB 14 January 1960.

blackguard: (chiefly British and Canadian) the lowest servant in 
a large household, in charge of pots and pans. Also, a scoundrel 
or villain.

blew up in their faces: (said of a situation or plan) was 
violently destroyed, or completely changed by some event.

Borgia, Cesare: (1476-1507) Italian Roman Catholic cardinal and 
military leader, notorious for his treachery and political 
murders.

Brahmans: members of the priestly caste, the highest caste in 
India.

brainwashing: subjection of a person to systematic indoctrination 
or mental pressure with a view to getting him to change his views 
or to confess to a crime. -HCO PL 20 December 1969 VIII.

brass: (slang) military officers of high rank.

bric-a-brac: odds and ends of any sort.

brigadiers: commanders of brigades (large units of soldiers); 
officers ranking above a colonel and below a major general.

British Commonwealth: (of Nations) a confederation of independent 
nations, with their dependencies, united under the British crown: 
it includes the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, India, 
Jamaica, Kenya, New Zealand, and many others.

bull: in ancient Greek mythology, there was a monster called the 
Minotaur, composed of the body of a man and the head of a bull. 
See also Cretan; Minoan in this glossary.

burley-burley: (U.S. informal) a burlesque show (a humorous and 
provocative stage show featuring slapstick humor, comic sketches 
or skits, bawdy songs, striptease acts, suggestive dances and 
scantily clad female chorus).

button, on the: exactly as desired, expected, specified, etc.

by and large: in general; on the whole.

boards, go by the: be destroyed, neglected or forgotten.

canaille: rabble, scum, riff-raff.

capital of, make: to take advantage of, use to one's advantage.

capitalist: an advocate of capitalism: the economics of living by 
nonproduction. It by exact definition is the economics of living 
off the interest from loans. -HCO PL 6 March 1966.

capitalista: Spanish for capitalist.

Castoria: a popular U.S. brand name for castor oil, a colorless 
or yellowish oil from castor beans, used as a laxative and 
lubricant.

cataclysm: a sudden and violent change, as a great flood, 
earthquake, war or revolution.

catch phrases: phrases that catch or are meant to catch the 
popular attention.

catfish to fry, had other: had something to do that was more 
important or profitable.

caves in: falls in; collapses.

centigrade: pertaining to or noting a temperature scale in which 
0 degrees represents the ice point (where water turns to ice) and 
100 degrees the steam point (where water turns to steam).

Chaldea: province of ancient Babylonia, an empire which existed 
in southwestern Asia in what is now southern Iraq.

chalk line, walking down the: acting exactly as you are supposed 
to; behaving properly.

Chamberlain: Neville Chamberlain (1869-1940), British statesman; 
prime minister from 1937 to 1940.

Chaney, Lon: (1883-1930) American motion-picture actor known 
especially for his ability, by means of make-up and otherwise, to 
distort his face and body.

chaps: fellows; men or boys.

Charleston: city in southeastern South Carolina, founded in 1680.

chartreuse: pale, yellowish green.

checks: things that hold back or control.

chitter: talk lightly and rapidly, especially of trivial matters.

chow: (slang) food. Christian Science Monitor international daily 
newspaper of the Christian Science Church, founded by Mary Baker 
Eddy in 1908.

Christophé: Henri Christophé (1767-1820), king of Haiti (1811-
20). He enforced heavy demands for work on his subjects with 
great cruelty, leading to a revolt in 1820. He reportedly shot 
himself with a silver bullet in 1820.

circumscribed: marked off, defined, drawn.

cliché: an expression that has become worn out by constant use.

clink: a jail, prison, prison cell or guardhouse.

closing terminals: becoming identified, one with the other.
-Professional Auditor's Bulletin 63.

cognited: had a cognition, or a new realization of life. 
Cognitions result in higher degrees of awareness and consequently 
greater abilities to succeed with one's endeavors in life.
-Dianetics Today.

cognizance: official authority over something.

cogwheels: wheels with their rims notched into teeth which mesh 
with those of other wheels or of a rack to transmit or receive 
motion.

coif: a style of arranging the hair.

colitis: inflammation of the large intestine.

colloquially: in a way characteristic of or appropriate to 
ordinary or familiar conversation rather than formal speech or 
writing; informally.

Columbia: a large private university in New York City, founded in 
1754.

Commies: (slang) Communists, supporters of communism, a system of 
social organization in which all economic and social activity is 
controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and 
self-perpetuating political party.

commissar: head of a government department in the Soviet Union.

commission: an official certificate conferring rank.

comm lag: communication lag, the length of time intervening 
between the posing of a question or the origination of a 
statement, and the exact moment that question or original 
statement is answered. -Scientology Abridged Dictionary; 
Dianetics 55!.

conduit: to transmit or convey.

conduits: any natural channels, canals or passages in the animal 
body.

Confrontingness: a process which separates out valences in a 
preclear. The auditor has the preclear get a mock-up (a mental 
image picture created by a thetan) of a present time acquaintance 
and then have that mock-up confront the wall. See also valences 
in this glossary. -LRH Letter 10 October 1956.

congress: an assembly of Scientologists held in any of various 
cities around the world for a presentation of Dianetics and/or 
Scientology materials. Many congresses were addressed directly by 
Ron. Others were based upon taped LRH lectures or films on a 
particular subject. A congress also sometimes included seminars 
and co-audits for attendees. -HCO Exec Letter 12 October 1964; 
HCO PL 4 September 1964; HCOB 27 September 1960.

Congressional Record: the official record of the daily 
proceedings of the Congress (the group of elected officials in 
the United States that makes the laws).

con men: (slang) confidence men, swindlers who try to gain the 
confidence of their victim in order to defraud them.

Constitutional Convention: the meeting between May and September 
1787 in Philadelphia at which the Constitution of the United 
States was drawn up.

cook up: to plan or scheme; to concoct an idea or plan of action; 
to invent.

correlative: tending to place in or bring into proper relation 
with one another; showing the connection or relation between.

count: the indication of the total number of reactions registered 
by a Geiger counter in a given period of time. See also Geiger 
counter in this glossary.

countenance: approve or support.

crack up: lose emotional control, willpower or sanity.

crammed down the throats: forced upon; tried forcefully to make 
people accept (one's ideas, opinions, etc.).

Cretan: of or having to do with Crete or its people. (Crete is a 
Greek island in the Mediterranean southeast of Greece. It 
developed an advanced civilization between 3000 and 2100 B.C.

crew cut: a style of close haircut, usually a man's or boy's. It 
has a flat silhouette with a hair length of about an inch or less 
on the top, closely cropped on the sides. From college crewmen 
(members of rowing teams for long, narrow, thin-hulled racing 
boats) who have favored such haircuts for many years.

cross paralytics: of or related to crossed paralysis (a paralysis 
affecting one side of the face and the opposite side of the trunk 
and limbs).

crux: the most important or deciding point.

curriculum: course or plan of study in a school.

cursory: done in a hurry and without attention to details; 
superficial.

cuts out: discontinues; stops.

daffy: silly, weak-minded; crazy.

