Good evening.

Well, as usual, I don’t have anything to talk about this evening. But I’ll manage to get through this hour somehow. I just hope you do.

The romance and adventure of Dianetics and Scientology are not really in the field of research and investigation but are actually in the domain of the auditor and his contacts with and handling of humanity, the organization itself in its efforts to get forward in the society and bring about some of the more desirable changes which it believes should occur in the society of man today. This is really the bulk of the romance and adventure. And the rest of it is the romance and adventure of your own mind.

And it’s very interesting that an individual lives with something that he doesn’t know anything about.

Now, many a husband, many a husband has long lived with somebody that he didn’t know anything about. This is not a new adventure.

And many a wife, many a wife has, shortly after the honeymoon, found out that it was over, and finds herself standing there looking at something which is a cross between an ape and a psychiatrist – I mean, utterly unmentionable thing and a complete monster.

But although we know very well that we are in association with things that we very often don’t know anything about until it’s too late, we seldom think of being in association with something continually, consecutively, twenty-four hours a day, about which man has known practically nothing until the mid-part of this twentieth century: his mind. It’s an utterly incomprehensible thing how this item which is his most constant companion – a thinkingness – this man who proudly calls himself a thinking-ness, who says that his best weapon is his mind, who grades his fellows with how clever they are or how stupid they are or what their behavior is or is not, would know nothing about it.

And, of course, this happens to be pretty close to the truth as of circa 1950.

It’s a remarkable thing that man would continue to flounder concerning what he does, what he is, where he goes and what he becomes, for thousands of years, without ever really once becoming aware – except in some very small locale such as that one inhabited by, let us say, Gautama Buddha – without becoming aware any of the real mechanisms of life or the mechanical procedure with which man handles thought. It’s an incredible thing.

Man’s in a very interesting dislocated position there.

Seems like an individual who cannot hold down his immediate environment will try to hold down some remote and distant environ­ment. A parent, for instance, that cannot possibly handle his own life is the most willing person in the world to handle Junior’s.

See how well man does this?

He has it woven very closely into the family. Here we have a family – everything’s at sixes eights, Papa stumbling around and into one business deal and out of that and into another casualty and out of that, and so forth. And yet Papa is just all upset with the way Junior handled that two-bit piece. In other words, Papa never seems to take a look around here, you know, and see what he’s doing. It’s always over there; not where he is.

Now, he is able to observe with great clarity the reason for Junior’s downfall and his mis-marriage, and so forth, was immediately due to the schooling which he had or didn’t have. And never even vaguely attributes any of the difficulties Junior’s having in life to anything he ever did to Junior.

It’s really no great wonder that man is having and has had a great deal of difficulty understanding his mind, if he has this habit of looking over there and never over here. That’d be no real mystery here at all.

You can just see that in Asia Minor four or five thousand years ago the greatest concern was probably with Rome, the way the Romans thought. And the Romans were mainly worried about the way the savages, that were painted blue, up in Great Britain were thinking, but never how the Romans were thinking.

And the people up in Great Britain, before they got civilized (or civilized the Romans), they were probably more worried about how the people over there in Germany were thinking. But not how they themselves were thinking.

And an individual man goes around worrying a great deal about how Joe is thinking and is apparently very knowledgeable about how Joe is thinking. And if you listen to any psychology class, very verbose on the subject, very technical – “Here’s a little assignment here: memorize this book.“ See? Very, very knowledgeable as to how Joe is thinking. He could tell Joe down to the last degree exactly how he’s think­ing, what his impulses are, so on, and would never know his own, not even vaguely.

And this, by the way, summarizes both clinical, psychology and Freudian analysis. The Freudian analyst sits there and says, „Well, the real trouble with you, Mr. Dumbjohn, is because you had in your youth an unfortunate sexual experience. And this experience has become hidden underneath your libido. And you are, actually, at heart a beast and therefore I would advise four more years of analysis by me so I can evaluate for you further and tell how you’re thinking.“

And then the analyst gets up and says, „Where did I put my hat?“

You see, he knows all about Mr. Dumbjohn’s thinking, but he doesn’t know anything about his own.

It’s the way man operates. He operates under the motto, evidently, „Everybody else’s business is my business but my business is nobody’s business.“ And this makes for a gorgeous interlock of irresponsibility in the society. Most wonderful thing you ever saw in your life. „My business is nobody’s business; and all the business there is, you see, is really my business.“ But everybody else thinks that their business is nobody…

Who’s ever going to take responsibility for his own head or the way he walks down the street or the way he plays checkers? I mean, nobody is, of course. Because it’s always the other fellow.

