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

Hi today. Did you survive last night?

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

Audience: Yeah!

Audience: Yeah. Yep. Yes.

I understand there were people falling on their faces, is that right?

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

Audience: Yeah!

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

Oh, that's terrible. Hate to see effects produced like that. It's very bad, very bad.

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

Your general state of processes today actually leave the one that you were running rather in the dust. It's a tremendous process and so on, but we're way out in advance of it. That's why that particular process is relegated to PE Co-audit and for large groups and so on. And I feel I should tell you its limitations. It does have limitations because sometimes the preclear interprets it to be more communication. He doesn't run out old communication, he adds on new communication, don't you see?

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

And he just starts stacking the bank up, you might say. And if a person isn't making good progress with it, there are two things wrong. He is not in-session. He's not in-session. That is to say, he's unwilling to talk to the auditor. And boy, when they're unwilling to talk to the auditor, don't audit them. Get them in- session. That's a nice tip right here. And the people that read high on those meters, they're just unwilling to talk to the auditor. That's something for you to remember.

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

Definition of in-session: Interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor. And unless those conditions exist, you don't get any auditing done.

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

Person who's sitting there, withhold, withhold, withhold, withhold, withhold, see — total individuation. And finally, the more he's audited ... He knows — he knows that auditor can look right straight inside and read all of his pictures. He knows that. And he knows that if those pictures get read, kkkkkkkk! that's it — he's had it. He's done some terrible crime! Actually the crimes that people have done that they withhold from auditors are so laughable, ordinarily. Something like they strangled a kitten when they were two, you know. In their married life, four years ago, they winked at a man.

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

Crime! Crime rampant. Send for the O-Gay-Pay-Oo and J. Edgar Hoover, see. FBI and the state police and the local gendarmes and so on, will be right there with a big net.

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

Other people hold to their bosoms the fact that they know they're crazy. And the person who mustn't find it out is the auditor. And of course, that's nonsense. First person to find that out is the auditor.

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

You say to a pc now — you say, „From where could you communicate to a mother?“ And the pc says, „Well ... Now don't tell me.“ After about a half an hour of this, if an auditor's worth his salt, he knows. But the reason the pc can't answer it rapidly is because he's afraid if he does the auditor will find out he's crazy. But of course, a person who is trying to hold it to himself as a secret that he's crazy, isn't. Because truly crazy people have no responsibility for being crazy! The only crazy people to a crazy person is the auditor and all the other people. He's the only sane person left on Earth, which is a unique position.

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

The only people who are absolutely convinced, without a shadow of a doubt — no grays, all just black and white — that they're absolutely sane, are in institutions. They're inside looking out. For instance — by the way, they're the only important people on Earth, too. I don't know if you knew that.

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

Very often you walk up to a janitor and you say, „Hey, where's room 24?“ or something like this, you know. You should be very careful talking to janitors that way. They're much more important than corporation presidents! Infinitely more important. There isn't a waiter in a restaurant that isn't more important than the governor general. And the most important thing in the world is, of course, something like an ant or a mayfly. Boy, are they important! Wow!

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

Sometimes, because of pressure of business and that sort of thing — and factually, it's almost impossible for me to get my work done. Nobody could do my job, you know. That's not possible. One day somebody said, „By golly, God probably couldn't hold down your post,“ you know, being sarcastic, you know, but being mean. And I thought it over and I said, „I think you're right.“

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

But the only reason, you see, I can do my work at all is because I'm not important, see. It's kind of a reverse look — I'm not important. I'm probably the least important person in Scientology. Must be! Obvious, for the excellent reason nobody ever asks me how I feel. Nobody ever asks me, „Is it too much work for you to do this?“ They never ask me that, you know. They just load it on the desk. See, they give it to me amongst lectures, so on. They never say, „Can you do this?“ They work on a total certainty that, „Oh, well, that's Ron. He'll do it.“ So I am obviously the least important person in Scientology.

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

If I were important at all, why, things would be different. They'd be totally different. We wouldn't be anyplace, because you have to get in there and pitch, you know? You can't count how tired you get or how many bugs are flying around through the epiglottis. You can't count that you need a vacation or anything like this. You've just got to keep the show on the road and other people's necessities are much greater than your own. So they're important, you see? I don't necessarily say that's a sane attitude simply because I have it. It's just I'm hung with it and that's it.

