Thank you.

Well, what'd you think of that project I talked to you about?

Well now we re going to take up something interesting. And for a change now we'll take up something very interesting. I'm going to take up a subject known as the Survival Clubs.

Audience: Hooray!

Audience: The what?

Well, I'm not going to talk to you more about it unless you want me to. But, how many people here would actually be interested in organizing one of those things?

The what?

Good-good, well, I'll give you a clue, I'll give you a clue.

This is an idea, it's an idea you'll hear more about, you will learn more about. Here, some congresses ago, we adventured into the third dynamic. It was a very interesting adventure. We found out something so fantastic by venturing into the third dynamic that I do hope and trust that we will never adventure that way again. Which is simply this: As the dynamics fade out the individuals drop down to the first dynamic. And a third dynamic activity or operation becomes all but impossible. It sounds weird because it asks this interesting question: How can you have a country? How can you have an organization? How can you have a business?

There's an awful lot of US, and there are 200 million people. And I don't think the number of people that raised their hands right now are too many.

And we adventured into this line simply to discover this. It was a test project. It went along fine. We tried to get people interested, we tried to get them interested, we tried to get them interested and let me let you in on something. If I can't interest somebody and if Dick can't interest somebody and if Ken (Barret) can't interest somebody and if you can't interest somebody in something, we might as well quit.

In a town like, let's say, San Francisco, I don't see how you could have less than two or three dozen clubs, you know – it would – it's a multiple factor even for an area.

& [Ken Barret's last name is cut from the above paragraph in the clearsound version]

Well, good enough, would you like to hear something about theory and processing?

So this fantastic thing has taken place that the dynamics which number of course from one to eight have pared off from eight on down to one. The urge toward survival in terms of groups has for some reason or other zeroed in America. Once upon a time you could always issue, as George Washington did, a few casks of brandy and have a political campaign with a nice party on the lawn, get all the boys with you and everybody said hurrah and three cheers. Once upon a time political parties could amount to something, do something. Once upon a time there was some influence could be rendered on the government, by political parties.

Audience response: Yeah!

All we tried to do was to find out if the third dynamic was still attainable. And we found out that it was not. Which tells you why you have had a little difficulty getting a big group together. I feel for you. You keep tapping people on the shoulder saying, "Come in."

All right, maybe you'd like to hear more about the "Survival Clubs." Which would you like?

A century ago the place would have been mobbed. And unless we do something about it in another decade, not even you will be there. There are many problems which face us in the world today, which cliché has touched off practically every congressional speech, senatorial speech, news announcer statement – there are many problems. And it's the goddamnedest understatement that anybody ever made. Because nobody's facing these problems!

Audience voices: Theory!

What do you mean we face problems in the world today? Do you think that the House and the Senate are facing any problems? Nah. They'd get solved. All you'd have to do is confront 'em. You mean to tell me that an over-inflated slave economy can't be licked with propaganda alone? Certainly it can be.

All right, good. What lazy people. Going to make me do all the work.

But nobody's facing the problem so nobody licks it.

Well, there have been a few advances in Scientology in the last few months mostly in the basis of summation, or "this is the thing" or "this is the proper thing" or "all of these other things are as unimportant compared to this thing." You get the idea? It's a reevaluation.

The individuals of the country, however, are still individuals and they still know they exist as individuals and therefore a first dynamic operation is possible. Hence, you can make a first dynamic operation into a political philosophy. Has been done, but not quite with the thoroughness that we're going at it.

Most people that you run into – they know nothing about evaluation. I'm not talking about now evaluation of the preclear. They just know nothing about evaluation of data; it's one of the more fabulous soft spots in the human anatomy. "Uh – children eat ice cream. The president died yesterday." Same value. "Uh – every action has an equal and contrary reaction. Uh – the Russians fed the dog uh-uh-Neetzie-Weetzie biscuits in Mutnick." Huh, same value.

There's such a thing as rugged individualism. America was built on rugged individualism. Every man self-reliant, minutemen rushing up grabbing their muskets every time the country was threatened and running like hell – ah that – I didn't say ... Now we're not talking about rugged individualism. We're talking about individual service, serving the individual. And it's a little bit different than the fellow ruggedly standing there with both feet.

"Uh – I am. sick today Uh – I, uh – have lost my job. Uh – I don't want any breakfast. Uh – the – the world is round." Same value.

In order to get a group you have to serve the individual. And on that stable datum I'm afraid that it's necessary for us to operate for a little while. Therefore if we springboard off the first dynamic we can possibly get to the third, possibly. How do you create a nonexistent third dynamic? Well it's just that, you create it. How do you create it? You have to appeal to the individual, you have to show him that he can be served. In order to show him that he can be served, you have to show him that he's in some danger. This will be his first cognition.

In other words, there's no difference from datum to datum. Now, that is a symptom of "data apathy." You get the idea? People go down into "data apathy," you might say, they go down into identification so that all data – it isn't that every datum is every other datum; it's "All data are equal." There is an – a total equality of importance of data. "All data are drops of water in the ocean, and all drops of water are alike." You get the idea? That failure to differentiate in importance of data is simply no more, no less than a failure to differentiate.

A fellow standing there with a bundle of dynamite in his hand, the fuse lighted and so forth, and he just goes on standing there. Somebody has to tap him on the shoulder these days and say, "Son – huh – huh, that dynamite is liable to blow up" at which moment he'll throw it at you.

Bill walks in the room and they say, "Hello, Joe. Oh, I thought you were Joe for a moment." Ah, the hell they do – they probably think he's Joe all the time.

Now I don't say the country's all gone to hell. I don't say it's all beyond recovery. That happened about fifty years ago. We're starting from south.

Here you have – here you have this old Dianetic "A=A=A=A." I mean, "All data are all data."

Now what possible service could we be to an individual. Well, we could help him become more able. All right, that's fine. But unless we go at it as a group activity it doesn't graduate into a third dynamic. It just betters the first.

So we get into the field of science. Nobody has ever bothered in the field of physics to evaluate the importance of data. If they were to write a scale, just this, no more – not adding anything to physics, not subtracting anything from it, just write a scale of data, and it went like this: This was evidently the most important datum of physics; this was the next most important; this was the next most important; this was the next most important – they'd probably come out with a brand-new subject. See?

Well now how does a political philosophy come into this. Let's scout this thing down very rapidly here. A political philosophy comes into it that I'm sure this fellow will agree with you. You can take all of these first dynamics, all of these first dynamics here and raise their level a little bit in IQ that we will have a better third dynamic. In other words, the only thing necessary to bring about a great political reform in a country is simply to raise the intelligence of all the people in the country a few percent. That is the crux of this idea, but one that you probably will not talk about.

Instead of that they say, "A British Thermal Unit is 776 BTU, and so and so on, foot-pounds per the square inch of the millibars, you know, and it is all the same." And that's just as important as whip... "That was on page 62 of my textbook; and the 62 is just as important as British Thermal Units; it's just as important as..." you know. You'd be amazed.

But that's its political connotation. You just raise everybody's IQ a few percent, why then there they go, they'll be all right.

Very seldom do you see an examination like this: "Give the six most important factors of motion or characteristics." You don't often see them like that. They say "Give the characteristics of motion on page 27."

The fallacy of trying to educate people whose IQ and ability to receive is not up to being educated is that one does not educate them. They are not smart enough to be educated. A further step has to be taken. You have to raise everybody's IQ so they can be educated. But the funny part of it is, is you raise their IQ they won't be educated in any stylized fashion, they will start to make up their own minds about some things. And only then can you have a democracy, only then can you have a government, a third dynamic on the basis of a democracy. You would have it if all of its citizens were able to understand and appreciate the issues before the government. I think you agree with that.

