Want to talk to you about the goals of Scientology, now, and the process that leads immediately and directly to them.

I want to talk to you today about people. That seems to me to be a pertinent subject – very pertinent subject. It seems to me like there might be some efficacity in talking about people.

You're in essence studying about people. Therefore, a process which led directly to the subject of people would be quite a process, wouldn't it? And we have such a process called Union Station. This process is not new but in its use it is new. It is R2-46 in your Creation of Human Ability. Union Station is simply a variation of the process. It is a method of running it so that it doesn't spin your preclear in.

Now, it's a broad, general subject and you may not have noticed it, but you are studying about people. See, you might – this might – you might have overlooked this. Of course, you're also studying about universes, but there is a very great oddity involved here.

There are many ways that you could run R2-46 that would practically spin your preclear. One of the ways: "Find something wrong with that person." Well, of course, maybe if you ran it long enough you would get to a point where the individual was — you could look at anybody and find something wrong with him, too; that's part of your ability - should be. But you wouldn't really be able to do that with impunity and stay unspun unless you started out finding something good about that person. You'd at least have to do that.

An individual who is studying a universe is also studying people. There is where science has made its error. Science is a great cult which swept out across the land when everybody got down to a point where he hated everybody. They said all is materialism, there's nothing else. And that, really, is what is known as science today; it is a materialistic concept. You ask a scientist about what he is doing and he is talking about materialism. Now, that isn't the root meaning of the word science. The root meaning of the word science simply means truth or knowledge. The basic word is scio which is knowing in the fullest sense of the word. Now, we've taken science into the word Scientology as a boring from within.

But more important would be the process, "Find something you know about that person." Know is your highest level of relationships, so we'd start with the highest level of relationship. Now, if you found something you knew about a great many people and things, you would then run out a great many things you didn't know about them. But if you simply went on finding things you didn't know about them, believe me, you would wind up with more things you didn't know about them.

The gentlemen who are studying science today, who are practicing science, are having a dreadful time. They really are having a dreadful time; so much so that the Atomic Energy Commission has just released a bulletin which says, "In order to keep ahead of Russia we have got to have smarter scientists and technicians." Now, that's a marvelous thing. Scientists and technicians have to be smarter in order to keep ahead of Russia. This I seriously doubt by the way, but nevertheless we have cast the die there that somebody recognizes that our boys aren't getting smarter, they're getting more stupid.

Now, we have subjected this rather pitilessly to test over a period of a year — the entheta — theta differentiations in processing. We have discovered that there are many ways to run entheta out of the preclear, with considerable impunity, but we have come upon a new definition of a limited process.

Why are these scientists getting more stupid? Because they're going on an hundred-and-eighty-degree vector — wrong. They're trying to study this stuff in order to find out about life and they never will. They just never will find out about life by studying matter. It's something like trying to study a child's toys to find out what he's going to do next and you're not liable to know. It's liable to lead you very far astray.

In the first hour I was just talking to you hind of highly generalized. I'm talking to you very, very specifically now.

Now, we take the AEC and find out that their provisos on the subject of security alone are sufficient to make their scientists stupid. Let's take a look at this and recognize that two-way communication about secrets and recognize that all the boys that are working down there in the AEC have "secret" in front of their face all the time. Those things which they're doing, talking about, exchanging, fooling with, are totally secret.

We have here the definition of a limited process. It is that process which is entirely devoted to as-ising errors or wrongnesses — and that's limited. Why?

Not only are they going up against the impossibility of learning more about this universe, learning more about knowledge, you might say (that's an impossibility) by studying this stuff, which is simply the product of knowledge; not only are they doing this, but they are making it secret, which is a total dramatization, by the way. The reason this stuff is here is because it's totally a secret. How's – how total could a secret be? Well, it's almost total when it's lead but it gets real total when it's plutonium. It gets so total that if you get too much plutonium together, everybody knows about it. In other words, you go on the next inversion, see?

It depends on the willingness of the preclear to live! And when that willingness is high he can, of course, regard many wrongnesses with considerable impunity, but when it is low, he can't. You see that?

All right. So we have cognited down here at the AEC right now that our boys are stupid. Now, I'd hate to have an atomic scientist hear me say that, because he undoubtedly has, and should have, a very high idea of his own team, you know? "Us Americans are in there pulling together and all that sort of thing; we're figuring out all this stuff." He should have something like this. But look, the security measures of the AEC have even broken that down.

So as auditors, just as a government, we are dependent upon the willingness of the person to live. And being dependent upon that, we can, in a person who is very willing to live, then take the considerable risk of as-ising a bunch of entheta in the case. We can knock out, address, walk up to, handle unwillingness to live, because we've already assumed his willingness to live, that's there, and so then we can handle unwillingness to live.

Now, I'd hate to be hung with the idea I've just said, "All American science is stupid." But there's a comparable remark. I realized before the war was very old that – World War II – veterans always have a tendency to speak about the war you know, and they might really be speaking about the Spanish-American or something but it happened to be the war they were in, whichever war that is, you see. And about spring of 1942 I had a cognition. I knew how battles were won and lost. I had some sort of an idea then who would win the next war – who would win that war we were involved in. We'd already finished a war by the spring of 1942, a war we lost. But that side would win that had the least-stupid general staff. That was the only criteria you had to have; the least-stupid general staff. And it was obvious to me by that time, that the Japanese general staff, although this seemed utterly impossible, was more stupid than our general staff. And I looked at these impossibilities and realized that we would eventually win the war because I had seen the Japanese general staff pull some boo-boos which were so cataclysmic, that I knew they could never recover from them.

Now, this is the riddle and the mystery of why cases sometimes can run engrams and heavy incidents and sometimes can't — a puzzle which was very, very apparent as early as the fall of 1950. Some could and some couldn't.

They didn't even know basic theory of war. Our boys at least had read Clausewitz, 1815. You see, as stupid as Clausewitz is – who says, "War is the act of compelling by force your will upon the enemy," you know? Dahh! War is simply convincing somebody – the end of war is convincing somebody they lost; or convincing somebody they better now do what you want them to do and you have a workable definition. The rest of the definitions are unworkable. Why get force in there?

Same way. We say some were willing to live and some weren't. Some had a tremendous fund of life and this fund of life, you might say, (unfortunate to speak of it quantitatively) but this fund of life was sufficient to address and vanquish a great deal of unwillingness to live.

All right. The least-stupid general staff will win. Now, I have no doubt whatsoever that the Atomic Energy Commission and its personnel will win.

We took preclear after preclear, right in a line. Some of them could run birth and some of them couldn't that about it. See the difference amongst preclears?

No doubt whatsoever. But they have interposed two things here: MEST as the prime concentration, forgetting all about life and interdepartmental and interscientist secrecy. One boy on the project can't talk to another boy on the project about certain things. And what's going to happen to your team? Supposing you had a football team where the quarterback knew a lot of things which the end mustn't know and the center knew a lot of things that he mustn't let the ends in on. And we expect this team to get in there and fight for dear old Molasses U? Hm? They won't. After a while they will say, "Let's see, what's the name and address of the enemy?" or something, you know.

Well, let's just put this difference just on this level: his willingness to survive and his willingness to succumb. Now, a person who is in terrific condition can be willing to survive or willing to succumb at will, see, just at will.

"He undoubtedly has a better team than we got." You see how this would work out?

But oh, what condition this individual would have to be in! He'd have to be a lot higher than any human being you ever ran into. You said it! So, that just as a government is entirely dependent for its survival upon the willingness of its populace to survive, so are we as auditors dependent on the willingness of the preclear to survive. And when we take that for granted and don't examine it at all, then we find a puzzle and the puzzle is: some preclears can run heavy incidents and some preclears can't; some preclears can run "invent a wrongness" and some preclears can't; some preclears can stop themselves thinking and some preclears when they stop themselves thinking, spin in. Why?

We actually invite all sorts of odd conducts. Now, the AEC is aware of several things. It's aware of the ineffectiveness of psychotherapy; because -they obviously have tried it because they have now debarred it. It cannot take place in their personnel. There must be no psychotherapy. Oddly enough, the AEC has no slightest allergy, of any kind, to Scientology, a religion. Every once in a while somebody's very fond of saying, "Who knows about Dianetics, who knows about Scientology?" Just the US out here, that's all. You can't go to a dinner party in Washington without getting involved in violent arguments on the subject. If you mention the subject or if anybody – foolishly -you permit anybody to introduce you as a Dianeticist or a Scientologist, you're in for it! You will be cursed and protected by both sides of the question. It is not a null subject. And of all of the organizations in the field of the mind, there is only one that is persona grata with the Atomic Energy Commission: the HDRF and the HASI. Now, this is an oddity, isn't it? It shows they haven't gone completely stupid. They will at least look around outside the agency there and find what contemporary thought is taking place concurrent with studies of assr, solid objects and spaces. They'll at least do this. You think the Russians are doing that? Mm-mm. Boy, I'll bet you they got electric fences eighty-five feet high all around each one of their boys.

Now, right here you get a great oddity. We get an individual who is apparently only willing to succumb. Ah, no, no. See, he's not only willing to — that's the wrong level. Just like I said, it's the high command that is the less stupid high command that can win the war. Now, this preclear is simply less unwilling to survive. See, he's in good shape, he's less unwilling to survive.