Therefore, if a man is seeking to understand himself, it seldom occurs to him that he has a ready subject right to hand: himself. This subject he never looks at.

Psychology class doesn’t even study man; studies rats. They watch rats running around in rat mazes. Why?

Well, this is just about as far as you can get from the subject.

Well, here we get this displaced level of interest. Now, naturally a person who is introverted who goes around worrying about himself all the time, is a hideous thing to have around. Worry, worry, worry. „Why did I do this? Why did I do that? Why did I do something else? Let’s see…“ And he takes out a cigarette, you know, and he puts it in his mouth and lights it. „Why am I smoking?“

Now, this is an entirely different thing. The motto behind this is put your attention on yourself.

And the talk I’m giving you tonight has nothing to do with putting your attention on yourself.

Now, in putting attention on self we have the biggest operation that we could possibly have. Everybody works this operation to some degree – his mother, his father, his teachers. He would come in and say, „It’s bitterly cold outside. Why don’t you have more heat in this room?“ And his mother turned around to him and said, „Well, why don’t you go out and get the coal yourself?“ You know?

He said, „I don’t like to play with Johnny, damn it. He swears.“ And the people said to him, „Now, you just swore. Put your attention on yourself.“

But this is a different kind of an operation: it’s picking up an individual’s faults and punching them up to him so at last he becomes nothing but a hotbed of faults.

And if psychotherapy is totally a measurement and study of men’s faults, why, then it is no study at all. Because if man didn’t have some good in him someplace he wouldn’t be here at all. It would just be impossible for him to exist. So if we studied only his faults and poked only his faults in on him eventually we would get a rather interestedly unbalanced picture.

So this individual who is always searching his own motive is looking for the fault which causes him to do this. It never occurs to him that he might have an honest impulse to make nothing of a cigarette. Simple. „I don’t know, I like to make nothing of cigarettes. At least something I can make nothing out of – cigarettes.“

Another thing, the people around him very often need to have some smoke blown in their faces. But it’s not considered polite to blow smoke in people’s faces. So people have started to inhale smoke from cigarettes.

Now, on the subject of cigarettes, we discover that cigarette smoking in a brawnier, tougher age was considered very effeminate. So was, really, cigar smoking. People chewed who was men.

The American woman put an end to this the moment they were able to buy… It was really Sears and Roebuck that did it, because they made carpets available. And the American womanhood buying carpets and so forth put an end to chewing tobacco. And…

However, I’d wish to call to your attention that as far as chewing is concerned, we could say, „What is basically wrong with this fellow that he is chewing tobacco?“ This would be a psychological or psychoanalytic-type question.

It wouldn’t be a Scientological question. We’d say, „Well, there are probably some motives…“ – we wouldn’t say bad motives, you see – „… there are probably some motives back of chewing tobacco. There are probably some motives.“

The psychological, psychoanalytic approach would be, „There are probably some hidden, basic motives (psychoanalytic) that have something to do with sex (psychological) that have something to do with his animal nature behind this chewing of tobacco.“ See, they’re specializing when they look for a motive.

And you can’t say what motive you’re going to look for and then go and look for the motive. You can’t do this. I mean, you already say what motive you’re going to find – it’s going to be bad – and then start looking. It would be very difficult.

The actual fact is that many American troops – brave boys who were out there protecting their flag – have saved their lives and their country with chewing tobacco. You have no idea the efficacy of chewing tobacco if you have a nice jaw full of it at close-order fighting.

Now, here… here we have man, however, terribly fascinated with the wrongnesses of all the men around him, and then when called upon to study himself have to discover nothing but the wrongnesses in himself. You see?

People first get interested in all these wrong-nesses in all the people around them. Then when his attention is at last beaten in upon himself, obsessively and compulsively, he starts to examine himself for wrongnesses. And this is all he finds in himself, wrongnesses.

Believe me, you can start looking for wrong-nesses; you’ve got an endless job ahead of you. In the first place the difference between right and wrong on a social-agreement level is one thing, on a philosophical level doesn’t exist.

You have a society here – it has agreed to exist, it is existing, and it has agreed within the framework of its existence that certain acts are right and certain acts are wrong. And if you are a member of this society you will, by your observation and your own intelligence and actions, be able to differentiate between right and wrong.

As a matter of fact that is the legal definition of sanity. That is the social definition of sanity: the way to tell the difference between right and wrong. If a person cannot tell the difference between right and wrong, he is legally insane.