Dark Ages: the period from 476 A.D. to about the end of the tenth 
century, so called from the idea that this period in Europe was 
characterized by intellectual stagnation, widespread ignorance 
and poverty, cultural decline, etc.

Dartmoor: a prison located on a bleak plateau in southwestern 
England. It was opened in 1809 as a depot for French prisoners of 
war, and used for American prisoners of war during the War of 
1812. In 1850 it was reopened as the Dartmoor Convict Prison.

dashed (it) off: did, made or wrote, etc., quickly.

daylights: (slang) life; sense; wits.

dead in his head: (Scientology slang) a case totally associating 
all thought with mass. Thus, he reads peculiarly on the meter. As 
he is audited he frees his thinkingness so that he can think 
without mass connotations. -HCOB 17 March 1960.

Death Valley: dry hot desert basin in eastern California and 
southern Nevada, containing the lowest point in the Western 
Hemisphere.

decimated: destroyed much of; killed a large part of.

deflation: reduction of the amount of available money in 
circulation so that prices go down.

degrade: to lower or corrupt in quality, moral character, value, 
etc.

DEI cycle: Desire-Enforce-Inhibit Scale. Each lower step is an 
explanation to justify having failed with the upper level. -
Professional Auditor's Bulletin 50; HCOB 13 October 1959.

Delaware: a river from southern New York to the Delaware Bay, 280 
miles long. George Washington crossed this river (December 25-26, 
1776) prior to the battle of Trenton where he defeated a force of 
German mercenaries used by England in the American Revolution.

demised: terminated in existence or operation.

democracy: government in which the people hold the ruling power 
either directly or through elected representatives; rule by the 
ruled.

dens: places where people gather for some illegal activity.

depression: the Great Depression of the 1920s which began in the 
U.S. and spread abroad; a period of economic crisis in commerce, 
finance and industry, characterized by falling prices, restricted 
credit, reduced production, numerous bankruptcies and high 
unemployment.

deserts: rewards or punishments that are deserved.

devil, going to the: going to the dogs. See dogs, going to the in 
this glossary.

diabolical: like a devil, very cruel or wicked.

Dianazene: a formula combining nicotinic acid, vitamins and other 
minerals which runs out radiation. See also nicotinic acid in 
this glossary. -All About Radiation.

didactic: inclined to teach or lecture others too much.

die is cast, the: the decision is made and cannot be changed.

diplomatic: tactful and adroit in dealing with people.

dispersing: breaking up and scattering in all directions; 
spreading out.

distraught: extremely troubled; mentally confused; distracted.

Distribution Center: center whose purpose was to service people 
with Dianetics and Scientology books, tapes, brochures, 
memberships and information. -Professional Auditor's Bulletin 88, 
Ability Magazine 32; Ability Magazine 36.

District, the: District of Columbia, Washington, DC, the capital 
city of the United States. The site was chosen in 1790 by 
President George Washington, occupied by the Federal government 
in 1800.

diversely: differently; dissimilarly.

dogs: fellows in general as specified.

dogs, going to the: no longer being of a good quality, character, 
etc.; being near ruin.

doled out: given out sparingly or in small amounts.

done (everyone) in: injured gravely or exhausted; wore out; 
ruined.

dope, all the: (slang) all of the information, data or news.

dopes: persons who use narcotics.

double take: a quick second look or glance; a sudden recognition 
that what was glanced over or thought of as common is actually 
remarkable.

dough: (slang) money.

dragoon pistol: the sidearm carried by a cavalry soldier.

dramatizing: repeating in action what has happened to one in 
experience. It's replaying now something that happened then. It's 
just being replayed out of its time period. -Lecture of 28 July 
1966.

Dulles's: belonging to John Foster Dulles (1888-1959), American 
lawyer, U.S. secretary of state 1953-59. Dulles was credited with 
authoring foreign policy by which the U.S. was to prepare for 
massive retaliation against "communist aggression" rather than 
fight small, costly wars.

dumbfounded: made speechless by shocking, amazed; astonished.

easy mark: a person who is easily convinced, victimized or 
cheated.

echelon: level of command, authority or rank.

8-C: the name of a process. Also used to mean good control. -HCOB 
23 August 1965.

Einstein: Albert Einstein (1879-1955), American physicist born in 
Germany and winner of the Nobel prize for physics in 1921.

Eisenhower: Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969), American general 
(1941-48), president Columbia University (1948-53), and president 
of the United States (1953-61).

electrode: an electric conductor through which an electric 
current enters or leaves something.

Elizabeth's, Saint: Saint Elizabeth's Hospital, a government 
psychiatric hospital in Washington, DC.

emulate: try to equal or surpass; especially to imitate or copy 
with a view to equaling or surpassing.

english: a twisting, spinning rotation made by a tennis ball, 
billiard ball, or the like, as it moves forward; the untrue 
bounce or carom caused by this motion.

entrepreneur: a person who organizes and manages a business 
undertaking, assuming the risk for the sake of the profit.

enzymes: substances produced in plant and animal cells that cause 
a chemical change in other substances but are not changed 
themselves.

epaulets: the shoulder ornaments for certain uniforms, especially 
military uniforms.

esoteric: intended only for people with special knowledge or 
interest.

ethic: the body of moral principles or values governing or 
distinctive of a particular group.

exteriorization processes: Scientology auditing processes by 
which the thetan becomes exterior to the body. He can view the 
body or control the body from a distance. -Lectures of 28 
February 1957, 13 December 1966.

facade: a front part of anything, especially when thought of as 
concealing something, as an error, weakness or scheme.

factions: groups of people inside a political party, club, 
government, etc., working in a common cause against other such 
groups or against the main body.

fallout: the descent to earth of radioactive particles, as after 
a nuclear explosion.

FBI: the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency of the U.S. 
Department of Justice, responsible for investigating violations 
of Federal law.

feather his nest: to grow wealthy by making use of property or 
funds left in one's trust.

Federales: Judicial Police of the Federal District and 
Territories, one of two Federal police forces in Mexico.

feigning: pretending.

flat: no longer producing a reaction. -HCOB 2 June 1971.

flighty: given to sudden whims; not taking things seriously; 
frivolous or irresponsible.

flinders: splinters or fragments.

flintlock: a gunlock (firing mechanism in some old guns) in which 
a flint in the hammer strikes a metal plate to produce a spark 
that ignites the powder.

FM waves: a class of radio wave. FM means frequency modulation, a 
method of radio broadcasting in which the number of vibrations 
per second of the radio wave changes according to the sound being 
broadcast.

fog: confused or puzzled condition.

foible: a harmless peculiarity in a person's character.

folded up: collapsed; failed.

foment: the action or process of becoming excited or heated.

football Cards: an American professional football team named the 
St. Louis Cardinals.

for the birds: (slang) ridiculous, foolish, worthless, useless, 
etc.