In the first place, their atomic science is being carried forward, for the most part, by Germans that they captured from Berlin, thanks to our cooperation. And they took these boys into Russia and they put them in a stockade and these guys have been thinking ever since, for Russia.

All right. And we get a preclear who is less unwilling to survive and we find out we can get away with the doggonedest processes and the puzzle is answered right there. And if we keep regarding as an automaticity, as just something that we, you know, it's just there — this willingness to survive - then we will have an interesting history as an auditor and that history will be this: some preclears got well and some preclears didn't.

A German, by the way, is an interesting scientist anyway. He's a fascinating fellow when it comes to science. He is so stupidly thorough about everything he does that it takes him forever to line up the gradient steps between beginning and end of any thought or formula. He just goes on and on – I know this by the way, in studying engineering in my day, you had to study German. You had to study German engineering because the German engineer was the boy. And now, I was over in Germany recently and a whole bunch of young engineers were sitting there and they held me rather in awe; I was an American. And in order to get by they have to study American engineering. It's just reversed.

Now, when a preclear is telling you obsessively everything that is wrong with everybody around him and everything that is wrong with the world and isn't envisioning really anything that could be right with it — you see, this is quite two different things. It's just the fellow who finds things wrong and then there's the fellow who looks around and finds out how much righter could things get. See, that's just two different levels here. We discover that this individual's critical level (you understand that — critical level) is such as to indicate that his willingness to survive is minimal. Got it?

All right, here's your Russian scientist with a crew of German scientists and technicians. What kind of a team do you think this will make in the final run, huh? And with Russian secret-police background and ideas – you know they're very well oriented on secret police – how much security do you think they enforce? Well, all right, as a Scientologist you ought to be able to sum up these two teams immediately and see that the AEC couldn't possibly lose, up against a secret-police-oriented crew like the Russian crew, see? We don't care what their basic training is, even. It's just this crew and that crew and who's going to win? It'll be the one with the most teamwork or the one with the least stupidity. And although we could find a lot of things terribly wrong with the American Atomic Energy methods of carrying things out, they're still better than the Russian methods of doing this or the English or the French or the Italian or anybody else's, see?

Now, let's take this thing of a single datum — it's a double-datum universe, double-data universe — and just one datum here is saying about all other data, "they're wrong." What's this datum think about itself? Tricky, huh?

Now, this principle is something that you ought to understand fairly thoroughly in dealing with people. It is not the smartest person who wins; it is the least stupid person who wins. Just reorient yourself on it.

This individual could not possibly support the subject of goodness inside of himself if he found everything else wrong, because goodness would not stand there as knowledge, so therefore he couldn't be cogniting on the subject of his own goodness. It would be some kind of an automaticity or something which would rapidly fade out, because there isn't anything else good in the world.

So you take a preclear. You process him up scale. You get him into what you consider foul condition and then he goes out and does a much better job than he ever did before. You say, "Well, I couldn't possibly have done anything for this guy at all," see? You did. You made him less stupid than the people around him. He came out of the sessions with less prejudice, less hate.

And so individuals get to a period where they are unwilling to survive and thereafter spin in on a curve which is awfully steep and they start telling you, "Well, Joe, he's a bum. And Bill, he's a bum. And everything is no good and the cars won't run and all dogs bite and all Negroes are no good and all — all Russians are dogs." This individual can go down to a level where he excuses all this by saying he has to continue an impartial view of all things.

He didn't come out of them with more ARC, you understand. We're still dealing on the other scale. See, it's just less hate, less prejudice, less stubbornness. Now, let's just take another look at this, see? And we'll see we have an optimistic view here. It's possible to have an optimistic view, even when dealing with people. All right.

My God! What's happened when he did that? Oh, boy! He's not even vaguely part of a game. He's an observer of the game. He's maintaining an impartial view. He can't even be partisan anymore. See? His impartiality — he must just observe, observe. He isn't part of the game. His individuality has become so automatic that he is not there. His criteria and criticalness is no longer required in the game.

Now, we look at an object and we recognize that if we were trying to understand the totality of existence by examining this object, we'd have a time. We would have a difficulty, I assure you.

Any science which sets itself out to be simply an observational science is a doomed science and the individuals who practice it are equally doomed.

If we tried to examine the totality of existence by looking at a tin can, once more we'd have quite a time trying to embrace even full cans. Now, we could extrapolate from an empty can to the fact that a can could be full and that for some reason or other it got emptied by something. But without an enormous amount of experience with other objects, we wouldn't be able to understand that empty can. Not even the can itself. It would have no goal, no purpose, nothing. We'd be looking at the can. We'd say, "Well now, it's empty because there's nothing in it, but there's some signs of something having been in it." Second we do that we have to assume another something, a somethingness that can be in it. See?

Nuclear physics is a good science except for one unfortunate remark that was made by a very famous man, the late Albert Einstein: scientist is an observer and an observer has no right to do anything but stand there and look at the needle. No! No! No! So we give as a stable datum every nuclear physicist, in study, the destructive datum that will finish his career: the only thing he has any right to do is observe. Mmm. That, by the way, is below inhibited knowledge, see? He's gone on a complete buttered all over the universe attitude. He's no longer a participant. Many times you will mistake this for pan-determinism. It isn't pan-determinism, it's "pan-don't-care-ism." All right. Wherever we discover the willingness to survive or the willingness to live let us say — slightly different than the willingness to survive — the willingness to live is low in a preclear, then it is up to us as an auditor to bolster it.

If we really took all we could know possibly about this empty tin can, it would be a cylinder of metal with a closed bottom and an open top and some space in it and around it. There might be some fragments of something inside. There might be a piece of label. But if we say this label says so-and-so and so-and-so and therefore I know this is a can of spinach – Popeye brand – we are assuming the knowledge of something else. We're assuming the knowledge of the English language which includes more knowledge, which was preknowledge, you see? So the task of studying just this can is a task of studying just this can, see? And if we have no other experience to call upon with relationship to this can, we have two things: We have the can entirely differentiated or we have only data about the can. That's all, see? You see the end goal of this as far as knowledge is concerned?

Now, a thetan might have a willingness to live independent of the body's willingness to live and we may have a thetan who is perfectly willing for this body to die right now in its tracks and he himself is willing to live.

I want you to get out of this the idea of how much the preclear really knows. He has a fabulous array of associations, utterly fantastic, which are all fitted in as identifications and similarities and so on. You show him an empty tin can and hell say, "Yes, it's made by the American Can Company; its label says tomatoes; tomatoes are grown out in the Middle West and probably the canning is done out in the Middle West because I notice that on the label there, it's a very bad, inartistic picture. Therefore, it must have come from the Middle West." And then he'll tell you, "It weighs so-and-so and it does so-and-so." And he'll go on and on and on about this can. He's not talking about the can at all. He's talking about the relationship of the can to the rest of the universe in his experience. So he's handling billions of data.

But how willing to live is this thetan? He's not so willing to live that he'll let something else live too, see? So he's got an interesting view there - very interesting view. Just because something is an object or if some life is in an object form, is sometimes enough for a thetan to kill it. Why? Because it doesn't — isn't duplicating him; but a thetan himself is not very willing to survive, create or do anything else. All right.

What's he really know when you hand him the can, as far as any observation is concerned and without the assistance of memory or concatenations?

Now, here we have, then, something which looks to you like a quantity - life. In the preclear we would have something like a quart of life or a ton of life or a pound of it or something of the sort, see, or 20,000 pounds per square inch of life. It's very easy to describe this as a quantity but it is a misnomer to do so. It's really — there is no quantity there at all. What there is, is a willingness, a concatenation of considerations which end up with abundance of life or practically none at ail. It's just a series of considerations and the series of considerations could be this: life is horrible, life is horrible, life is terrible, life is unlivable. I can't possibly live and I can't die. It's too painful to die. I couldn't possibly let myself die, nobody will let me die — and you have a person in an insane asylum. He's just between those two things. That's the only thing that's happening to a person in an insane asylum. You can test this out and you should someday. He's merely convinced that he cannot die and he's convinced that he cannot live. Between these two points is insanity.

He knows that there is a cylinder with a closed bottom and an open top and some space. Does he know it has weight? No, he wouldn't know it has weight for the excellent reason that he has to have Earth to know it has weight.

It means no-reach-no-withdraw. He can't go on living; he can't withdraw from living. He's stuck so he's insane.

Furthermore, he has to have a hand and Earth to know it has weight.

The insane itself has also an emotion that goes along with it and when this becomes very acute, with a lot of force mixed up with it, he experiences something called the feeling of insanity. You'll run into it sometime. We call it the glee of insanity.

Now, this gets to be a very interesting thing then when you examine knowledge. You can examine knowledge as unit knowledge. And oh, the discipline upon which you must dwell and with which you must work if you are going to take unit knowledge. If we took a can and a crock, just two items, we would have the basic number of knowledge, which is two. We must have two data in order to have knowledge. To have the one can, this one cylinder of metal, with a closed bottom and an empty top and a space around it, we do not have knowledge; we have a datum.

But it's just this can't-live-can't-die situation. All you'd have to do is imbalance this either by letting him die or fixing it up so he can live. Now, it's a little more difficult to fix up a person so he can live than to kill him. It's a little more work. That is why they have wars. See? It's much more easy for the society to go into wars than into "lives." Did you ever have a society-hear of a society going into a big "live"?