Now, evaluation of data is an integral part of thinkingness. "Thinkingness" discovers data or invents data and of the two, invention of data is probably more important than the discovery of it – unless, of course, you are looking for a common denominator of agreement in certain things and want to do some things with and then the discovery of data becomes very important to you. And as we look over thinkingness and evaluation, we find that people who cannot evaluate amongst the importances of data cannot think! They do something that passes for thinking and you have seen this every day of your lives.

Unless you do that you're not going to have anything but a totalitarian state.

The funniest thing I ever heard anybody say is a – bellboy stuck a key in a door, and then suddenly realized that it was the wrong door, and the wrong key for the right door and he said the funniest thing I ever heard anybody say – "I wasn't thinking," he said. He wasn't thinking. Well, of course, he hadn't been thinking for a very long time. He wasn't thinking, he just uttered a statement.

Now the way things are going, if we just force draft education in on people and so on and keep kicking them out and making them afraid, we will cut their IQ down. Now if we keep cutting their IQ down and they become less and less able to confront, why, of course they become less and less able to be a country. And sooner or later some big fellow on a white horse – he used to ride a white horse, I don't know what he rides now – has to walk in and wave a sword and get a totalitarian regime. I think he probably waves a Cadillac now or a Ford or something of the sort.

People have this idea of thinking all mixed up with "doing what they're told" and so forth.

But these chaps who would give us totalitarianism themselves usually cannot face or confront problems, so totalitarianism has never been a solution. It never will be a solution no matter how much we may begin to hear it whispered from here on out that what we need – what we need is a strong man with a bunch of slaves.

But a free mind can take the data of a subject and sort it out. And saying "Well, this is important, and this is important, and this is important, and that's important, but this is the most important and this is next, and this is next, next, next."

No. It'd be fine if the country had a very brilliant person who could lead a democracy if one existed. That would be fine. But he'd only be able to operate (this is what I'm getting at) if he had intelligent people. See. So the point is not leadership. Nor is the point political ologies. Communism, socialism, anarchy or anything else are philosophies. They are philosophies. And so far they haven't done very much good to people as political philosophies because the world isn't getting better under these philosophies, but on the contrary, is marching up to a point where it looks like it's about to wipe itself out.

You'll get a problem coming apart the moment somebody asks the thing, "What is the most important part of this problem?"

I know all of you have felt some concern of one kind or another with the state of the United States and its government in this period of emergency. Now there isn't much of an emergency. It's just that Russia put up a sputnik and put up rockets and we fired off a rocket and it didn't go up, and we had crash program after crash program that didn't materialize and this sort of thing is depressing. But that isn't really what's depressing. It's why doesn't somebody stand up and say something sensible. There's an awful lot of people in the Senate. There's an awful lot of people in Congress, and I'm sure all these people are people. They haven't said anything yet. See. They're going to increase the educational budget – some hundreds of millions.

Now, you as an auditor in handling a preclear can get at a present time problem very easily if you ask the person "if he's having any trouble lately" or "What is the most important thing in his life at this moment?" If you say, "What is the most important thing in your life this minute?" you are probably asking the same question as, "Have you a present time problem?" It's almost the same thing, you see?

No look, the emergency is now! It's all right to have more schools and more education, but they're talking about when the guy gets out of school then they'll do something. Well when's that? Anywhere from five to sixteen years from now. This is a solution?

Now this is an enforced importance, the individual has had this importance forced upon him, you see? He doesn't like it either (something of the sort). Well, in this wise he then confuses data with problems, so it's trouble with data, trouble with problems and trouble all become the same, and they say, "Well, we'll just skip the whole thing, and we will no longer evaluate it."

Now if the mathematics professors, the physics professors of the country have not so far been able to create geniuses and educate people, why do they think that another appropriation is going to? The solution is not more money, more hours, more education or more government. The solution is obviously better citizens.

This would be a very interesting experiment to take Black's Physics, elementary physics; I'm talking about real elementary physics, you know, and just sorting out all of the data in the book in a gradient scale; all of the laws and rules, and then writing a book which gave them in this order, and which gave them in stresses of importance and so forth to the degree that each one evaluated the other data, and where they were all discovered and found.

What is a better citizen? By usual government definition, it's one who salutes. There is a hat called citizen. There is a hat called citizen. Definitely. Taking the responsibility for one's role as a citizen, which isn't obeying the traffic laws but contributing to the policies of the government. Oh, the government don't like that definition of citizen.

Actually, the kingpin of this probably is "Conservation of energy." That probably is a king factor, and yet it's not really given that degree of it, but it winds through every physics experiment. It's obviously a datum which rides along with the pack, wherever you find the pack you'll find that idea too.

One of the reasons why the US government cleaves onto and adheres to foreign scientists – there's nothing wrong with foreign scientists except what I'm going to tell you now. They adhere to these fellows, they love 'em, they pull them into their bosoms for this reason; an American scientist has been educated with a certain tradition of having a say in what is done with his brain children. He believes that he should have some little say as to the applications of things. If only as a citizen. He believes he can open his big mouth. And so we get Conden and Oppenheimer and so forth being investigated all over the place. For what? Not for communist affiliations, that's a lie. If you investigate the case of Dr. Conden who was the very able director out here of the Bureau of Standards and who is a fine physicist, you will discover that he's been under investigation for five years for advocating one thing: The translation of Russian scientific papers into English. He advocated this some years ago, and obtained a grant from the Rocky-feller Foundation to make it possible. And was at once branded as a subversive. And has been investigated continuously for five years, has been kept out of work, has been worried, has been harassed, has been cleared by each successive investigation until evidently the opinion of just one man is all that stands between Dr. Conden and a decent job. The man can't even get a job. Right now he has some minor post in a university.

Well, in separating data out in the mind and telling which is the most important and so on, has this liability: The mind is capable of two things which make it difficult to sort it out. One, it's capable of inventing data, that's a high level of capability, you see. So you never know quite when you're going to run on to an invented datum, so that gives a hazard to the game; and the other one – the other part of this as far as data – pure data is concerned, is that, one mind is more concentrated on any given data than any other mind, you see. So that we get an uneven concentration on data, we get an uneven agreement. Now, you have to go through that hedgerow in order to get up to the point to find out what datum is common to all minds? What idea is common to all minds? Well, the funny part of it is – it's different than you think, I think. This datum is that – that's common to all minds isn't any longer a datum, it's an isness, it's a thetan, it's a being.

Sixty-four scientists we have done this to. Why? Well I know several of them. Some eleven of those sixty-four are personal friends of mine. I have never shared their political views or their scientific amorality. I have not seen eye to eye with them at all, and they haven't seen eye to eye with me or with each other. But boy, did we open our big mouths! And Dr. Feller and Mr. von Braun, these characters, boy do they keep their mouths shut well. Have they been trained. They only say the exact thing they're supposed to say when they're supposed to say it, and they do exactly what they're told, and they – army loves them, dearly. Not because they're bright, or not because they're smart or can get more done. We got a thousand scientists in America better than either of these men. But because they say, "yes sir"' "yes sir"' "yes sir"' "yes sir"' to hell with this "yes sir" stuff.

Now, the definition of that was really the triumph of Scientology.

The American scientist has not been taught to keep his mouth shut. I suppose this will be accomplished in the next few hundred years, but I hope it never occurs. He is not a subversive, he is a communicative, not a communist.

Now, what this being is doing we already ran across and isolated out in Dianetics, and his most important datum is of course survival.

Now this state of affairs, this state of affairs is all part of the dwindling first dynamic. Obviously some of these chaps who worked for Hitler and so forth know how to keep on the right side of a shut comm line. Of course somebody was upset the other day because I was upset about von Braun. No reason why I shouldn't say this. The V-2 came during the latter part of the war after Americans were in England. There's a cemetery in London where 25,000 Americans are buried, who were killed by Dr. von Braun's slavish devotion to Adolf Schicklgruber. Nobody's going to persuade me to like the man. You get the point?