But what is right and wrong in philosophy?

Those things that are right are right because we say they are right. They are wrong because we say they are wrong.

And if you start looking for things that are wrong and then you find something in your own or your brother’s anatomy, you’ve of course found something wrong, haven’t you? Let’s go over that one again. It’s very simple. You’ve decided to look for something wrong. Now, you’re going to look until you find something. When you find something, you will then, of course, decide that it is wrong.

This is very simple. This is the way Freud did his research. He looked around and anything that he would really find or unearth, then he would consider it to be an error.

Well, look, there couldn’t be all these errors. Otherwise nothing would run, work, hang together or would ever be understood. You couldn’t have a totality of error anymore than you could have a totality of rightness. Any individual who walks in who is 100 percent right, all the way across the boards, has either just blown up or is just about to. This is an intolerable condition.

If there were no wrongnesses anywhere in the universe, there would never be a contest. Never a contest. There’d never be any reason why you hit Bill when you were young. There would never be any reason for you to take action against something. There wouldn’t be any reason to have a fight anywhere. There’d be no contest of any kind going on anywhere unless there was something to be remedied. In other words, we had to assume something was wrong before we started remedying something.

Now, this is an age-old fallacy, and as long as psychotherapy or business organizations or civilizations stick with this idea that anything we find is therefore wrong and should be reme­died, nothing is ever going to work out or work. Truth of the matter is, a perfectly laid out plan can be perfectly executed without even experi­mentation. That’s an interesting fact. It can be. This can occur.

This is not the way a government goes about it. Governments lay them out wrongly, mess them up, submit them to Congress which alters them and then puts them into the hands of an incompetent to execute incorrectly. And we get the Internal Revenue Bureau.

The fact of the matter is, though, that if there weren’t all these wrongnesses to be remedied, why, there wouldn’t be that many men employed on the subject. If everything was utterly right about internal revenue, do you realize the unemployment that this would cause in the United States? Do you have any idea of this unemployment? The ratio, you know, of tax collectors per taxpayer is coming up toward the optimum of one for one. It’d throw almost half the working populace of the country out of a job, you see, immediately. If you suddenly threw away all the things in government which were there simply to remedy wrongnesses, if you threw all those away, you’d just throw all these people out of a job and everybody would starve. Of course, we all know that.

You see, if there were no wrongnesses in the Bureau of Internal Revenue, do you know all that you’d have to do? If there were no wrong-nesses to be remedied of any kind there wouldn’t be any employment of any kind either. All you’d do is, on the 15th of March or something like that, you’d say, „Well, let’s see, I made so-and-so this year and the tax is 5 percent or 10 percent…“ It’s a tithe now I think, isn’t it? Don’t they work on the old tithe principle now that we’re beginning to worship Washington? „Ten percent of my year’s income.“ And you’d write out a check and shove it in an envelope and send it to somebody in Washington who would just add it up on the cash register and that would be that. There wouldn’t be any collectors. There’d just be a bookkeeper there to make sure it got into the treasury. See?

But the counterplay of error makes this horrible complexity that gives us this huge organization called the Bureau of Internal Revenue. See? It’s just the counterplays of error.

Well now, you set up one error and then you set up something to correct this error. Well, two errors don’t make a no-error. Now you’ve got something over here that is going to arbitrate between these two possible errors. But it might get out of order, so you have to have another organization over here or somebody over here to monitor all three of these and review them, you see, and to make sure they stay in line. We now have four errors in operation.

Now, you start expand this… expand, expand, expand, reductio ad absurdum: we eventually get what man calls a government. It’s errors counterbalancing errors, checked by errors, errors over here, countercheck.

Also if you were to look at a tangle of string, you would find a mass which would be very hard to untangle. Similarly, we have a mass of errors. The string in going round and round should follow a spherical pattern. It doesn’t do that. It overlaps itself and it gets under and over and around. And when it gets unwound, it gets pulled apart in some fashion, you have this enormous tangle. Well, that’s a number of errors.

Error is quite a necessary thing if you’re going to have any kind of an organization at all. That’s no reason, however, why some people should specialize in error. But if you’re going to have an organization, there must be a preponderance of Tightness about it to continue its survival. And if we only look for the error and we only cited the error and only complimented it, we would be in a circumstance where all of the difficulties of the organization would simply cave in upon themselves and you would have nothing even vaguely resembling an organiza­tion left. You’d just have a chaos. You can’t have a totality of error.

