[Start of Lecture]

[Start of Lecture]

Thank you.

Okay. We have some discussion concerning the rudiments, control and ARC.

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!

But first, before we go into that, I have a joke on you good people. I have a joke. The entire last lecture was devoted to the fact of nonrelatedness and nonsignificance of putting it there and perceiving it. Got this now? I merely talked about there was thereness and perception, and these were nonrelated factors. Then you could go ahead and add to them, if you wanted to, but the isness of that is the isness of that, and that is all the isness of that there is. See?

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.

And I've had, since, a half a dozen questions which wanted to know the moreness! So I want to tell you, first and foremost, that the relatedness, and so on, of a mock-up is zero. It is! See? And you perceive it. And if you can get a preclear simply to put it there and perceive it and just knock off any additives — see, this is not particularly workable; it's just a fact — why, if you can do this without any additives whatsoever, you got it made. Got that?

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.

Now, the only thing that gets difficult about processing is the degree of complexity which is required. And yesterday, after the lecture and so forth, I got a considerable number of additives to this fact. Because since the lecture was about, directly, the isness of a mock-up and there are no additives — see, it just is.

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.

And after its isness, why, then you could put on additives and cross-relations and associations and so forth. But a mock-up simply is, and the perception of it is simply the perception of it. And that is all there is to it. Now, we add: Is it good or bad, artistic, perfect or imperfect or... You can add things, you see? „What is the significance of what we have just done?“ Well, the significance of what we have just done, which is the deadliest and most important significance, is that a mock-up is. You see, it just is.

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?

It is not an illusion. One does not think he sees it. You get the idea? One does not suppose, in some peculiar way, that he is deluding himself, that it's a hallucination, that energy then isn't. You know? These are all additives. It simply is.

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.

You look around, you see the universe. There's the universe and it is. Now, the significances of how it is and where it goes and what it does after that, that is quite interesting, that is very fascinating. But these are all significances. Basically, the universe is.

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.

Now, the only joke I had was that obviously I didn't make my point. I didn't make my point, because my point simply was, there is the mock-up and now we have to cross-associate and add significance to have anything more than simply the isness of a mock-up.

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!

And to get a preclear to just abruptly put a mock-up there and say that it is and that he perceives it and just get him to do that without any postulates or anything else — you know, just no additives of any kind — well, it'd practically be the end of his case. See that? But it, again, is too complicated. I mean, it's too complicatedly simple, you see? The joke was that I was immediately handed some additives.

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.

All right. Now, let's look at this. Let's look at this. This is an evaluation of importance. Now, it comes under this heading: What is the most important datum about a mock-up? The mock-up! Got it? What is the most important datum about perception? Perceiving, of course! Just that.

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.

Now actually, it is not on a logical chain. There is no logical chain connected with it. But a logical chain can be connected with it, and you can pretty this thing up in the most wild and peculiar ways that you ever wanted to see.

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.

For instance, the most powerful motor I ever saw was a Fiat. Way back when. I don't know what year that Fiat was. There's undoubtedly people around here that are experts on this so I wouldn't — authorities — so I wouldn't venture. But this Fiat had been made sometime shortly after World War I — this motor — and it merely consisted of four huge barrels. And I don't know how they got as simple as they did, but all it was for, all it was supposed to do was supposed to take in some gasoline and explode it and turn a crankshaft. See? And there just wasn't anything beyond that. It was an internal-combustion engine that did just that.

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.

The way it fed its gasoline in was ghastly as far as economy is concerned, but it was certainly simple. When the thing went down it pulled almost whole gasoline into the chambers from small pipes. This is a very fascinating engine. And that thing was the doggonedest, goingest engine I ever cared to look at in my life.

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.

Some boys got some railroad rails and they put them on some axles, and they decided that wasn't heavy enough so they got a whole bunch more railroad rails and put them along there too, you see, in order to get enough ballast to hold this thing down, and put some wheels on it and mounted them.

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.

Well, they did an interesting job of putting this thing together. They had a nice heavy chassis, and it was sitting there and everything. And it just never would do anything else but run them into any handy ditch because it went too fast, too suddenly. The gas was fed quite directly into cylinders. The vaporization in it, I suppose, was noticeable, but you could burn almost any kind of gas in it, I suppose. It ran best on aviation gas. The oiling system on it was very, very peculiar; it had big cups, and you put oil in the cups and the cups dropped oil onto everything else. Here was simplicity. Here was simplicity. It had tremendous horsepower.

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.

