Well, I hope you survived the last lecture.

Well, we arrive now to the last lecture of this congress. And the usual thing for a last lecture at a congress is to give you more technical data.

I was told there were some people — some people that had their buttons pushed.

Now, to tell you where we're going from here if you want to go there — that's the main point here — is I don't think anybody in Australia would go anyplace unless they wanted to go there. Isn't that true?

Look, you can tell me. Of course, in most cases I know already.

Audience: Yeah. Yep. Yes.

Well, you still got a congress?

The one continent left that hasn't been totally steamrolled by machine age and so forth, is Australia. That's fairly obvious, many spots.

Audience: Yes.

Your future in Australia is very definitely in your hands and nobody else's. There isn't anybody can do anything that people don't want to do or go where people don't want to go, as I've already said.

Glad you came?

But Australia today is pretty well on the road toward a much higher plane, Scientologically. I have seen tremendous advances here in the past half year and I think you have too.

Audience: Yes.

And Scientology advances tend to go by the square of time. They don't go on a smooth, simple climbing curve. They start going this way — rather easy.

All right. Oh, say that louder. You glad you came?

As Scientologists become more able, so does its dissemination become easier. Very often people will tell you in organizations, „Well, we'll go better as soon as we represent it in ourselves better.“ And I think that is a very definite fact

Audience: Yes!

Now, in 1950 I pulled off the organizational lines. I simply turned my back on organizations. I said, „That's it. We will go as far as Dianetics works. And we won't go any further than that. And with all the ballyhoo in the world, with all of the tremendous billboards in the world, with all of the TV time and everything else, we won't go any further and we won't go any faster than the subject works. And therefore from here on out my main concentration is solely on research, investigation and getting better results.“ And that was my goal way back in 1950.

That's better. That's better. Got to wind me up here just a little bit, you know.

And I've stuck to that very heavily and any organization that occurred up to 1957 was purely incidental. That make you understand a little bit better what's happened here in Australia?

Now, was that last lecture much too technical for you?

Because I found out — I found out that it would go as far as it worked. And it was my job to make it work better! And by the fall of 1957 I was willing to give a considerable amount of time to organizations, communication lines, keeping people better informed, getting a better standardization in Central Organizations, making Central Organizations work better for one reason only: We had made our first MEST Clears, made by somebody other than myself And now I knew we had a show on the road. And there are some people right in this room that are MEST Clears. It's not a remote fact. It can happen and actually can happen with the exact processes that the first MEST Clears in 1957 were made by.

Audience: No.

Now, 1957, therefore, was a kickoff as far as organizations were concerned. Up to that time I didn't even have my own communication lines organized at all. Stuff just landed on me from any part of the world and got handled or didn't get handled to the degree that I had time to spare from research and investigation. And that wasn't much time to spare, let me assure you. Because — it's been calculated that if the Ford Foundation or some vast organization had taken over Dianetics and Scientology research, they would have finished it in 2080 A.D. at a cost of twenty million dollars a year — something on that order.

It wasn't, huh?

The research which we have could never have been bought, not by any existing research organization. It had to be done economically and it had to be done as well as it could be. And it's been a rather tremendous job because it's been bucking the line of the unknown the whole way. It isn't as if anybody had ever been out along the line and marked any blazes on the trees. It was straight across the middle of the desert with no tracks whatsoever.

Audience: No.

That sounds like an exaggeration because you look at some of the old Vedic hymns and you look at this and you look at that and you'll find pieces of Scientology. Yes, but how many other pieces do you find in them? How many other pieces that had no part of the puzzle whatsoever!

Just pushed a few buttons. All right.

You're told in Lamanism that man is a separate soul and that he can exteriorize. And you're told at the same time that all he has to do is totally introvert and sit in one place and supermeditate and spin himself in 100 percent and he will go out the bottom! And that's twice as important as the fact he could exteriorize. On every hand you had data, data, data.

Tell you why. I'd like to release for the first time at this congress the solution to a problem which you will find as far back as Book One and which is probably the main thing that keeps a profile or your graph on tests and so forth right where it is. Keeps your personality pegged there whether you like it or not.

You can pick up today a book like somebody — one of the more advanced modern thinkers like Krishnamurti. Pick it up, read all about time. I've had somebody do this, you know. I've made them do it! And they read all about time and it's paragraph by paragraph by paragraph. And then all of a sudden they read a paragraph and, „You see? You say that in Scientology, too.“ And I say, „Go on. Read the next paragraph.“

I'd like to tell you about that because it's brand-new material, brand-new discoveries. It's not very complicated and I would like to release it right here in Australia.

And so they read the next paragraph and they find that „all pebbles on the beach are timeless eons which congealed bluapul“ has the same meaning and the same importance as this true fact he's just said, you see.

Well, the subject is valences. Valences.

And then now read the next paragraph and the next paragraph and turn the page and read the next and the next and the next. And where else in all that garbage do you find another true fact? And who is to tell anybody that in that garbage there was a true fact? And that's been „knowledge.“ It's been like a tremendous chute of water and you had to pick out the right drop. How were you going to pick out the right drop?

This is not a very esoteric subject. It's an awfully common one. There is no such thing as „your own valence.“

Been an awful lot of smart men trying to pick out the right drop for an awful long time — my hat's off to them because it's been a rough deal.

Every once in a while we fall into the liability of using the phrase. There's just you. And you don't become a valence until you're picked up and worn by somebody else.

Now, I don't say that this was — means anything particular with regard to I'm bright or stupid or more introspective or something or other than they are. But, I will say this: that picking out the right drop, picking out the key data which led to freedom was far more important than getting the right letter answered. Far more important than handling the vastly horrible problems of somebody in lower upper Chicago. You got the idea?

Now, let's say we had a mama who was very, very critical and every time we tried to create something she destroyed it. Or let's say that every time we tried to originate something she said, „No, no!“ And every time that we tried to be ourselves, why, we get „overwhumped.“ (That's a Scientology technical term.) Every time we tried to be ourselves somebody else says, „No, no, no! Be somebody else.“

Because getting the right facts in the right order done right, of course, solved all the problems in upper lower Chicago, too! So, in this case it was definitely the cart was put behind the horse.

Well, I've just been talking to you about social values. And when you at last became convinced that your values or your ways of looking at things were totally wrong, then you had a choice. You either just ceased to exist or you grabbed a valence that was apparently acceptable. And that's what kept you from being you when you ceased to be you.

And we could have been beating — as a matter of fact, in early 1951 I was offered a national TV program in the United States by a very well-known sponsor. And one of the reasons people here and there are so darned mad at me — and here and there they're awful mad at me — is that I would never play their game. I went along my way and did the job that I thought had to be done. And that outfit to this day practically spits every time they mention my name! It cost them about 75,000 dollars to line this thing up, and they had it all lined up and all I had to do was walk in front of the TV camera and take up people's problems on a national broadcast basis.

And most of the profiles which you answer up and most of the tests which you answer up is a valence or a composite of valences which you borrowed at some time or another that you thought were acceptable, and those you mark on the scoreboard.

I just had to take up people's problems and look nice and say witty things and so forth. And why wouldn't I? Well, that fifteen minutes, of course, would require a couple of hours of going to and from the studio and doing this and doing that. And it was just time we didn't have. It was time that couldn't be afforded. There it is. We never put on a TV program. One couldn't do it; he couldn't do that much work.

Until you change a preclear's valence, you don't change the pc.

I've barely been able to do the job I have done. And whether I have done it poorly or well, time will tell. Of course, there's always more job to be done.

If auditing could shed valences easily, you could change a graph, the responses of a pc to life, his ability to handle his environment, with great ease. If you could change his valences!