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

But if you want to find some important people — real important people you have to go to some place like India. And you have to find an untouchable. And although they're, supposedly by everybody, supposed to be the least important people on Earth, actually they're much more important.

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

I've looked into the skull of an ant, though, carrying a burden of a leaf or something like this and, man, did he think he was important! Wow! You sort of put a little beam on him and direct him to go elsewhere, you know. The immediate reaction you get is, „You realize that if you interfere with me, the Earth will probably stop turning upon its axis! Do you realize that? Do you realize the sun will probably fall out of the sky if something happens to me?“

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

It's only the little people who are terribly important, and only the real crazy ones. A person can get so important that he never draws another sane breath as long as he lives. That's a — odd commentary, but very true. And basically it's because importance itself is what swells up and makes a reactive bank. Importance. You might say solidity equals importance and nonsolidity equals unimportance. It's quite remarkable.

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

Importance is a — is a tremendous factor in dealing with people. And every once in a while you get a pc sitting in the chair that you can't audit and doesn't seem to get anyplace and so on. Well, he's just doing everything wrong and upside down and so forth because he's too important to be talked to. And the importances that he assigns to some of the most innocent phenomena would shock the rest of us. And they just can't give out and tell the auditor anything.

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

Now, under modern processing it's rather easy to break through this particular barrier. But „From where could you communicate to something?“ and so on, doesn't happen to be a process which itself immediately breaks this barrier of importance and withhold and so on. It doesn't break down underneath — before that process. Therefore, a great many people in co-audit units — some percentage which hasn't been established but is probably less than 50 percent — well, considerably less, maybe only 20 percent, 25, something like that, not been established but something on that order — sitting there not in-session. And when they're not in-session, naturally they're being addressed by mechanical auditing and so forth and the person isn't really interested in their case and so forth and they're not in-session and they start to run a communication process, they just add communication onto the bank and do something else. They never do the command straight.

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

It isn't a matter of „From where could I communicate to a cat?“ It would be: First they have to find a cat. And then they have to find out whether or not the cat is an acceptable cat to them. And then they have to find out whether or not they would dare be in the vicinity of the cat. And then having established this fact, they have to choose whether or not it's going to be verbal communication or done by Morse code or something. And having chosen this, they then totally neglect to find a location and simply say they've answered the question. It's very interesting looking into a pc's mind and finding out what he really does do with an auditing command.

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

The more they're withholding, the more superimportant they are as a person, the more nyeahh they're doing the auditing command. That you can count on. And the crazier they are, the more important they are and the more important are the crimes which they must be withholding.

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

And I'll let you in on something: If you can't tell a Scientologist what you've been up to in your life, you'll never be able to tell anybody. Scientologists, you know, have a reputation, oddly enough, amongst humans. They do! They have a reputation. This would be rather odd because I'm sure nobody has — it would have to be me that would scout down some odd factor like this — have to go around and ask non-Scientologists who are vaguely associated with Scientology what they think of Scientologists. And they have very definite opinions, oddly enough. They consider them very easy to get along with, very understanding, (you'll laugh at this one) not at all critical, and that they can be trusted. And that's what people who are around Scientologists normally think of Scientologists, no matter what they're telling the Scientologist!

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

Normally, they'll tell the Scientologist, „Well, you shouldn't be interested in such things and when I was young, I was interested in the affairs of the world, too, but I got over that. It's a rather adolescent idea. Here we are — here we are in this tremendous morass, quietly sinking down, nobody's troubling anything, and you come along and offer somebody a rope. Huh! How come you're so good that you can't sink in a morass, too?“

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

But in spite of what they tell Scientologists, they do have amongst themselves a definite opinion of the character of a Scientologist, which I consider is rather remarkable.

Audience: Yes.

I've plucked this out of the mouths of boardinghouse operators, you know, and out of restaurant keepers and out of non- Scientologist staff in organizations and other perimeter people, you know. And they all seem to have just about the same opinion. There must be some truth in it.

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

And if a person can't tell a Scientologist about it, he's had it! God help you if you told a psychiatrist about it! A psychiatrist receiving a piece of information concerning the fact that four years ago the wife had winked at another man: „Ah,“ he'd say, „Ah. Mmmm. Freudian connotation, it means definite sex starvation. It means a suppressed bearing on the libido. I think — wouldn't be any chance of you having a libidoectomy, would there? Well, no, I thought not, I thought not. I didn't think you could afford 20,000 pounds. So the best thing for you to do, Mrs. White, is to go out and have affair with another man and that will discharge this compulsion to be faithful.“ Really, I shouldn't — I shouldn't be sarcastic or say mean things about psychiatrists, I really shouldn't be.