Now, it takes an enormous array of material to comprehend all relationships of experience of this can just by looking at it; it's quite a trick – quite a trick to do that. But we'd have to have a can and preferably some other object in order to have knowledge. Why? Because we can evaluate the can by the crock, the crock by the can. We would have data of comparable magnitude. To obtain knowledge, then, you have to have data of comparable magnitude to the number of at least two and from these two you can go on from there and get fancy if you want to. But if you sail out from a unit datum; one, only one, you get an impossibility. That datum, that object, has to be associated with other objects before you expand into what we call knowledge. Therefore, where does knowledge start? It doesn't start with a single item. It starts with two data, two objects – has to. Do I make my point?

Well, near you as an auditor have only to bolster this person's willingness to survive to have him kick out an enormous number of considerations about succumb and he seeks a new balance. But remember again there is no quantity here so there is no such thing as balance. He doesn't have to have eighty-two data that tell him to survive and eighty-two data that tell him to succumb, balanced, you see, to live a normal life. He just has the consideration he's going to survive or the consideration he's going to succumb and these two things are just the basic stable data.

Of course, it's very interesting that Buckminster Fuller discovered this.

All right. Now, as he goes along then-he's made up his mind to die, to die, to die, to die — and you come along and you tell him live, live, live, live, live. Well, now, you start telling him "live" and its opposite stable datum is "die." So what will he do? He'll go on living. I want you to see this very clearly that the condition of livingness is no less artificial than the condition of dyingness. I want you to see this dearly and get off any big mawkish sentimentality on the subject, see? Let's just be factual about the whole thing.

He discovered it in something called dymaxion geometry. Very interesting fellow this Buckminster Fuller. The world has been passing him by at a mad rate but I understand the other day, not too long ago, he was handed some fancy appointment of some kind or another. Somebody started teaching this stuff in design work. It's about time they did. He was too far ahead.

Let's look at it now. If this business of livingness is a consideration and the business of dyingness is a consideration, the only thing you're upsetting are considerations. So you get an individual to concentrate on one or the other and you get the other. Now, you see, we concentrate on living and well start running out dying. We start concentrating on dying and he'll run out living! Now, there's another mechanical thing which enters in with time called a second postulate. The first postulate, if he's in the time stream, is automatically present — but please, Scientologists, look at this — it is automatically present. It just happens to be there. It might be designed — it could be designed in a thousand different ways, but not in this universe. We just are so obsessed with the idea of survival that we think that survival and living is the only thing there is to do.

All right. Here we have, then, the principle of oneness as the defeating principle of knowledge. I don't care what else you learn about Scientology, for God's sakes learn that. The principle of oneness is the defeating principle of knowledge. Curious isn't it, that there's been so much insistence on oneness?

Yet we had some Hessian regiments over here during the Revolutionary War who had an entirely different philosophy, not because life was horrible at all. Whole squads would go out and sit in a hollow depression of ground and sit around and mourn to each other about how awful it was — no, pardon me, they wouldn't mourn to each other, they'd mourn to themselves — about how awful it was and then they'd kick the bucket. Over in Peking I have seen coolies who just didn't want to live anymore, so they'd go and sit down in front of their grave and will themselves to death in about three days and they'd give the gatekeeper a few coppers to shove them in and throw some stuff. It's over there at Coal Hill. They probably do it today. It's probably driving the communists nuts.

We find somebody, a big organization, rather Johnny-come-lately in the religious field – new, brassy new, it's only a couple of thousand years old – the Roman religious government which succeeded the regime of Caligula. No, that isn't what it's called, but it's close to it. Well, this organization came up with the oneness. And it was an interesting thing that right at the time they came up with this one-datum idea with regard to deity, they also came up with the principle of "the way to rule them all is keep them ignorant." And they carried on for hundreds of years on this principle: that ignorance is bliss. If you can just get stupid enough, you'll be happy.

But here we have — here we have the fact that an individual is in the time stream and therefore he's running on this postulate: survive-succumb.

In other words, you had a central government there, of the Roman government, which knew very well that it couldn't succeed if anybody got bright because they knew how dumb they were. They must have known it or they wouldn't have insisted on this other. You would have thought that somebody along the line would have been cocky enough to say, "Well, I'm at least as bright as these other guys and I can certainly out-figure them one way or the other." But nobody did. They were a bunch of mental cowards. That's a hard, harsh word. They were a bunch of stupid mental cowards, that's better. And they said, "The only way we can rule the human race and keep this empire under control is to teach nothing but ignorance." And they went out on this principle of oneness, oneness, oneness.

That is the order of postulate. See, the second-postulate principle is only present when you have a time continuum. We have a time continuum and we are alive and therefore we're concentrating on this as the first postulate, survive, and as the second postulate, succumb. So we've got our second postulate. Well, that's — just happens to be the way it's constructed — it doesn't have to be constructed that way at all. So we get rather automatically a run-out of the second postulate; we start hitting the first postulate.

Now, we look at something interesting. We look at nationalism as a study of oneness and about the biggest blunder man has made in the last 150 – 200 years, has been nationalism. It's a new thing. Nationalism is brand-new. It's brand, spanking new. It is a recent idea. Before that time we had racialism and tribalism and other things like this. But we find France suddenly getting the idea of nationalism about 160 years ago, something like that. They suddenly got this idea of nationalism and they went mad. They killed everybody.

So if we have know — secret — by the way, that's the dichotomy. It's know-secret. It's not know-don't know. It's quite important to you in the science of knowledge to know that that is the order; that is the dichotomy. It's know-secret, see? Those are the two opposites.

Well, maybe that's sane for a Frenchman but it's certainly not very conducive to the better good of the nation, is it?

Know-suppressed knowingness. It isn't know-negative knowingness.

And so we look into the odd places of Earth and we discover this principle of oneness working in an interesting direction: toward defeat, stupidity, disaster. And this should be very curious to you. We are under the threat now of the destruction, without our consent, of the entire planet of Earth. Because of what? Because of oneness.

All right. So we get this survive-succumb. It'll be know-secret. It'll be live-die, good-bad, see? It will be motion-stopped; it'll be space — no space.

The early Roman Empire did not make this stupid mistake; they had the Blues and the Greens. You say the United States hasn't made this stupid mistake; there's the Democrats and the Republicans. They are not a dichotomy. They are not two political parties. They're two levels of the country. If the Blues and the Greens were fighting in there, to win elections and that sort of thing, you would at least have internal knowledge. But they both defeat themselves by coming up and becoming, regularly, a oneness – a one-government thing. Which then stands there and looks at all other governments as a one government thing.

See? Those are your first and second postulates in this universe. So if we go on the basis of what we consider good, then we will automatically have the survival postulates, which are the first postulates which run out the second postulates. The second postulate is the effective postulate because it depends on the first postulate to keep going. The second postulate can be stopped but it — the stopped postulate can keep traveling because it's got a start postulate behind it.

So we have the oneness of Russia and the oneness of the United States and something's going to blow. Because the United States cannot study Russia. Everything is unit information. Communism, Russia – look at the identifications. Russia isn't even vaguely a communism, never has been! Never will be! It's a military dictatorship, right this moment, run by a bunch of generals that got tired of a secret-police officer named Beria. And they have good parties and they're having a good time right now. The system which they use is the system where the minimum number of people can govern the maximum number of people. And they may call it communism, they may not. We don't know what they call it in Russia. We haven't any idea at all what this idea of communism is unless we study communism and then unless we study Russia.

Did you ever stop a car that was sitting still? You could go through the motions of doing so, couldn't you? You could change your consideration and say, "I stopped this car." See how simple it would be? Nothing to it. You stopped the car. There's going to be no heat in the brake drums, not a bit. There's going to be no semblance of a car having just been stopped either, unless you really rigged it up as on a movie set. Now, here you've had the consideration that a car is in motion and then it's stopped. And you go around and say, "Gee, that was a terrible accident.

Now, every once in a while some smart boy has said this, that we have to study these two different things separately. But he usually is saying it so that you won't hold Russia against communism. Communism has to be discovered and examined in relationship to other political ideologies and philosophies before we understand it at all. But the second we realize that there are other political philosophies and ideologies, then what do we get?

Ohhhh! Horrible accident." Keep talk-talk-talk about this horrible stop, see?

Ha! We get knowledge and with knowledge we have peace. We have ARC.

This horrible stop, horrible stop, horrible stop. What the devil keeps this horrible stop floating in the time stream? It's way back on the track — I mean it happened yesterday or something like that. We still say horrible stop. It's the fact that something was in motion before something stopped.

Looks to me like the way to defeat war would simply be to make it necessary for everybody to study all the ideologies there were. You certainly would never, never have a war.

Now, we could as easily say, "Well, the car was running, the car was running, the car was running, the car was running, and there'd go the accident. You got it? See? Now, how would you really run out an accident on a person who couldn't as-is and was having a hard time and stumbling all over the place? How would you run out one? You'd just have him get the idea of a car traveling, a car traveling, a car traveling, a car traveling. You'd take him out in traffic and have him watch cars traveling. You know, after a pilot has had a crash, they almost always take him by the scruff of the neck, if he's still even vaguely in one piece, and put him in the plane again and have him fly. They're just trying to run out that — that crash by motion, see? The wrong way to do it is to sit down, if you want to run out the accident. Of course, if you want the accident in restimulation and you think you should succumb, why, by all means stick with the accident. See? It's a matter of choice.