Fort Knox: U.S. military reservation, established in 1917 as a 
training camp. Location of the U.S. Federal gold depository 
(built 1936) which holds the bulk of the nation's gold bullion in 
steel-and-concrete vaults.

.45: firearm which loads automatically and fires each time the 
trigger is pulled, with nothing further required of the shooter. 
The .45 refers to the caliber, or diameter or the bullet, which 
is .45 inch.

four-posters: beds with four posts for supporting canopies or 
curtains.

foxholes: holes dug in the ground as a temporary protection for 
one or two soldiers against enemy fire or tanks.

frame of reference: the set of ideas, facts or circumstances 
within which something exists.

francs: aluminum or nickel coins and monetary units of France.

Frankie: Franklin Delanor Roosevelt (1882-1945), thirty-second 
president of the United States (1933-45). He was the first 
president to broadcast over the radio; his "fireside chats" 
explained issues and policies to the people.

French Revolution: the revolution that began in France in 1789 
with the overthrow of the French royal family and ended in 1799 
with Napoleon's overthrow of the governing body established in 
1795.

from scratch: from nothing; without resources.

froths: foams.

Gadsden's Purchase: the purchase of 19 million acres of land in 
Arizona and New Mexico from Mexico for $10 million. It was sold 
by the leader of Mexico to raise funds for an expanded army.

Galilee, Sea oh a lake in northeastern Israel on the Syrian 
border. Traditionally the area in which Jesus conducted his 
ministry.

gallows: an upright frame with a crossbeam and rope, for hanging 
condemned persons.

gambit: any maneuver by which one seeks to gain an advantage.

games conditions: aberrated activities which are reactive and 
being performed way outside one's power of choice and without 
one's consent of will. They are characterized by fixated 
attention, an inability to escape coupled with an inability to 
attack, to the exclusion of other games. -Lecture of 20 July 
1961.

gamma: a high-frequency, penetrating type of radiation emitted 
from radioactive atoms.

Garand: type of rifle produced in 1938 for the U.S. infantry, 
designed at Springfield Armory. See also Springfield Armory in 
this glossary.

garish: crudely or tastelessly colorful.

gastric: of or pertaining to the stomach.

Geiger counters: devices which are used to measure radioactivity.

gemzynes: a made-up name for substances that might be found in a 
human body.

gen: (British slang) general information.

genetic line: the protoplasm (essential living matter of cells) 
line. It consists of the total of incidents which have occurred 
during the evolution of the body itself. -Lecture of 10 March 
1952; Scientology: A History of Man.

George III: (1738-1820) king of Great Britain and Ireland (1760-
1820) whose policy of coercion led to the American Revolution.

gimping: limping.

glibbest: speaking in the smoothest, most fluent, most easy 
manner.

gourd: a hardshelled fruit whose dried shell can be used for 
bowls and other utensils.

gradient scale: a gradual approach to something, taken step by 
step, level by level, each step or level being, of itself, easily 
surmountable-so that, finally, quite complicated and difficult 
activities or high states of being can be achieved with relative 
ease. This principle is applied to both Dianetics and Scientology 
processing and training. -Scientology Abridged Dictionary.

grape: grapeshot, a cluster of small iron balls formerly fired 
from a cannon as a dispersing charge.

grifts: confidence tricksters, minor criminals.

ground wave: having to do with a radio wave that travels along or 
near the ground.

Guadalcanal: an island in the southwestern Pacific Ocean. During 
World War II, in bitter fighting, U.S. forces seized the island 
and its airstrip from Japanese troops.

guillotine: a machine for beheading persons by means of a heavy 
blade that slides down between two grooved posts.

gyps: people who use shrewd, unethical business methods; 
swindlers; cheaters.

Haiti: a country occupying the western portion of the Island of 
Hispaniola, West Indies.

Hamilton, Alexander: (1755-1804) American lawyer and statesman. 
First U.S. secretary of the treasury; planned and initiated 
policies establishing a national financial system.

Hamlet: a tragedy play written by English writer William 
Shakespeare.

hardboiled: without sentiment; tough; mean; unconcerned about the 
feelings or opinions of others.

harmonies: in mathematical terms, harmonics are the even 
doubling, quadrupling, etc., of numbers as they go up or the 
halving or quartering, etc., of numbers as they go down. This 
last is not generally realized, that harmonies also go down. Here 
is an example of a harmonic: a pitch vibrating at, let us say, 
200 vibrations a second will have a harmonic at 400, 800, 1600 
and 3200, etc., vibrations per second. It can also have a 
harmonic of 100, 50, 25, 12 1/2, 61/4, etc. -LRH Notes.

Harvard: of or characteristic of Harvard University, a private 
university founded in 1636, located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 
It is primarily a university for men, but women are admitted.

HASI: Hubbard Association of Scientologists International. Around 
the time of the lecture HASIs were individual service 
organizations. -HCO PL 28 October 1960.

hat: a slang term for the title and work of a post in an 
organization. It comes from the fact that jobs are often 
distinguished by a type of hat worn on the head by a person, such 
as fireman, policeman, railroad conductor, sailor, etc. Hence the 
term hat. -HCO PL 1 July 1965; HCO PL 13 September 1970.

hatter, mad as a: quite mad. (Earlier, felt hats were made by 
treating furs, usually rabbit or beaver, with mercury. Prolonged 
exposure to the fumes of mercury damages the nervous system. Old 
hatters therefore developed a twitch, they tended to become 
incoherent, and they suffered a loss of coordination that made 
them appear to be zany, a condition once known as the hatter's 
shakes.)

havingness: the concept of being able to reach. By havingness is 
meant owning, possessing, being capable of commanding, taking 
charge of objects, energies and spaces. -Lectures of 29 March 
1962; 14 August 1963; 13 December 1966, Scientology: The 
Fundamentals of Thought.

hawk, watches like a: watches (someone) very closely, especially 
in order to catch him doing something.

H-bombs: abbreviation for hydrogen bombs, very destructive types 
of bombs whose enormous force comes from the energy given off 
when atoms of a heavy form of hydrogen are fused with each other 
under the extraordinarily intense heat and pressure created by 
the explosion of atomic-fission units within the bombs. See also 
atomic fission; atomic fusion in this glossary.

HCA: abbreviation for Hubbard Certified Auditor. An auditor, to 
achieve this title, is trained on an exactly laid out course of 
theory and practical learning, and is then qualified to deliver 
certain types of processing to preclears. Now Class Il on the 
Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart. -HCO PL 5 May 
1964; HCO PL 21 May 1962; Classification, Gradation and Awareness 
Chart.

head or tails out of, make: make any sense out of, understand.

head, over your: beyond your comprehension, ability or resources.

heels, on the: close behind; immediately following.

Helena: capital city of Montana near which L. Ron Hubbard lived 
as a boy.

helm: the handle or wheel by which a ship is steered.

hemorrhaging: bleeding extensively.