But at this particular time I hope you'll forgive my occasional inattentions, my seeming to be way off someplace else and — when you yourself knew it was all going to the devil and there was no interest paid to it whatsoever.

If you could keep pulling valences off of him until you dug him up — and when you got him dug up you'd find you had quite a person. And that's the person that'll register high on a graph and stay there.

Now, I tell you why. Now, I tell you why HASI Melbourne could just sit down here and spin. People had tried to drag it out and straighten it up and so forth, but unless I'd put in full administrative time, made organization very solid, made it groove right straight down the line, put a lot of time in on training personnel and so forth, what else could it do but try to get along the way it did? And that it survived at all is a tremendous tribute to the people who are running it.

There are many ways of defining or looking at Clear. But technically, the best way of looking at Clear is not in terms of a bunch of mechanics. It'd just be whether or not the person had become himself. Then you'd say he'd be Clear.

But in running it, they themselves learned something that I didn't have to teach them. They themselves learned a certain amount of independence rather than a total dependence on Ron. Now, that's valuable. And I think it would be better understood here in Australia than in anyplace else in the world, wouldn't it?

Now, if hi — that self which was uncovered, unblended, straightened out, was then improved to a point where he could, you know, relax and say, „Well, I dare reach as myself to a considerable distance and I dare actually progress,“ and so forth, you'd have an OT.

Audience: Yes.

That's a very simple way of looking at Clear. Just sweep away these mechanical ideas and say, „Well, we've gotten the fellow to be himself, unimpeded by superimpressed personalities.“

Scientology organizations here in Australia are particularly strong because they have survived in spite of it all, even though they have yet to be as well known or as well appreciated as they will be. Right now there isn't a franchise holder, much less a large organization here in Australia, that isn't doing a splendid job right here at this moment that I am tremendously proud of. And they've done it practically off their own cuff and I'm real proud of that.

Now, you ever hear of the „old school tie“?

There's a great deal to be known and done organizationally and administratively, but I want you to understand and I want to tell you here at this congress that it is not any part of any plan I have or ever will have to own and control the actions of people.

Audience: Yeah.

The actions of people, fitted into an organizational framework, themselves shake into their best efficiency. There are certain things that have been learned by Scientology organizations — learned the hard way over the years. And fellows who really can run organizations are the first one to recognize that these lessons are valuable. And they put them into effect and they carry on and they win with them not because they'll be sacked if they don't, but because it makes good sense.

That's a valence.

There's even an old Sec ED, Secretarial Executive Directive (which is an order to an organization put out by myself) that says: when a Sec ED violates good sense, why, follow the good sense and to hell with the Sec ED.

There are even fellows who have been sent to Oxford (it's not „Oxford“ you know, it's „Oxford“) — there have been fellows sent to „Oxford“...

Now, that doesn't look very much like we're trying to own and control large sections of Earth.

It's very amusing. My little kids are now going to school in England, and all the words they knew from America, they still pronounce with an American accent. And all of the words they have learned, the brand-new ones in England — darnedest mishmash you ever heard!

We are in the perilous condition, however, of inheriting large sections of Earth if we don't look out. And that is my main difficulty, if you please, administratively — is try not to put great big barbwire fences around pieces and things and say, „Well, everybody else keep off.“ That's the hard thing to do.

These Oxfordian graduates have very often simply gone to Oxford to get a valence. Factually, they have that. That's part of the curriculum. They're supposed to — they're supposed to pick up a tone and behavior. Now, it's nothing really against Oxford. It's just the fact that that's part of the business.

But a long time ago an ethical problem occurred. It was a very interesting problem. This will amuse you because I don't think I've ever told anybody this before generally. Oh, a few people on the inside know this.

Well, it already means they must have had some kind of a lousy valence to want the next one superimposed on it.

But up until July of 1950, in all the first months of burst and bang in the United States, I used to tell everybody with a perfectly straight face that Dianetics was the product of a number of fellows and I was their spokesman, in an effort to get them and it off of my back and keep from inheriting the administrative burden, because I didn't have any idea of wanting to be „the famous person.“

And that's the fate of somebody who loses himself. He gets a valence over the top of that and he doesn't like that one, so he gets another valence over the top of that one because he doesn't like that one, and he gets a valence over the top of the next one because he doesn't like — and he doesn't like that one, so he gets another valence. And you've got some sort of a mysterious series of concentric spheres here — just valence after valence after valence — package personalities, each one of these. Each one is a package personality. Its reactions are so-and-so and such-and-such.

In the first place I had had enough already to know that it was a snare and a delusion.

You can always expect somebody who has attended Oxford — just to get the tone — to, in the face of emergencies, say „There is none.“ Immediate response. That's what that valence says. It says, „There are no emergencies,“ see?

Perhaps if at that time I hadn't ever commanded ships or expeditions, if I'd never seen my name in print I might not have had quite as cleareyed a view of what fame means. But it's a bubble, it's nothing, it's froth. Well, it — and you go down and you write a movie and of course you're famous, right away. I mean, everybody seeks you out, you know, and they — all the young writers that want to write movies and all the movie actresses that want parts and — ah! The next thing you know, you just — many people do, they just lose their heads and that's it.

Roof falls in. The floor goes out from under him and he's supposed to say something like, „Bit of a disturbance, what?“

But if you've lived in that kind of an operating climate for any period of time at all and been here and there and done this and that, you eventually find out that the essential thing is to do your job! Not to be known for doing it. It's a big difference, you know.

He's supposed to have responsibilities in certain directions and be irresponsible in other directions. He's supposed to be made happy by certain things and unhappy by other things. And he gets a whole carload lot of „now-I'm-supposed-to's.“ And at any given stimuli or any given stimulus he has a pat response. And you can play on him like a player piano, you know. Put the roller in and start pumping the pedals. And you'll play the same tune every time!

Sometimes in an organization we find somebody who is totally overlooked. Person's doing his job, doing his job well. No randomity in that person's vicinity and somebody who makes some randomity and apparently has a lot more noise around him, and so forth, gets promoted and that person doesn't. This one we have to look out for too.

Now, to a slave master, that person is very safe to have around because he's totally predictable and will never step over the edge at all of the demarked lines.

The fellow who does his job well is the only person who will ever help others or do anything for anybody and himself included. Doesn't matter how well he's known.

Therefore, you can do almost anything with him or get him to agree to almost anything. You can put anything across on him just playing it on the right buttons.

But at the end of July 1950, a terrible thing had occurred: The Communist Party had elected me out. In the first place we had our biggest ARC break in 1947 when I was writing, as a member of the Authors League of America, stories which would not fit themselves into the framework required by the officers and directors of the Authors League of America which was 100 percent, almost, Communist Party card-carrying members! And they said I was a fascist! And I have even been hung in effigy long before Dianetics as a fascist. I was a popular butt of the communists because I wouldn't write stories totally calculated to stir up racial minority difficulties in America! I just wrote stories to be entertaining and that was no longer the fashion.

And I wouldn't say that a society that is trying to be free, a society that is trying to be independent, a society where each individual is worth something, and particularly in Australia where there aren't too many people, that such a mechanism is totally necessary. I think it'd be safe to have people be themselves.

And you'll think this is a strange statement for me to make because that's a big organization. But they've already long since had my resignation.

Of course, I sometimes feel very lonely in this opinion. But it is — it's safe to have people be themselves.

Now, these people in the early days of Dianetics said, „We can use Dianetics.“ They were all my friends. Everywhere I looked, every writer I knew who had ever been a member of the Communist Party was right there alongside of me pumping my hand, saying, „Good going, Ron. We knew you had it in you.“ I kept asking these fellows, „Why are you so interested in me?“

Of course, it takes a certain amount of nerve to actually get in and unbale the valences to see what's there. And you nearly always, even in taking a couple of valences off, find a better guy.