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

Once upon a time when the US was busy getting disentangled from England — this is something very funny about that, you know. I've now started a backflash on the line and I keep telling — I tried about a year ago to make a joke out of this and tell some people over in England, „You know if you don't watch it, you're going to become an American colony, you know.“ And they don't think it's funny! That's right. And they stand there and tell me, „Well, it might not be a bad thing, you know. It might not be too bad, you see,“ and so forth, and get very reasonable about the whole thing. It might be happening — who knows?

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

Anyway, America is under a tremendous mental healing onslaught these days. And the best thing that you can say about it — it's a mental healing onslaught that has as its byword, „Nobody can do anything about the mind. So therefore, anybody who tries to do anything for it or about it, you see, has to do it according to the statutes.“ And you say, „Well, that's very interesting, let's see now, according to statutes, so on, just ... Now, do you mean that you're supposed to do something for the...“

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

„Oh, no! No, no. No. No, no, no. No, no. The reason we use electric shock is it's lawful.“

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

There's one state in the United States — Michigan — where a medical doctor, if he did not electric shock the patient, could be arrested as it's against the law not to. Yeah, you know, total plan.

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

But those boys are in much worse shape — much worse shape than anybody else is. Think of having to stay in there and pitch knowing darn well you had no answers; knowing darn well the statistics were totally against your ever doing anything for anybody and having to say for the benefit of the state legislature, „Oh yes, we do a great deal to help these people. We do a great deal to help these people,“ and knowing positively and definitely through personal practice and experience that it never did anything to help anybody, but only worsened cases. A man who is in that one — he is withholding failures! And they withhold failures and withhold failures, and it is so common and ordinary to go down in the padded cells and find psychiatrists and attendants — former attendants of the asylum in them, that — it's a grim business.

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

And once upon a time there was this big battle up in the northern lakes. And somebody, I think it was Oliver Hazard Perry or some such great naval hero said — after they'd whipped a British vessel, he says, „Don't cheer, boys, the poor devils are dying.“ You know, that sort of thing — very touching sentiment. I think we should adopt that sentiment.

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

Matter of fact, a lot of you miss the boat entirely — you do, with psychiatry and so forth. You feel these fellows are — are all evil and they're not — they're merely spun in. And you actually avoid them or cease to try to overwhump them or cease to try to do something for them. Do you know that a large percentage of them — all a psychiatrist would have to hear is that, „I want to help your wife and family. We're not so much interested in you, but we would be very, very happy to help your wife and family.“ And you think that's — sounds very funny. Give them a little literature or something like that. Oh, you'd have his wife and family under processing right now.

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

I gave a lecture to a series of psychiatrists in Washington, DC many years ago. There were twenty-one of the leading psychiatrists of that whole district, and eighteen of them offered me their wives for processing. Pathetic! You see, when it comes to something they really want to have happen, they know they've got to go to somebody else, no matter what they're telling the public.

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

So, therefore I'm not being supercritical. I'm just trying to give you some facts in the case. That's a soft field. They're not tough and hard and all in agreement and presenting a united front and so forth. They're just a sort of an idea peoples got and you try to enter or penetrate that particular sphere of action or influence and so forth and they just fold up, quick.

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

We caused a fantastic amount of upset in Washington, DC by officially sending a representative from the HASI over to the American Psychiatric Association just to find out if they were being ethical according to our codes. And boy, they were sending us literature for months. They were trying to prove to us that they had a code of ethics and that they did do something ethical and so on. And then they went and rewrote the medical code of mental healing, and we've been responsible for a complete rewrite of those codes in the United States.

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

But they don't dare adopt the Code of a Scientologist! They don't dare, because it has a horrible line in it. And that has to say by charging people for doing things and not charging them for not doing things. And if that single line could be enforced upon all healing, we would have it made. We'd be the only gainers. If we absolutely made it law that a practitioner could not charge for no results — if he got no results, he could make no charge — and if that sort of thing became general, people would have to break down and admit they weren't doing anything. Because you'd have every patient who was disgruntled and upset and had been cut to ribbons and chopped up and charged to death and so forth, you'd have them right back on their necks.