Hitler: Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), dictator of Germany from 1933 
to 1945. In rising to power in Germany, he fortified his position 
through murder of real or imagined opponents and maintained 
police-state control over the population. He led Germany into 
World War Il, resulting in its nearly total destruction.

hobnailed livers: livers as they appear in one form of cirrhosis 
(a disease suffered especially by alcoholics) in which they are 
shrunken and hard and covered with small projections. Hobnails 
are short nails with large, thick heads for protecting the soles 
of heavy boots and shoes.

hold his own: succeed in holding his position.

hooker: a concealed problem, flaw or drawback; a catch.

hopheads: drug addicts.

horn of the giants: (Norse mythology) a horn from which Thor 
drank as part of a drinking contest. To his shame, he was unable 
to empty the horn in three draughts (swallows), only lowering its 
level to just below the rim. As later came to be revealed, 
however, the horn had its tip in the ocean, so that his great 
gulps had actually lowered the level of the sea.

horse pistols: pistols that used to be carried by horsemen.

hot: radioactive.

hue and cry: general outcry of alarm or demand.

huff: a fit of annoyance.

Hungary: a country in central Europe. It came under Communist 
control in the late 1940s, but revolted against the Soviet Union 
in 1956. The uprising was suppressed by Soviet troops.

hypercritical: too critical; too severe in judgment; hard to 
please.

idyllic: peaceful and happy.

Ike: nickname of Dwight D. Eisenhower. See Eisenhower in this 
glossary.

impetus: a driving force.

incarceration: imprisonment; confinement.

incipient: in early stages; beginning.

indict: charge with an offense or crime; accuse.

indigent: poor; needy.

indigo: a deep violet-blue dye.

individuate: withdraw into only self and out of groups. -Lecture 
of 20 February 1962.

indulged: practiced according to one's own desires.

industrialists: persons who own or are engaged in managing 
industrial businesses.

inertia: a tendency to remain in a fixed condition without 
change; disinclination to move or act.

infidelity: cheating or being sexually unfaithful to one's 
spouse.

inflation: an increase in the amount of money in circulation, 
resulting in a relatively sharp and sudden fall in its value and 
a rise in prices.

in lieu: instead of, in place of.

inner sanctum: a private place or retreat that cannot be 
violated.

innocuous: not controversial, offensive or stimulating; dull and 
uninspiring.

inured: made accustomed to something undesirable by prolonged 
subjection to it.

ionosphere: the outer part of the earth's atmosphere. It begins 
at an altitude of about twenty-five miles. It is made up of 
layers of gases that have been ionized (changed into groups of 
atoms that have electrical charge).

iota: a very small quantity.

jilted: deceived, misled, tricked, etc.

joint: any house, building, etc.

Joliet: a city in northeastern Illinois, thirty-eight miles 
southwest of Chicago. Site of an old penitentiary and Stateville 
prison.

keeps me eye open: to be on the lookout; be watchful; dialect 
form of keep my eyes open.

Key West: the southernmost city of the continental United States, 
a seaport of Florida.

kick, get a very big kick out of: to derive pleasurable 
excitement from something.

kinder: German word for children.

King Hamaradahugabunga: a made up name for an ancient king; 
probably a play on the name of King Hammurabi, who ruled Babylon 
around 1900 B.C.

King William: William IV (1765-1837), king of England from 1830 
to 1837. He was the last British sovereign to attempt to force a 
ministry upon an unwilling majority in Parliament.

Kremlin: the government of the Soviet Union.

La Brea Avenue: an avenue in Los Angeles, California near which 
is located the famous La Brea tar pits. These pits of oozing 
crude oil contain fossils and remains of entrapped prehistoric 
plants and animals.

latterly: lately; of late; recently.

law of averages: the idea that you can't win all the time or lose 
all the time.

lethargy: a state of being drowsy, dull and unenergetic, or 
indifferent, lazy and sluggish.

let him have it between the eyes: made a strong impression on 
(him); surprised (him) greatly.

levee: an embankment built alongside a river to prevent high 
water from flooding the bordering land.

liberal: tolerant of ideas differing from one's own; broad-
minded.

line, on the: immediately; readily.

line, out of: not in accord with the prevailing price, quality, 
standards or code.

lip service, paying: expressing agreement (to an idea, statement, 
etc.) without sincerely meaning it or without taking action in 
support of it.

longbow, drawing a: exaggerating.

long haul: a long length of time during which work continues or 
something is done.

longshoremen: men who are employed in loading and unloading 
ships.

lowdown: (slang) the true facts; inside information.

lynchings: occurrences of hanging or otherwise killing (a person) 
by mob action and without legal authority.

machetes: large, heavy-bladed knives used for cutting down sugar 
cane, dense underbrush, etc., especially in Central and South 
America.

Mackinaw: a blanket or coat, made of a thick woolen material, 
often woven in bars of bright colors, much used by Indians, 
lumbermen, etc., in the American Northwest.

mad-dogging: acting like a rabid person; behaving irrationally 
extreme in opinion or practice.

maelstrom: any large and violent whirlpool.

main, in the: mostly; chiefly.

malady: a disease; illness; sickness: often used figuratively.

malaise: a vague feeling of physical discomfort or uneasiness, as 
early in an illness.

malignant: very dangerous; causing or likely to cause death.

maligning: speaking evilly of, slandering.

mandates: authoritative orders or commands, especially written 
ones.

mantle: a loose, sleeveless cloak or cape: sometimes used 
figuratively, in allusion to royal robes of state, as a symbol or 
authority or responsibility.

mark: a unit of money of Germany.

marshal: place in proper or desired order, as for battle.

Marx, Karl: (1818-83) German revolutionary leader, social 
philosopher and political economist, in London after 1850. 
Founder of modern socialism.

masochistic: characteristic of getting pleasure from physical or 
psychological pain, inflicted by others or by oneself.

matchlock: an old type of gunlock (firing mechanism in some old 
guns) in which the charge of powder is ignited by a slow-burning 
match (wick or cord).

Mauser bullet: bullet from a powerful repeating rifle or pistol: 
from German inventor Paul Mauser (1838-1914).

mean: something midway between two extremes.

mechanism: the agency or means by which an effect is produced or 
a purpose is accomplished.

mega-megavolt: a million million volts (units for measuring the 
force of an electric current).

Melbourne: a seaport in southeastern Australia where the 1956 
Olympics were held.

Messiah: in Jewish belief, the person that God will send to save 
the Jewish people.

Messianic: of the Messiah. See Messiah in this glossary.

MEST: word coined from the initial letters of Matter, Energy, 
Space and Time, which are the component parts (elements) of the 
physical universe. How to Live Though an Executive; Dianetics 
Today.

micrometer caliper: a caliper (an instrument for measuring 
thicknesses and internal or external diameters inaccessible to a 
ruler) for making precise measurements.

Middle Ages: the period of European history between ancient and 
modern times, 476 A.D. to circa 1450 A.D.