„Oh, well, you're very famous. You're very brilliant! You're very this.“ Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And when you take them all off, you find a powerhouse. When we say, „Man is basically good“ — we also mean women — we mean that when you get him dug up, or her dug up, that she'll try to follow or he'll try to follow the optimum solution in given circumstances.

We had the potential of an organization the influence of which could be used by another interest! And when they finally got it through their thick skulls in October of 1950 that I didn't care to have Dianetics and Scientology covertly used by any other organization on Earth for their own special purposes, Dianetics and Scientology in the public presses had it.

Only valences keep people pinned down to one dynamic or two dynamics. Because a valence can't be expansive. A valence is a narrowing and a blunting.

Anything you see today in the public presses stems from that period and similar periods when people have walked up to me and said, „You've got awfully nice organizations. You have a tremendous appeal to the public. You represent things very well and you're very clever and very famous, too. And we'd be very glad to subsidize you very nicely. Don't you want some money.? How about some more money, huh? It's — money, money, checks? What do you want? What do you want?“ so forth.

What's an optimum private to an army? The perfect private? Well, that's a valence that the sergeants dearly work on. And did you ever hear the sergeants work on it. Any slightest deviation from the perfect private, any direction to be a decent guy, any initiative, any idea of advancing along certain lines practically or getting something done obviously, boy, they're in there with brickbats. „Get back into line. Get those anchor points back. Be a private. Be a private,“ you know.

And I'd said, „You flatter me. You flatter me. You flatter all of us. But we've got this far on our own hooks and we're going to get the rest of the way the same way! There, sir, is the door.“

And after many, many, many years of that sort of thing, a fellow comes out of the army, goes into civilian life and it takes him a long, long time to stop being a private. And he finds himself saluting or treating everybody like he'd like to treat sergeants.

The fate of any piece of knowledge man has ever been able to learn about himself, his society or this universe has sooner or later become subservient to some special interest with a curve on it to make more slaves. And this is one time when as long as I've got words in my mouth and breath in my thetan — this is one time when that curve isn't going to happen. And that's all I want your help in. We want to make sure that what we know never comes to serve some special interest for the subjugation of man.

There's nothing wrong with armies. Armies are a good thing — in history books! Armies today, of course, are so deadly outmoded that I wonder that any politician has the cheek to appropriate any appropriation for them, to tell you the truth.

The only reason you ever see me let my name go up on doors in organizations and that sort of thing is because I had learned by August of 1950 that unless I was willing to take ownership for it, it would go all agley. And all that name stands for is „This is the best we know at this time.“ That's all that name stands for. It doesn't stand for me or how famous I want to be or anything else, but that is „The best we know at this time will be released through this particular organization,“ and that's the only thing it can say. It doesn't even mean possibly that it would be a better organization than others, but it'd certainly say that the ethical standards are maintained at whatever cost and the technical knowledge that is available, is available, little of it pulled back, none of it hidden. The facts are yours.

Of course, it's typically political, you see, that after armies have ceased to be any value whatsoever, why, then they have to have big standing armies, you know?

Because in the final analysis, to whom does Dianetics and Scientology belong but to you? Because it is about you. It is too intimate a thing to be owned by another person.

Appropriations for shotguns and rifles and machine guns these days are something like appropriations for bows and arrows. They just might as well make appropriations for bows and arrows.

All Dianetics and Scientology attempts to do is to undo the magic spell which has made people less than they want to be. And to do that it requires that some truth be known. And that the central and principal truths of man be known, merely as truths — not as pitches and curves to serve some different reason or purpose. And that information is its own best protector.

By the way, they dug out the War Department in the United States the other day. They were getting rid of some of the supersecret files and they found one of the supersecret war devices of World War II was the bow and arrow. Actually — they'd been developing bows and arrows for use by commandos and they had labeled it „supersecret.“ And from that day to this, bows and arrows had been supersecret to the US Army.

If it is itself, if it is what is known, if it is what has been learned, then it undoes its own spells. And the only possible excuse we have for training anybody, for processing anybody is that Dianetics and Scientology will undo Dianetics and Scientology. And that's the first time known in the history of man that a subject, if it ever curved down, could also go up — that a subject undid itself And that would be true knowledge.

But you take a fellow who is made to be a general and he's worked over usually in some democratic body to be the perfect general. And you always know what a general will do. The parliament or the senators or whoever it is, they know what a general will do. He's a safe general. That's because he's in the valence of a general.

Only true knowledge can undo the spells laid by true knowledge.

And then they rail at him in wartime because he retreats at the wrong places and goes the wrong directions and never adapts the army to the situation and loses things left and right and gets his equipment chopped up and so forth and somehow or another muddles through at Lord knows how many casualties.

For instance, I know a half a dozen processes by which you could run out Ron. See? Just like that! And of course we had two ACC Instructors over here that when we were assessing people in the last ACC — we were assessing people madly (last US ACC) to find out what was the most likely present time button they had. We found out that, oh, maybe, I don't know, 30 percent of them, something like that — came up with „Ron,“ you see, as a — as a valence that they had been overwhumped by.

And then they say, oh, they are very upset about this. Ah yeah, well, they — they've got to have a person there before he can lead anything. And when they have a valence called a general there who has the exact responses that you're supposed to get from a general, of course, they don't get any leadership.

So, they very busily started to work running out „Ron“ as a valence and it didn't run out because it wasn't there. It undid itself so fast that you wouldn't have called it a valence. Except, of course, they would ask somebody „Ron?“ And then somebody would think of something they had thought about me or done to me and they'd get a little overt on the line or some darned fool thing like that and it'd go snip. So, they'd say, „Good! Well, that's a valence.“ It didn't run!

And in a time of emergency there's nobody there. But that's true of valences — there's nobody there. In this society at this time you have more unhaunted bodies! But a valence, you might say, is a packaged series of responses. A valence likes spinach, dislikes beefsteak; likes green hats, dislikes white hats; thinks plump women are too plump, thin women are too thin — whatever the valence thinks, that is what is thought. And there can be no flexibility on the subject.

If I started telling you large stacks of lies and all kinds of things and giving you big pitches and curves (which I would never do), yeah, I'd be a valence all right. I'd be one to reckon with. A horrible valence. Because in the guise of truth, you would have lies. Therefore, I have to be pretty careful what I tell people. I do. Not that I'm important.

And the way you change a pc's reactions around, actually, is to give him enough wins that he begins to believe that he might amount to something and doesn't need all these packaged responses. He believes, at last, that he himself is capable of making up his mind to the various situations which he confronts in life. And you've got a real, live person. You haven't got a wound-up doll.

But, any time truth is put out, it has to be put out on a clean line. And it is itself and real truth runs itself out.

Now, of course, in this machine age, the country is almost totally populated with people who are hard up against machines. And they get so used to running machines, you know. You press the right buttons and hoods go up and boots open and motors start and — maybe.

Knowing who you are — you knowing who you are, knowing what you are and knowing what you're capable of, are to that degree masters of your own destiny, not slaves of somebody else's destiny. And don't you ever think you have to do something because — merely because I told you the truth sometime or another. You have no obligation on this line of any kind whatsoever. You owe me nothing. That's the way it is. It isn't that you should or did or anything of this sort.

And they get so used to machinery that they think people ought to be all machinery, too. And they get very upset when somebody goes off the line.

But in August of 1950 I had to take responsibility for the fact that I was developing this information, I was putting it together and I was putting it out. And I found out the second I took my name off of it, we got a lot of lies on the line. We got people jumping up and putting a twist on it and a personal pitch and a curve and that sort of thing.