Right now, although in Scientology we really don't believe we're at war with psychology, psychology believes we're at war with it. They have been an only one for a very, very long time. We've been very careful not to be an only one. We have Dianetics and Scientology, at least as a thin, synthetic dualism.

All right. The survive-succumb order of the first and second postulate then therefore dictates to us — it's already been dictated because it's the universe we're living in — that we'd have know-secret as the highest order of things and also as the Know to Mystery Scale. What is this Know to Mystery Scale but the know-secret scale. So, if we start plugging know, know, know, know, know, well get — that one will go, that one will go, that secret will go, that secret will go, don't you see? Know, know, know, know, see, that secret will go. See how simple? Nothing much to it — in practice. A lot to it in theory.

We have the Church of Scientology and the Church of American Science. If these two organizations wish to fight, wonderful – it's all right – but they won't. We have the HASI and the HDRF. Right here in Washington we have the Founding Church and the Church of Scientology. I'm not organizing to get a maximum amount of applause from men. I just want a maximum amount of effectiveness. And no effectiveness is to be found in war, unless you want to make a lot of mass and collision, you know, and get enough pressure.

Practically nothing to it in practice as long as you know enough to run the survival aide of the postulate, because I insist that this society does frown on succumbing. People come to you and the society adjudicates the processing and judges you and judges the preclear all on the survival basis.

Well, where's all this leading? Well, I'm coming down the dynamics. Let's look at you, let's look at you, when we're talking about people. And we realize that you, as an American, or as an Englishman, are brought up on the idea, for the most part, of your individuality.

Truth of the matter is, people invert on this after a while, when they've been plugging on it, and they think only things that are dead are good. "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." You ever hear that in some past life? Anyhow … newspaper reporter: "The only story is a bad story"? The only good story is a bad story — William Randolph Hearst. He had that datum thoroughly. Well, he's just inverted. He hasn't escaped the laws of this universe because part of them is, is if you press one side too long you're going to get the other one.

The basic political philosophy on which any government, really, you've had much to do with, is built, is rugged individualism. The political philosophy which you are living, and know very little about – hardly anybody knows about it for the excellent reason it's never been studied, because by definition it's not studiable – is rugged individualism. Rugged individualism could be studied only if you had two rugged individuals. And now, if we studied both these rugged individuals we could then, maybe, understand rugged individualism but we never would have understood rugged individualism. Because perforce, we'd have had to study one person to have had a pure study of rugged individualism. We would have had to study this tin can and let no crocks come around, please.

But how would you do this? You would say this: "Only good Indian is a dead Indian? All right. Point out a good Indian. Point out a good Indian. Point out a good Indian." After a while, why, you'd have a survival condition. If you want a survival condition, you merely process in the direction of a survival condition, see? If you want a succumb condition, process in that direction. Only that's not done in this society, you see?

So rugged individualism looks to me like it's kind of a defeatist end.

All right. This is simplicity itself then — why and how you start running such a process as Union Station. Simplicity. Union Station is first and foremost a process which takes the individual out of obsessed oneness and puts him into the swim again. One of the first things that's illustrative of this is that it shows him there are other bodies in the world and therefore he doesn't have to be so darned careful as this one — of this one so as to never enjoy it. That's the first thing it'll do for him. It'll say, "Now, look, you haven't got the only body there is."

How does this work out in processing? You just start processing somebody along a line which confirms his separation from everything and his IQ will go down, down, down, down. If we – if we perforce got somebody to adopt individualistic characteristics which were entirely original with him and made him dream these up and specialize on these until he had carved himself out a unit character, I doubt if at the end of the process the fellow would be able to talk English. It'd be pretty hard to design this process because it'd have to be run by an auditor who is sitting right there as another being. So it'd have to be unit-processed, wouldn't it? It'd have to be self-processed.

He gets so bad off, by the way, that he looks at his own body and then doesn't see it anymore at all. He's practically disappeared as an individual. You usually get these people — they are a no-body case, they haven't got one, they aren't an individual, neither is anybody else; yet this process still works on them. You ask them just find people, one after the other, and tell you something they really know about each one of those people.

So the optimum process from the standpoint of psychology would simply be this: One individual, self-processing himself into further individualities and differences from the rest of the human race. That'd be a good goal if we wanted to make everybody stupid and wipe the whole thing out. That would just be gorgeous. That would be exactly what we could use. On something else, not Dianetics and Scientology, if you please.

Now, the oddity is — "really know something about the people" is a very senior process to "something good about that person," but "something good about that person" would still work. It would start to unglue more energy however. More energy would start to move around.

Now, this is a very, very peculiar thing, isn't it? I seem to be talking directly against some of the fondest ideas of the Western Hemisphere. Western culture is founded upon the idea that you have rights as an individual.

"Tell me something that's good about that person. Tell me something that's good about that person. Something that's good about that person." More electronics would arise because good seems to be closer to energy. It just seems to be. We associate the word good with food and motion and so forth, and aesthetics. So "something you really know about that person" gets there more swiftly. "What do you really know about him?"

Well, it's a funny thing that communism, with one slogan only, collectivism, totally unworkable, hashed up, seems to be making inroads on this Western philosophy of individualism – seems to win. It's conducted by criminals, it's the darnedest thing you ever heard of. Nobody in his right mind could ever sit down and work out the steps which communism wins with. They're too stupid. Well, there must be some ingredient amongst them that isn't stupid.

Now, it doesn't matter what your preclear says, as long as he really knows it. You don't even badger your preclear about this. He would say, "Well, I really know — I really know..." This is the first question you've asked him. "I really know that that girl is obsessed on the subject of legerdemain."

Actually, the British Empire worked on the same theory for 350 years and won at every hand. And their slogan was, "We're a team and play the game." Teamwork. And when they really got individualized and so forth, as the years went around, and had to confirm their national philosophy by adopting the ideology of socialism, we found them losing on every hand. See, they were drifting off into individuality.

Now, I'll tell you how to run a good succumb session. Want to know how to run a good succumb session?

This is quite an interesting thing, that a stupid philosophy like communism could make any inroad anywhere and could be found in an American university almost anywhere you looked. What the dickens is this? Well, communism is an inversion on truth. There's just one tiny little ingredient in it which makes it work and that's that thing called collectivism. That's just that tiny ingredient. And - but that ingredient is so powerful that you can cover it up with a lot of stupidity and still win. And a collectivism will always win in the teeth of a rugged individualism.

"Now, what do you really know about that person?"

I remember well, up along the Rhine, we used to go into punitive expeditions into Germany and knock apart a few villages. It was very interesting, very interesting. The legions were trying to keep peace along the Rhine. The legion used to go in there – they were collectivists, very definitely, legionnaires. They were united against their officers. There's nothing quite as feared or as hated as a Roman officer. And the boys were very proud, the legionnaires were, in the early days. They were citizens of Rome, that was enough. This fellow was a citizen of Rome; that was enough. And he associated with citizens of Rome and that was enough and everything was fine.

"Well, I know that that woman is really an expert on legerdemain."

And everybody else was stupid, dumb, barbaric and there was no other thing, which eventually defeated them. It was only one nation of Rome, see.

"No! Do you really know that? What did you just say you knew about them? Who, which-which girl? Oh, that one over there? And what did you just say about them? You really know that? Are you sure that's the case? Well, do you know-what is legerdemain anyhow?"

Well, over the Rhine they'd go and chew up the village, punitive expedition and so on. Eventually, they got the Germans, from the tribes across the Rhine, so that they would serve as auxiliaries to Roman forces, and they would go in and punish their own neighbors. It's very interesting. But the legion won at every hand, it kept right on winning. Actually, the legion got in such horrible shape that the men wouldn't even exercise after a few hundred years, with their exercise – heavy armor on. And they got, finally, to a point where they wouldn't even wear armor in battle because it was too heavy.

And then say, "Oh hell," and sit back. Now, that's a good way to run it on a succumb fashion. Now, it wouldn't matter whether this person started out - and very usually - you see what's wonderful is, this process even takes in and includes the mystic, the person with tremendous mystic background. They start in saying, "1 know that that person's aura will be a gold-pink color at 8:32 tonight."

They were really caving in at every hand. But, nevertheless, they were still winning. It was fantastic! Just shows you, the world was pretty stupid, but they were less stupid than the rest of the world. They must have gone downhill more slowly than the rest of the world did.

And you say, "I don't know that - about that person, (to yourself, you know, see). What the hell's going on around here?"

Why were they able to clean up the Germans? Do you realize the whole concept of knighthood came out of Germany? Individual valor, purity and everything else? A Roman legionnaire talked about fleshpots and how many dames he could buy and how drunk he could get. He could lie and cheat faster than anybody else he met. He was a skunk as far as an individual character was concerned. And these German knights in shining armor got mowed down at every hand. Why? The German was a rugged individualist and he lost every time. They would come forward with the most gallant feats of knighthood you ever witnessed in your life, one at a time. Vying with each other, charging all out of line.

Funny part of it - maybe the person's gold-pink aura will be gold-pink at 8:32. So what! You asked the preclear something the preclear really knew about that person; and you can actually go in some of these cases twenty, thirty hours getting answers of this kind but they will become less and less of this nature as the person more and more moves out from an observer into merely being an "only one." (You recognize that being an observer is lower than being an "only one.") They move from being an observer, into being an "only one," into being a participant, and you've got it, see? You just move them out of that rugged individualism characteristic, too - that goes too, but that's just one stop on this observer, "only one," rugged individual-"the best" comes in there someplace-and so forth over here. And all of a sudden the person says-you're processing this girl and she says, "Oh! That's another girl over there," and meant, ''besides myself." And you say, "Hey, what do you know!"