Middle East: a region that includes southwestern Asia and part of 
northeastern Africa. In the twentieth century the area has been 
the scene of political turmoil and warfare.

midshipmen: students at the U.S. Naval Academy.

militia: a group of citizens who are not regular soldiers, but 
who get some military training for service in an emergency.

millrace: a channel in which water flows rapidly from a river or 
body of water to the mill, where the force of the current 
provides the energy to drive the mill. A narrows provides a 
similar channel in which water flows with great speed and force 
through the channel during the changing of a tide.

Minoan: referring to an ancient culture (3000-1200 B.C.) centered 
around the Mediterranean island of Crete.

MIT: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, privately controlled 
technological and scientific institution located in Cambridge, 
Massachusetts, founded in 1865.

modus operandi: mode of operation; way of doing or making; 
procedure.

monarchy: government by a monarch (a ruler as a king, queen or 
emperor).

monomaniac: characterized by an excessive interest in or 
enthusiasm for some one thing.

Monroe, James: (1758-1831) fifth president of the United States 
(1817-25).

Montaigne, Sieur de: Michel Eyquem seigneur de Montaigne, French 
essayist (1533-92) whose works reflected his concern with pain 
and death.

mortar: a mixture of cement or lime and water, used between 
bricks or stones in building, or as plaster.

Moscow: a city located in the central part of the Soviet Union in 
Europe, and the Russian capital.

mug: (slang) a man; a fellow; a guy.

muzzle: the front end of the barrel of a rifle, pistol, etc.

Mycenaean: civilization which existed in Greece, Crete, Asia 
Minor, etc., from approximately 1500-1100 B.C. Brought advanced 
techniques in art and architecture to Greece. See also Cretan in 
this glossary.

nailed down: settled definitely; made sure.

Napoleon: Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821), French military leader. 
He rose to power in France by military force, declared himself 
emperor and conducted campaigns of conquest across Europe until 
his final defeat by armies allied against him in 1815.

nebulousness: unclearness; vagueness.

necromancy: magic, especially that practiced by a witch or 
sorcerer; witchcraft.

new blood: new people, regarded as a potential source of fresh 
ideas, renewed vigor, etc.

New England: region of the northeastern United States, comprised 
of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and 
Connecticut.

nicotinic acid: niacin, a white, odorless substance found in 
protein foods or prepared artificially: it is one of the vitamins 
in the vitamin B complex. See also B complex in this glossary.

niter: a colorless or white salt used as an oxidizing agent in 
gunpowder, explosives, fertilizers, in preserving meat and in 
medicine.

nitrocellulose: an explosive made from cellulose (an organic 
substance found in plants) and certain acids and alcohol.

no-game condition: a totality of barriers or a totality of 
freedom. See also games conditions in this glossary.

noncommunist: not supportive of or opposed to communism. See also 
Commies in this glossary.

non compos mentis: not of sound mind; mentally incapable of 
handling one's own affairs.

nonsensical: foolish; silly; absurd.

nonvirulent: not very harmful nor poisonous; not deadly.

nuclear physics: the study of the components, structure, and 
behavior of the nucleus of the atom. It is especially concerned 
with the nature of matter and with nuclear energy.

nymphs: any of the nature goddesses of Greek or Roman myths, who 
lived in trees, woods, rivers, etc.

Oberammergau: a village in Bavaria that performs the Passion Play 
every ten years. It was first performed there in 1633 when the 
villagers vowed to repeat it regularly in gratitude for escape 
from a plague epidemic. See also Passion Play in this glossary.

obfuscating: confusing, bewildering or stupefying.

objective processes: objective refers to outward things, not the 
thoughts or feelings of the individual. Objective processes deal 
with the real and observable. They call for the preclear to spot 
or find something exterior to himself in order to carry out the 
auditing command. They locate the person in his environment, 
establish direct communication with the auditor and bring a 
person to present time, a very important factor in mental and 
spiritual sanity and ability. -Basic Dictionary of Dianetics and 
Scientology.

oblique: indirect, not going straight to the point.

obtain: be in force or in effect; prevail.

onto them: in the position of having discovered or obtained 
knowledge of (an activity, etc., that was formerly unknown or 
secret).

Oriental theater: See theater in this glossary.

Otis tests: IQ tests used in Scientology organizations; the Otis 
QuickScoring Mental Ability test.

Over and Under: one of the processes contained in SLP 8 (Six 
Levels of Processing), an auditing regimen which remedies a 
person's willingness to confront and to be there and find out 
where he is. In Over and Under a preclear is asked to choose an 
engram in the middle of his life and then to control, uncontrol 
and/or make more solid, facsimiles existing prior to (under) and 
after (over) that engram. -HCO Training Bulletin 30 November 
1966; Lecture of 14 November 1956.

Palomar, Mount: a mountain in Southern California, northeast of 
San Diego: site of a famous observatory.

parity: equality, as in amount, status, character.

Park Avenue: a street in New York City traditionally associated 
with luxurious residential and professional buildings, 
fashionable living and high society.

Parliament: the law making body of Great Britain, similar in 
function to the (U.S.) Congress. It consists of the House of 
Commons (lower branch of the legislature of Great Britain), and 
the House of Lords (upper branch of the legislature of Great 
Britain, made up of nobility and high-ranking clergy).

parole: to free a prisoner before full sentence has been served, 
on the condition that the prisoner obey certain rules of good 
behavior.

part and parcel: an essential, necessary or integral part.

par value: the value of a stock, bond, note, etc., printed on it; 
face value.

Passion Play: a dramatic presentation of the suffering, 
crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, usually performed during 
Holy Week (the week before Easter).

pauperized: very poor; inadequate.

Pavlov: Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849-1936), Russian physiologist; 
noted for behavioral experiments on dogs.

Peanuts: one of the most successful U.S. comic strips of the mid-
twentieth century.

PE Course: a free introductory course for new Scientologists 
which educates them in the actual, simple facts of existence, the 
data of which is contained in Scientology: The Fundamentals of 
Thought. The letters PE stand for "Personnel Efficiency."
-Lecture of 6 November 1956, HCOB 4 May 1959.

Peking: capital of the People's Republic of China, located in the 
northeastern part of the country, the second largest city in 
China. Peking is the political, financial, educational and 
transportation center of the country.

pen: (slang) penitentiary; prison.

Pericles: (495-429 B.C.) Athenian statesman. In 461 B.C., he 
secured the exile of Cimon (Athenian general and statesman who 
induced Athens to aid in suppressing a revolt against Sparta, 464 
B.C.), whom he replaced as leader of Athens. He arranged a truce 
(445) with Sparta that brought fourteen years of peace, and 
democratic reforms were introduced. Pericles became a great 
patron of the arts and was responsible for the building of many 
of the famous buildings in Athens.

perpetrates: commits, imposes.