As a matter of fact, a friend of mine one time (old science fiction writer, Paul Ernst) wrote a story one time called „He Didn't Like Soup.“ Possibly you've heard of me mentioning this before. But „He Didn't Like Soup“ was the name of the story.

And we find out now, over the period of years, that rightly or wrongly if I sign a bulletin, then people think that's the right bulletin. And if somebody else signs a bulletin, why, they say, „Well, maybe that's the right bulletin.“

This fellow goes way ahead into a supermachine age society, you see, that's all assembly line and the belts run and supersocialism — nobody ever gets paid, you know. They're supposed to appear here and do this and their jobs are that and they're supposed to respond this way and that way and, you know, it's just all mechanical doll sort of thing. And this guy gets shot ahead in time and gets into this society. Must have been an Australian — he still had some individuality left.

And that doesn't mean a thing beyond this one thing: that we have identified source and therefore can run it out very easily.

And they get hold of him and they put him in this mess hall and — to feed him, you see — and the great big conveyer belts are coming along with huge plates of soup on them, you know. And of course, everybody when his plate of soup comes by, he goes... and puts the soup down in front of him, you know.

We must never let what we know get into a state whereby it itself is a tremendous number of „now-I'm-supposed-to's.“

Well, this guy is standing there and his plate of soup comes up on the conveyor belt and he says, „Sniff-sniff” He didn't take it off the conveyor belt!

For instance, you have never read from me a code of right conduct. That's the obvious one, isn't it? Somebody is writing a great deal and he's writing on the line, he's writing research materials and he's writing about you. Well, obviously the right thing to put on the line would be a code of right conduct, wouldn't it? Hm? Oh, yeah?

And of course, it goes to the end of the conveyor belt and it goes down with a clank, grinds to bits and stops the whole conveyor-belt system.

I'll call to your attention that that's probably the first thing that any philosopher in past ages ever thought of — was a code of right conduct. And the reason the communist had a China to break up, and the reason China never got up is because a fellow by the name of Confucius who could write not that I have anything comparable magnitude to that — but this fellow laid down a code of right conduct! And this was what you did.

Well, nothing like this — nothing as individual as this had happened in that society for so long, they didn't even have fuses left, you see. And of course, this shorts out all the fuses in all the power plants in the city. Eventually it's all traced back — the total ruination of that whole machine society is traced back to the fact that he didn't like soup!

Now, it's like saying, „Always sit on the back of a vehicle.“ And somebody invents one that has to be driven from the front. Times change. Times change. „Now-I'm-supposed-to's“ change. Social conditions change. We are here wrapped up in the present moment in a machine age. It's not the age of a philosopher. That age has passed. Men no longer have leisure to think. Most of the scientific thinking done today is done by ENIACs, UNIVACs and other peculiar electronic equipment!

Well, thinking in these terms, a machine age has a tendency to devaluate the individual likes and dislikes of people. And they want them all the same, and they want them all squared up. And the only way you can do that is to package up valences and say, „This is the optimum person and you must be this person and you mustn't be any other person and you must have no other opinion but this person's opinion and this is the person you are!“ And then they use various mechanisms to do this.

I went into a large laboratory not too long ago where they had one of the biggest electronic brains in the world. A friend of mine said, „You've just got to come to see our electronic brain.“ And I said, „I'll be very happy to come to see your electronic brain.“ And I went up. He said, „You'll be very interested that it has neuroses.“

Well, families start working on this. And after a person has lost too many times, he can be convinced that he himself can't win, but that some other packaged identity can win. Therefore, he buys the packaged identity that's being offered to him.

We looked at this thing — I looked at it — and we fed it answers and that sort of thing. I did a terrible thing with that electronic brain — I gave it a neuroses.

And the way you get a thetan to do this is just overtly give him loses, loses, loses. Make him guilty of this and guilty of that and guilty of other breaches and guilty of something else, and invent more things for him to be guilty of.

He said — a lot of the engineers around there — said, „This is Hubbard, you know.“ And, „Dianetics and Scientology fellow,“ and so forth. „I'll show him the electronic brain. Maybe he can ask it some complicated question, you know, test how good the thing is,“ so on. „Go ahead, Ron. Go ahead. Go ahead.“

By the way, I almost brought down to you today — and then I thought, „Well, I won't give her that much swelled head“ — the goddess of destruction, Kali, that was being worshiped at a mad rate in India when I was there just a few days ago. The festival of the goddess Kali. So I picked up one of them. And — worship of destruction. And they explain to you lots of ways why you have to worship destruction, but all it adds up to is the fact that their tremendous impulse toward creation that we were talking about yesterday gives automatic impulse toward destruction. And probably today this is one of the most powerful gods of India — the goddess Kali, the destroyer.

So, I wrote down „two times two equals question mark“ and fed it to the machine. That was it. It didn't develop a neurosis, it went psychotic!

She, by the way, although I tagged a couple of people there in India with this fact — I said, „That used to be the goddess of the thuggee, didn't it? You know, the killer, the fellow who went down the highway and killed off all the pedestrians.“

I had fellows explaining to me carefully that the machine could not accept a double datum only. It could only accept five-digital problems, not two-factoral problems. And I'd wronged their machine.

„Oh, well, yes, but actually she is the Divine Mother.“ And, you know, „He's a westerner, he doesn't know his business, so we'll give him a bunch of business.“ And they worship — they worship Kali.

I said, „Well, isn't it horrible that it knew the answer to anything complicated but not anything simple? Well, can't this machine think out anything simple like you can?“

Now, Kali, of course, is a sort of a tailor-made valence itself. And it's the goddess of a criminal. And most gods — made-up gods of this character — are simply tailor-made valences of some kind or another.

„Oh, that machine is much brighter than we are!“ They were convinced of this. I never did break this down with them. I asked them patiently various questions like, „Who built the machine?“ And I swear they thought it arrived there by spontaneous mechanization.

Very often they try to trap thetans. They put up images and so forth that should be worshiped, you know, and they say, „A thetan ought to pick up one of these images,“ and so on. And after a while you've got a body. So, that's one of the trickiest methods of interiorization: to make a thetan have overt acts against bodies until he himself becomes one. It gives him a package of things to be and do.

I said, „Who has to dream up the problems to feed it to the machine?“ I thought I had them there, but I didn't. They opened the door and showed me the other machine.

Now, to free somebody along the line and restore to him his own judgment is not really as adventurous as you think because it's only when he is totally degraded that he does the wrong things, the bad things, and reacts with destruction and evil, and worships, you might say, the goddess Kali.

Well, it's a machine age. It's certainly no place for a philosopher, no place for a person to try to look closely into the problems of man because the problems of man are quite unimportant. Man is quite unimportant. Man after all, is just a cogwheel in the big machine, isn't he?

A person has to be in pretty good shape to be pretty good. That's always true.

Well, if man's a cogwheel in the big machine, I suppose someday we will have a society where a great many machines produce for a great many machines. And nobody will be troubled with any people around. And apparently on present trend that's the way it will go.

Now, a valence is not the formless thing that you would think it was. It actually has form and mass. It has series of pictures that belong to it. It has whole series of tailor-made postulates, „now-I'm-supposed-to,“ that belong to it and so forth. It's a personality more or less complete. And preclears buy these things. They buy them off of Papa and they buy the valence off of Mama, and they buy it with the old school tie, and they buy it with how to be a good second lieutenant, although I never met one.

But as man develops more and more ability in using force in the society — as more and more force is at his command and control, his own force is less. He gets to a point finally where, well, war is not a matter of grappling a fellow man or something like that, war is a matter of going in and doing a calculation, feeding it to a machine, which then feeds the problem to another machine, which then feeds the answer out into some kind of an endless belt which touches off a guided missile and which arrives then in the right locale — boom.