Now, an even simpler engine than that was an old Frisco Standard. They were a two-cycle engine; they ran around 1912. And you see them occasionally still in fish boats. These things have never worn out. They consist of one cylinder, one gasoline-injection device, one crankshaft, you know, one bearing, and they fire every time. You see, they come up and they go down and they fire. Not four-stroke but a two-stroke engine. Those things are powerful. They're huge. You could throw a Great Dane through one of those cylinders, you know? It's just one cylinder sitting there. But, of course, they had to have an enormous flywheel to keep that thing turning over through its dead spots and so on; and it has one. But hardly anybody can make one of those things stop. If they get started it then becomes a contest of wit to stop one because there's so little that you can regulate.

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.

Now, compare that to a modern Alfa Romeo or something. I don't know, eight blowers on a side or... These complicated modern engines are turning up enormous horsepower for their weight; that is for sure. But you try to follow the lines and so on, that lead here and there and do this and that — I imagine mechanics today just look at one of those things that comes in and call up the local watchmaker. It must be a very difficult job to keep one in repair and running.

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.

I had a mediumly complicated engine, a two-and-a-half liter Jaguar, and that was a very peculiar engine. It ran beautifully, it ran splendidly, if it was set just right. Very delicate. Very high compression, so on. Just right, it just ran wonderfully if you ran it exactly at 95 degrees centigrade. I don't know what 95 degrees centigrade is. I imagine it's about 199 degrees Fahrenheit. It's up there close. If it ran too cold it didn't run. And if it ran too hot it spat out its con-rods. But if you could adjust it just right it ran wonderfully. Got the idea?

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.

As you go into complexity — there are many better examples than internal-combustion engines — but as you go into complexity you do not necessarily go into workability. It's not necessarily true that as you move into simplicity you move into action either. There is a certain level of complexity demanded for any maximal efficiency.

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 there is every reason to believe that this level of simplicity demanded is almost always exceeded by man. He does not try to simplify, he tries to complicate. And the action of complication follows the curve create-survive-destroy. As we look at that curve, we see from this point of „It is,“ you see, the isness of this mock-up and the fact of its perception — just got that; just no more than that — the isness of the mock-up and the fact of its perception. See, there's no additives there. We only get a curve by adding complexities. In order to make it survive now we start adding complications to this isness. In order to destroy it we usually add many, many more.

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."

Actually the destruction of a mock-up is simply its isness and perception. It begins right where it ends. That you get in perfect duplication. You know about perfect duplication in The Creation of Human Ability: You make a perfect duplicate of anything, it'll disappear. Well, of course, what is a perfect duplicate? That is the isness of its creation. It is; we perceive it. So if we say, „It exactly is,“ and we exactly perceive it, it isn't. See, it already exists; we really run out what we just did and it disappears. That's a perfect duplicate.

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.

But why doesn't the thing have persistence? That's because it hasn't got any place to „went,“ and because it doesn't have any future to go into; it is. Don't you see? We have to invent past and future as the first invention to get off the first point of the cycle of action. Now we start moving up into more creation and more survival and more destruction, and we do this by adding. It's an additive process.

You say, "What are you boys doing now about the gamma radiation from TV tubes?"

Now evidently, destruction is a subtractive process. Everybody thinks it is. But the type of destruction which is utilized in this modern world is additive. Man, they certainly leave debris around! Now, let's take the atom bomb. You say the atom bomb is a great destructive weapon. I don't know that it is even a weapon. In fact, I doubt that it is a weapon. Not from a standpoint of its industrial use, but it just isn't a good military weapon. It is insufficiently directive. It's like using gas in a high wind which is liable to shift in any moment. It just is not a weapon. It's liable to affect your own personnel more thoroughly than the enemy personnel. You're liable to get all sorts of complications in using it as a weapon.

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.

But we take this thing called the A-bomb or the H-bomb, fission, fusion, and we do destruction with it. And now we get additives nobody can solve. You see? We get various compounds and derivatives and et ceteras that are far more complicated than the original ingredients. It's very wonderful. I mean, how much more complicated things get the moment we explode one of these things. And yet obviously when we explode the bomb we have no bomb. See, the bomb is now gone, it's exploded. But what have we got left? Wow!

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, man believes that when he destroys something it disappears, and therefore, he is totally uneducated — he's at an educational level, let me say, inadequate to the handling of destruction. Because the more he destroys something the more difficult he may find the situation. As we seek to destroy things we're liable to add complications to the situation.

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, man himself is adding these. It isn't a phenomenon of nature or something like that. Man adds these complications all by his little lonesome with no assistance whatsoever. He is on this kick of addition, additives, more of it, more complexity, to such a degree that if it didn't make complications he'd invent some for it to make.