Persia: old name for the Asian country of Iran, in which the 
ancient Persian empire had its core. The empire began in the 
seventh century B.C., and lasted until the time of Alexander the 
Great, in the fourth century B.C. The Persian Empire stretched 
from northern India to the Danube river in Europe.

non persona grata: usually "persona non grata," a Latin term 
meaning an unacceptable or objectionable person; one who is not 
welcome.

pewter: a container or utensil made of any of various alloys in 
which tin is the chief constituent, originally one of tin and 
lead.

pharmacopoeia: an authoritative book containing a list and 
description of drugs and medicinal products together with the 
standards established under law for their production, 
dispensation, use, etc.

Philip: Philip II (1527-98), king of Spain (1556-98), king of 
Naples and Sicily (1554-98), king of Portugal (1580-98); 
centralized authority under his absolute monarchy and extended 
Spanish colonization to the present southern United States and 
the Philippines (which were named after him).

phrenology: a psychological theory or analytical method based on 
the idea that certain mental faculties and character traits (a 
special quality) are indicated by the configuration of a person's 
skull.

physiognomy: facial features and expression, especially as 
supposedly indicative of character.

pieces, went all to: fell into a bad condition.

pie in the sky: hope -- for example, of happiness or success --
that cannot possibly be fulfilled.

piling: a structure of long heavy timber or beam driven into the 
ground sometimes underwater to support a bridge, dock, etc.

pique: a fit of displeasure.

pitch: an angle; a selfish motive; any unethical way of profiting 
or benefiting.

pitch, get in there and: make an effort; work diligently.

plagiarized: took ideas or writings from someone else and 
presented them as one's own.

Plato: Greek philosopher (437? -- 347 B.C.). In 407 B.C. he 
became a pupil and friend of Socrates. He founded, around 387 
B.C., near Athens, the most influential school of the ancient 
world, the Academy, where he taught until his death. His most 
famous pupil there was Aristotle. See also Aristotle; Socrates in 
this glossary.

played up: highlighted or publicized.

Poe, E. A.: Edgar Allen Poe (1809-49), American writer, editor, 
critic and short-story writer for magazines and newspapers. His 
compelling short stories create a universe that is beautiful and 
grotesque, real and fantastic. Poe is also considered the father 
of the modern detective story.

pornography: writings, pictures, etc., intended primarily to 
arouse sexual desire.

pose: way of behaving or speaking that is assumed for effect; 
pretense.

post: position of duty, employment or trust to which a person is 
assigned or appointed.

postulate: a self-determined thought which starts, stops or 
changes past, present or future efforts. -Advanced Procedure and 
Axioms.

Potomac River: a river flowing southeast from the Allegheny 
Mountains in West Virginia, along the boundary between Maryland 
and Virginia and through Washington, DC.

pound: also called pound sterling, monetary unit of the United 
Kingdom.

Pravda: the official newspaper of the Communist Party in the 
Soviet Union.

premier: the prime minister of any of certain countries.

prexy: (slang) the president, especially of a college, etc.

Prince, Morton: (1854-1929) American neurologist (a person who 
works in the branch of medicine that deals with the nervous 
system and its diseases) and psychologist, American authority on 
abnormal psychology; founded and edited Journal of Abnormal 
Psychology (1906-29).

profiles: concisely presented sketches of the life and character 
of persons. At the time of this lecture this was the American 
Personality Analysis (APA), a test which measured the ten traits 
of personality which seemed to have the greatest bearing upon the 
preclear and his reactions to life and the environment, as well 
as to the other people in his life.

pronunciamentos: public declarations or pronouncements.

provocateur: a person who provokes trouble or incites to 
violence, riot, etc.

Psalm: any of the sacred songs in praise of God constituting the 
Book of Psalms in the Bible.

psychoanalyst: a person who is skilled in or works at 
psychoanalysis, a system of mental therapy developed by Sigmund 
Freud in Austria in 1894.

psychosomatically: in a psychosomatic way. Psycho refers to mind 
and somatic refers to body; the term psychosomatic means the mind 
making the body ill, or illnesses which have been created 
physically within the body by derangement of the mind. -
Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.

psychotherapist: a person skilled in or occupied with treatment 
of mental disorder by any of various means involving 
communication between a trained person and the patient and 
including suggestion, counseling, psychoanalysis, etc.

pulp: magazines, printed on cheap paper (hence the term pulp, 
from the wood pulp used in the manufacture of the paper), devoted 
to sensational literature; for instance, cowboy and detective 
stories.

punch: conduct oneself, especially against difficulties, with 
continued effort, determination and morale.

puppy: presuming, conceited or empty-headed.

Puritan: any member of a Protestant group in England and the 
American Colonies who, in the sixteenth and seventeenth 
centuries, wanted a reformation of the Church of England, so as 
to purify it from elaborate ceremonies and forms.

pursed: contracted into folds or wrinkles.

putting any stock in: having any faith in, giving credence to or 
attributing real significance to.

quirk: a sudden twist, turn or stroke.

rabble-rousing: stirring up the emotions or prejudices of the 
public; agitating.

racked up: tallied, accumulated or amassed as an achievement or 
score.

racket: a dishonest scheme, trick, business, activity, etc.

radio waves: waves propagated through space or matter by electric 
and magnetic fields generated by electrical currents.

ramparts: any defenses or bulwarks (persons or things that are 
defenses or protections).

randomity: the ratio of unpredicted motion to predicted motion. -
Scientology Abridged Dictionary.

rattle on: to talk rapidly and incessantly.

Reform Bill: signed in 1832, the bill allowed more English to 
vote and gave towns better representation at government level in 
the British Isles.

regimen: a regulated course, as of diet, exercise or manner of 
living, intended to preserve or restore health or to attain some 
result.

regimes: social systems or orders.

relief: aid in the form of goods or money given as by a 
government agency to persons unable to support themselves.

repeater technique: the repetition of a word or phrase in order 
to produce movement on the time track into an entheta 
(enturbulated theta) area containing that word or phrase. -
Science of Survival.

reserves: men or units in the armed forces not on active duty but 
subject to call.

restimulated: in a condition wherein a past memory has been 
reactivated due to similar circumstances in the present 
approximating circumstances of the past. -Basic Dictionary of 
Dianetics and Scientology.

reticent: habitually silent or uncommunicative.

ridge: a solid body of energy caused by flows and dispersals 
which have a duration longer than the duration of flow. Any piece 
of matter could be considered to be a ridge in its last stage. -
Scientology 8-8008.

rife: frequently or commonly occurring; widespread.

rigged: put together, prepared for use or arranged.

right down our alley: within our area of knowledge, interest, 
etc.

Rockies: the Rocky Mountains, a major mountain system in western 
North America extending from New Mexico to Alaska.

roentgen: a unit of measurement of radiation.

Rorschach: a type of mental test aiming at determination of 
personality traits through interpretation of inkblots.