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

We get a very small amount of this in Dianetics and Scientology. And one of the reasons why organizational activities have to exist in Dianetics and Scientology — left to my own devices, taking no real responsibility on the line, I could just tell all of you, „Well, just go ahead and do what you please and have a good time, and push the gospel through and that's it,“ and that sort of thing. But I found out that here and there Scientology gets into bad hands. And it gets into the hands of somebody who cannot be audited. Because the person who Just has the little tiny secret about having winked at a man four years ago or been found in the wrong bed or something of that sort — this person gets up to a sane enough point where they don't care. And they find out that they patch this up most easily by exposing it and getting the two-way comm out of the road and so forth.

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

It's quite — it's quite pathetic, by the way, that there's many a husband — many a husband very, very angry at his wife when his wife has done nothing. He is angry at his wife simply because he is guilty of overt acts against his wife. Sounds utterly incredible, doesn't it? See, he then dreams up motivators. He dreams up reasons why he did these overt acts. And those reasons why are not true at all.

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

And vice versa. There's many a wife who is just furiously angry with the husband — privately, covertly, down at 1.1, you know, on the subject — who is simply angry because she has done something to the husband. It's something like you beat a dog and then you have to get mad at the dog because you beat the dog. See? It's some kind of rationale that explains, then, that the dog bit you or something of the sort. The dog was lying on the hearth rug wagging his tail as you came in, you walked over and kicked him in the head. Now, to explain why you kicked him in the head, you have to dream up some rationale about how the dog looked like he was going to bite you or it was really a bad breed of dog or the dog had thought some overt thoughts against you.

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

But any one of us, even the best of us, occasionally find ourselves outside the pale slightly. You know, we do something that isn't agreed upon as being perfect optimum conduct. In view of the fact that nobody in Western civilization has ever defined optimum conduct, we can find ourselves outside very easily. You know, an American is found in America eating with his fork in his right hand and an Englishman is found in England eating with his fork in his left hand, you see. Eating with his fork in his right hand, his left hand, who's supposed to eat with what fork where? One fork is the other and so on. It's not right conduct, you see? You just change countries and it becomes wrong conduct. Get the idea? And manners and customs and the ways we regard things and so on, we just shift a boundary or go over to another race or something of the sort.

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

I remember — when I was in my teens I had the — the pleasure of being able to wander around enough to become rather conversant with about twelve different races, most of them aboriginal and apparently much lower levels of civilization — by which we mean simply that they are not mechanically civilized, that's all we mean by that — twelve different races. And I became struck with the idea that they were so different, that each had such different ideas about right conduct, that there couldn't be any meeting ground amongst them but that there must be some common denominator in their existence. And the common denominator that was finally isolated by me was survival. They were all trying to survive. That we could bet. And they were united on this one common denominator. But there was hardly anything in any one of those races that was considered survival that wasn't considered nonsurvival. elsewhere.

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

As I remember vividly, as a young man about seventeen, getting into severe trouble with a Japanese host — I didn't make a pass at his daughter. He almost never forgave me. And don't think that didn't have me grogged for a while. I was being a good boy.

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

Well now, let's just don't break it down to races. When we get as far away from established codes of good conduct — when we get as far away from this individually, we also separate in terms of what is good conduct. And practically every person on Earth has some slight difference from everybody else on Earth on the subject of what's good or bad conduct. Every person has his own opinion of what's good conduct. Every person has his own opinion of what's bad conduct and they only apparently amalgamate into a racial idea country by country. Every person in that country has just a little shading different than everybody else. There's some slightly different opinion.

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

Now, you owe most of your aberrated condition to the fact — I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be — I didn't mean to be complimentary. You got a case, too. Anything that you think is wrong or nonoptimum about you occurs because of your surprises in the past at discovering something you were doing was not considered to be good or optimum or acceptable by some person that you were living close to. You were going ahead and doing what you thought was the right thing. And you found out, much to your amazement, it was the wrong thing.

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

These slight differences of opinion on what was correct and what was incorrect, by the way, start all the rows that occur in marriages. Now, I'll give you an extreme example. A little boy comes in, there's — his mommy's got a typewriter sitting on a table and it's got white keys, so he says, „Isn't that nice, now I'll help Mommy and I'll take a lead pencil and I'll do the right thing and I'll color all the keys of the typewriter,“ you see — or the piano, „color them all black,“ you know. And he gets licked for it. He has an awful time trying to straighten this out, you know? It just isn't quite right. He didn't know he was doing wrong and then he found out he was doing wrong.