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.

Let's look at what happens when we attempt to destroy a person in this society. We shoot the person. Probably the randomity occasioned by this would consume several hours of the day. One would have to do many other things after he shot the person. Then ensues the Dragnet television drama of rounding up the killer, and then the comedy of a fast and speedy trial as called for in the Constitution that drags on for two or three years. And this complications, complications, complications. And eventually there's difficulties concerning the execution of the murderer. And not only that, but having executed one of its citizens, the government of those citizens is now in more trouble than it was before, because it's now executed somebody, which is a crime of murder, after all. There's the difficulty of the disposition of the body.

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.

But the disposition of the engram is just left up to happenstance. In other words, one never did do anything but add, from the moment he sought to remove somebody from the environment, straight on forward. It's quite interesting that I don't think any living being or any living thing can be wiped out with total impunity. It's not possible. There are always consequences. Man would have it that way. Because he wants consequences, and he gets complexities.

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.

Let's look it over now. He wants consequences. They are protective consequences, and so forth. He wants to be safeguarded, he wants certain things and certain parts of the game to stay in certain grooves. And so what does he do? What does he do? Right straight along the line, what does he do? Just adds complexities. More of them he gets, why, the more of them he has and the more complicated he will make those things.

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.

You couldn't possibly come out with some little square box that you would plug into your house circuit which would give you current from there on out and sell it for a dime. You couldn't do this. This is a fantastically simple thing. It'd be some sort of a little box that was inexhaustible, and it maybe had very simple constructions, and it'd be plugged into your house circuit, and there would be juice from there on out. Now, you think that would be very nice and there wouldn't be anything to this at all. But the funny part of it is, introduction of that much simplicity brings — in the anxiety of man to get along the cycle of action — brings almost immediate chaos.

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.

The more simplicity you try to introduce, the greater the chaos which is liable to ensue. It's a little law involved with it. Of course, if you did that you could look at the expanding spiral, just in the field of economics, of what would happen if everybody started to plug in one little box into the light lines which furnished him with all the light he needed from there on out. We say, „Well, it couldn't possibly affect us because all it would affect would be the power company.“ No, the power company has stock; the power company owns real estate; the power company owns the Federal Reserve Bank; the Federal Reserve Bank owns the government... And here we go! See? We're on some concatenative chain.

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?

Now, the trick is, then, to achieve a simplicity which does not then fit on any logical sequence. Got that? The moment you could move off, totally off, of a logical sequence, then you could have a simplicity. And so we get the invention of death, exteriorization after, and a new life.

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?

It's against the law practically to... In fact, you couldn't possibly sue somebody who died last year for the debt he owes you. You could sue his estate, but you couldn't sue him. Even if you isolated him. Even if you found out that this little baby now over in the Jones family was actually Bill Kraft, and he owed you 8,642 dollars and you waited for Bill (now Jones) to grow up to his majority. And even if he inherited a large amount of money in the Jones family in some fashion, and you sued him for it, everybody would conspire to knock this thing silly. Because they have a complexity invented called continuance in death, and you are seeking to wreck a complexity by being very simple. You're saying, „Bill Kraft is Bill Jones.“ No, they want a complexity of identity. There must be identity changes. Do you see how this is? The society is set up, then, to follow along certain complicated lines and it tends, normally, to make them more complicated.

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?

All right. What's this got to do with a preclear? Well, it has everything to do with a preclear. The preclear is hellbent along a curve called create-survive-destroy and if not processed off that curve or in some other direction, he will destroy himself, even with good auditing. Be alert to that. Be alert to that.

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.

He'll follow that curve from simplicity to complexity no matter what you do. Now, he'll get a cognition, let us say. He gets a cognition, and he sails along with this cognition. Now he adds something to this cognition; he adds something else to this cognition; he adds something else to this cognition. And he's finished the auditing you've given him. He's gone his way and so on. He's had this cognition. Now he will add, add, add, add, add, add, add, add, add. If you yourself have not broken him off of this curve to some degree, if you have not reversed this direction, if you have not boosted him into some kind of a cognition that he can accept some simplicity, you simply will have aided and abetted his hellbent career along this cycle of action into a destruction of one kind or another. Do you see that?

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.

Now, the simplicity which he can achieve then becomes our study, not the complexity. As far as ability is concerned, we do not want to know how many balls he can balance on the tip of his nose. This we do not want to know. That's a complexity, you see. We want to know if he's got a nose. See that?

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!

Now, it actually would probably be easier to establish an ability to balance three balls on the end of his nose than (without Scientology) to establish the fact that he had a nose. See that? So it requires a simple technology — and Scientology is basically a simple technology, in spite of the complexities which it apparently gets into sometimes — to cut back through this morass of complexity.