The valence is the profile response that most people react up to. And it's a truism that you are not really auditing the pc, you are auditing a valence. And if you just audit the valence and never, never, never address the problem of separating the pc out of these valences, of course, all you do is improve the valence.

But it certainly didn't take much to — force to write the equation down on a piece of paper and feed it to the machine in the first place.

You just take a few „now-I'm-supposed-to's“ off the valence. And the pc says, „Well, I feel better.“

Man becomes, unfortunately, incapable of making correct decisions to the degree that he is incapable of confronting force. If a man cannot handle or confront force, a man is then dependent upon force to give him his decisions. And at last, why, it just adds up to „That nation which has the most force is the rightest nation.“ Of course, that's not true at all.

Very often you get somebody who's very obsessed on the subject of a valence — boy, he really is the valence! — and just as he starts to get audited out of the valence you will notice that you're auditing him and he's auditing something else. You ever notice that? What you're saying really doesn't address itself to him. You're addressing it to him, and he's addressing it to that. And as he's — you'll ask him what he's got there and he'll say, „Well, I don't know. There's some sort of a mass or something that's kind of coming off here. And it's doing very well with the process.“

It's not even true that that nation which has the most machines is the best nation. Only people would have us think so these days. They say, „It's a great country. Nobody ever lifts a finger in it.“ It doesn't sound to me like a very industrious or healthy people.

He's actually improving or auditing a valence. So that it is a tremendous advantage to have a process that strips valences.

And as we look over our future society we are unfortunately looking at space opera. Now there are some amongst you who have never read or contacted science fiction. I'm afraid this is a minority.

Well, one of the first processes that abruptly stripped valences was, of course, a process which knocked out individuation.

Any one of you sooner or later has collided with some science fiction where the great machines clank around the great machines, and the plot is mainly evolved by what tricky gimmick the hero had up his sleeve that untrickies the gimmick that the other villain had up his sleeve, where the whole solution to the civilization hangs on whether or not somebody got the right whatnots in the test tube.

Now, what's „individuation“? Well, individuation means „I'm different from everybody“ — the differences between self and others. And when these differences are tremendous, the person, of course, cannot associate with or communicate with other people, no matter how important they are.

Science fiction is very interesting and I'd be the last man to run it down having written a couple of million words of it myself.

In other words, individuation, when it occurs, usually occurs because of valences, if you can understand that.

But very few science fiction writers except those who have gotten smart enough to move on into Scientology — and they have, by the way — you see their plots consistently and continually now taken out of History of Man and other Dianetics and Scientology sources. They get somebody and get an E-Meter and start plowing up and down the line. There are several people doing this. That's right.

The pc already has lost himself into another valence, and this valence he knew was very different than all other valences. So he's individuated himself around. Where as a matter of fact, a pc in perfectly good shape can go and sit down alongside the railroad track and talk to the tramps — he'd go down and talk to them, talk about tramping and so forth, and he doesn't get all soiled. It's not degrading. Then he can go up and talk to the bank presidents, you see. It doesn't make any difference. He can communicate — communicate with most anybody without terrific liabilities. It's only a valence that has terrific liabilities.

Read a costume historical the other day that came right out of somebody's reactive bank. They'd actually — actually had E- Metered it out — and it was line by line, paragraph by paragraph, right out of something some pc had told them. They'd actually picked up a plot back in 1750 and so forth, because here and there they skidded and used one of our terms.

Now, a person wearing an old school tie talking to a person who has no old school tie is, of course, being degraded. A valence can lose out, you see, but the pc has a hard time losing out. It actually takes a long time to aberrate a pc. Took a long, long time to get somebody aberrated. Don't ever think they got aberrated in this life — they didn't. They've been working on it for a while.

What most science fiction writers do not realize is that space opera is a recurrent phenomenon in man's past. Certainly this is not an original statement. No less a personage than Henry Ford said that if you emptied all the seas of the world in the bottom of one of them at least you would find railroad tracks from a billion years ago.

Now, separation and identification are, of course, things of more or less comparable magnitude. What's identification? Well, if I think I'm this microphone or if I think I'm that table, I have identified myself with the microphone or table. Okay?

It's pretty obvious that man comes up to civilized peaks and then they drop off and then he rises to new civilization peaks and they drop off and so forth. What we know that's different about this is that he repeats his whole cycle over long periods of time. And he's moving right now up into a space opera cycle. Space opera, of course, is the slang term that writers use to say „rather corny space stories.“

Now, you can do this sometime on a postulate. You can say, „Well, I am that automobile. What's wrong with me? Ah! Now I am myself,“ back off, and you can say, „You know, that thing's got a busted crankshaft.”

These patterns of civilization come about when man, himself less and less powerful, builds more and more powerful gimmicks and gadgets and builds gimmicks and gadgets up to a point where they are capable of totally overwhelming whole societies. And then the whole thing blows up and something or other happens and they start it all in again. And they go through the various barbaric periods and, oh, stone ages and so on, build it on up again and here they go again into the machine age. And then they get into space opera and they start shooting rockets up to the nearest moons and having stuff whiz around Earth and build spaceships with men in them, and then helmets and space.

„Now, you don't have to do it that stupidly mechanically to find out and pervade an automobile. You don't have to go into the valence of the automobile. It is just a method of finding out about it.”

It's very funny that all you've got to say to one of these space opera bent people, so on, is, „I want you to think of something now. Would you mind thinking of something?“ He's busy doing something of the sort, you know, with rockets, you know, or missiles or something like that. And you say, „Think of a cracked space helmet.“

You know, you — a good mechanic can kind of be an automobile. That's right — it's right, you ask them. Yeah, they wouldn't really consider it a funny question if you said, „How does a motor with bad valves feel?“ Before they'd think about it, „Well, it feels kind of gappy and gritty.“

Now, why does he get a headache at that moment? Yet he inevitably does. He's been through it all before.

But your ability to pervade your environment is, of course, a greater ability than your ability to communicate with your environment. Your ability to experience is greater than your ability to confront.

How do we know what is modern? Why do we all agree on what's modern if we haven't seen it? We have. We've seen it all — we've seen a modernistic society before and that's the point it reached, and so forth, and there's where it goes.

If you merely go around confronting the environment and say, „Well, I'll be brave and look at that wall,“ why, that's pretty brave.

Well, these societies move on up into space opera. Of course, it's an interim solution to the society to turn the tensions of governments to outer space, and say, „There's a solar system out there. Go out and conquer it and stop slapping each other up down here.“ That's one of the first big solutions that is handed out to them and that solution was handed out to the governments. And we helped hand it to them within the last three years. We were trying real hard — bringing pressure to bear on the subject and more and more money has finally gotten appropriated in this direction. And the next thing you'll know there will be experimental stations on Venus. I hope the space command doesn't mind.

But for you to say, „Well, I can be that wall,“ boy, that's adventurous. Because if we're busily in a valence, we know Mama could never be a wall. We know that.

But, the course of existence of every one of these space opera societies has been the newer, brighter and shinier it got, the more degraded and hypnotized its people became! And while it went up, its people went out through the bottom.

But how did we get a valence in the first place? We tried to keep separate from somebody else. And we said, „Under no circumstances or conditions will I ever, ever, ever be that other person. Never! Never! Never?“

A sailor of the future in a space fleet: He's sitting in some low dive, swilling yak or whatever he's drinking. Press gang, government warrants come along. They say, „Greetings. You're hereby recruited.“ And they take him along and they put him on board a spaceship, and his indoctrination is being tied down to a bunk. And they shoot him in the arm with some hypnotic drug and a speaker opens up over his head and says, „You are a torpedo man second class.“ Tells him all the duties — „You mustn't associate with officers. You can't escape from the hull. You mustn't exteriorize. Yik-yak, yik-yak, yik-yak.“ Give him all the rules and regulations, lay it in as a total valence and „now-I'm- supposed-to.“ And you've got a sailor.