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

And that is the cycle of practically all conduct everyplace. You thought you were doing right and you found out you were doing wrong. Well, who are all these people that set up all these laws of what's wrong? I don't know, we set them up ourselves. We decide what is wrong conduct and what is right conduct, and there's no general agreement. And you can't go open up the Code Napoleon, you know, and read down — „Right conduct. Wife fails to speak to one at breakfast — improper conduct,“ you know. See? You'll find in some other family — wife speaks at breakfast — wrong conduct. And there's no security, you might say, on what we are doing and whether or not we're doing it right or otherwise. And it makes an insecurity.

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

People go on doing jobs in offices and with organizations and so forth, and they think they're doing right. They — by their 'own lights and their own values, why, they think they're doing right. And then all of a sudden they find out it's all wrong and it's a great shock to them. And they find out these things are all wrong just two or three times, and after that they feel insecure. They're not quite sure, because they have been invalidated. Their sense of values has been invalidated. And they get to a point where what they think — when they get pretty bad off along this line, they get to a point of what they think must not become public property because it might be wrong conduct.

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

And you'll get some of the weirdest opinions of what one shouldn't tell the auditor! And don't always think that when you're trying to get something out of a pc that it is some crime that has to do with rape, murder and arson. It's probably got something to do with not wearing the right dress or something to do with — something to do with not having been appreciative of something.

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

Or they just can't be audited by the auditor and the auditor is a very bad auditor and he ARC breaks them all the time and he's very bad and it's all bad over there and so forth. You come to dig this out, you'll find out that the basis of all this reaction to this auditor is the fact they can't talk to the auditor! Well, the reason they can't talk to the auditor is not necessarily because the auditor — don't take the easy way — reminds them of some other person they could never talk to. That's the easy way out.

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

It usually hinges on something as definite and as present time as this: They sat down and they said, „My, what an ugly looking specimen of human being.“ See, said something like this. They thought this, you see, and... „He reminds me of Uncle Charlie and I bet he's twice as dumb.“ You know? That's an overt act! It tended to individuate the individual. And this overt act is the reason the auditor's a bad fellow. Got the idea?

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

And you're sitting there and the tone arm is sitting at about 4.5 or 5.0 — as the auditor — and you just can't get this pc to talk and it's high arm and then you don't seem to get any facts out of the case and just can't seem to break it down and case making no progress and so forth. Don't be so quick to blame it on your skill in handing out processes. And don't be so quick to blame it on the process! We've had processes that worked for years and years and years.

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

For instance, this ACC is only going to specialize on how do you administer a process and get sessions started. That takes a lot of know-how. And I think that's the best thing I can do for Scientology in Australia, rather than give them a whole bunch of new processes. I'll give them a bunch of new processes too, but let's get the address to the case that makes the case run! Let's show them how to get these cases and shake them out and run them! Let's get some Clears down here, see. That's going to be done by auditing skill, and that's the best thing that I think we can teach people in this ACC that's coming up.

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

But you, in addressing this case, don't at once suppose that because it's got a high E-Meter arm and because the fellow won't talk and the process doesn't seem to be getting anyplace and all that sort of thing — don't be so quick to blame yourself or — and don't be so quick to think it is some fantastically high crime! It'll be some little thing that doesn't amount to anything. You say, „How could a person go through absolute torture and have nightmares and lie awake nights for fear somebody would find this out? How could anybody be worried about this?“ That's usually what happens.

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

But in this — just the general run of these things, the reason processing takes so long is because when you don't start a session — when you haven't got a pc in-session (interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor), the processes have to break down these little bits and pieces of things. They have to break down the unfrankness of the person. You're waiting for the process to do it. And good golly, that takes forever. You can just go a hundred hours just pooom — just waiting for the person to finally get up high-toned enough in spite of the withhold and everything, they suddenly say, „You know, I thought you were a bad auditor at first,“ or something like this, you know. It's quite remarkable, but boy, that's an awful waste of time and it's an awful waste of Clears to go at it this way, to break it down with a process.

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

There's only one exception to this sort of thing. If you can't take a person down on the tone arm practically at once by getting them to get frank with you and tell you what the score is about all this, if you can't break that down almost at once toward Clear for that person's sex and if the person has been going on for years and years and years of processing without any gain or reality on Scientology, only then do you say, „This person has something in his past which is this lifetime and which if discovered would put him in prison.“ Or „This person has been doing something consistently and continually that he can't tell one person in particular — a Scientologist.“ And that would be overt acts against Scientology in general.