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, there are three ways to handle a black panther. Three ways: One, attack him. Two, avoid him. Three, neglect him. Three ways you can do it. Of course, avoiding him also includes running away from him. We used to erroneously call this the Black Panther Mechanism. The Black Panther Mechanism, we thought, was simply „Neglect it,“ and it became synonymous with „Neglect it.“ Actually, it all came out of this story in Book One about three ways to handle a black panther.

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.

Now, what would happen if you neglected the complexities of a case? It's a very interesting question. You better look it over. You better look it over very well. What would happen if you just abandoned or neglected the complexities of the case?

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?

Male voice: He'd make it more important. You'd get sidetracked.

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.

Male voice: He'd simply persist on the create-survive-destroy.

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.

Male voice: He's going to bring them up even sharper to get you to look at it and say, „This is effect.“

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?

Female voice: I think he'd move quite — right along quite well.

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."

Well... Well, it's a funny thing, but it's the preclear and his body that make everything there is complex there. And there's a possibility that if you don't get him to make them, they won't ever be made.

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.

Let's look at this very carefully. You have to process as though you were adding complexities — do you get the lie? — in order to add a simplicity. Now, there's a fundamental formula. That's very fundamental. That's more fundamental than any process we are using at this moment. More fundamental. In that way you achieve simplicity. That is the fundamental of modern auditing. That comes under games conditions. It satisfies all sorts of things. To state it differently, you go at it as though you're going to make it so complicated nobody can do it, you see, and just throw him the curve of simplicity continually.

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.

How would you go about such a thing? You want him to touch a wall. That's a simple action. You're trying to get him the isness of the wall; the wall is there and he is perceiving it. You add a games condition anytime you make the preclear do it. The common denominator of a games condition is cause-distance-effect, which backs him along the create-survive-destroy curve. Now, if you can get him to do a cause-distance-effect, then you back him up toward create. See? They're parallels. They're curves, you might say. You get him to do cause-distance-effect.

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.

Now, the rule actually is, is anything that's happening to him you get him to do. That is a general rule. And allowing for the simplicity-complexity pattern or mechanism you can then effect almost anything you want to with the preclear, allowing for his acceptance level of complexity. It's cause-distance-effect. That is what you process with the preclear sitting at cause, so on.

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.

Two cause-distance-effects are in existence at all times. The preclear is doing a cause-distance-effect upon his environment and the bank, and the auditor is doing a cause-distance-effect upon the preclear. This is a simultaneous action. Preclear actually doesn't too well notice the auditor's cause-distance- effect. He has a tendency to ignore that as a causative thing because the interest of the auditor is in the preclear, which gives the preclear the idea of cause too, you see? But the truth of the matter is, the auditor is doing a cause-distance-effect on the preclear; the preclear is doing a cause-distance-effect on his bank and the world around him.

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.

Then that tells you that we wouldn't have the preclear run himself as a victim unless we ran him causing himself to be the victim. You got it? So you could even run him as the victim by having him cause the victimization. But this is not a victim situation. You got it?

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."

So the basic fundamental we use is this thing we call a games condition. We process a games condition. A games condition is no effect on the preclear, total effect on the environment. To achieve what? A total effect on the preclear.

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!

Now, we have just stated, in a slightly more precise or mathematical way, the first thing: In order to make it simple, make it more complex. They're not parallel statements; they don't substitute one for the other. One is what you do, and the other is how you do it.

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, look-a-here: The amount of complexity which a preclear can achieve will always exceed your imagination. That's a safe rule. It's not at all true, but it's a safe rule. Got it? Amount of complexity which he can assume — always exceed the auditor's imagination. It's a safe rule. Because he's doing it unknowingly, he's had seventy-six trillion years to dream these things up, he's got them all in his hip pocket and Lord knows where he's been and what he's done on the track. And all of it sums up to this: How to be complicated.

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!

Well, now, a body can't breathe unless it has lungs. Why not? Well, it can't breathe unless it has air, and the air has to go into the lungs and the air has to be distributed through the bo-- I want to know what the devil this air is doing in here. How'd the air get in here? Oh, well, you have to have air. That's so you get combustion with something or other so you'll have heat! Oh, heat now! Uh-huh. Well, all right. Well, how do you get heat? Well, the food he eats. Hey, now wait a minute; we're off on to food! You get some sort of an idea of this?

Oh, unfortunately it does. Unfortunately it does, very definitely.