And you work on that hard enough, you know — separate! separate! „Over there, Satan,“ you know. And next thing you know you run out of separateness. You do! And you're the same thing.

Get their officers the same way. Only they in officers' quarters are told they're an officer — they're a second officer. They'll never be any ... It's all done, you know. Man becomes the machine.

People tend to become what they resist. Why?

And after a while there's every place to go and everything to do but nobody to do it because nobody cares anymore what they do, because there are no people left. And that is the way these societies go. They don't necessarily just blow themselves up.

Well, I gave you the answer yesterday. They won't create the other person, ever! Because it's a bad person. Never create the other person; we don't want that kind of person in the world. So, they make that person persist. And they make that personality persist and they make the most objectionable characteristics of that personality persist. And then they said, „I will never be them,“ and they get totally fixated on it. And the trick is, there's no space anyway, really — space is a mechanism that thee and me dream up. And you can run out of it awful fast.

Well, I know this and I'm sure there are those amongst us who have a good subjective reality on this. Don't you?

Audience: Yes.

You can sometimes get down and say, „There's space between me and it. There's space between me and it. There's space between me and it! Space! Oh, damn.“ Because your space depends on your ability to have anchor points out there. And when you keep on saying, „There are no anchor points out there,“ you're saying there's no space out there. So you're saying, when — „I won't be that person,“ you're disowning an anchor point. And you're not going to have any space between you and that person. That's the way it winds up and you get a valence. It's very tricky the way this thing works out and very complicated, but actually very simple.

And this time let's be different!

A person says, „I'm incapable and unable of being that person. I will not be that person. I'm incapable of it. I'm unable.“ And it all shortens down to the fact „I'm incapable; I'm unable.“ And faced with (quote) „evil characteristics“ and so forth, a person tends to exclude those out of his own area of understanding and therefore they very often persist much better than good characteristics to him. And he goes into valences.

Think of the wonderful thing it would be to have a society totally capable of all scientific developments and thingumbobs and doingnesses and everything else and have at the same time people with judgment, courage and decency enough to handle them! Wouldn't that be wonderful?

Well, let it be enough that you have seen boys going around being girls. Well, what's that but a snap between a guy and a girl?

Audience: Yes.

And you've all occasionally seen girls going around being boys. Well now, what's that? That's a twist-up somehow or another on valences.

Well, are you with me in doing that?

A much more obvious and humorous one: It is very often remarked that „Englishmen resemble their dogs.“ I don't believe that's true, by the way. I believe the dogs resemble the Englishmen.

Audience: Yes.

It's remarkable. You can go down to Hyde Park and watch it if you don't believe it.

Well, we have made very, very good progress over the period of about, actually, twelve years or thereabouts of direct research, in the public view about nine years; abroad and so forth, the view looks about seven or eight years old. Over this period of time we've made considerable progress. Over the last two years we've made considerable progress. Over the last six months we've made enormous progress. We're getting better faster. We're getting more able to get where we want to go quicker.

Valences — valence characteristics have snapped back and forth one way or the other. And trying to maintain an obsessive difference puts identification or similarity totally on automatic.

And I don't think the future will require that we put many billboards alongside the superhighways nor very much on the TV stations or much literature in people's hands because I'm looking in the very, very near future to Scientologists themselves representing in themselves such tremendous gains and advantages that people look at them and say, „Well, that's a Scientologist, of course!“ And that is the best dissemination program we could have. Isn't it?

In other words, one never takes any responsibility for the similarities and runs out all the differences.

Audience: Yes.

Says, „I'm different. I'm a good boy; he's a bad boy.“ Yeah, well one never says, „I'm a bad boy, too,“ you know? Never says, „He's a good boy, too,“ you see? And this thing gets unbalanced — very unbalanced.

Well, my interest is in you. My interest is in the future and my view of the present here in Australia is that it is a very good one. And internationally we have a very good view.

One says, „I'm different, different, different, different, different. Check over the number of ways I am different than Joe. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.“ And one forgets that basically one has trem — as many similarities to Joe as he has differences from Joe and never runs out, as-ises or does anything to those identifications, those similarities. And lets those sit there and so valences can snap. And those are the exact mechanics back of the thing.

I would feel today that if any organization had ever lived through the fire and gotten its chance — if any body of people had ever gotten its chance, this one has.

It's very wrong for one to make an absolute villain out of anybody. There are no absolute villains.

Today we hear occasionally from very uninformed sources — oh, occasional newspaper (quote) stories (unquote). These things are kickbacks from yesterday. Actually there was never a word of truth in any of the stories they wrote, any „scandals“ (unquote) that they ever dug up. Ha!

You go around and talk to the villains and they all say, well, they did it out of the best possible intentions. It's amazing! Your jaw would drop to go and talk to a confirmed killer and find out, well, he just had to do it and the reasons why were all totally justified and nobody seems to understand him. Well, that's his corrupted, twisted, valenced version of „why he did it.“ And that's very, very confusing to us.

It was my lot never to be interviewed by a single reporter about anything from any source until 1955 in England when one re- interviewed me and talked to me and then went back and wrote a very favorable story.

We say, „Well then, a person's good intentions lead him into criminality,“ and so forth. No, they weren't his own intentions at all — they were criminal intentions. He was a valence. He no longer had control of the situation or he would have done quite differently than he did.

Of recent times, the only place in the world where we're hearing any (quote) „bad press“ and so forth is here in Australia. This is a very remarkable thing because they're beating a dead horse. This has all gone, disappeared, there wasn't anything to it. But it's the duplicate program that was launched against Dianetics in the United States in 1950. They're even using the same facts - „facts“!

But the final analysis is ... Some people don't like to hear me run down psychiatrists — they've never been to them. They don't. And one of the things they're trying to do is protect me, really, kind of, from doing some kind of a snap into that much grogginess. Of course, I don't mind being a psychiatrist. I'm certainly not one.

Only this time, unfortunately, the program is going up against organizations that are hanging together because they think it's a good idea. They're going up against Scientologists that are hard to fool. They're going up against processes which can be demonstrated to individuals as highly workable on which they can get very good subjective reality in a very short space of time. They got the wrong target. Just like they got the wrong dope.

And as a matter of fact, it's very amusing to go around and talk to psychiatrists and feel what it'd be like to be guilty of that many overt acts. It's kind of weird.

If they wanted to dig up something scandalous, I could have found them something scandalous. It was probably very truthful. Probably could have found all manner of horrible scandals for them. I'm sure I could have. I don't know why they keep on digging up the same ones, unless they're just not creative! But I don't even feel abashed about those things anymore. They aren't — they're more to be pitied than censored.

But I don't have to be different, you see? And I don't have to be like them, and this problem doesn't come up. But every person as a little child is asked to make up his mind — asked to make up his mind whether he's going to be like Papa or like Mama or dislike Papa or unlike Mama.

Because if we start censoring the press and jumping around, why, we'd wind up by curtailing communication and pressing everything into this and that. Let them talk. Let them talk. Maybe they'll talk themselves into some sense someday.