This principle extended clear on in – in German knighthood – extended clear on up to about 1300 and something, when the last crusade went down and accidentally met an army under Bayazidthe Thunderer, an army of Turks. They didn't even know this army was there, these knights didn't.

Now, you'd say automatically and immediately that this person's knowingness would have decreased. Their conviction of their own knowingness would have decreased. Got that-their conviction of their own knowingness. But they'd get smart. They get smarter and smarter and smarter. About what? About people! Here's some interesting things occur. How can you understand something if you're the only datum?

Bayazid the Thunderer didn't even know. He was trying to meet Tamerlane and have a fight with Tamerlane. And the advance guard of knights, of the last crusade, rode into the advance guard of Bayazid the Thunderer, and a few minutes later there were 10,000 knights off of their horses or dead. And a little later on were being lined up, having their heads chopped off, one after the other, while Bayazid was still waiting for Tamerlane. It was not even a clash of armies. And yet, you say, this last crusade must have been a very weak crusade. Oh no, it happens to have outnumbered Bayazid. But the knights did not wait for the foot soldiers. The knights had 125,000 foot soldiers, who had been trained under Frederick and who were very fine foot soldiers. And they would have been ample to have done anything with, but the knights had to get in there, you know, competition, hurrah, charge -dead. Get the idea? Individualism. Now it's pretty, it's pretty, but is it smart?

Now, remember what I told you about knowledge? The tin can? You've got at least to have a crock over here alongside of it to evaluate the tin can.

It's very, very nice, but does it work? The answer happens to be no; it never has and it never will.

You could say, "Now, aside from this crock, this tin can is the only object present." See, that's not quite correct, is it? It's the only tin can present; but most people are in this kind of a state: they've got a room full of tin cans and they've got one tin can picked out as being the only tin can in the room and the whole room's full!

All you've got to do is introduce one word into a society to have its germ of destruction adequately laid. Just one word has got to be introduced into a society – "competition." And if we can just have enough competition and we can have everybody in competition with everybody else, nobody can have a game. It'll eventually get to a point where nobody is permitted to play this game. And then some degraded philosophy, like communism or something, can move in on that society. Communism isn't even smart. You'd swear, if you had to line up the principles of communism, that it had been invented by some three-year-old kid along with some mud pies. But when it's faced with something that's pretty smart, but has this stupidity in its midst, it will win.

Well, does this mean that an individual isn't valuable, that he shouldn't himself hang on to his individualities and characteristics and his own brilliance and that these are bad? No, it doesn't mean that these are bad at all.

Therefore, it ought to be pretty easy to defeat such a thing as a communistic influx, and it is. All you have to do is understand collectivism. Communism will go thud! Because it has nothing else to support it.

It means these things can move him out into not having any concourse with anything else. It can move him out to where bodies are so scarce that he can't even have a body. And, by golly, you know, if you're living in a world of bodies and you can't have a body, you don't have any fun. You spend all your time being careful of the body. There are no other bodies. You can't have another body. Well, maybe you can't have another body while you're being one body, but if you can't have any other bodies at all, don't go to any parties! The fun you have at a party is dependent on how many bodies you can have there. Not on the second dynamic either — just this fact. You won't get any enjoyment of anything there.

Let's take a look, then, at man at large. The only reason I'm using a third dynamic example is so that you can see it out of relationship to yourself. I don't care anything about communism.

You know it's a terrible strain. I know what I'm talking about. I used to go to literary teas — young author — literary teas-around New York. They're held exclusively by matronly ladies who have no social position but who want one. And if they hold enough literary teas, you see, then everybody concedes that they have the only social position in some field. They get there one way or the other. They aren't really, though, trying to find a group or do anything; I never could really find out why this was going on but I used to go to them anyway. That was a ghastly strain because everybody was under such a strain. Everybody was under a strain, but the person who was mainly under a strain would be my fellow authors who would get very upset if another author was there.

I was down in Hyde Park one day, and I finally got absolutely disgusted with somebody who was standing up there making speeches about the glories of communism. Ah, he couldn't do it at all. I mean, he was real stupid, real dumb. He was going on and on-boy, the people were listening to him though.

Well, I never played much of an "only one" characteristic in authoring. I used to write under a half a dozen different pen names at any given year. I had another half a dozen and would — was perfectly prone at these tea parties to represent myself as Alexander Woollcott, who I didn't even look like, you know; perfectly willing to do things like this, and it was very upsetting to writers in general, many of whom, particularly when they're not successful, get into "only one" characteristics, you know, and this is the — the way it'd go, see?

We have a fellow, by the way, who goes out and makes speeches on Scientology in Hyde Park. Only he happens to be one of the foremost magicians in Great Britain. He has no trouble, whatsoever, holding an audience. We even got into Look or Time, or something, this week as being one of the clubs or something, that regularly appeared in Hyde Park. Oh boy, Scientologists in general in Great Britain just grit their teeth when they see old George Wichelow going out and making speeches in the back of the truck and in marketplaces and so forth. But there's just more people that know about Scientology in Great Britain. There's more people know about it than you can possibly count.

But these guys weren't having any fun at all. They couldn't — it wasn't this condition that they couldn't participate in the party — they weren't there! They weren't at the party! They weren't at home writing either! They weren't doing anything. They were dislocated and would come away from it miserable. One of the best ways to handle it in the opinion of most of these boys was simply to get drunk. That's a good way to solve the problem of you can't get from here to there.

All right. Now, let's take a look at ideologies. Now, if I were really, terrifically destructive, if I felt that same nation ought to really go by the boards, I could probably be a wonderful beater-on-the-drummer for individualism.

So, wherever — wherever you see this "only oneism" or the outside observerism or something of the sort creeping in on the situation more and more and more and more — in other words further and further out — you get less and less participation, you therefore get less and less enjoyment, and oddly enough you go down Tone Scale from "know" till you wind up as a total secret. Oh, you can become very enigmatic.

That's what I'd do. "Yea, individualism must be supported at all costs. Do you realize that you will be herded together and regimented like sheep?" Get the pitch? Just keep it up long enough and nobody'll have a game anymore. And then you can send in a bunch of ratty legionnaires, caved-in, with every kind of a disease and vice known to man, and they just start picking off the rugged individualists one after the other, pang, pang, pang, pang.

Someday when you're over in Egypt, either during a session or when you're over in Egypt as a body, knock on the Sphinx. Awfully solid — awfully solid. And she isn't having a bit of fun — I asked her once.

That's why we get this truism. I mean, it's factually true that I really don't care about any side of any ideology because I see them too clearly as ideologies. They are an easy subject. I've seen twelve barbaric tribes practicing better ideologies than any we have in the Western world. Any Polynesian island practices better communism than Russia. Any Chinese practices better democracy than the United States. So these ideologies are not being purely practiced here, so why pay much attention to them?

Now, wherever — wherever we get this departure from identities, you see — I mean, we get a departure from the fact, well, let's all consent to have identities, you see? Let's all have identities. And now we depart from that to where a person has the only identity, that game isn't being played anymore. Some other game is probably being played but certainly this game of identity isn't being played anymore because we have the only identity in the midst of all these identities — and that is silly, of course.

Let's look at something much more important than that. Let's look at man himself in his effort to keep going. And let's find out he's using these ideologies as crutches. He's having a tough time, too. Because every now and then he gets a society that is apparently running beautifully, but it will have some seed of destruction inside itself which will eventually cave it in. And the last thing in the world that you would suspect of the United States of America, that its germ of destruction was competitive individualism. That's the last thing in the world you'd suspect as the germ of destruction which keeps an atomic scientist from being as bright as he could be; which keeps our naval officers from being as bright as they could be and as good a ship handler.

Now, these individuals sit around and start worrying about themselves and start picking up things like psychoanalysis and all sorts of things to find out about themselves. Why? Because they've become a secret to themselves! Bzzt! In other words, they've moved out as an identity out here until they were a secret to themselves. Well, what is this but aberration? Finally, they get a stable datum — I'm a secret. I'm unknowable.

Why, do you know life at Annapolis is one of the most dog-eat-dog affairs you ever got into? And knowing what I know about West Point, the last person I ever would have let down here near this White House would have been somebody who went through it. Because that guy can't play a game. He can play golf, but remember, that's not with anybody.

We get Archbishop "Shenanigan" Sheen whistling through his false teeth on the subject of... You know, I was perfectly willing to sit and listen to that man until one day he started talking about: "You wouldn't let strangers come into your house, would you? Well, of course you wouldn't." You wouldn't do this and you wouldn't do that, all on a privacy basis; and he was really getting worked up in some direction, and I sat there saying, "What tricks is he working up?" "Therefore, you wouldn't let anybody investigate your mind, would you?" I said to myself, "Dong." The Catholic church has always been renowned, according to itself, as having the only psychotherapy that was effective amongst men. And all of a sudden here we have. this clown, standing up in the name of the Catholic church, saying that we mustn't have any investigation of any kind and we mustn't let anybody invade our knowingness in any way. And he was getting more and more colorful on this subject till, you know, I got the spooky notion that that fellow was working an operation on people. You know, I didn't quite hear the ring of sincerity in what he was saying anymore.