Now that's just why it is. The – I don't know why he should be so – he can't do anything else; therefore how he concentrates upon surviving is rather interesting. You see a fellow concentrated on the one thing he can do. Sort of – sort of interesting.

Well now, what I hold against him, what I hold against him is that he serves any cause. He evidently has no principles. One moment he's for Naziism. I suppose if Russia offered him a quick buck he'd be for them. That's my feeling about it. But, like so many of us, I helped fight a war against these same Nazis, and against this same scientific might. And I don't see any particular reason why the United States should select such people over and above more competent scientists in this country, except for this reason: except for this one reason: they probably find them more obedient and less liable to express an opinion.

And as a matter of fact, he doesn't have to do anything to survive, which is very interesting. He doesn't have to take any real action. We see this in nearly every religious text. "The lilies of the field and so forth, they do not spin..." only I'm not so sure about that, I've seen them spinning, "... and neither do they weep." Or some other such – some other quotation.

Now that's just a trend in government. That's all I'm showing you here. I have no fault to find with them, I'm not lecturing against it. If General Marcellus or whatever this guy's name is that's been mucking up the atomic project – the missiles project lately objects to us, why fine, we object to him. It's mutual.

But an individual does not have to work to survive; that's a new idea, he has to work to have a game. That's entirely different. But the datum which has penetrated at least this society is that "You have to work to survive." Well, that's a basic alter-isness or a basic lie that continues all sorts of ideas in continuance.

But, the point is this – this point is this, that these – as you reduce a person's communication so you reduce his intelligence. And let's extend this idea of the citizen mustn't open his big mouth out to the entirety of the citizens of the country till we get to a point where we mustn't open our big mouths. You get the suppressive effect that could come, or maybe is coming about right now. That's less and less communication which means less and less group which means less and less country which means less and less science, less weapons, less things to do with, less livingness.

The truth of the matter is all that is wrong with a thetan is that he is surviving. That sounds like one of these miserable statements that proves itself by itself. The truth is that a thetan – difficulty is that he is a thetan. And there is unfortunately no escaping the fact that he is what he is.

This dwindling spiral could become very serious unless something were done about it.

So number one data in any science of the mind comes about here on this one basis of "A thetan is a thetan." See, he is. The isness of a life-being, you see. That is the most important common denominator. It isn't walls, that's not common denominator to all worlds and lives, you see. It isn't – but the next thing about it is, is survival.

Now what I propose here is not particularly efficient or effective or the finest thing that could be done. It is merely something that could be done. And that has this superiority that it can be done. It's – look that over carefully and you'll find out that the best ideas cannot always be done. I see in nationalism today a fading star. Also internationalism is a fading star. Neither of these philosophies are very popular because they've gotten us all into trouble.

Now brainwashing becomes very easy to understand if you understand the principle of survival. And the way to get this thetan in trouble is to make him do, and think he has to make an effort to do, the thing he is doing, and therefore he engages continuously in an effort, but he can't do anything else than what he is doing, but to tell him that he has to make an effort to do it is the biggest trick that can be played upon a living being. You got that? If you know that well, you really – you really got your wits wrapped around something. Now, that's more important than ice cream sodas and a lot of other things.

Now, I'm not saying that we should go against them. I'm just saying that we shouldn't preoccupy ourselves with them. I'm saying instead of worrying day and night about what the federal government is or is not going to do, instead of worrying about the fact that we apparently have no sweepingly effective leaders, and instead of worrying about what they did do or didn't do or what the army says or didn't say or what the navy says about the army and so forth, instead of worrying about this sort of thing would it not be possible to just skip it. That's a rather startling proposal, but just skip it and be effective by making it possible for a country to exist some time in the future. Instead of worrying about whether it exists now, or whether it's functioning now, let's just get down to the grass roots and begin to grow a country, person by person, guy by guy, IQ by IQ. And sooner or later these people will be smart enough to find some leaders and get a show on the road. Possibly the job will take so long that maybe all of us will have left for Arcturus and our sons and grandsons will be carrying on. Might be a hundred years from now when something like this happens. But it has this faculty; if we do it it will happen. If we don't do it nothing will happen. Do you see this?

But the funny part of it is that the evolutionist, the biologist, and all these other "gists" never isolated survival as the most important datum; they said, it was – "Survival was important." Even Darwin said, "Survival of the fittest."

So therefore I'm not trying to tell you that this is a brilliant idea that's all going in the next 24 hours to sweep the problems of the world before it. But I am going to tell you that in 24 years you'd probably be seeing tremendous differences chiefly because of this idea called the Survival Club.

I think at some other congress I have told the story of the "Survival of the fittest" already. Cat had nine kittens and one of them had fits and the eight didn't have fits, and the eight that didn't have fits died and that was "Survival of the fittest." Anyway. That's almost as important a datum as Darwin finally added up in his – in his evolution. "Survival of the fittest." That inferred at once that there was some kind of a thing that didn't survive.

Its basic mission would be to raise the IQ of every man, woman and child from border to border and coast to coast, one at a time. If you raised the IQ of everybody in the country five percent you would certainly have a more enlightened country, that is for sure. The funny part of it is, it's very far from impossible. We don't even have to process 'em. We don't even have to process em.

Well, a chair doesn't survive maybe – it gets broken up, a lot of things don't survive. Various forms don't survive.

So that these Survival Clubs don't then become a series of processing projects as a direct immediate thing. That's very direct. The country's not liable to accept this. We have to be more 1.1 than this.

I am sorry I told you that bad joke – I've put a lot of you in misery and despondency. But it is still the best illustration I know of "The survival of the fittest." Makes the most sense. His difficulty, this thetan, is, here he is, and here's – he's doing something to do something that he can't do anything else than do. Do you get this as a supercomplication? He is making himself the effect of an action.

What we have to do, as far as I can see, is bring people together, bring people together with the idea of survival by mutual activity to the benefit of the person himself surviving.

He says to himself "I am making myself survive." When as a matter of fact, all he has got to do is relax – and he'd survive.

Now there's some second dynamic left and the fellow will worry about his family. A lady will worry about her wife – her husband and kids. Therefore about as far as this goes is an extension perhaps into the family in this wise. The federal government, with what it laughingly calls civilian defense, has told us that in event of national disaster we will all be on our own. Each one will be on his own. It has said that in many ways in many places. I'm not now giving you an idle quote. I'm quoting you off the central plan sheets or everything that's handed to the public. You'll be on your own it says.

Well, therefore, survival isn't the most important thing in his framework; see, that's not the most important thing. We said it was very important and the common denominator of life in Dianetics, but it is not the most important thing in his framework. It must be that creating a difficulty is, so that he'll have some randomity or some activity; a game. And one of the best ways to phrase it is well, he wants a game; he wants problems and he wants games and he wants things to do.

All right, the Survival Club says the same thing. Says, the federal government says in event of national disaster we will be on our own. Well, it proposes, let's all be on our own together.

So therefore, he does this incredible thing of making himself the effect of his own effort to survive and we call that a game.

Well now, that is a direct appeal, but you might have to sell somebody the fatality and horrors of atomic fission in order to get that thing across, so let's undercut it, huh? Let's undercut that. Let's talk about inflation. We already have inflation.

Do you understand all there is to know about brainwashing is all you have to do is make somebody think he has to work hard and brace up in order to survive. That's the single-denominator trick that is used in all brainwashing and not even the Russki understands it. He works like mad to do all kinds of wild, weird things and hocus-pocus and soul-searching in order to get somebody brainwashed, and then he fails.

Cost of living is going up, up, up, up. They by the way don't compute this by the percentages the way you think they do, and therefore every once in a while when you read the cost of living is up eight percent and you just had to pay twice as much for bacon, don't be fooled because the cost of living is computed differently than taking some former year and finding out the cost of bacon. You think that's the way they'd do it, but they don't do it that way. They do it with some mathematical formula known only to the Treasury Department. Nobody can ever question it.