To have something fall you have to have gravity. That's an interesting thing to have. What do you have to have, to have gravity? Well, you have to have a planet, of course. You do? Well, to have a planet, you see, you've got to have space and a universe, naturally. Oh, wow! Not really! You mean a fellow just can't say „Gravity“ and have gravity? Yes, I'm afraid he can; he can say „Gravity“ and have gravity. But this exceeds his desire for complexity.

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.

Now, what do we mean by all this complexity? We could mean just game. We could mean just game and that's all. He wants more game, more problems. And they're not good for him!

"Oh, yes! When did you get out of college?"

We're in the position of threatening to give the preclear all the ice cream he can possibly eat, but because it would, and we know it would make him deathly ill and knock him off ice cream forever, why, we give him the bare spoon and convince him he can create the ice cream. You got the idea? He feels better afterwards. It's quite interesting that the auditor seeks to achieve a greater simplicity by inviting the preclear to do it in a more complicated fashion.

"Oh, uh... I got out of college in '48 and, uh... I haven't been well since."

Now, I'll give you one of the ideas of this: „Invent a worse situation.“ Now, this is a rather fabulous process — just that process all by itself; „Invent a worse situation.“ It's a sort of a common denominator of all processes.

"Well, what's been wrong with you?"

He said, „Oh, I'm having a terrible lot of trouble with my girlfriend.“

"Oh, nothing, I've just been tired."

You say, „Well, could it be any worse?“

"Oh, you've just been tired, huh? Nothing seriously wrong then?"

„Well, I don't see how it possibly could be.“

"Oh, no. I take it easy. I get along all right."

„Well, you invent a worse situation.“

This isn't the type of public illness which runs at once to the doctor.

And after a while he has worsened it sufficiently that he can look at it as a simplicity. It no longer is a complicated problem. Why? You satiated his appetite for complexity. Just as easily as that. „You invent a worse situation,“ you've said, „than this situation you have with your girlfriend.“

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?

Now, a problem of incomparable magnitude is an interesting mechanism. You know that you can find a problem of comparable magnitude to every fundamental, single data in this universe by a problem of incomparable magnitude as a process. Why does that work? Well, it works very simply: He's trying to suppress the unimportance of his problem. You ask him for a problem of incomparable magnitude, and he has to think of the problem he has as far more important than it is in order to think up something far less important than the problem. You get the idea? He has to throw out his evaluation of that problem. That's what happens. So problem of comparable magnitude and problem of incomparable magnitude aren't actually comparable processes. Problem of incomparable magnitude is incomparably superior.

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?

Now, I'll tell you one of the data ways this is used. This is actually usable in research. We ask somebody for a problem of incomparable magnitude to time. He can give us tons of them. Incomparable magnitude to time? Wow! That's easy, simple. Nothing wrong with this. Easy to run. And all of a sudden he'll come up with a problem of comparable magnitude to time. Ah, but you say at this moment that there is no such thing. Yes, there is. There are many problems of comparable magnitude to time. But you cannot get the preclear to think of them directly.

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.

Now, that is a simple comparison; problem of comparable magnitude is a simple comparison. You ask for a non-simple comparison; you ask for incomparable magnitude. Now, boy, that takes it around about four more vias, don't you see? He has to look at time, and he has to look at something or other, and he has to compare these two. And then he has to make sure that they are not of comparable magnitude, and then he has to say they are not. And the next thing you know he achieves the simplicity of a problem of comparable magnitude to time.

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.

Now, that's quite interesting because that is more than any philosopher has ever done in this history of this planet. It's quite a stunt. You get your sixty-nine-IQ preclear into getting problems of comparable magnitude to time; that's pretty good. You mean there are other data as important as time? Well, you devaluate the importance of time as a datum and you devaluate the whole causative action of time. Time ceases then to be a causative action.

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.

Preclear is cause. Why is a preclear cause? Well, he achieved something as complex as time. He did it on a via. We don't ask him to solve time, we ask him to get a problem of incomparable magnitude to time. He finally comes up with a problem of comparable magnitude to time. We ask him still for problems of incomparable magnitude to time; he will eventually come up, on this fantastic number of vias, to a problem of comparable magnitude to time and then eventually a problem superior to time.

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.