The most cutthroat practices you ever heard of, favoritisms of all kinds, would perforce be practiced in the vicinity of competitive individualism. Now we're striking right straight at the very root, stock and cords of American democracy, or are we? Maybe – maybe we're slicing off a few rotten roots when we take a look at this, because if this country goes much further on not playing the game, there won't be anybody take any responsibility for anything in the whole country.

If Catholicism is something that's so shaky that an investigation of a Catholic will shake his faith, why sit and listen to somebody on something that has that little strength, you know? Why not study the strength of the left-hand hind leg of a grasshopper.

You walk into a government agency and you give them any problem that is related to that agency but is not exactly right in the middle of the paragraph that tells it what it could do and it won't have a single thing to do with it. So you go over to another agency and they look in the middle of the paragraph which tells them what they can do, and if your problem isn't in the middle of that paragraph – and maybe your problem lies dead between these two agencies – it'll never be done.

It's a study in weaknesses then, isn't it? So I says, "The devil with it." But they're throwing a constant and continual pitch in this direction.

You know that civil defense is being conducted as a different organization than atomic energy in this country? That's impossible, but it is. And the information in atomic energy is so secure that nobody in civil defense could find out about it. They're very individualistic. Well, where – where would you think this would lead in terms of war, hm? Hm? Where would this go in terms of war? That would finish a nation which got involved in an atomic war. All right, there's only one little sign of that.

Now, invasion of privacy can be very upsetting, but do you know something? You process a preclear for a little while on the subject of invasion of privacy and you'll get him in trouble.

About all you've got in this universe is a game. And the only way you can fall out of contact or get really buried and dulled in this universe, would be to fall away from playing a game. And if you can be driven far enough out of playing a game, you're done. That's all he got, is a game. That's all a government is, is a game. That's all people are, is a game. Well, it gets to be very interesting to watch a country fall apart and become ineffective and inefficient to the degree that its individual citizens can no longer play a game.

Here's an example. I — processing somebody one day — I had him roaming around and squaring things up and doing this and that and so forth and I asked him to be three feet in back of an old lady's head and patch up something in her head. Well, if you think it over for a moment you'll realize that if you can handle one body you can certainly handle another body because you didn't own the second body any more than you owned the first body — you didn't make either of the bodies; you had some share and responsibility in doing so but you didn't and there isn't any reason why he couldn't have pushed the same number of ridges around in the old lady's head that he was pushing around in his own head, now was there? And yet he withdrew and winced and said, "No, no, no, no. No, that's — mustn't fool around with anybody else's body, you know. All against the rules." And after he got this into restimulation he stopped working. Perception went dim, he started to use facsimiles. I had to process him quite a little while to get him straightened out. He just hit this invasion of privacy.

Now, what kind of a game do you think it is sitting in a motion picture theater or before a television set? There isn't anybody on that screen knows anybody is cooperating with them or playing that game of looking. They just kind of assume it and let it go from there because it's all being paid for by soap powder. It's being paid for by soap powder because everybody has to get on the air and say what better soap powder they've got; that they're an individual soap powder. If I hear once more a television announcer say, "The greatest name in soap powder," I'm liable to bust the screen. The greatest name in soap powder, djahh! You know they haven't got any soap powder? They've got detergents which are mildly effective. Most of them stink so they have to be perfumed.

Of course, we realize that it is necessary if you're going to have a game to have somebody located someplace, but you don't have to have everybody obsessively located and fingerprinted, do you? You don't have to have it fixed up so there's nobody can ever be anybody but himself. You look around the world at some of the people and you realize that they're — the necessity of being themselves only would be a pretty bad punishment, wouldn't it? Think of General Franco. Think of having to be nobody but General Franco all the time. Even he has done something desperate about that. He's imported a new monarch.

And we think this is a great thing. The thing you should do is have a lot of competition so everybody invents better detergents than everybody else, invents better detergents… [sigh] And when you get all through, we can't afford soap. We think, by the way, that if one person got all the detergents there were in the whole country under one aegis that therefore the price would go out of sight. And you know, that if that company was run by an individual thoroughly indoctrinated in rugged individualism and dog-eat-dog and the tooth-and-claw nature of society, that's exactly what would happen. He would put the price of soap out of sight. So we're trying to remedy rugged individualism with more rugged individualism and it doesn't work very well.

All right. Therefore, we're not moving in toward a great nirvana to make a tremendous collectivism of all individuals anywhere as one lump sum. This is not our goal. We are merely trying to recover a totality of knowledge on the subject of people, at which time your individuality and your associations will be a matter of choice, not a matter of obsession or compulsion. And that's the goal of Union Station. We're moving individuality, identity, other things, out of an obsessed or inhibited — first we move it out of an inhibited basis into merely an obsessed basis — into a basis of desire and into a line of free choice.

All right. What's the remedy? Is there any remedy for this, and does it have any application whatsoever to processing? Believe me, it has. Because it has an opera – an operational procedure right in you, right in you. Now, nobody's trying to make you a chameleon that can change its colors and character at will. Because it's fun to have quirks and eccentricities, but that, having quirks and eccentricities, does not debar you from a group as long as the quirk and eccentricity is not, "I will have nothing to do with the group." Do you see this is the finished, final quirk and eccentricity that would move somebody out of life, out of the game, out of any emotion or effort or really any thinking at all?

Now, how long does it take to do this? It takes a long time. I would say offhand that a hundred and fifty hours of Union Station would be necessary before one really had a good idea of how high a man could get. But I'd say seventy-five hours of it would be adequate to merely command the community if that's all you wanted to do. Fifty hours of it would certainly put you in a position where you would never feel ill at ease with people again. So you see there, different goals would be different amounts Now, what you're basically running out is a bunch of time: how long have you spent as an individual; and if you're basically running this out then you have to put a little time in on auditing it.

It would just be that final thing: I am such an individual that I can't be part of a group. Well, that eccentricity all by itself is a stable datum in a society which practices rugged individualism. And eventually everybody in the society gets so nobody in the society will let anybody else play a game.

All right. How do you run Union Station — very, very precisely — how do you run it? It has two questions: "What do you really know about that person?

Now that's another – another angle on it. Take a look at it.

What would you permit that person to know about you?"-two questions. It is run in places like bus terminals, railway terminals, airports, any place where there are lots of people walking around. Not necessarily people sitting still, but there are lots of people in view — and we mean live people. We do not mean that Union Station is run by letting the preclear lie in bed and thinking about people, see? It's not run that way. It's just run where live people are in direct view of the preclear.

Now, we're too prone to say each individual himself is unable to play a game. No, let's get a little more overt, huh? Let's just move up scale just one little peg; one little gradient. Let's say that each individual in the society is kind of bound and determined he's not going to let anybody else play the game. Let's bring him up tone a bit. Oh brother, then do you have a mess on your hands.

And the first session or day or period of the process is simply run in this fashion: "What do you really know about that person?" indicating a person -over and over and over. Don't run the other side.

You go down here to get a job. Society is founded on the basis that it's a cooperative endeavor, that's all that keeps it going. You go down here to get a job, see? And the fellow says, "Oh, well, what's your experience, your former qualifications?" "Well, I don't know. I don't have any former qualifications because I've never worked before." "Oh well, it takes experience. You know? You've got to have a record before we will let you go on for further servitude. You can't play this game because you haven't played it." Youth faces that all the time.

On and on and on, "What do you really know about that person?" Now, you could have two or three data for the person, for each person present, or just one datum for each person in view. Or you could hit the same person again several times or just do it on more or less of an accidental order.

You know something funny? Many a time an individual's refused a job when the job is wide open and three minutes later – after this individual left, refused the job – why, the foreman was in there saying to the personnel man that kicked him out, "Have you got anybody yet who can load the trucks?" And the personnel says, "No, we have nobody qualified for it yet." Why would he do a thing like that? Sounds insane. It is insane. He just is darn sure he's not going to let that other fellow who came in and applied, play part of his game. He has the right to deny people the right to play a game and he will use it and use it and use it until you finally get the ne plus ultra, the reductio ad nauseum of all personnel officers: an army personnel officer. [laughter] Now, he can sit there and he can say, "Ahh, ahhhhh boy. Let's not let anybody play any kind of a game anybody can play. They're all forced in here on me and I've got to assign them to something. Let's cross them up." Personnel itself gets to be, finally, in such a society, that profession which denies other people the right to play a game. A security officer is that individual who keeps people from being hired. What's the difference? Every once in a while, in civil service these days, they suddenly release somebody from civil service.

We don't care. It doesn't matter. What we want to know is what does the preclear really know about that person. Got it?

It says in the Constitution you have to be faced by your accusers, and a few other things. But all of a sudden somebody gets this ticket and is told to walk. That's the end. You can't play the game called the Department of the Interior anymore. Why? The fellow looks it over, he's a bad security risk, he's told. "All right. What have I done?" "Well, we can't tell you that." You get how security plays hand in glove with this, "Can't play a game" and how it could be very dangerous to a society?