Well, the only time he ever reached any goal or attained any success was when he simply made somebody survive harder. We get people suffering just from this.

But inflation can be a serious thing, and already American families are eating too little on the average. When the – when the supply of money is not adequate to provide a tremendous amount of food, the American family starts eating beans and spaghetti. Don't think they don't. And you'll see people in Safeway now, they go in, they pick up a piece of meat, have it weighed. Oooh they say. Dhhrt. And they have them whittle it – whittle it down and they finally go home with a little piece of meat like this for a family of five. It's not enough to eat. The reason it's not enough to eat is I think the government buys up all surpluses or something of the sort.

A guy walks into a camp where he is going to be brainwashed, they say "Hocus-pocus, fiddle-dee-dee, and we are going to upset all of you" and so forth, and the guy just says, "Well, I'll live through it!" Made him brace up to it. Brace up to what?

But why should we worry about what the government is doing if the fact of inflation exists. We are not going to do anything about it by worrying about what the government is doing. Well let's be practical, let's be practical. Let's no longer worry about the government. Let's just look at the fact. Inflation is already here. We don't care how it got here but it's here. And the government has just raised its defense budget to 73 billion dollars. In the last 24 hours it's been announced. Wow. Do you know how you create an inflation? You find ways and means of pouring money out into the public, and ways and means of cutting production and a 73 billion dollar budget will do both. In other words, if you want inflation to occur all you got to do is keep pipelining money, money, money, more money, more money, more money out into the society. And then there's another method which is take production out of the road. Reduce the number of things that can be bought. That puts more money into the public too, do you understand that?

If you can make a thetan, brace up to it, Rahhhh! Why you've really done something. See? That's really doing something. But he does it because he wants a game. Because at once he wants randomity and activity, that he is doing a thing that he can do and he can't do anything else but do, and he couldn't anything else but do if he tried; he therefore tries, and this folds back on itself sufficiently to make a complication that not even he could possibly understand. He has said for many centuries, and then we stuck our toe out and tripped him. But that's what he's doing.

The government is just about to do both. And if you don't think that inflation isn't around the corner, inflations can get pretty wild. When they start to go they start going by the square and the cube. I don't think it'll ever be so bad because our production is pretty good. I don't think it'll ever be so bad that we will have to take a wheelbarrow load of money down to the corner to buy a loaf of bread. I don't think we will get up to that point. I just think we'll have to take a thousand dollar bill or something like that. I mean I think we'll have a conservative inflation.

Well, sorting out data then, what is the most important of this data? And it's not new at all – it's something that's quite old, but he has to take an action, and the first action he takes, even above games, is to not-know everything.

# [Our old reel has a gap here, beginning in mid sentence in the following paragraph and is missing about eight paragraphs of material at this point.]

Now, if we look this over we don't particularly care about the numbers involved but we have this being, who cannot help but survive, and there is something else he cannot help but do, there's one thing he can't help but do and that's know! How a man has to work to keep from knowing something, is represented by the number of people who wanted their memories erased in Dianetics. They wanted their memories erased! Well, that's pretty wild.

When countries are marked for slaughter, inflation is a basic tool used against them. Every means is used against the country to create an inflation. Take China. A friend of mine in Peking wrote me a letter, an old Chinese, and he wrote me a letter and it cost him 24-no pardon me, the first stamp I got from him was seven yen, it cost for him to airmail a letter to me in the States. The next one was twenty-four thousand yen stamps and the next letter I got from him was seven and a half million yen, all of this within a space of about six months. The country was marked for slaughter. The Japanese use this system of bringing about an inflation. The communists use it, it's one of the methods of conquest. Well I don't see that method of conquest being used here except indirectly, by rattling sabers and upsetting people they cause defense spending, defense spending. Not wise spending but just spending. And Congress says, "Well, the way to cope with it. . ." don't find somebody that's intelligent. No, don't find a better administrator. Don't find some better scientists or better ideas. No – appropriate more money! Wow. They're playing right into this inflationary trend don't you see.

So he has to take an action to get all this going.

What would happen in an inflation. What would really happen to us. We've got a few dollars in the bank and it won't buy anything. And production is down and everybody's discouraged but we get a job, we work. Give you an idea the civil servant of China during this inflation's pay stayed the same throughout the entire spiral. He was underpaid in the first place and it stayed the same throughout. It wasn't even worth while to go around to – well, the only reason he'd collect his pay at all is to have some paper to burn in the fireplace so he could stay warm. It just would not have bought anything.

Now, we have a thetan knowing everything, then let's assume these numbers are in the lines of the action taken; we'll just assume this being who knows or potentially knows everything, now what action does he have to take? And he has to take this action, now we've known this for a long time, but we know some new things about it he has to not-know; that's the first thing he has to done – do in order to get a game on the road, he has to not-know.

I don't say it would get this horrible. Weimar Republic however went this way and a lot of other organiz – national organizations have gone this way. Once they start one of these things there's nothing can put the brakes on it evidently. Everybody says, "Well, we must be defended, we must be in good shape."

You get the – what'd they call that outfit down there the Department of the Defense of the Pentagon? The place that's defending the Pentagon down there. There's an outfit down there, I don't know what its name is, but they have a project running on how to mind read the Russians. They've had it going for about a year, and they're investing large sums of money and all kinds of things on how to read the minds of the Russian general staff. They've made an unreasonable assumption, they have assumed the Russian general staff had minds. When I can tell you definitely that they were chosen because they did not, just like any other general.

All right. Supposing inflation came along and you had a Survival Club. Well, what could you sell somebody that would make him a very willing buyer on the first dynamic or even that little bit of the second dynamic. You could say, "We want you to take out membership in this club and in case of an inflation and a rising cost of living and a slackening of employment and a few things like that, you could still eat." How? "Because we're going to take this money and we're going to buy this big plot of land out here we've already got an option on, and it's got a house and so forth and it's going to raise all sorts of things." And, "Some of the members of the club will work it full time and other members of the club will invest certain day's work a week and be paid in produce. And there won't be any cash involved in it if an inflation comes, but we can keep it turning over."

Now, I know that's nasty words, but I resigned a long time ago, and those of you who are still connected with the service listening to me can shut your ears at that point, you don't have to listen to it, but I do not respect these guys who ride forward without ever thinking or doing anything. That I can't see.

Of course, any property that you buy in the face of an inflation is the most wonderful investment. It's worth a thousand dollars today, ten thousand dollars tomorrow, eight million dollars next month. You want to hold property in an inflation, so this is a good economic move that way.

This next thing he has to do is find something to know. Now, that's quite weird. You look at this beast called a thetan and he's saying, "Well – it's all blank." Incidentally it's the easiest thing he does. Boy he can do that just like that! On death, an individual goes out the back of his head and he says at once – not at once, he sometimes drifts around for months and bothers people. But he says eventually at the moment of the next assumption when he picks up another baby, he says, "That's it, not-know!" Boy is he stupid! until some auditor gets his hands on him and says, "What is the matter with your leg?" And he answers unthinkingly, if at great length of time into processing, "Well, it got shot off at the Battle of Gettysburg." He didn't not-know all of his experience thoroughly – he just made a postulate that he not-knew so that he wouldn't think about it, but it's still effective on him, which is all part of a game.

Well that's one of the ways you could sell people the idea of a Survival Club. First way of course is in time of national disaster the government has told you to find someplace to duck because it isn't going to give you one. Well, we've got a place to duck and we guarantee that we will evacuate you and your family out to this area and give you food, clothing, shelter and medical attention to the degree that these things exist or are within our means. And if we all get together on this, why we'd probably be able to take care of one another. That is, just the club members. That's one.

Now, he doesn't even not-know what he knows, you know? But he knows he doesn't even know what he's not-known. Boy, is he in a confusion.