Now, you think at once, space being such a dominant thing in a universe of this character... You can actually get any preclear — if he can be held into session, if he's workable at all — to find problems of comparable magnitude to space. He actually can find things that are of comparable importance, quite brilliantly. In other words, you're off on a track of inventing up a whole new universe. And you do that by a problem of incomparable magnitude to space. Incomparable magnitude, however stated. You could say, „No matter what you think of time, give me a problem now which is infinitely less important than your worry about time.“

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, what is this? We can get him to get a problem of comparable magnitude to space. We can get him to invent. And if we can get him to invent we can get him to create. If you were to take all the stable data of Scientology, one right after the other, you would find that you could do a substitution. And it becomes a Substitution Process, which is the simplest process of all. And on a look at it, just as processes go, on a solid front of comparison, we find out that if you can just substitute — he thinks A is important — if we can substitute B for A with as great an importance, then B and A are first equally important and then, of course, A ceases to be as important as B. Grading and value. You want somebody to go out of this universe, zoom? He'll certainly go out.

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."

Now, how does this effect this thing called a stable datum? Stable datum is terribly important here because you can only get him to shift his stable data by showing him that he can create data as stable. And therefore, problems of incomparable magnitude to any stable datum as listed in Scientology walks a person straight out of the universe. This is one of the more fantastic actions that can be taken. You've asked for something very much more complicated than a datum of comparable magnitude. That is a simple comparison. You ask for a problem of incomparable magnitude — a problem not nearly as important; a problem anyway you want to state it — and you'll get the whole substitution mechanism carrying forward neatly and smoothly. And the next thing you know, you've got it.

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.

Now, just take time, space, energy, mass — take the entirety of the sixth dynamic: problem of incomparable magnitude to radiation; problem of incomparable magnitude to gamma rays; problem of incomparable magnitude to the past. These are big data. These are the fixed data of the track. Now, why are they fixed data of the track? Because there's only one of them. We have a law that fits in there: A datum becomes important by its absence of a comparable datum. Got that? Fixed data. Now the fixing and unfixing of attention and data itself then compare in these two things. Right?

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!

Now, I'm just giving you an example here of how we go about this. Let's look at this far more simply. There is a simpler process than this. That's just make the preclear do something simple, and add the complexity by threatening to kill him if he doesn't! You got it? That's not always the most therapeutic process, but it's certainly direct. We say, „Touch that wall.“

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.

Now, the complexities tend to run away and so forth, because you won't let him create them; you make him neglect them. And if they are neglected then they aren't created. Actually, 8-C is apparently a much tougher process than many figure-figure processes because of its fantastic simplicity.

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.

Now, of course, you can keep it from being too simple in the preclear's eye by permitting him to be awfully significant about it. The actual truth of the matter is you're merely demanding that his obsessive creation of complexities cease and desist at this moment, that he walk over to the wall, that he touch the wall, that he let go of the wall, that he turn around and see another wall, that he walk over to it. You got it? Wow! You're saying, „Cease and desist. No more complexity. No more complexity.“ And if you run it so that he's really there and in session, and he can't wiggle sideways from you, and he can't think of anything else to amuse himself as he walks, you've had it as far as the preclear is concerned. He's going to get over it or die in the attempt!

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.

Well, you get two breeds of cat: You cater to the mechanism of complexity with a problem of incomparable magnitude; you neglect it utterly — just let complexity go by the boards and insist on simplicity. And there's even another way to go about it: Just keep telling the preclear not to get complicated; tell him to avoid it. In other words, you could go on with long discussions about how he wasn't to get complicated and so on. See that? He'd have to look at complexities in order not to get them. He'd have to do all sorts of interesting things.

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?

Now, there are two techniques on Connectedness which are terribly interesting to the auditor. They're both game-condition techniques. They are apparently quite similar. One is „Look around here and find something you wouldn't mind making connect with you.“ This, by the way, is a fine process. It is amongst the best. Fascinating process.

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.

There is a more complicated version which runs out his complexities. The first one merely exteriorizes him, rather directly, and makes him neglect his body and everything else. If anything, it's too direct on some cases. So you say, „What wouldn't you mind making connect with you, on how many vias?“ „What wouldn't you mind making connect with you?“ And then, „How many vias can we get in there?“ And you'll find out that the case runs more longly and more smoothly and runs out many more things and settles down eventually at its own speed to a direct connection. More self-determinism involved in that process. See? I don't care which one you use.

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.

The 8-C Connectedness version is fascinating: „Look around here, find something you wouldn't mind make connect with you.“ Bang! See, just boom! And they go out of their heads rather easily if there's any reality on what they're doing at all. But if there is no reality on it, „On how many vias?“ puts the reality into the process. You downscale for complexity to get the reality. You got that as a process? Hm?

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?

All right. Now, why have I been going into this under the terms of rudiments and auditing procedures and so on? Well, it's just because an auditing session is too damned simple for most preclears, and — I hate to say it — for many auditors.

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.