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

This person has been in there kicking the show to pieces very often, while saying, „Well, we're supporting it all,“ and so forth. And it leads directly and immediately back to a criminal background or criminal activities. We have found this over a period of years.

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

But I have never yet, around the world, ever heard of a Scientologist calling for the police. Somebody robbed a cashbox once in an organization, and I — we had him by the ear practically and I had to plead with the whole staff! They were saying, „Oh, no, Ron, don't send him to jail,“ and so forth, „we can straighten him out. We can audit this person — now we know this person's so unreasonable recently. Don't turn him over to the cops.“

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

Scientologists are against law and order by superduress. They think law and order should come about by improved cases. And they're right! They're right. Putting people in prison doesn't stop criminality; it increases it. Nobody'd let me put that person in prison. I didn't want to very hard myself, so I just skipped the whole thing. Actually, they were picked up a week later for impersonating an officer. I don't know, their luck must have gone bad.

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

But you only find — you only find that these nonmoving cases that just never move and nothing ever happens and that go on for years with hundreds or thousands of hours of auditing — the only way that can happen is just if they ever did talk to a Scientologist they'd have had it. Because even a Scientologist, they feel, would do something to them for what they were doing. It's usually magnified in the person's mind but it's usually not very good.

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

We've found out, for instance, that every major push or area upset that we have ever had was occasioned by such a personality — no gain in auditing over years and years and years until we've begun to recognize that fact. It's the first question we ask. Has the person ever gotten any benefits from auditing? How long has he been around? So forth.

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

Well nowadays we don't get violent on the subject but we are apt to reach out and grab that person and sit him down and have a little talk with him on an E-Meter, and bust that tone arm down anyway.

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

We are our own best forces of law and order. And all unlawful activities actually stem from aberration, not from differences of opinion. They stem from obsessive individuation from their fellow man. And somebody was very right when he said that the criminal is antisocial, because he's obsessively individuated. And a person who is totally individuated from an auditing session is not necessarily criminal, but he's got some overt acts that you've got to get off, otherwise he continues to be individuated. And he's so individuated, in other words, he's so „only one“ — of course an auditor has no part in the session at all. And he's really sitting there self-auditing the whole time. No matter what the auditor's saying, that person can't be put under control, for instance. And you say to the person, you know, „All right, take your right hand and touch the top of your head.“ No sir! He's liable to take his right hand and sit on it. He'll do something else!

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

You try to run something like old Start-Change-Stop on him, old SCS, something like that — boy, they practically fly out the windows. They must be different! They must be different to such a degree that they cannot communicate with anybody. And you try to run a communication process on a person like that and they start going pretty wobbly. They put new communications on the line.

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

They do strange and weird things with communication. Communication to them, in the first place, is not explicit or expressed. It doesn't mean anything to them. You might as well say, „Where could you abracadabra to a mother?“ Communication isn't possible. Communication is something they put on a machine over here which talks. They never talk. That'd be fatal.

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

What society at large faces is the realization not so much that people are people — society faces a necessity to realize that anybody who is, originally was trying to do what they thought was best.

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

It — if you try to break down somebody that you've had a violent argument with, you'll find out the argument was preceded by considerable effort on their part to do what they thought was best. That idea might have been quite aberrated, but they thought it was doing the best. And if you ever want to know the person you've been the angriest with in your life, it's the person that you tried most to help and failed. And you're doing what you thought was best and they never accepted your help and they never got better, and boy, you wind up willing to kill them! And that's how a society falls apart.

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

Everybody thinks that everybody else's standard of conduct must be much different than their own. There must be great differences here somewhere or another. And they consider the other people so different than them that if they do one tiny little thing which seems to be against the social custom, they become to that degree unauditable. Because that's the basic upset in the bank in the first place. And if they've thought a bad thought about the auditor, you don't get them over the ARC break, they just go on ARC breaking. They keep on saying, „Oh, you're doing all wrong and I can't sit here and I can't listen to that woman any longer, and I'm not going to answer another single question. Go ahead and talk, I'm not going to answer you one.“

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

It's a horrible fact that almost nobody suffers from anything ever done to them. The basic aberration is denial of self, invalidation of self — the most fundamental aberration. It doesn't mean there aren't aberrations on other dynamics, but that's the most fundamental one.