Now, when this individual starts putting his attention on himself it’s because, really, everybody has said, „You’re wrong, you’re wrong. No, no, we’re right over here and you’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong.“ And after all the fellow says, „You know, I don’t know how one man could be as wrong as I am.“ After that he takes up psychoanalysis or commits suicide with psychology – he does something along this line. And he takes a cigarette out of his pocket, lights it, you know. „Why am I doing that? Hmm. Freud says the libido theory has… I wonder if there’s any homosexuality in my background, do you suppose? No, that only applies to cigar smokers. Let me see. I wonder if it could be because I was punished for smoking?“

See? Error, error, error, error. So he’s in a state of only researching his errors. And if all of his horsepower is dedicated and devoted to his errors, errors, errors, the next thing you know they’re the only thing about him that has any strength. And he becomes a tangled, incomprehensible mass of error. And being this mass he then says, „By golly, I certainly better not study myself any further. I’m going to get my attention off of me because I am too horrible to look at. If there’s anything I know at all, it’s I’m too horrible to observe!“

Now, that’s an interesting thing that occurs. And that’s why they start looking far afield. People believe that they are so compounded and composed of errors and mistakes that there’s just no sense in going over it any further. They’re in apathy about doing anything about themselves.

Fascinating thing, isn’t it, that man would be so totally fixated elsewhere. Well, this is one of the reasons he’s fixated elsewhere.

Faultfinding is not exactly the best practice that ever occurred. A certain amount of it, possibly, is necessary one way or another. But just why a human being has to point out faults to another human being, in this particular universe and particularly on this planet, is a little bit of a mystery, since the universe and the planet do such a wonderful job of it. I never saw anything anywhere near as good as this planet, its jungles and impasses, its plains and storms, for pointing out mistakes. It has any Sunday school or grade school teacher just beaten all out. It is an artist at pointing out mistakes.

Well, let’s… A good friend of mine, Martin Johnson, the late Martin Johnson, made a remark one time I thought was an awfully fine remark. He said, „We have as little adventure as possible on our expeditions. We intend to have as little as possible. All you have to do to have an adventure is to permit some small error to enter into your planning and execution of an expedition and you’ve got adventure! But even with a completely perfect plan, a completely perfect organization and an execution by schedule of everything you intended to do, you’ve still got Earth and the heavens to contend with. And they’ll furnish all the adventure you can ever digest.“ He was a man who should have known.

Now, it’s an oddity that if you go out here, across – you think the rigors of this planet are far and distant from you, but they’re not – you go out here anywhere, the remainder of this month or during the next four or five months, and you assay to walk twenty miles and you forget your canteen, they’ll bury you. Earth will have turned out to have been critical of you. Earth will not have immediately forgiven this particular error of the canteen omission. It’s actually true that it’s impossible to walk across these deserts, for a mortal man to walk across these deserts in the height of summer without water. They don’t last four hours without water: the dehydration is so sharp, so swift that it… A fellow can… You know, here he is, very civilized and he’s driving a car and he drives on a back road and all of a sudden he has a blowout and he can’t patch it up; and he decides to walk back to the service station. And they find him: he’s lying there in the road, dead.

The Earth is critical, very critical. In Montana, for instance, in the wintertime it doesn’t even have to be very vigorous weather for you to skid one way or the other. There are a great many errors which you could commit which you would be immediately punished for.

Well, it’s no wonder, then, that man gets so slap-happy about punishment. And he goes around telling his fellows – just as a fellowlike warning, you know – “Don’t forget that canteen; don’t forget that mackinaw; don’t forget your snow glasses.“ You know? Because it means a man’s life or an illness as a result of it.

So, therefore, error is so easily pointed out when you are quite mortal and when you are making your way around even in the milder climates of this planet that man rather falls into the habit of pointing out nothing but error. And he completely overlooks this interesting thing: He completely overlooks the fact that the only way he keeps on living at all is because he is more right than he is wrong.

The worst Freudian case who could still walk and talk and live amongst men… We’re not talking about institutional cases. The worst… They’re dead; they are as far as man is concerned; they’re dead. But the worst of these Freudian neurotics that would go around and say, „Let me see, what libido theory am I working with now?“ is still many times more right than he is wrong. Fascinating thing.

All man is trying to do is eliminate the abundance of errors in himself and get it down to a few that he can live with. But he always forgets that the rightest thing about him is the thing which sets things right.

The man who has no impulse to set things right is insane. That’s one of the best definitions, as far as workable definitions are concerned, of which I know. The man who wishes to set nothing right is crazy.