Two, in case of inflation, the area which we've got nailed down will produce, produce. And it might not feed everybody in the club but it'll certainly go some distance toward feeding them and keep them from starving to death. Don't exaggerate the glories that you're going to sell them. They wouldn't buy it. Tell them the truth.

Now, we get down here, and this is – this is old hat to a lot of you but we've got some new angles on it. The human conversation concerning this action is to forget. Forgettingness. He knew everything, and then he not-knew, he said, "I don't know anything – I'm stupid – I'm gonna run for Congress." Not-know everything. Now he has to find something to know, so he goes around and picks up something that he mocked up anyhow probably, and he says, "What's this? What's this? Got a black line going down, see here, what's this?" Waits for his mother to come along and say, "Junior, that's a pencil." And then he looks up with stupid innocence and he says, "A pencil. A pencil." He says, "What do you do with it Mama?"

So here's this club idea. All right, maybe people wouldn't like that. I mean, maybe the idea of inflation they'd say, "Well, the president will take care of it," the way a lot of people all say it. "The president will take care of it. The secretary of the treasury will do something if it ever gets that bad."

So as we come down from the top of total knowingness, we get the first postulate of not-know, then we get this postulate of know, then we get this postulate of forget. Well now you have to forget something that you knew in this special category. This is getting kind of complicated, but you stay with me here. In other words, you don't forget your total knowingness, that's different see? You only can forget something you knew specially like, "What is a pencil?" That's forgettingness. And you can only remember – this is what becomes very funny – you can only remember what you have forgotten.

# [The old reel resumes in mid sentence within the following paragraph. This was probably a reproduction error rather than editing.]

Now these actions – actually have to be undertaken in this order to find out what to remember. You see this guy saying, "Let me see, what was his name? I know I can remember it." It's very funny because he's had to forget it, he's had to know it as something special, and that had to be out of the total bin of not-know in order to accomplish the action at all.

Sure he will. He will issue another hundred million twenty dollar bills. Here's, then basically the happiest thing you could sell them – a recreation area. And you say, "Well, wouldn't you like to have a place to go in the summer and a place to take a vacation and that sort of thing and so on. We have a recreation area and we'll have planned recreational activities."

So therefore, the psychologist of olden days said, "People forgot and remembered." And they simply said that, "He remembered and he forgot." And they even said, "That memory had to do with remembering and forgetting" and so forth and this didn't have anything to do with it. "Memory" was an artificiality with which he assisted himself to know what he had not-known, so that he wouldn't know everything, so he'd have a game.

All right. Now supposing you had some water, you had a place on the water. You'd say, "Well, there's swimming, boating, fine – and even more important than that if the defense highways are blocked you can always use water as a highway." Defense highways are all liable to be blocked, believe me, even though they say now some of them will be open.

Now, a being that knows everything can't have a game. You get out here opposing a football team and you know everything they're going to do and every signal they are going to call and everywhere they're going, boy, you – they just won't play with you anymore, that's all, you're not gonna have a game. You got to figure it all out. And you have to get in there and pitch one way or the other and you have to put up this terrific facade of not-knowing anything about it.

In other words, there are a number of things that could be sold to people with regard to this particular idea. Now what do you mean, sell this thing to people? Well, you just get yourself a charter – I'm talking about you now get yourself a charter, Survival Club charter, properly registered, chartered and authoritative and you get the literature as it comes out and you probably get a business manager or you get somebody who's a good salesman or something like this, you probably don't do the job yourself at all. And you show him this organizational setup and he goes around and he simply calls on doors and he sells memberships in this Survival Club. For recreation, possible subsistence, evacuation facilities or anything else we come up with. Don't you see. And we don't sell him this usually for 25 dollars – why you become a member of the Survival Club. That's a very stupid thing to do because of the possibility of inflation is as real to you as it is to the public.

And science, as one of our very good friends said the other day, "You have to mock it up so that you can find out about it." "Science is the process of mocking it up so that you can study it," you know? And you get into certain rules and barriers and if you put up enough barriers why you're all set, because you don't dare peek around the corners of these barriers, because you'll see what's on the other side. It's a very complicated game.

What we do is sell him a membership on some tiny percentage of his income but we sell him a membership in the Survival Club for so many dollars a week, or something like this. We say, "Well every week give us a dollar and a half" or something like that. See? Some small amount that is continuing. It doesn't end up to the end of the year. That's just his contribution. In other words, you have a pledge to this club. And in return it does so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so and guarantees such-and-such. And many of these things that you guarantee of course are very minor as far as he's concerned. Atomic fission, why, government's got missiles and they'll shoot all the bombs down that come in. There'll never be any danger from atomic fission and inflation, why everybody will take care of that. But they might get the idea that their wife and kids would be happier if they had someplace where they could be taken, you know, on weekends and so forth for picnics and so on, particularly during the summer. This might seem like a good idea. And if there was some adjacent land where maybe they could be persuaded to build a small summer shack or something like this, why they'd say this was a pretty good idea – member of the club and meet a lot of interesting people and so forth. Sell it on a low note, an immediate note and a now. See, you sell it now for what it can do now, not what it might be able to do in the future.

It's like putting a whole bunch of data into an ENIAC or a UNIVAC, you see, putting in their data cards in the banks nicely associated, and then asking it questions. Boy, that's weird, that is a weird one. Now, that's the weirdest of weirds. How would you possibly ever get anything out of it but the data you had put into it?

But the actual thing about it is you've got your gun cocked for just one thing: by recreation and by having them together you've raised their participation and smartened them up.

Mathematics is kind of that way, it's kind of a fraud. But then a thetan is doing these fraudulent things all the time, so it consider – he considers that just another game. A fellow says, "I think I'll go study mathematics." And he studies for forty years or however long they stay in school now and since the last appropriation – and he finally comes up with a truism which he knew when he was three anyhow. Of course, it's in a complicated communicable form and that makes something to talk about and he has a game and he draws his pay and other people take conclusions off it.

Now inevitably, knowing you people, the cat will get out of the bag about Scientology somewhere along the line! But because you didn't bring them in there basically for that, you will probably have a tremendously large number of people that you will eventually accumulate this way. There'll be lots of people and there'll probably be only a fraction of those people that become interested this way.

The mathematics they do in aerodynamics is one of the wildest things you ever want to – they take the formulas of the airfoils, and the formulas of the propellers, you see? And they mark up the calculus formulas and so forth after they have built the foil and the propeller, you see? And then the mathematics individual over here in one bureau, sends the formulas over, and then the fellow in the other bureau or where they're supposed to take the formulas apart and build the propeller and the airfoil. Fortunately down in the shipping room they have a couple of guys that wear overalls that drag the airfoils and propellers over to be copied! That's, by the way, true.

But there are a number of projects and programs on which such a club could act and enter. All based on the motive of survival. Survival of whom? Survival of you. You get the idea? You'd sell it to each person on the idea of his survival, his family's survival. If he has to evacuate the town or something like this, where's he going to go? And you can show him right in your local civil defense literature where it says he should have someplace to go. Well he doesn't want to go to the expense of buying a tremendous piece of land himself or even a little shack by himself That would cost far too much money. You're going to take all of this off of his basis and do a service to the federal government too. Buy a – for a couple of dollars a week why he'll have a place to go, in case of disaster, in case he has to evacuate the city. If he gets worried about that. There's a possibility he won't be. You'll say, "All right it becomes subsistence. A certain amount of food would be your lot in case food became scarce or money wouldn't buy food." Or we simply sell it on a recreational basis, "Think of how pale your children get in the wintertime. Well you don't want them all that pale all summer too. And we'll have outings and so forth and you can come out here."

It's almost impossible to take the complete cross section of an airfoil. They have the mathematics for it but it'll fill pages sometimes. So the mechanics do all the work and the mathematicians are sitting up there having a ball, but the mechanics fortunately don't pay any attention to the mathematicians. It's quite interesting.