And I've seen girls around — poor things — they couldn't cook, couldn't sew, couldn't do anything around the house and couldn't work outside and couldn't hold down a job, merely because they „wouldn't be like Mother!“ And Mother unfortunately could cook, sew, work outside, hold down a job. Now, the poor kid's had it! Maybe Mother had lots of ability in a very nasty sort of way. And the little kid had to make up their mind, „I don't want to be like that. I don't want to be this mean to people. And therefore I must discard all those abilities that's Mama.“

Communication will never hurt us but suppression of it will. That's for sure. They can't see anything bad enough to turn anybody against us. But they run a terrible risk — that which you resist ...

And you very often find that Mama did have some nasty characteristics and the child, in trying to avoid those nasty characteristics, has decided not to have any of the good characteristics at all.

The only reason I'd feel bad at all about any of the — some of the press stories and so forth I see coming out — if it's made any of you feel bad or made any of you upset. They certainly haven't any effect on me anymore. I've read them all before and I've seen the guys that wrote them before, now writing little favorable mentions.

All right, this poor little kid grows up, the years go on, gets married and all of a sudden snapped! Still can't cook, sew or anything, but has picked up some kind of semipackage of all the nasty characteristics, and can't work either. And then all of a sudden reforms totally and can cook and sew and work outside and do everything and is nasty to everybody.

The great opponent of Dianetics in the United States was Time magazine and you would have thought Time magazine had been personally insulted and assaulted and called by name the day that book was published in the United States — Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. It was called upon as a committee of one to right this great wrong and to suppress that creation. Time magazine in the next two years gave me personally more space than it gave the president of the United States. And although all of its stories in its early instances were wrong and bad and upside down and twisted and snarling and all of that sort of thing — we got the full collection back in Washington. We made them send them to us.

And the pathetic part of it is, is this person knows this is wrong. This person doesn't feel right. And you ask most people who are having a hard time, „What would you like to be?“ And the usual response is, „I'd like to be myself.“ It's sort of on the order, „If anybody ever dug me up... If I could ever dig me up... The things I'm doing aren't me — who are they?“

And they finally got up to a point where now when the medical profession adopts little pieces of Dianetics — as they are doing today — they adopt this and adopt that, and they adopt the effects of birth on children, and they adopt prenatals, and they adopt parental relationships, and they're creeping up on the more elementary and less valuable parts of Book One at a great rate. And in creeping up on these things, they have quite fairly begun to mention consistently, „As Dianeticist, L. Ron Hubbard, told us years ago, so-and-so of Cornell Medical College has discovered...“

Well, that's very easy to find out on an E-Meter. You can find out who they're being.

And I — although one time — one time they sarcastically said they had had many nominations for me as Man of the Year — and they had had, but they, of course, thought this was very bad. I suppose one of these days, why, they will just have to flip — only it would be too pat if they asked me to be an honorary editor.

And what you do is assess them for this — lifetime valences they've adopted by finding the greatest needle reaction on broad classes, like men, women, go up the dynamics, sort out all the possibles by broad classes and find some class that reacts on the needle more than others. And then that class which reacts more than others, narrow that class down and you'll find the valence which is the most difficult valence of the case to do anything with.

But that is the course of these attacks. All you have to do is — is ho-hum it and carry on one way or the other.

You just narrow it right on down. You could actually exploit the thing I'll give you a better example of how you do it: eight dynamics. And you just take — run the dynamics describing what each dynamic is, not necessarily calling them first dynamic, second dynamic and so forth. Describe each dynamic in turn and find out which one of these seems to fall differently than the rest. And maybe you find suddenly that it's the fifth dynamic „living things.“ „Man“ doesn't fall, nothing else falls, but „living things.“

We had, however, learned a great deal about such attacks and we find out they are basically initiated by people who have things that they themselves never want discovered. And they get so worried about these things being discovered that they'll attack anybody as soon as they feel he is on the real line.

And you'll find out somebody's being a tree. And you just narrow the thing down. You've got living things out of eight possible choices, now you narrow down that one choice by dividing it up into classes: birds, beasts, fish, you know — vegetable matter, animals, whatever it is. And you'll get one of these drop better and if you're real clever on the E-Meter you'll come down and find nut. the person's being a juniper tree! That's factually, factually — I'm giving you an actual case.

If anybody in the world thought we were fakes and it was a lot of bunk, they would never attack us for a minute. Look around you and you'll find all kinds of palmists and fortunetellers and thingamabobs and cults and anything you want to mention. And nobody's busy attacking them. They only attack the real McCoy.

Another actual case that fell on the fifth dynamic one time was a dog The only companion of this little girl had been a dog and the dog hated all dogs. And if you don't think that wasn't a puzzle! She couldn't possibly be a dog because she hated dogs. Yeah, but she was being a dog hating dogs. Got the idea? Yet she was being herself somewhat, but being a dog, but she hated dogs. She couldn't explain this. But some processing knocked out the valence.

And whenever we are attacked it must be from some source that feels we know what we're talking about, and that that constitutes a fantastic menace to their future security because we could find out. And that is something that they must not permit us to do.

And there are numerous ways to get rid of a valence once you've got the thing nailed down.

If you were to say to anybody who suddenly attacked you for being a Scientologist, in a quiet, patient voice — I don't advise you to do this because it's a dirty trick — but if you were to say in a quiet, patient voice — he says, „Oh, that stuff. I understand you're interested in that stuff. What do you mean going along that line? That's a lot of bunk! That's already been blown up for a long time.“ If you just said in a quiet voice, „What is it you don't want found out?“ You'd get a reaction on the other end.

Some of the older ways is „How could you help a dog?“ you see — whatever the valence you found. „How could you help a dog? How could the dog help you?“ That would be one of the very old ways of doing this.

The symptoms of future success are marked by the critics. That we are succeeding here in Australia, that we've already got a show on the road — not that we're just starting one — that we're already winning is signalized by the fact that there are some people around who don't want us to win.

You could go around a five-way bracket, numerous questions. And the person, in finding out how he could help something and how it could help him and so forth, would tend to individuate from this thing and you'd get a separation of valences.

And if nobody was criticizing us at all, I would feel very upset and wondering what you were doing wrong.

That's one of the oldest very good „valence splitters,“ we've called them.

I'm very proud of what you are doing and of all areas in the world — and there are plenty of them — the one I'm proudest of and the one that I believe is most capable of a long-term success is Australia.

There are many others earlier than that, but that one was so good and is so good today that it's the first one actually that you'd consider a very effective valence splitter.

I'm very proud to have been here today and yesterday and talked to you. I hope to see you again. And thank you very much for coming to this congress. You have done me a great honor. And I hope to see a lot more of you.

You locate this valence, you find out what it is, you find out who this person is being. It doesn't matter what you find out — he's being a traffic cop, she's being a — she's being a waitress in a hotel, or — we don't care what it is. Then we run this valence on Help: „How could you help a waitress in a hotel? How could a waitress in a hotel help you? How could other people help a waitress in a hotel? How could a waitress in a hotel help other people?“ and so forth. You do get a valence change. That does change a valence and that was the first very, very effective one. And that was sufficiently effective that it led in — well, it's less than 50 percent of the cases — to what you might call a MEST Clear. It was that good — that good. It did clear off these valences and all the auditor had to do was get in and slug, slug, slug and pick up the next valence and run it and pick up the next valence and run it and finally they'd come down to the first time the person ducked his own identity and assumed another identity, and we call that the Rock.

And so for now, goodbye.

In other words, we eventually found the first time on the track that this happened. But it wasn't for everybody, this series of processes — it still left a lot of people cold.

Help worked on them, but the accompanying process to get rid of the rest of the bank, called Step 6, made the bank more solid and more uncomfortable. And so it wasn't for everybody.