Rotarians: members of Rotary International, a worldwide 
organization composed of business and professional men who meet 
to further the Rotary ideal of service, which is thoughtfulness 
of and helpfulness to others in business and community life.

round off: end in a satisfactory way; put a finishing touch on; 
finish nicely.

rubles: Russian monetary unit and silver coins or pieces of 
money.

run amok: to rush about in a frenzy to kill.

run, on the: escaping or hiding from the police.

run out: erase. -Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought.

sadistic: of or like a sadist, one who gets pleasure from 
inflicting physical or psychological pain on another or others.

salt of the earth, the: a person or group of people having the 
best personal qualities, the best character, etc.

Sao Paulo: the largest city of Brazil and capital of the state of 
the same name.

savvy: (slang) to understand.

saw, old: an old saying, often repeated; proverb.

Schicklgruber: Adolf Hitler. This name comes from his father, who 
was illegitimate and for a time bore his mother's name, 
Schicklgruber, but by 1867 had established a claim to the name 
Hitler. Adolf never used any other name, and the name 
Schicklgruber was revived by his political opponents in Germany 
and in Austria in the 1930s. See also Hitler in this glossary.

schizophrenia: (psychiatry) a mental illness in which an 
individual is being two people madly inside of himself, he has 
two violently opposed personalities, both of which are himself -
Lecture of 18 December 1953.

schizophrenic-melancholia: a supposed mental disorder made up of 
characteristics of schizophrenia and great depression of spirits 
and activity, gloomy thoughts and fears and often hallucinations.

Scholastic: a philosopher and theologian (one who is skilled or 
trained in the study of religion and religious beliefs) of the 
Middle Ages. See also Middle Ages in this glossary.

Scholasticism: the dominant school of the Middle Ages, based on 
the authority of the Church Fathers and of Aristotle. It was 
characterized by a formal method of discussion. See also 
Aristotle in this glossary.

scourges: any causes of serious trouble or affliction.

semantics: the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a 
word, sign, sentence, etc.

serenity: the quality or state of being calm and peaceful.

servitude: slavery or bondage of any kind.

shot to hell: in a state of great disorder or confusion.

sicker than a pup: extremely or violently sick.

silica negras: a made-up foreign phrase meaning "black sand."

Silver Spring: a city in Maryland, north of Washington, DC, of 
which it is a suburb.

sine waves: waves which follow a certain geometric pattern.

skunk: a despicable, offensive person.

slap-happy: elated; dizzy with success or joy.

snubbed: treated with scorn or contempt; slighted or ignored.

socialists: people who support the theory or system of social 
organization by which the means of production and distribution 
are owned, managed or controlled by the state or by associations 
of workers.

Socrates: (470? -- 399 B.C.) Greek philosopher and teacher who is 
generally regarded as one of the wisest men of all time. He drew 
forth knowledge from his students by pursuing a series of 
questions and examining the implications of their answers. He 
looked upon the soul as the seat of both waking consciousness and 
moral character.

soggy: spiritless, dull or stupid.

somatics: body sensations, pains or discomforts. -HCOB 23 April 
1969.

soporific: causing or tending to cause sleep.

soup-dunk, did a: made-up word from in the soup and dunk meaning 
"got into great difficulty."

soup, in the: in trouble.

sovereign: a British gold coin valued at twenty shillings, or one 
pound, which went out of circulation after 1914. See also pound 
in this glossary.

space opera: of or relating to time periods on the whole track 
millions of years ago which concerned activities in this and 
other galaxies. Space opera has space travel, spaceships, 
spacemen, intergalactic travel, wars, conflicts, other beings, 
civilizations and societies, and other planets and galaxies. It 
is not fiction and concerns actual incidents and things that 
occurred on the track. See also whole track in this glossary.

specie: money in the form of coins, especially gold or silver 
coins; metal money.

Springfield Armory: an armory established in Springfield, 
Massachusetts by the U.S. Congress in 1794. This armory produced 
rifles that were used as standard infantry weapons in the U.S.

squared: correctly built, finished, etc.

squaring (him) around: setting or putting (him) right or in 
order.

square the beef: stop or ease a complaint as, from a victim, by 
returning his money, or through influence with the police or 
politicians. (Originally and mainly underworld use.)

stable datum: one datum, one factor, one particular in a 
confusion of particles that keeps things from being in a 
confusion and on which other things can be aligned. Any confusing 
motion can be understood by conceiving one thing to be 
motionless. The one thing selected and used becomes the stable 
datum for the remainder. -The Problems of Work.

Stader splint: a metal bar with projecting pins that are driven 
into the bone fragments of a break in order to prevent any motion 
of the fractured bone.

stalemated: (chess) a position where one cannot move any piece 
except the king and cannot move the king without putting it in 
check (liable to capture).

Stalinists: people who support or advocate the principles and 
ideas of Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), Russian revolutionary and 
head of the U.S.S.R. from 1924 to 1953.

stark staring mad: completely mad.

State Department: the department of the executive branch of the 
U.S. government in charge of relations with foreign countries.

static: something which doesn't have wavelength, so it is not in 
motion; it doesn't have weight, it doesn't have mass, it doesn't 
have length, breadth or any of these things. It is 
motionlessness. -Lecture of 9 October 1951.

steam, under your own: without any help from others.

still hunts: hunts for game carried on stealthily, as by 
stalking, or under cover, as by ambush.

Stop-C-S: Stop-Change-Start, a Scientology process in which the 
auditor has the preclear stop his body and then change his body 
and then start his body, in that order. -HCO Training Bulletin of 
30 November 1956.

stopgap: a temporary substitute; makeshift.

strait-laced: narrowly strict or severe in behavior or moral 
views.

strata: a level or grade of people or population with reference 
to social position, education, etc.

Strategic Air Command: a U.S. Air Force command charged with 
international strikes, especially nuclear attacks.

strontium 90: a form of the element strontium, which occurs in 
the fallout from a hydrogen-bomb explosion. It is extremely 
dangerous because it is easily absorbed by the bones and tissues 
and may eventually replace the calcium in the body. See also H-
bomb in this glossary.

subcaliber machine gun: referring to a submachine gun, a 
lightweight automatic weapon designed to be fired from the 
shoulder.

sub-Thompson machine gun: the Thompson submachine gun, a 
lightweight and portable .45-caliber firearm. See also .45 in 
this glossary.

succumb: to yield or submit to an overpowering force; give in or 
give up.

sucker: a person easily cheated or taken in.

Suez: a seaport in Egypt on the Suez Canal, a ship canal that 
joins the Mediterranean and Red Seas.

Sullivan Law: originally a gun-registration law enacted in New 
York in 1911 requiring owners of handguns to be registered and 
licensed. Since then the term has become a synonym for "gun 
registration" in this country.

sunfast: not subject to fading in sunlight, as a dye, fabric or 
garment.

superfluity: superabundance; excess.

superstratosphere: the upper regions of the stratosphere, that 
portion of the atmosphere beginning between five and ten miles 
above the earth.

supplants: takes the place of.

swamp: overcome, overwhelm; ruin.

swath: a long strip, track or belt of any particular kind.

swaths: great quantities of. (Taken from the meaning of measures 
of grassland, originally reckoned by the breadth of one sweep of 
the scythe.)

synthesize: to form something by combining parts or elements.

synthetic: of, by, or using synthesis (the putting together of 
parts or elements so as to make a whole).