Now actually, the sky is the limit. The size of the shape-and shape of the club doesn't particularly matter. But let me show you a basic principle of organization which we so far have neglected. We are not too comprehensible to the guy on the street. That's the understatement of this congress. Why aren't we? We are an organization that talks about theta and its interrelationship with the physical universe. And we would get no further talking to them about their souls. Now very possibly the Christian could have talked to these people about their souls and gotten somewhere. Just that, you know. He could have gone around and said, "You know, boy you've got a soul? You know, you can get three feet back of your head? You know that that influences your mind? You know that your behavior and ability has to do with the fact that you are a spirit and you influence this body?" This isn't the message which we ordinarily shove out. But the Christian probably could have gotten someplace doing that. But he didn't and I think it's because he couldn't get to first base without backing up sin. I think he had to have sin and "save your soul" – I don't know where these Christians kept their souls back in the early days.

There are fields in which mathematics do work; there's fields of finance; you can fool anybody. The Secretary of the Treasury can say, "Well, the debit balance of this month added to the unk-balance of the other month and cross-sectioned into supply and demand curve which has just come through from the 'I Will Arise Society' tells us conclusively that we are in for a – what did you say you wanted to have happen this month, Joe?" Joe says, "I want an inflation." The guy says, "It will finally wind up in an inflation."

I get the awfulest start sometime when I'm reading some literature and they say well you ought to do this and that to save your soul. And I say "Huh?" I feel haunted. And the Christian, however, had to run in a bunch of interesting ideas about sin and the next thing you know, instead of doing with the soul, why, he was building the doggonedest biggest churches you ever saw. Man, do they have mass. Any spiritual activity eventually accumulates mass. The Christian Scientist is a very good scientist right now. The Christian Scientist certainly accumulates lots of mass. They've got mass all over the place. The Egyptians way back when – as a separ- not comparing them to the Christian Scientists – but the Egyptian way back when in dealing with the spirit built pyramids. See, I mean it's kind of weird.

Somewhere along the line a thetan has to shove the datum in himself, and he writes these complicated formulas and then shoves the datum in suddenly hoping that nobody noticed. And that's what he is doing here.

Now, we could be – we could be classified as that organization which is three feet back of society's head. We have ideas, we can confront these problems, we can see what they ought to be doing. And we're in essence, we're not a thetan running the society as a body, not that crude. But we come closer to it than anything else we're doing. And bodies don't know about thetans, you got the idea? And we might go from now till the end of time you see, being totally unknown to the society at large and bodies. Now I ask you this question, is there anything wrong with this? No, not providing you can also get communication. In order to get communication you've got to build some additional bodies. You've got to build some bodies that are in communication. You got that? If you can't be talked to directly, then let somebody talk to you on a via just like you carry a flesh and blood body around and people talk to it, and so you get the communication. You get the idea?

He simultaneously has to do these three things so he can remember anything. Therefore, if you ask somebody, "Tell me something you wouldn't mind forgetting?" You are asking him a senior process to remembering. The funny part of it is if you'd ask somebody to "Look around and find something he could know?" we've got a second postulate situation here, it still works a little bit better than remember, you know? "Something you could know about that thing?" but it still doesn't wipe out this.

Well this obviously is the successful pattern because it's in use! It's the most successful pattern anybody knows about – to have a body in order to communicate. You got it?

And we get this fantastic state of affairs, we get the anatomy of amnesia. Now, you've all heard all of this but you haven't heard about amnesia.

Well, supposing we built this organization called a Survival Club, and we were only vaguely three feet back of its head. But everybody comes along and they see this organization called the Survival Club, and it has committees and membership and all of its members are busy and you get them planning and cross-planning and you have meetings and you have people arguing with other people 'cause they didn't pay their dues and you got randomity going in all directions and the only thing they're trying to do, basically, socially, is simply to have a club. See, socially they're trying to have a club and now the next thing right up the line what they're trying to do is maybe make people a little smarter or a little more able. They kind of get this through their heads that it might be possible, that the social significance of it depended on this, that they can't have any unable people in their midst because it'd slow them down. They'd probably get this idea eventually but they don't stress that idea at all.

"Amnesia" is that game which a thetan plays when he plays that game. Definition. Here's this fellow, he's a black thetan, he's saying – his highest piece of knowledge he says is, "Huh?" The biggest knowledge he has, see? Not even – what wall or anything, see, he's in a total not-know. Get that, he was in a state that he knew everything, potentially could know anything, and then he had to drop into this state of not-knowing everything. Well, this "not-knowing everything" is a total amnesia. Don't you see? That's just a wipeout.

You're a good fellow. You're a Scientologist, headshrinker, you're supposed to know all about this sort of thing, but you know about the mind. They possibly don't even see you as a basically influencing factor in the thing, even though possibly you've got your name on the organization papers as having total control of it. You might have your name, John Doe, on the organization papers and right there – and it says "If anybody – if anybody tries to knock John Doe out of control of this organization that member will be shot." And they probably'd still not see who you were or what you were. See, it – you shouldn't worry too much about your control of it. What you should do – take a leaf from my book – try to keep giving that control away. You don't get anyplace! You control it, you do it.

Now how could it fly out of his control? We have to look up what we knew as dichotomies several years ago, and we get this gorgeous state of affairs of the doubtful person; we get the anatomy of uncertainty, and the "anatomy of uncertainty" is a very easy thing. Uncertainty is the certainty of not-know counterposed against, down here, the certainty of know.

Here's this organization then which comprises bodies, people, mest, activities, all sorts of things going on for lots of good reasons. And it's a body of people and they go on and just because they have a purpose, they have a goal, they are doing something about the future, they aren't totally defeated with regard to the government and the country and so forth because they are doing something that could prevent some of these things. Some hope has been interjected there, some recreation. Because they get out in the open once in awhile and sometimes because you get a few of 'em and process 'em their IQ certainly comes up, their ability comes up and they're able to cope. The ability to cope with the situation in general comes up. And if you did this to an sufficient extent – I don't say that you should put your membership out to 200 million or whatever the membership of the US will be shortly – I think that this club will think of itself as the organization two feet back of the society's head and here will be the society as far as the club is concerned. The club will be doing something down here about the society. You know, trying to get certain reforms accomplished in the city, trying to get the garbage collected on schedule, not thrown out in the streets. You get the idea? They will think of themselves as an organization which controls some section of the society don't you see? Now that's a successful mock-up. That couldn't fail as a mock-up. Unless of course you thought you knew more about business than the business manager and you took all responsibility on yourself with regard to the whole club. Then it could have a pretty good chance of falling on its face.

These two things interlock with a relatively equal certainty, you have a maybe. All maybes are developed from two positives.

You want to have somebody else to blame. Always have somebody else to blame. That's the primary point of organization. So here you've got your – here you've got your committee heads. I'll give you a clue on organization. Always appoint a committee as one, always fill a post, don't appoint a committee. Committees never get anything done cause that's all an irresponsibility. Just appoint a post. Make sure that every function the club has, has somebody in charge of it. And then make sure that the appointment of these people can be blamed on a few up here at the top. And you will find out it isn't all that vital to get the show on the road inside this club that exactly because the club isn't a life or death proposition. Yes it becomes life and death, maybe, when you've got this – you've just bought a thousand-acre farm or something or you have options on it and so on and there's so much money to come due and you're not making the membership on it and so forth. There are some things there that might look a little touch-and-go to you. But these people can probably solve them, so I wouldn't worry about it because they will.