Now, do we care what his classification is of answer? He says, "Well, I know that person will have a pink-gold aura at 8:32 tonight — I really know that." You'll say, "Okay. That's fine. Good. Now, what do you really know about that person," probably indicating another one. "Well, I know that person hates grapefruit." "Good. That's fine. Now, what do you know about that person?" "Well, that person had a terrible childhood." "Good. Fine." What do you know? I mean, this guy really may know these things. Who cares? The oddity is he'll eventually come down to being perfectly comfortable to know this about that person: "What do you really know about that person?" "That person has a head." "Fine. Good." Get the idea? How long does it take for him to get to that point? You merely want a great certainty on his part. You just want a certainty with regard to that. You just ask him, well, what's he really know about that person? We don't badger him but — he knows that person has a head. Well, up to that time he didn't know people had a head. He knew they had auras or he knew they had tattoo marks on the inside of the thigh and he knew all kinds of other things. All right! So what? Maybe he did know these things, maybe he didn't, but he supposed that he knew them. So that's enough and that's all you want.

Now, all that a society lives on is the will to live, on the part of its individuals. And when those people are thoroughly and completely individualized, they have no further will to live, will to work. The society is totally dependent upon that interesting fact. And although I've said a lot of things here today which are not of any importance at all, that one is important. It sounds like such an obvious thing. Well, think it over for a moment.

All right. Now, let's run the other side of the question-for the next session. Now, that next session may be one hour, it may be five hours, but it's just the next session. We've run one side, one session — now, the other side, the next. "Now, what would you permit that person to know about you?" Now, "Good. Good." "Now, what would you permit that person over there to know about you?" "Good." "Now, you see that person over there with the red hat? What would you permit that person to know about you? Now, you see that man over there -that old man? What would you permit him to know about you?" Not, "Well, would you really permit him to know that?" See? Nah.

The only thing this society lives on is the will to live on the part of others. The only way this game can go on being played at all is willingness to play this game. And I don't see any cheerleaders down here in this government or in the states or in the cities, getting in there trying to raise that will to live. No, they're saying, "Tax. You can't play. If you do so-and-so..." Or you find one of the civil service employees that was discharged the other day, was discharged because he'd received a recommendation from a professor of history or something who long ago had given him this recommendation; they found it in his record and this professor of history had turned up to be a communist. That is enough? That is enough to deny this individual the right to play the game which he'd been playing for years? No, that's insanity. Of course, that's what insanity is.

All right. You ask the preclear, "Now, what would you permit that girl in the red hat to know about you?" "Well, hmmmmmm, that-uh — that I'm good to cats." 'Tine. Fine. Now, what would you permit that old man to know about you?" "That — that — gee, you know, he's an awful mean old fellow, isn't he?" "Well, what would you permit him to know about you?" "That — that I'll be old once, too." "That's fine. That's good. That's good," see? You just go on that way for the whole session, the whole period. We don't care if the session is an hour or a day. We're going to carry that on for that whole period.

All right. So, let's – let's take a look at the fact that a society exists only on this one thing: the willingness to work, the willingness to live – that's all a society has in it: the willingness to play the game on the part of its individual citizens. And they take that for granted. And they keep stopping it and taxing it and bleeding it and getting it one way or the other, shunted this way and that, abusing it somehow or another. And that's all it can live on.

Now, the third period would be, "What do you — what do you really know about that person?" again. See? That's the third one.

There isn't any other sustenance in the society of any kind. Do you realize that a carrot grows simply because of the willingness of a carrot to live and grow? It's the only reason a carrot grows. Must be something there willing to grow. And the only reason a citizen will be a good citizen is a willingness to be a good citizen. So don't come around and complain about all the juvenile delinquency. It's just an unwillingness to be a good citizen. Why is it an unwillingness to be a good citizen?

Fourth session. "Now, what would you permit that person to know about you?" And this is the way it goes. Now, it has been suggested that another one, "What would you permit that person to know about that person?" — it's been suggested, hasn't been tested. I don't imagine it would be harmful but it would certainly put your preclear in an observer class, wouldn't it? So I don't think it is vital that we run that side, but we could. If it worked out fine, okay. But we're running know, know, all the way along the line; k-n-o-w and nothing else. And we will find some of the darnedest things.

Let's look straight at the government and find out it will not permit a juvenile to be a citizen. Young enough to die for his country, but not young enough to drink – one of the cracks you've seen the teenagers making, you know. He can't have a drink in a bar, but he can go out and get shot in the army.

Now, we keep in two-way communication with the preclear — a necessity.

Good golly, a guy can't have a job, he can't take part in the society. He's shunted around, ordered here and there to do this and that with no real interest on his own part at all, until he's 21. Well, 21 in Rome was old age. A girl was an old maid in the South 60 years ago if she got to 21 without being married. She was an old maid. And yet we make these kids live to the age of 21 before they can participate in this society or be responsible for any part of it. And then we do this terrific thing of saying, "I wonder why there's so much juvenile delinquency?" The only willingness there is, is the willingness of the kid to be a good citizen and if he doesn't have any willingness to be a good citizen it's because he's not being permitted to be a citizen. You want to stop all the juvenile delinquency in the entire country? Make everybody a citizen when he's 12. No more juvenile delinquency, that's that. Take out all these child labor laws. All they are is a bunch of holier-than-thou "my Gods" that lived back there sixty years ago and said, "Oh, isn't it terrible all these children working, working, capitalism bleeding everybody." You know, Karl Marx.

Now, the preclear says, "What do I really know about that person? Let me see — oooh! oooh!" You don't sit there like a dumb piece of mud. You say, "What's the matter?" See, invite that communication. "What's the matter? What's the matter with you?" "Well, I just thought, you know, all women in red hats — sure seems likely that if a woman would wear a red hat, she's pretty bad." And you say, "Is that so? Well, now, what do you really know about her?" "That she's wearing a red hat." "Good. Fine." Here we go, see? But don't let those communications drop.

Most exaggerated soap opera I ever read. Karl Marx does not say anywhere in his damn book, Das K–-which is the lousiest piece of writing I've read in many a day. I read it the other day and I thought, "Oh no, don't tell me this has been sparking people off!" Anyway, the only – the only thing he never mentions-"these poor factory workers that are being worked to the bone and bled" and he even describes them as being thrown out on the dump heap when they die in the factory and so on. He's real good, real rabble-rouser. The only thing he never brings up is this interesting point: What the hell are they doing working for a factory like that! Did anybody tell them they had to? No! In the day that he was talking about, all they had to do was get a Butler rifle and go West. They didn't have to be there in Charlotte, South Carolina or Boston, Massachusetts working for a factory. So what's all this sob stuff about the poor "woiker"?

You say, "All right, now what would you permit that boy over there to know about you?" And the preclear says, "Mnnnyeahhh!" You don't just keep asking the question. You say, "What you screaming about?" "I don't know. I don't know," something very vague.

They didn't have to work under those conditions. Well, it must have been that these individuals were terrifically willing to work. Look at that. They must have been terrifically willing to work. They're not that willing to work today, so we decided things are better. Are they?

Well, here's something else you don't do. You don't say, "Well now, how does it seem to you there? I mean — I mean, you got an idea about rape or anything like that? Did that occur to you at that moment? Was your mother ever scared about that sort of thing? Well, let's run some Straightwire on boys." You don't do that.

The only thing that exists in this society is the willingness to work, the willingness to live, the willingness to play the game. And those are the only things that are taxable or stoppable by the government. And. if the government itself is simply intent on being a parasite on that willingness to work, willingness to play the game, then that government itself will fail and will always fail and always has failed. Then all of a sudden a government will come along that itself is willing to work and is willing to play a game and is willing to let every citizen in the country play a game or at least say so. And of course that society then wins and that government then wins. And when a – when a government no longer will let everybody play the game it starts to go by the boards. And when it's finally forbidden the last person that would help it to play the game called government, it then folds up to any tramp who comes in with a peashooter, such as a communist. He comes in and says, "Collectivism and everybody can play this game." See? Everybody says, "It's better than we're doing now. Well, okay. Let's play a game called communism.

If the thing was ready to release, it would have released on this process.

It's better than what we've had." Do you see how, then, a very, very stupid philosophy could win, hm? That's how it wins across the face of the Earth.

You can count on this process to release things, so don't go chasing off on other processes. It's enough if he says, "Zzziz! Rowrr! That just upsets the hell out of me. That's what's the matter." And you say, "Well, good. What do you really permit that boy to know about you?" "I don't know! I just-just — just don't like that idea at all! I guess — he permit-I — permit him to know — I'm scared!" And you say, "Good!" That's a win. All right, another one. Get the idea?

You don't think Chiang Kai-shek was running a government do you?

Keep that two-way communication running. Find out what the preclear is talking about, what he's thinking about.

Huh! Chinese warlord? Huh? He's an interesting character. He always has been, he always will be. He assigned the island of Formosa to – right after we gave it to him as conquered territory – under the government of one of the stupidest fascists he had on his staff. A guy who was just hungry for nothing but money, money, money. The guy goes in, the Formosans said, "I thought we were going to be free after this war?" And he said, "Oh, no, you don't. More taxes." So they started to shoot at him; he shot at them. He killed 10,000 Formosans in the first few weeks of his regime. Interesting, isn't it? This is the kind of a fellow that Chiang Kai-shek appoints, you see, to rule various provinces. You wonder why he lost China? He wouldn't let anybody play the game called nationalism. So that any gang of tramps or criminals could walk in and take China.

Well, now this is murder on a case for the good reason that you, as an auditor, are serving as a terminal with the other person, see? You're serving as a terminal. He's really looking and paying attention to two people, so that's why it's questionable if running "What would you permit that person over there to know about that person over there" is of any value. You're running that all the time.