And from that time — that was 1957, late fall when I first broke this out — and from that time on forward, why there have been many advances on this particular lineup and we've been ... We found out something about MEST Clears, by the way, that a MEST Clear still has it in his power to postulate himself into an aberrated condition. That's what happens to MEST Clears.

Person gets cleared up to a certain point — they can postulate, but they haven't learned yet that they can postulate. You get the idea? And before they learn that they can make postulates or make statements, make thoughts, make goals, make dreams, so forth and make these things stick, before they really find this out, they sometimes — this is not in all cases, but in some cases, why, they'll make invalidative postulates.

And they'll say, „Well, I'm not so good. I still have a bank,“ — they got one!

Those that are just on the brink, they can postulate themselves right downhill again rapidly. They never get as bad off as they were, but they can dump themselves over the edge from Clear.

Now, Theta Clear, of course, is more what we're angling for. This is a much more important thing because a Theta Clear is himself and doesn't even have to depend on a body to be himself And that you'd kind of define without any further mechanical ramifications, you'd say, „Well, this person has a body, is living, is identified by a body and is known as a body but doesn't actually have to depend totally upon the characteristic of a body to himself have a personality, ideas or thoughts.“

Got the idea? He knows he is doing the living. He isn't a servant of the lamp or the body, you know. Whether he can go in and out of his head like a dog in and out of a doghouse or something, that's — that's beside the point!

Now, that state is again achieved by the separation of valences and I have found this basic thing about valences: Valences occur because of obsessive separation from — on all dynamics. Obsessive separation.

Person says, „Mustn't-mustn't-mustn't.“ And leave the identification on automatic.

Now, it can go reversewise. A person says, „I am this valence. I am this valence. I am a good boy. Every night before I go to bed I will say, 'I am a good boy“' or „I am a good girl. Every night before I go to sleep, I'll say, 'I am a good girl' twenty times and I'll eventually be a good girl, and I'll be the girl that Mama wants me to be,“ and so forth. And the next thing you know, why, they're out robbing banks. How did that happen?

Well, they went on an obsessive identification. So separation and identification are the two opposites. One is either separate from or identified with or on the verge of becoming either one about the whole universe.

Identification. You look in Book One, Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health you'll see A=A=A=A. Well, that is the story of valences. Anything equals anything.

In other words, „I equal a body.“ See? That's an identification.

„I am Mother.“ See? That's identification.

It's not a correct statement. I don't care if a thetan has a body that has babies, that thetan is not a mother! Look it over for a minute. That thetan is being a mother. Slight difference.

Many a man gets very upset about being a family man because he has to say all the time, „I am a father. I am a father. I am a father. I am a father,“ you know. It's borne down on him completely and continually, „I am a father.“ He's not a father, he's being a father. His role is that of father and he is trying to say he is totally identified with this thing called a father.

Now, if he didn't like his own father, you see, he'll say, „I don't want to be a father,“ and oh, oh, well, here we go, you know. Confusion, confusion, confusion.

But there's those two opposites: separateness and identification. There's a simple process that takes care of that state.

You do the assessment — this is brand — new, never been released, there's not even an HCOB out on it. You find the thing the person is obsessively identifying himself with — the person or thing he is obsessively being — and you will find the thing that he really doesn't want to be, which he is being. Therefore he hates himself or he dislikes himself or he feels degraded. And you find this thing, whatever it is, and then you run a very simple process on it and, of course, a very obvious process on it. You knock out this obsessive „got to be different from it“ that is keeping him in it.

And it runs like this: You say any wording which adds up to, „Tell me something different from this object. Tell me something the same as this object.“ — „Tell me something you do differently from your father“ or „Tell me something you are different in — any difference.“ Any way you want to phrase it. And I'm not giving you any pat command because I want you to understand it.

„Now, tell me something the same as _______. Tell me something different from _______. Tell me something the same as _______. Tell me something different from _______.“ Got the idea?

You could say, „Tell me something that you are different from your father in,“ you see? „Tell me something that you are the same as your father.“

Get the idea? Difference-similarity; difference-similarity; difference-similarity.

Identification is composed of difference and sameness, and by getting both of these plowed out on alternate commands, you can make valences go zzzuppp. And they separate out and all of a sudden the fellow says, „Oh, do I feel degraded.“

You say, „What's the matter?“

„Well, I don't feel like I'm my father anymore.“

[Editor's Note: This small section of the original recording was damaged. Fortunately, another recording of this section of the lecture was located and has been restored to preserve the full text of the lecture.]

You say, „Oh, you feel very, very degraded, do you? Now, why do you feel degraded?“

„Well, I just feel degraded, that's all. I feel like a little kid.“

You've found the point where he lost himself and became the other fellow. You just run the process a while longer and he will at least get back the same morale he had when he was a little kid.

Now, we've got to go a little further than this and find out somebody else he's busily being and chase it down on a new assessment and then run „same“ and „different.“

„Tell me something that's the same as _______. Tell me something different from _______,“ until we get this next valence straightened out. Now we do another assessment and „same“ and „difference“ and we get that, so on.

Now, this particular type of process to an old-time auditor would seem to violate havingness. The individual is losing something, isn't he? He's losing valences; he's losing package responses. And that would seem to be an actual loss.

No, the only valences you'll want and the only valences you'll take off are the things where he's so different from everything else that he can't have anything. And every time you take off a valence or improve the condition of the pc, you improve his havingness because the only way you can have anything is to kind of be able to be it.

For instance, if you're obsessively different from a wall, you certainly can't have the wall. And if you're a valence that can't have walls, you can never have walls. And the thing to do is to take off the valence that can't have walls and even though you've lost the valence, you've got walls now.

It's quite remarkable to find that valences do separate on something as easy as this. There's a great oddity about this: This is specially forbidden in old-time Buddhism. A Buddhist must never think of similarities and identities or separatenesses. He's not supposed to think separatenesses.

Boy, don't tell me some of these religions got into a trap, because that one was certainly a trap. If a person never thinks of separatenesses and never thinks of identities, he certainly can never get out of a valence, can he? And yet that was forbidden in this ancient religion.

But here we have ways and means, then, of finding the person. And the person became somebody else because he himself could no longer be himself because he conceived that he had to be separate from or he had to be the same as. And if you run out both sides of that, of course, you run out the valence.

This is rather terrific — this is rather terrific processing and you'll want to try it out. It takes an E-Meter. It takes something that you run down. It's something that can be done in the HGC. The HGC will be doing that here in Melbourne very shortly — this week.

You have to trace it out and find exactly what the thing is and then get all the reasons why, you might say, the fellow couldn't be it and had to be it. And the second that's all off, he breathes a sigh of relief and becomes that much more himself

Of course, it takes some nerve to do this because somebody sitting there well provided for with a fairly successful valence sometimes feels like he's taking his valence in his hands! And here we go.

One of the more difficult factors in running this just comes up against that. Whenever a person moves out of a valence, he moves into a feeling of degradation for the first few little times that he's tentatively being more himself

All the degradation there is on a case is on self. And it starts coming off the second they start getting rid of valences.

That's one of the reasons you hate to see people go away, because you see somebody go away and you instantly feel that you're kind of degraded. Did you ever notice that? Well, that same sensation of loss will overtake a person for a few commands after he starts to lose Papa.

You know, he hated Papa's guts. If he'd — and yet, there goes Papa, you know, and — not too sure that's a good thing, you know. Because a little boy needs Papa! And then there goes the valence.

Well, I hope that information is of some use to you. And I wanted to have some new material to give you here at this congress so I carefully kept that one suppressed from the time I have learned it and handed it over to you.

You won't think it's very good until you watch a pc's face start changing — „Well! Came in Papa in one session and went out Mama.“

Well, thank you very much, and I'll be talking to you shortly.

[End of Lecture]