Syria: a country (officially the Syrian Arab Republic) in 
southwestern Asia at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, south 
of Turkey.

tack: course of action or conduct.

taped: fully appraised or summed up, completely "weighed up" or 
assessed; as if measured with a tape. When one has a situation 
taped, it also implies having things under control.

tap, on: ready for use; on hand; available.

taxation without representation: a phrase, generally attributed 
to James Otis about 1761, that reflected the resentment of 
American colonists at being taxed by a British Parliament to 
which they elected no representatives. It became an anti-British 
slogan before the American Revolution; in full, "Taxation without 
representation is tyranny."

tea: (slang) marijuana.

technicolor: bright, intense colors.

teeth, armed to the: (often humorous) fully armed with the 
necessary weapons, tools, etc.

teeth, into the teeth of: directly against; into the face of.

teetotaler: a person who never drinks alcoholic liquor.

telepathic: by telepathy (the communication of one mind with 
another by means other than the five senses).

teletype: a trademark for a form of telegraph in which the 
message is typed on a keyboard that sends electric signals to a 
machine that prints the word.

tenpins: pins set up to be knocked down in the game of bowling.

terminals: things that can receive, relay or send communications. 
-Scientology Abridged Dictionary.

Tesla, Nikolai: (1856-1943) American electrician and inventor. He 
made many discoveries and inventions of great value to the 
development of radio transmission and the field of electricity.

T formation: (football) an offensive formation with the 
quarterback behind the center, the fullback behind the 
quarterback, and a halfback at each side of the fullback.

.38: a pistol or revolver using a cartridge approximately .38 
inches in diameter.

theater: a place where some action proceeds; the scene of action. 
The theater of operations of an army embraces all the territory 
it may desire to invade and all that it may be necessary to 
defend.

Thor: (Norse mythology) the god of thunder, might and war; also 
associated with marriage, the hearth and agriculture. He was 
armed with a magical hammer that returned to him, iron gloves and 
a belt of strength.

tiller: a bar or handle for turning a boat's rudder (a broad, 
flat, movable piece of wood or metal hinged vertically at the 
back of a boat or ship, used for steering).

time, in the nick of: at the last possible moment (to prevent 
something unpleasant or bad from happening).

TNT: a powerful explosive, which is unaffected by ordinary shocks 
and must be set off with a detonator. Because it does not react 
with metals, it can be used in filling metal shells.

tonsillectomies: operations in which a surgeon removes a person's 
tonsils (the two soft, oval masses of tissue at the back of the 
mouth).

transorbital leucotomy: (psychiatry) an operation which, while 
the patient is being electrically shocked, thrusts an ordinary 
dime-store ice pick into each eye and reaches up to rip the brain 
apart.

trichinosis: the disease caused by eating undercooked pork 
containing trichinae (hairlike worm parasites in the body of man 
and animals that feed on flesh and other animal matter).

Trojan Wars: in Greek mythology, the wars between Greeks and 
Trojans. The Greeks besieged Troy for nine years. They finally 
won when, pretending to depart, they left a wooden horse, which 
the Trojans, ignoring warnings, took into the city. Warriors 
hidden inside the horse opened the city gates to the Greek army 
which sacked Troy.

tumultuous: full of confusion, agitation or disturbance.

turret: a small tower at an angle of a building, as of a castle 
or fortress, frequently beginning some distance above the ground.

two-way comm: two-way communication, communication between two 
people in which each one takes turns, while the other listens 
attentively, in expressing fully his ideas on a subject. This is, 
therefore, communication in two directions. -Scientology Abridged 
Dictionary.

Tyre: a town in southwestern Lebanon on the Mediterranean Sea. 
Built on an island, it was an ancient seaport and had far-flung 
colonies by 1100 B.C. Tyre was famous for its commerce and its 
purple dye.

ultraviolet: having to do with ultraviolet rays, the invisible 
rays present in sunlight.

unalienable: that cannot be given away or taken away.

under, get out from: to extract oneself from a failing, 
embarrassing or unpleasant enterprise, job or relationship.

under the counter: secretly and unlawfully; without the knowledge 
of other people.

usurped: taken or assumed (power, a position, property, rights, 
etc.) and held in possession by force or without right.

vagaries: unpredictable or erratic actions, occurrences, courses 
or instances.

valences: personalities. The term is used to denote the borrowing 
of the personality of another. Valences are substitutes for self 
taken on after the fact of lost confidence in self. A preclear 
"in his father's valence" is acting as though he were his father. 
-Ability Major 4; Lecture of 18 October 1961.

Vatican: the chief residence of the pope in Vatican City (an 
independent state within the city of Rome), now also including a 
library, archives, art museum, apartments and administrative 
offices.

Veblen, Thorstein: (1857-1929) American author and teacher. He 
was associate professor of economics at Stanford University 
(1906-09) and for almost ten years was the managing editor of The 
Journal of Political Economy.

vogue: general favor or acceptance; popularity.

wagon: paddy wagon; literally and figuratively any "wagon" or 
vehicle used to remove a person to a place of restriction, as to 
an insane asylum.

wake, in the wake of: following directly or closely behind.

Wall Street: area in lower Manhattan, New York City, center of 
the city's great financial district. The site of major U.S. stock 
exchanges and other important institutions. The term Wall Street 
has come to designate U.S. financial interests.

wampum: small beads made of shells and used by North American 
Indians for money, ornaments, etc.

W.C.T.U.: Women's Christian Temperance Union, an organization 
dedicated to promoting moderation, and more often, complete 
abstinence in the use of intoxicating liquor. Founded in 
Cleveland, Ohio, in 1874, it employed educational and social as 
well as political means in promoting legislation.

wedge: any action or procedure that serves to open the way for a 
gradual change.

weenie: an element or symbol of good fortune, enthusiasm or 
desire.

weighted: adjusted or adapted to a representative value.

wheeze: (slang) an overworked remark, joke, or gag.

whole cloth, out of: without foundation in fact.

whole hog: as completely and thoroughly as possible.

whole track: the moment-to-moment record of a person's existence 
in this universe in picture and impression form. -HCOB 12 July 
1965.

woof and warp: the underlying structure upon which something is 
built; a foundation; base. wraps: secrecy; censorship; 
concealment.

wraps, keep (someone) under careful: keep a person hidden or 
silent.

Wundt: Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920), German physiologist and 
psychologist, originator of the false doctrine that man is no 
more than an animal.

yackle-yackle: from yack-yack, meaning to talk or chatter 
persistently or meaninglessly.

yoke: the condition of being under another's power or control; 
slavery; bondage.

[End of Organization Series]