The rudiments exist in this fashion: There's an auditor, there's a preclear, there's an environment. One, two, three. Those are the rudiments. But get the simplicity of their establishment, the fantastic simplicity of establishment here: You just say „Auditor. Preclear. Environment!“ and, of course, he's on his way. Naturally.

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.

Except that's what's wrong with his case: There's nobody else alive in the world, he isn't in any environment and he isn't present. That's the totality of wrongnesses as far as the case is concerned, don't you see, unless you get awfully significant and very additive to it. He isn't where he is: Well, that's an error in environment. He isn't who he is, so that's an error in personality. And the person that is with him is somebody else, if he's there at all. But this is the working atmosphere of this preclear.

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!

Now, if all you knew about auditing was this — establish the auditor, establish the preclear and establish the environment — and you insisted on these three things occurring from there on out, from the beginning of the session to the end of the intensive, I am very much afraid that you would have achieved just about all the gain possible. You see the possibility of that? I just give it to you as a possibility.

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.

So just move the auditing situation as a synthetic situation into a real situation, and you've got it made. You've got it made: He can recognize that somebody else is present; he does recognize that he is in an environment; he does know who and what he is. And, of course, you would have a Clear on your hands and that would be that. You could almost state it as a definition of. It'd be a person who knows where he is, when he is there, who he is and who he's with. That's getting awful simple though, isn't it? Hm? But your auditing situation is a synthesis of life. It's an artificial livingness. Well, how come it's artificial? Why don't you just then proceed forward and make it real? Then you would see an auditing situation in every person you contacted anywhere. It doesn't just put you on „always audit.“ Doesn't put you into an always audit. What other kind of a situation is there in this universe? Well, there's the fellow by himself and the environment around him, and the fellow by himself and the environment around him and other people. But is there such a situation as the fellow by himself with the environment around him? How are you going to get out of an auditing situation? Now, I'm being overly simple, I'm sure. But yet anytime you become somebody's auditor out in the society at large, boy, do you win! I mean, the situation becomes under control at once, if you really do it smoothly. It's a fantastic thing.

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.

I even had it pulled on me once. I was arguing with a Scientologist about something or other and he all of a sudden woggle-woggled me an auditing command. He did! He threw me an auditing command. He did it by accident. I immediately became aware of this fact that this guy was not fighting with his weapons. I'm unfortunately usually without opponents — people don't fight with me for some reason or other; doggone it. But he slid one in and I was at once aware of the fact that if he had proceeded along that line just about two more sentences, that would have been that as far as the argument was concerned. In the first place, I couldn't have kept a straight face. He was feeling a little bit desperate, and he was trying to throw himself into the situation he invariably is able to control, which is an auditing session, see? He was cutting for cover. And he was just discombobulated enough to throw out an auditing command. But it had such impact that I was fascinated with the thing.

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?

So I watched this thing — so I watched this thing — and I found out that there hardly is any argument or fight involved that a couple of auditing commands thrown into wouldn't blow up. That's a fascinating thing, then. That's a fascinating thing. So you aren't just learning about auditing, you're learning about this thing called a person, another person and the environment. Right? Those are the three.

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.

Now, it isn't always true that an individual should, at all times, be in control of his environment. That is not necessarily true at all. Do you realize, if that were true, no motion-picture image would ever unfold before you on the screen; you would simply stop the projector. See? Because you don't control that which entertains you. You have to be able to make things controlled or leave them uncontrolled at will. And the definition of good control is to control or to leave totally uncontrolled at will. That's the two sides of control. Neither one is more important than the other. They are both important.

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.

To be able to do either of those two things at your own determinism determines the happiness and success of your own life. And that's for sure. To control or leave uncontrolled anything in your environment at will. Boy, this is really superman stuff, see? You would certainly exteriorize at will. You're busily controlling the body and all of a sudden you don't control the body. Well, you would be elsewhere if you weren't controlling the body at all. Do you see that clearly?

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."

However, for the purposes of auditing session and getting along in a rather aberrated world, you should be able to control or leave uncontrolled the people you are with. You control them while you yourself are talking to them, and you leave them uncontrolled when they're talking. And we have it as a two-way comm, and then we have some interchange and randomity in existence, and so it becomes livable. In other words, when we're talking to them, why, we have control and when we're not talking to them they have control. And that's all. And if you're satisfied with either side of this — how fascinating — people never worry you anymore. That is the end of people as a concern, see? Got 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.

Two-way comm consists of an ability to do this. And where people fail on two-way comm, they can't do this. See? Got it? For instance, a person almost never can speak effectively to people unless he is totally willing to leave them uncontrolled and let them speak to him. See? You see at once a little factor that interjects there: A person who is afraid of an audience cannot control one. See? That's obvious. Well, that's just low ARC, isn't it?