And this doesn’t matter whether he is sitting on Chomolungma, known to you as Everest, in the gorgeous majesty of utter and complete serenity; he’s a bit mad. He’s a bit mad. I know; I’ve talked to some of these boys, and they… from my standpoint they didn’t seem to be all there.

Here’s your panorama, however, of man in his effort, in his agonizing struggle to do something about man, that he avoided looking or inves­tigating or even getting very interested in what made him tick. Instead of that he went off onto this wild kick: what made him wrong.

You see these as two entirely different adventures. Trying to find out why you tick, why you’re as right as you are, why you function at all, why you think at all, would be quite an adventure. Finding out how wrong you are and wherein you’re wrong would be a different adventure. It’s another one. It’s a route that many take, but it’s another activity.

Now, if an individual had some command and knowledge of his own self, he would expe­rience freedom in many ways, but he’d also experience a considerable increase in ability. And that’s the first thing he’d experience.

People don’t believe this. The whole field of psychology doesn’t believe this. And in psychoanalysis too.

We have this individual working, let us say, with a drill press. And he’s working away with it, and a big chuck here and so forth. And he doesn’t know where the switch is that turns it on and off. Let’s just omit that from his knowledge. You know, sooner or later he’s going to get in trouble? You just have a feeling about somebody who didn’t know where the on and off switch was of his drill press that sooner or later that thing was going to go on running when he didn’t want it to. You just have that suspicion this would occur.

Supposing he didn’t know how to change the bits in it? Well, you’d say, „This guy is really getting to be a product of the machine age, isn’t he?“ A drill runs all the time and it always runs on the same size bit.

Well, what if he didn’t know where the lever was that pulled it down and put it up again? Would you call this man a drill-press operator? He didn’t know any of these things. Would you call him a drill-press operator?

Well, this is a tool, isn’t it? It’s a machine. It’s something he lives with and works with. And he knows nothing about it. Boy, I can assure you he’s going to punch more wrong holes of the wrong size in the wrong places on the wrong material than the waste superintendent of the factory could add up on the profit-and-loss sheet in a long year of Sundays.

And yet we have men going around with a thing they call a skull and a brain. They don’t know how to turn it on and they don’t know how to turn it off: that’s one of the first things they don’t know about it.

Did you ever get to thinking about something and go on thinking about it and thinking about it and thinking about it and thinking about it and say, „You know, I really ought to stop thinking about this because I got to go to sleep. And tomorrow morning is going to be here all too soon.“ And you lie down and you think about it, you think about it, you think about it. And all of a sudden it gets more horrible and more horrible. You just didn’t know how to turn it off.

It’s a funny thing that a man could go on living with this tool, though, called his mind for thousands and thousands of years without ever having an instruction book on how you run the damn thing!

Somebody like Einstein sits down to play with the kids. He doesn’t know how to change the bit in this thing. And he says, „Well now, this… the velocity of your little cart here, you know, is…“

Somebody who customarily plays with little kids is suddenly asked to solve a problem in nuclear physics. And he says, „Huh?“ Can’t change the bit size.

You give… It’s very amusing how some men use their minds. We get somebody who is a very fine plumber and we start him into the painting business. And he gets over here and he decides he’d better have some design work, you know, and that sort of thing. And doggone it, all of his design work is like this, you know? It’s all in the field he just left. Well, this is silly, isn’t it? He just didn’t shift gears.

We turn a nuclear physicist loose in the field of the mind and you get something like Scientology, which is entirely too mechanical, we know very well, for the mind. But it’s the best I can do in describing it. It’s a good language to go through. You could probably be much more esoteric about it all. But the truth of the matter is, we are living in a machine age and that communicates.

The problems of thinkingness, however, are not peculiar to the machine age. Here we had the Roman Empire, and it was just doing fine till all of a sudden a little squirt that couldn’t lick anybody – so he had to have the whole Empire behind him – all of a sudden decided, you know, he was going to be emperor or king or something. This started going by the boards in an awful hurry. And nobody could turn that thought off in this madman’s mind!

We had a little jerk by the name of Hitler here a few years ago, running all over Europe saying, „Bow down! Bow „down!“ They didn’t, so he shot everybody. He had the idea that the German was supposed to be a superman. And he’d better be a superman. Not because anything was wrong but just because he had the idea that everybody ought to be, in Germany, a superman; and nobody who was a German wasn’t a superman. And this was his idea. This is silly. Why didn’t somebody turn the switch? Why did eighty million human beings have to be thrown out of their homes, wounded and killed?