Let's get this less-stupid principle. Now, why can an individual win in this society at all? He practically has to – he just has to be vaguely willing to live, see? Vaguely willing to keep on and he can win. But that's only in relationship to his fellow citizen. A good government would be a government which let people play the game, not only of government, but of being a people.

All right. Your preclear will come up the line. How high can they come up the line? Don't ask me. The process is only a few weeks old in this form and frankly I can't find how high it goes. It just keeps going up! The preclear just gets in better shape and better shape and better shape and better shape.

Now, given that principle, we could really dream one up, couldn't we? Man, couldn't we have a government? We could have an ideology that nobody had ever heard the likes of. As a matter of fact, I could probably sit down and write a book on the subject and have it go out here and it would be a bestseller and it would overthrow Russia. That's the basic principle.

Well, I set up a test here recently. Let the preclear be run on Union Station for all of one intensive and then let the auditor (who didn't like Union Station) run the preclear on any good process he saw fit for the ensuing week. Now, we tested the preclear in the interim. We know where the preclear went on just Union Station. Now, there's two things that could happen: either the person can't be upset very badly by other processes or — don't you see? — or will improve or will just stay there. Now, I'll bet you the gain is not as great on just random processes. But we weren't even talking about basic processes. We were just talking about random processes.

Just invent a government that lets everybody play the game called government, which is essentially what they did 170 years ago – lets everybody play the game called government but lets anybody be part of the government, actively participate in governing while the government is in there governing.

All right. Therefore, we don't know really how high Homo sapiens can get — haven't any idea. You guys right here are going to be the first ones to have some inkling of this. See, you'll have some inkling of this, but I don't think well have the final answer for quite a while.

That is what we missed in this country. You just go down to the Interior Department, tell them you don't like the zoological park here in Washington and you'd like to do something about it. They'll tell you to write a letter to your senator and forget you. They won't even interview you decently.

Now, here's another oddity about Union Station. It can be self-audited.

Believe me.

R2-46s can all — always be self-audited; so let us be very chary of self-auditing the thing if there's an auditor handy because it leaves part of the bracket hanging, you see? Nevertheless, you can get away with it as a self-audit. You can get away with it. Why? Because there are at least two terminals present. So if you found yourself in a theta trap you could always find out what was good about theta traps. It does give you an indicated process. Therefore and thereby there is no excuse today for an auditor being anything less than at least three times as willing to survive as Homo sapiens in general, because he could do it himself.

All right. So all we'd have to do is invent something so that not only could everybody play the game called government but you could also play the game called citizen. You could also play the game called worker. You could play the game called artist and you could exercise free choice in what game you played inside that government, and so on. It couldn't possibly be overthrown! It's that horrible thing called an unrevolutionable government. If you just reached up to a high level of that, nobody could overthrow it.

Now, I've run enough tests on auditors in way outflung points right now to know that there's more gain for an auditor in running Union Station on himself than there has been for the same auditors on other processes — self audited; but we know it would be better if it were audited on them by an auditor, but there's no auditors available in these spots. So you'd run it the same way — same way exactly. So we have an enormous gain here. We have a big win on this. But you understand that running it on yourself is nowhere near as good as getting it audited on you.

How about you as an individual and what's this employment of all of this data on the third dynamic? Believe me, if anything applies on the third dynamic, it applies on the first dynamic. Let's look it over.

Now, this doesn't wipe away everything else that we know about auditing simply because we know a process. We're old hands at this — five years now — and every time we turn around, why, I've been coming up with a process that theoretically should have wiped out all other processes. Funny part of it is they did! But the point is that just because we know Union Station, we don't suddenly wipe out all other classes of process, because Union Station is part of the Six Basic Processes. It's Locational Processing using people -that's all it is. Got it? Using the principle of the first and second postulates.

How willing are you to let other people play the game? Well, you must be pretty willing because you're here as Scientologists. You must be darn willing to let somebody else play the game. Something else that's more important than this: How willing are you, as an individual, to assume anybody else's identity? How unpartisan can you get? Same thing as saying, how pan-determined can you get? How many identities are you willing to assume?

Pretty tricky little package. It runs on almost any level of case. If an individual can be audited at all, he could certainly be audited on this Union Station variation of R2-46. If he could be audited at all he could be audited on this.

How many of your favorite eccentricities are you willing to give up? How many can you dream up and put into effect, how fast? And then how many can you get rid of?

Now, the business of survive and succumb imbalances when the individual believes that all of the forces of life, nature and the universe are opposed to his survival and when they're all opposed to his succumbing, too. Sounds strange that you could get into a crosslock of that character, but ital tell you that there are very few psychotic people amongst primitives who are living in a dangerous environment. They don't go mad easily. You see that? The primitive environment where you're escaping from death three times a day, certainly that environment, a part of it at least, is very, very willing that you succumb.

Think of the movie actress who plays the insane role. The movie actress plays an insane role on the screen that's successful, and they go insane – then goes insane right away.

There is no indecision there at all, is there? No hang-up, no maybe.

Well, all right, so you invent an eccentric character. You say, "Today I feel pretty old, you know." You go walking down the street and complaining to everybody about how old you feel. It's a game. And tomorrow, why, how fast can you snap out of that and be nice and young? "My, I feel young today." Of course, the funny part of it is, your friends will keep telling you, "Yesterday you felt old; what are you doing feeling young today? You're inconstant." Why don't you just play one game at a time – that's one of the best operations.

And yet there would be parts of that environment that are very willing for you to survive, because a tribe, pushed together in any way, shape or form, that is surviving at all is certainly a pretty dose-knit, co-survival unit, see? So there are a lot of people there real — who'd get real upset if anything happened to you because you're part of their unit, one way or the other. Even if you're a cripple, even if they have to just take care of you all the time.

So that you, as an individual, could be said to have an enforced individuality when your individuality, if you are at all – feel incompetent or disabled in any degree – you must be working on an enforced individuality or an inhibited individuality, which amounts to the same thing. Communism is an inhibited individuality. So is socialism.

Usually it fits in that you're still part of it, therefore there's always somebody around who wants you to live. If somebody wants you to live — somebody wants you to die, you're all set. Nobody wants you to live — nobody wants you to die, you're dead — you're alive — you're insane. Got the idea? See, here we have a basis of no solution - can't die—can't live.

Don't you think that it'd be a matter of discovering free choice on your individualness, if you wanted to be entirely free? The recovery of free choice on individualism is probably the highest theoretical goal in auditing. Free choice on individualism. If you could attain that, you could do the darnedest things. Oh! Free choice on individualism carries with it practically every magical trick you could think of.

Well, anybody who moves out into that bracket is no longer getting any cooperation in either living or dying, see? He's being an "only one." He's the only one living, the only one dying, see?

If you as an individual had a free choice over your individuality; if you could survive or succumb as any individuality; if you did not have to consistently protect one individuality, you would have recovered free choice in life, wouldn't you? And that's the highest ability there is: the establishing or disestablishing of an individuality on the level of free choice. If you can do that, you can handle anybody – anybody anywhere at any time. That's a horrible thing to face, somebody who has free choice as an individual. Don't think you could handle a Democrat if you're being a Republican. All you have to be is a better Democrat than the Democrat you're handling. And be him too. Oh, this sounds insidious.

Soldiers don't go mad in battle in spite of the fact psychiatrists would love to have you believe that so you could think worse of yourself and your fellow man. Nobody goes nuts in a battle. They go nuts between battles when they sit around and hurry up and wait and hurry up and wait and nobody wants them to live and everybody kicks them around and nobody will let them kill anybody or die or anything else, held in a suspended animation of this character on some shore base. More people went mad in any day in the naval base in San Francisco than went mad in any six months in the South Pacific during World War II. That's actual statistics, by the way.

Only reason I'm talking to you about it today is a process called Union Station. Fascinating process. Union Station is a Locational Process. It belongs at the level of Locational Processing. And it's a very effective process and it makes things work out just about along the lines I've been talking to you about in this first hour. Now we're going to take a five-minute break here and I'll talk to you a little more about that.

So they move out into this "only one" category — so their participation brings them in — so you don't have to worry about alive and dead. This starts working right on out. The mere fact that there are more bodies, more people, that they are part of something, itself removes them from this "only one" classification and as they are removed from it, thereafter they can decide to live or decide to die. And when they can do that, they're sane.

Therefore, Union Station is a very, very, very valuable process because it won't leave you high and dry without an auditor.

Now, in ordaining people in the field, we're going to require fifty hours of Union Station — audited, not self-audited — fifty hours audited by an auditor or two hundred hours self-audited — just to ordain somebody.

The goal of the clinic is working up toward: You process somebody and then they go home and take command of their environment, whether that environment is a small town or a big state. You see how this would be? They take command of the environment. Well, by taking command of the environment they just are trying to coax other people to "let's all play this game, too." But somebody's got to start it in some direction. After you've got all -after you've got a clock blown all over the living room, somebody has got to come along and pick up the cogwheels, let me assure you.

So it's about time we picked up some cogwheels and got a clock running again because there are good games can be played here.

The principal game being played on Earth today is the game of "you can't play a game." Union Station remedies that, and remedying that it will remedy everything else that comes along the line, too. So therefore, I recommend this version of Locational Processing very, very strongly to you.

Thank you very much.