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

Now, when this person has — has done something to somebody else, he is his own worst critic. And he goes along that way for a long distance. And as long as he's relatively sane — relatively sane — why, he is rather critical of himself Feels a little degraded, feels like he quite — hadn't quite played the game. He did somebody in one way or the other. He was responsible for something that he shouldn't have been responsible for. And he better not let other people find it out because he's really not quite as good as they are and all of that sort of thing, you know? That sort of thing runs through his mind.

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

Until you get the immediate crimes out of the road, they don't audit. You're asking processing to dredge up these crimes and wash them out unexposed and undiscussed. Processing can wash them out unexposed and undiscussed. It is possible, but it takes an awful long time.

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

So much so — well, it used to be said — auditors in the US did a series of — I was processing a bunch of people and they did a series whereby I was taking regular HGC pcs and running them for five hours, and the other HGC pcs were being run for twenty-five hours by their auditors, and we were getting the same results. And they thought, „Boy, this is something,“ you know. Well, it might have been better insight or faster skill or closer „prosepah.“ I don't care what that was, I do know my subject.

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

But — but, it did work out this way — I found out those people couldn't withhold information from me. They'd sit down in the auditing chair and they'd say, „Well, I'm going to withhold this from Ron,“ you know. Pow! And they'd just hand it to me, basically because they rather favored the idea that I would find out anyhow and they might as well cut their throats now as later.

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

So, I never had pcs that were otherwise than in-session. And these other auditors doing thoroughly as good a job, the pc wasn't in-session so they weren't making the same gains in the same amount of time. It took them five times as long to make a gain as it did me. Well, that was just mainly — the main factor was, the pc that I had was in-session.

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

You say, „Well, confidence has something to do with this.“ No, it isn't confidence; it's lack of overts. And the pc sits down in the auditing chair and all of a sudden spills all of his overts.

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

Girl says, „Well...”

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

You say, „Well, what goals do you have — what do you want to accomplish? What do you want to get done in the session?“ so forth.

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

„Well...”

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

„What goals do you want in this session?“ I say.

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

„Well... Well, I might as well tell you now. I've been married before and I've never been divorced, and I'm married again and if my husband found out he'd kill me!“

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

I say, „Fine, now you've got that out of the road, what are your goals for this session?“

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

And they say, „Yeah, what do you know. I did tell him. Lightning didn't strike. Ceiling's still there.“

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

That was the way it was. And yet somebody else would have fished around with that for a long time without very much happening. Just the fact that they figured I would find out — and as a matter of fact, I'm pretty good at finding out.

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

You finally — if you've seen enough people, you can look at a person twenty feet away and you say, „That boy's got a charge on him and the charge is right now, and there's something wrong right here.“ And you'd say, „Well, that's it.“

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

As a matter of fact you can touch a person in the arm and tell whether or not he's had — got an overt against you. There's a lot of little tricks, once you learn. And people who are superindividuated from other people are particularly noticeable, and it's some sorrow to me to see some of the great leaders of the world so individuated from everybody else that I've got my ideas of what they've been up to.

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

Now, there are various ways of running sessions. You'll find out that a session that starts on an emergency basis is one of the most successful sessions. Then you really see Scientology working with great rapidity. There is no thought of withholding. Somebody has been hurt. Somebody is in trouble. Somebody is right on the edge of something. And boy, they give right now and they obey the auditing command because they're under duress, heavy duress. And you see Scientology pull them right out of the hole.

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

And one of the most spectacular things to do is to give somebody an assist immediately after they're injured. You have some trouble holding them in-session sometimes. Something on the order of — oh, somebody's been banged by an automobile fender.

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

For some reason or other I never see many accidents. They tell me lots of accidents happen in the world and I just never seem to see them. I'm never around when they happen. I don't know why. I feel rather — rather fortunate or something of this sort, when once in a blue moon I can go around the block the other way anti find an accident and actually administer some processing and observe some actions and reactions and that sort of thing.