Looks to me like these things are very innocent little gadgets, these minds. Looks to me like they can be controlled in most places and directions. Looks to me like they’re quite han-dleable in any competent hands. Doesn’t seem to be a strange mechanism to run.

But looking down through the channels of history I find a place or two where somebody has had trouble handling or running a mind. There are two or three characters in history who just couldn’t seem to get it on or off, or pull the lever down or anything else. It’s a fact. It’s absolute fact.

Now, we take a look at the history of man and we find that he writes about mainly all the wrong thinking that’s gone on. Well, gee, there must have been an awful lot of right thinking for a man to have survived all that wrong thinking.

There must have been more right thinking than there was wrong thinking. There must have been better… good planning… there must have been more good planning than bad planning, otherwise there wouldn’t ever have been any successful planning.

And yet here and there throughout the societies of man, man comes up against this thing and he’s got a… and it doesn’t stop working or it won’t start working.

Did you ever see a man have something going on in front of him and he’s supposed to do something and he stands there and says…? He doesn’t know where the switch is to turn the thing on, you know. All he’s got to do is turn it on, think about it and reach a decision and do it. But man doesn’t do that sort of thing.

All right. He gets paralyzed or he thinks too much. He over – and undercuts whenever he can’t handle his own thinkingness. It’s an odd thing that he’d go on all these thousands of years, as I said, without developing an instruction manual.

We pretend in school to teach children how to use their minds. We pretend to do that and then we educate them. Two entirely different activities. We don’t teach children to use their minds; we teach them to sit still and shut up. It’s a different thing.

If we were to start in by teaching some kid how to turn his happiness on and off or teach him how to come out of a tantrum or go into one, teach him not only how to change his own mind but somebody else’s, he’d be quite a successful kid. He’d also, oddly enough, be well.

Well, this whole machine called the body depends to a large degree upon this gadget called the mind in order to function. Bodies don’t function well when they’re not directed. If you don’t believe that, let your body walk into a stone wall or a buzz saw sometime or another and it just won’t, you know, it will just keep on walking. Most fascinating thing.

There’s a story they tell about the difference between the Army, Navy and Marine Corps. The way it worked out is the Navy, a squad of sailors would walk up to the edge of a dock – if told to forward march, and then no command to halt was given – the sailors would stand there and wonder… You know, they’d just stop and they’d look around and they’d say, „Where the hell’s the petty officer?“ you know?

And the Army would stop there at the edge and just mark time.

The Marines would walk right straight on in.

But a body’s kind of like that squad of Marines. Without any direction they’ll just keep walking, buzz saw or end of dock or anything else, if you don’t direct it.

Problem of mind is a problem of control. It’s a problem of direction. It’s a problem of intention, of goals. Always present in any human situation is the human mind. And if it can only really see at a distance and it can’t look at itself running up close, and if it’s having a rough time in general starting and stopping and pressing the right pieces of metal, I’d say a civilization with this as its primary malfunction wouldn’t get too far.

Well, that is the main mystery. The main mystery on the human track is not what was or where was the missing link. The mystery on the track is not where is hell. The mystery about man is how, without knowing anything about his mind, he could continue to go on to some degree prospering. And how he’s still here. That’s the mystery. How, without any instruction manuals, just bungling through sometime or another, accepting mad clowns as leaders, man still is here on Earth. That’s the most fantastic.

Yet he is here. And as long as he’s here, he can be made to continue here, particularly if he had a good and workable instruction manual. It would mean a great deal, if he had the modus operandi of how and what his mind was doing – how it was doing and what it was doing and how to make it do that or something else. You would have quite an advance in civilization. This is certain.

But where you have man already being right more than he’s being wrong, and then in possession of the materials which would make him even more right or be able to invent much greater wrongnesses, you’d have an entirely new start. „It’s a quantum step rather than an evolutionary step,“ somebody in the War Department the other day said about Scientology.

The fact is that man just going on, you know, with this drill press that you don’t know how to start and stop possibly wouldn’t get too far. There’s a little bit of a race between the boys who don’t know how to run the drill press right now and the boys who do.

But I believe that if man has been this right, this often, over this many ages, he’ll still be more right than the atom bomb, and he’ll still be more right than the portended George Orwell, 1984. He’ll still be more right than this. And he will succeed and somehow or another he’ll cover this bridge.

One of the best ways to get through such a period would be to have an operating manual of how the mind works.

And I think we have that thing today in Scientology.

Thank you.