Now, we thought in the old days that something and nothing – something and nothing made the biggest maybe. Well, that really doesn't make the biggest maybe, it makes a trapped thetan; it's still a big thing but it makes a trapped thetan. See? He's something but he's nothing, and he might be something but he'd better not be something, and the something is something, and the nothing is nothing, and he finally winds up with "Who am I anyhow?" And most of you people asked yourself that when you were kids, you said, "Who am I?" Your mother called you one day or something like that and you had this fantastic feeling like you might know who you were, but you weren't the person that was just called, you were somebody else.

The main thing-the main thing I'm saying is, that an organization which has a multiple, not-apparent purpose would probably be very successful. You get a business manager, he's a pretty good promoter. He hires a few salesmen around town to go around evenings, and they simply sell memberships and back up the hearse – or whatever else they do to sell memberships – and they get names on the Survival Club pledges and the USA clubs are sold to them and – the membership – and they'll get out from under in case of atomic war or something like this. You're not trying to sell them religion or getting better or you're not trying to sell them anything but self-preservation which is usually easy to sell. And it doesn't cost any fabulous amount and your finances on the thing tend to work themselves out one way or the other. Furthermore, the organization here will have this in its literature pretty well codified and organized. You're not exactly sailing out into the blue.

Well, that isn't caused, by the way, by any lapse of memory or any other thing that's very special. It's simply caused by the something-nothingness of identity. He is really nothing, with an adopted something, and he gets locked up between the two certainties. Now, he has to be certain he is nothing and certain he is something before he can "maybe" on it. You got the idea?

Now you may or may not know this, and it probably isn't important anyway: I was a member of Naval Civil Affairs at the end of the last war and they sent me to the Princeton School of Government. Well they had to get a four-year education done in a few months and they were actually doing a pretty good job because all they were trying to do was smarten some guys up so they wouldn't lay too big an egg when they got out amongst disaster populaces.

This, then, is the anatomy of amnesia and also the anatomy of doubt. Now we get a fellow who is stuck on this total not-know, we get an amnesia. When we get him here into a total know, he knows data, but, he isn't. See? He's got all this data he could know but he isn't. You see that? He would have to not-know all of his data and then not-know, and then wipe out the not-know in order to get back up here into a native state.

Therefore, my interest in the subject of disaster relief has been greater perhaps than it would have been otherwise having been educated in this subject. I was once, by the way, a field executive with the American Red Cross in the Puerto Rico hurricane disaster. And these things have some reality to me, you know. I mean it isn't very unreal and the thing that I have the greatest reality on is it's awfully easy – it's awfully easy to form groups to take care of disasters. And why civil defense is unable to recruit people to do this, I wouldn't have a clue unless their program is so lousy that the people that they're trying to recruit see through it at once, as a fraud or something. It must be a terribly bad program. Nobody's signing up for civil defense these days. They've deserted this sphere.

Now, the way this follows here is, this individual who gets cross between a not-know and a know is in maybe, and you think maybe I am just straining at it, but the truth of the matter is that's the state that most scientists are in today.

Well disaster relief, or organizations to lead toward the survival of peoples are not very complicated organizations for this reason. The people themselves each one have some desire or some knowingness on the subject. You get the idea? You're using native talent. Now you'll understand better when I say an auditor has to be, really, to get good results, has to be trained as an auditor. You got that? Well, a couple of mechanics and a filling station operator don't need very much education to be your transportation officials. You got that? So all you have to do is throw them the idea, how're we going to get – how're we going to get three thousand survivors transported from the city out to this evacuation area. Why sit around and jam your wheels with it, see? You find some guys that know something about wheels, and you say, "Heh, it's your baby. It's your baby. Now you're in charge and you make sure it's done and we'll hold you liable for it and you give us a report every meeting on what you've done in order to organize this thing." You see that. In other words, you're dealing with something where you have tremendous quantities of native ability. Where you don't have to do a great deal of education. You can pick and choose.

It has become conventional to be doubtful. That is actually just a mocked-up convention. A fellow is a scientist, he mustn't be sure, he must hang between these two things.

Now the mistake would be to just do everything for the people and set up a service that does everything for the people and that's that. No, you're going to be a slicker – because remember basically, even if this is known only to you, this is a therapeutic operation. You shove the responsibility at them. You shove them the problems. Soundly enough organized, basically, in the organization so there's some way they can do something about the problems if they think of an answer. You put them into communication with one another with regard to these problems and you get them tremendously interested in it.

And you've seen a tremendous number of cases that you couldn't develop any certainty in. These fellows, they just couldn't develop certainty in them.

All right, we have a Survival Club team, and it has – it has twenty basic offices, and that doesn't care whether we're getting in recreation or whether we're working about inflation or whether we're working about atomic disaster or what we're working on, there are twenty offices. We're going to have a picnic, let me assure you that you've got to have all of these officers at a picnic, even the medical. See, they've all got to be present at the picnic just as they would be at the disaster. Just make sure that they have countless assistants so that they get so busy trying to keep their assistants busy that they never have any time to be critical of what you're doing.

"Are you any better?" you'd say. "Well..." "Well, do you feel any different?" "Hmm, well, it's hard to tell this early," he would say, from the first examination the doctor gave his mother in prenatal bank. And you say "Well, is there any change? Are you more certain of things than you were before?" "Well, that's hard to tell. I – I – that's hard to tell..." And so on. "Well, do you feel any better? Are you glad you were processed?" "Well, I don't know – uh – it could be. There's undoubt- I am not saying that there isn't some benefit connected with it but..."

Now, it's quite interesting – it's quite interesting but you're adding goals and purposes to people. And you're taking a society which is relatively purposeless and you're putting purposes into their heads. We don't care what the purpose is. The purpose is every few weeks we'll have a picnic. Every Saturday night we will have a dance. We'll own a piece of property that has a big barn. The thing by the way has to be even about thirty-five to fifty miles away from town in order to be in a safe area outside an atomic fallout. Even then it might be a little dangerous, but you have provisions against that.

You, you chump! have always thought that this stemmed perhaps from your inadequacy or that you hadn't done anything for the case. Well, supposing this fellow knew he was a bedpost. Ah, you hadn't looked at knowingness as maybe being screwy! He knows he's a bedpost, and you processed him for a while and he wasn't so sure he was a bedpost!

If – you've got programs you know. And if the programs aren't going right and the members aren't turning up, blame the members and ask them for suggestions and get them all together to remedy this horrible thing. They'll come up with ways and means of doing it. If they're inefficient, if the club isn't running efficiently, all you have to do is tell them to run it better. When I say you tell them, you wouldn't even have to be an officer. It's just propaganda that you put around.

Now, at once you can see that a fellow moved up into maybe, in this class, would be better. Wouldn't he? He'd be better. Then why do you think he is worse if he can't tell you at once that he feels better or is better because of Scientology or what you did for him? You haven't really investigated what he really knew he was; he might have known he was a dog, a heel. You know? And you've moved him up maybe into "maybe he was a dog – maybe he was a heel – maybe he could repress a bark now." See, you've actually moved him upstairs to some slight degree.

The art and skill of being an executive is being an expert agent provocateur. That's being an executive. Some people think it's being an organizational expert. No. It's just provoking people until they'll organize. The capitalist failed because he got them to organize against him. That wasn't smart.

All right, if that's the case, then, what do you have to do to get people off these total knowingnesses? You know, I knew a fellow had a fatal malady, utterly fatal, he was absolutely, unquestionably sure that his name was Bill Jones! And a small amount of work on the E-Meter demonstrated conclusively that he had had several thousand names in the last few years, but he was sure in this life that his name was Bill Jones, absolutely sure that his name was Bill Jones, which is very silly because he was the effect of his name; he was because he had a name; his identity was his name, and he had no other livingness.

Now here then is a Survival Club idea: United Survival Action Clubs. The reason they're called that is just so you can say USA Club. But the loose term is Survival Club. You want a group, you want people you can talk with, you'll find these people take quite a while – with another purpose, together – before you could talk to them about anything like Scientology or better IQs or anything else. But if they are performing their job well, they will be getting better and you will be making a country and a government possible.