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

But I've had a person who has been hit by the fender of a car while on a crosswalk recover almost at once from practically what must have been a broken hip. You know, „Touch the hip, touch the fender of the car.“ Cop comes along and says, „Sir, we'll have to call for an ambulance.“

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

„Sir, you had better get out of here. I'm a doctor taking care of this. Now, touch the hip, touch the fender, touch the hip, touch the fender, touch the pavement, touch the fender, touch the hip, touch the fender. Yes, that's right.“

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

And the guy — grog, grog, you know. Pick up their hand and make them do the — touch the fender, touch the — bang! you know. The somatic comes off in an awful hurry. Boom! All of a sudden they say, „Boy, that's pretty sore.“

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

You say, „Yeah, touch the fender, touch the hip. All right, that's good. Now here's my card. Officer, you'd better send for an ambulance if you are going to.“

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

In order to do things like that you have to control the whole environment. It isn't enough just to audit the pc. But you can do some very spectacular things at the moment of impact. You can patch up kids' aches and pains and so forth. There's nothing — nothing better than simply making them go to the point where they were injured and touch it — touch that exact location. Boy, the somatic flies off like mad!

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

I learned that one day trimming up rosebushes. And I was out of valence — I was way back on the backtrack — thought I was running a doll or something of this sort. And I was trimming up rosebushes without any gloves. Naturally, why — blood, you know. Very heavy, thick thorns of climbing roses, and I just carelessly ripped my hand up, you know. I said, „Well look at that,“ you know. „What's that?“ And reached back and touched the rosebush and felt the somatic turn on and went on down the line, saw the somatic running rather slowly out and got the sudden idea that — first place, the blood was getting on roses and things. So I went back and touched the place where I'd ripped my hand up. You know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. Didn't impress me very much.

Audience: Yes.

And a little later — this was — very great subjective reality occurred on this one because a little later I was kicking over a racing motorcycle — I like to do things like that, stupid of me, but I do — and I was kicking it over and it was very high compression and it almost broke my ankle. I forgot to turn the spark off, you know, and almost broke my ankle. And I touched the starting bar a few times and ran the somatic out a little bit. Rode the bike halfway home and noticed my ankle was hurting.

And this time let's be different!

And I said, „There's something wrong here someplace.“ Instead of just postulating it out of the way or doing something effective and efficient, why, I decided there might be some better way of going about this. So, I took the motorcycle back — well, I got home and wrapped my ankle up because it was beginning to swell. Took the motorcycle back to the place it had been at the moment I tried to start it and got kicked, and finished out the touch assist on the exact place and it ran out in another five minutes, swelling in the ankle went down and so forth.

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

The exact location of something happening and an immediate address to an injury gives you Scientology at the ne plus ultra. It isn't that it won't run out otherwise. You don't always have to be in the same location, it just takes a little more time because you have to run out the difference of location. And if you've made the same location, of course, the difference of location is missing in the run and you've got it.

Audience: Yes.

It's like present lifetime seems to have greater reality on it than the last life. You see? In the last life, „Well, where was I? I don't know,“ and so on. And you get things, you got a picture, so it must have been, and that sort of thing. The present lifetime you're still around in the same environment that you were around in since birth, you see. You're actually processing in the same area of experience. So processing the same area of experience can be quite important.

Well, are you with me in doing that?

But basically, basically a person is willing to go into session when they're under heavy duress and emergency, but there is no reason to put a preclear under duress and emergency just to get processes run. Some auditors believe it is necessary; I never did.

Audience: Yes.

It's only necessary to get him in-session. Get him willing to talk to the auditor, willing to run the process, willing to obey the auditing command. And the only way he really gets there is to be interested in his own case and not withholding things from the auditor. You see, the reason they're not interested in their own case is they're so worried that the auditor may ask them that exact question which exposes all.

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

So auditing exists in areas of free communication. And in the absence of free and optimum communication you get very slow progress. Scientology will still do the job, but it's very, very slow progress as compared to the progress that you get when communication is free and when you keep it patched up and keep it running smoothly. It's not processing that lies between lots of Clears and very few Clears. It's just that — not processes and technology — it's just that know-how: that know-how of how to get to a case; that know-how of how to audit the case, not audit the withholds of the case from you; that know-how of being able to break it down, establish an area of few communication and get the thing on the road in a hurry. You do that, you got lots of Clears, and if you don't do that, why, poor show. And conversely, you can't live around people that you're totally out of communication with without feeling very bitter about them.

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

If you want a happy environment, well, you'll just have to have an environment that you can be in communication with. So it works not only in sessions, but in life.

Audience: Yes.

In the next lecture, I'll talk to you about this factor of individuation, because I think I've got it pretty well whipped, and show you you can even do more than I have told you about it.

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so for now, goodbye.