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.

And we have the totality of ARC regulated by the degree that the control formula is followed. An individual who is willing to control others and willing to leave others totally uncontrolled... You understand, I didn't say, „Be controlled by others.“ This doesn't necessarily follow in there at all. It's still cause-cause basis; he's willing to control others or leave others totally uncontrolled, at which time, of course, he would or is liable to fall under some control of others. But if he can control others, this control then could be thrown off at will.

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.

Now, this individual, then, experiences varying emotions in comparison with his ability to perform this. His ability to control others and to leave others totally uncontrolled — from an auditing standpoint, of course, assumes that others will inevitably, from time to time, control him — rather establishes the amount of ARC there is in the environment. Remember I said willingness to control.

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, let me assure you there's practically no ARC involved in a situation where an individual is totally unwilling to control anybody around him. Funny part of it is, it may sometimes look a little bit like ARC. If you dig at it a little bit it is, however, apathy. And things go apathetically in his environment. See that? ARC is monitored by control, factors of.

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.

Now, I don't mean to tell you that control is more important than ARC. That is not what I said. I said control monitors ARC. ARC can be too, you know; you simply postulate it or carry it along at that level and it is. But with a cross-exchange we find out that control can monitor it. And you know that you're liable to have a better ARC with a positive control, even in one direction, than a no-control situation. That would be a horrible shock for somebody in churches and back in the Dear Souls Area, and all that sort of thing, to realize.

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.

They wonder why the country went mad the other day and voted for some person that has just been doing nothing but cut comm lines for the U.S. He's having one hell of a time. Now, why did they?

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've studied this whole fact of bad government. I've made a very thorough study of bad government here in the last two years. Had ample opportunity to do so, not just on our own scene, but in many areas and scenes. (Last three years, I should say more accurately.) I've studied this historically, and I've been fascinated to discover something which is evidently an indisputable fact: What we normally would look at with a careless glance and consider a bad government inevitably lasts longer than a good one.

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.

We could add this up, if we didn't know any Scientology, in lots of ways. We could say at once, well, people are so thirsty for overt acts that they immediately buy this, or people are so hungry to be knocked around, or they're all masochists. No, this isn't so. No, a government which will exercise positive control over a people is better than a government which will not. But when a government really does exercise control over a people, being a pretty aberrated organization, it's normally conducting its affairs, here and there and spottily, in a rather brutal way.

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.

The government really doesn't come up very high on the Tone Scale when it begins to control people. It's too disinterested; it's too... it divides the people off into masses — there's masses and there's us, and so forth. But those governments on Earth which have not controlled people but just hoped prosperity would happen, or something of this sort, have been brief and have ended unhappily, rather uniformly, for the last two thousand years. This is a very broad study.

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.

Why, for instance, does the rottenest government Constantinople ever formed last fifty-three years, and then they get an heroic leader — a good boy, nothing wrong with this fellow at all, evidently, pals with everybody — and he lasts a year and a half? Well, this fellow might have been pals with everybody, but he did not reach out to the degree that he should have to have controlled the entire population of the area.

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.

The government that was so lousy, was so bad, in spite of its mechanisms and so forth, still was exerting a positive control. It was enforcing its laws. Its laws were not to be sidestepped. Those laws existed. The game was there, the lines were rigid. And no matter how bad conditions apparently were or no matter what terrible consequences resulted from this control, the people wanted that before they wanted a no-control situation.

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...

You know what I'm telling you? I'm telling you that even if you badly control a pc you will get better results than if you get some synthetic no-control ARC going and sit back and let him wander all over the place. You got it? To that degree, bad auditing is better than no auditing. Got it?

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.

Now, your control is as good as you can actually exert — exert it and leave uncontrolled the preclear. Your control gets better and more positive, and you become better as an auditor to the degree that you can control it and to the degree that you can abstain also from the use of force and duress. When you're really good at controlling people, you don't use any force at all. But don't ever make the mistake of looking at the lower harmonic of no-control and saying, „This is just good ARC,“ and think you're doing a good job. Because you're not! You're just afraid to knock his head off, that's all that's wrong. Now, you see where this stands? You see how this fits?

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?

Therefore, the establishment of an auditor, a preclear and a session is certainly mandatory because there must be something there to do the controlling, something to be controlled and an area in which the controlling happens. So, once again, we get the establishment of the rudiments establishing, actually, the ARC of the session.

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.

Thank you.

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.

Thank you.

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.

[End of Lecture]

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.