Now, that is sort of reducing it down to a reductio ad absurdum, isn't it. A fellow who knows that his name is conclusively Bill Jones, is stringing an interesting story. He's overlooking the name that – the fact that the last life his name was Pete Simons, and in the life before, why, his name was Bessie Alcove. He sometimes tried to escape this by telling you he is Judas Iscariot or something of the sort. I don't buy this; there isn't anybody going to be a martyr to that extent around our organization. We ought to be having people come up here in the next generation that will be trying to tell us they're Will Menninger, just to get some attention, just to have a game.

You want a group, don't try to form them on the basis of Scientology just per se and as such. All you want is to get some bodies together and I'm giving you an idea of how you get some bodies together. Put the bodies together, even though it's apparently quite distant from what you're doing. Because there will be a group of bodies which will become a group which will become itself a body that you can communicate with to the society at large. And you can't talk worth a nickel without a body. I know, I've processed some of you. Get you up in the middle of the room, whatcha do you do, squeak.

How do you undo this thing? Well, it's undone on the dichotomy principle which you will read about in Scientology 8-8008 which you already know about, it is "dichotomy." It's a split in between.

Well now, you're doing that with society at large right now. You have not accumulated a body to talk with. You understand that? Well don't think Scientology couldn't talk loud and long if you all, those of you who are interested in this, did your job well in organizing Survival Clubs or many Survival Clubs in your area and these were all united together under a central club that fed literature and coordinated ideas and activities and published club news and interchanged it all. Don't think Scientology wouldn't have a voice. You would be able to talk.

An individual who has an absolute certainty, is only all right, if he himself contributed to the certainty, being certain. There has to be some self-determinism in this certainty; in other words, he had to determine its certainty; it can't be an other-determined certainty, totally. Don't you see?

Now I dare say that this idea will not get there and prevent an atomic war. I dare say that it's not probable. Well when these people back up the hearse to you about atomic war, remember one thing: That there'll be tremendous numbers of people left alive. Just be one of them, that's the trick. Actually, in even a heavily bombed area, about fifty percent of the populace directly under the bombs still lived. Now what are you going to do about these people?

That's very easy to understand. We have a little boy and we tell him, "You're a bad boy." And as any normal child will do, he objects to being called bad. You call my kids bad and they just start fighting right now – they won't fight about anything except being called bad – and they won't take it, and they won't stand for it; and they stamp their feet and look at you and sneer and cry and raise the devil about it. They've had to get various maids in line and so forth. These maids would say, "Well, you are a bad girl, you broke that," or "You are a bad boy, you broke that." And these kids, just sweet and everything is fine, they never take off on any other subject; on this one they just say rgghh-rgghh – they're ready to go – they won't take it.

Now we don't – we don't care about the morals of the situation or who bombed it or what. Chicago isn't going to be able to help Denver. Denver isn't going to be able to help San Francisco. The cities are all on their own. The government thinks that it'll have cars of relief workers to pour into the area. Oh no it won't. Cops get killed just like everybody else. The thing will be utter and complete chaos. And it is that chaos which will destroy your country, not the casualties. And all you've got to have is a few groups that know what they're doing, they're advised on the situation and have fifty percent of their members survive – that's the worst kind of an emergency we could get hold of in this atomic age – to have a country that can still talk and act democratically. I don't say we're going to have a hundred million members. But a hundred thousand people left alive and organized and knowing where they are going after atomic disaster could mean the survival of America. And therefore I think the project is worth doing on those grounds, on the grounds of intelligence and on the grounds of just getting a show on the road and probably the most important grounds of all, I think it would be fun.

All right, we take some kid and this kid's saying, "No, I am not a bad boy." And we say, "You are a bad boy, you know it." See? And he says "No! I am not!" And you say bing! Bam! You are just changing him on an inversion – you're taking his determinism and substituting for it your determinism. Do you get the idea? Substitute one person's determinism for another person's determinism, and then he isn't himself anymore and then he has a total knowingness on the subject of being a bad boy and eventually gets arrested and goes to jail, which is, I guess, what lots of American mothers want.

Thank you.

You convince somebody he is bad, and that he never did anything good in his life, why you've got it made – there you have introduced a total knowingness.

Thank you.

Now, you could see that there are certain knowingnesses then that – ... which deserve to be erased, shall we say, that there might be some benefit to the society to erase some of these totally positive certainties.

• I'm going to ask the seminar leaders to pass you out some mimeos and some literature on this idea, so it's all put down in brief, so you'll be able to look at it. Thank you very much. Please keep your seats. Please keep your seats until they pass out the literature.

Now, we could go whole-hog and say all certainties are bad. That'd be a good way to do, wouldn't it? It's always bad to be certain! Well, we will leave this to the modern physicist, the modern biologist, we'll let them indulge in this.

[end of tape]

The way to write a scientific paper: "Well, I don't mean to be didactic, but it seems to me after a considerable amount of thought, of course this might be refuted many times and Professor Whump says otherwise, but I have a feeling that, due to the fact that I made 8,264 experiments which are all the same, that it seems to me – of course, I am perfectly prepared to change my mind about this at any time – that A equals Z in this particular experiment." And that's a qualified statement.

If you don't write scientific papers in that tone, you are disqualified – they scratch you off the track sheet or something of the sort or whatever they do in science. And you have to be uncertain. You have to be here. Well now that's quite an operation, here, that's a – that's an awful place to be, and yet its composite is a know and a not-know.

Well, let me – let me give you this. What is perception? What is perception? Good, I am glad you all know! Because I don't!

I don't see how those light waves hitting an eyeball can do anything.

Now, a psychologist wrote in his textbooks way back there that "light waves entered the eye and went on down the optic nerve and hit a screen back here somewhere." Well, I've said that's good, that's fine, what looks at the screen? "Oh," he says, "There's another screen right in front of it that catches the image." "Now, wait a minute. All right there's this other screen but what gets that screen?" Well, if he was forced, he would say, "Well, the light comes in and reflects on this screen. That screen stops it. Then this screen looks at that screen and so you have vision.” "No, no! This screen looks at that screen, but you'd have to have this screen look at that screen and then you'd have to have this screen look at that screen, and this screen look at that screen. Hey! Who is looking at anything around here?"

And as far as we chase down the line, we cannot find the final screen for a thetan to look at because we doubt that he looks at any. Where is the final screen that stops the light? Now, there is an interesting scientific question, because the thetan isn't, in terms of a screen. He is basically, so far as matter, energy, space and time is concerned, a nothingness, but only as far as they are concerned. Does he have a screen in himself that he himself looks at? Oh, but that's very easy, you say he just stands out here and he looks at the wall, and there it is, you know, he looks at the wall, there it is. That's all!

I don't know that it's all. I've looked over perception, wavelength, mass, inertia, speed of light, bugger factors and every other thing connected with it, and I still can't figure out how anybody could see anything, or anything could ever transfer over to anything else so as to be observed.

And I think that if you follow this out and you do some small percentage of work on it that I have done, I think you would agree with me, that nothing could ever see anything. It's quite weird.

Probably the back wall of a motion picture theater, if it had a reflective mirror in it could see the picture that was going on in the screen. I know we explain it by random optics, do we explain it by this, and it all takes a screen that something sooner or later has got to look at. And there's no sense if we can't look straight at that screen up there, then why have another screen for it to reflect on?

I found out something about my eyeballs the other day; it was very interesting. I was trying to look through my head, and I said, "You know, I could see through my head all right if those stoppers weren't in the two holes in the skull!" And I didn't realize that I had said anything peculiar, you know, when you are being processed, you get kind of anaten and stupid. And I was trying to figure out some way where I could get these stoppers aside so I could see through my head.

Well, seeing through something is an interesting thing, since I don't think that has much to do with it either. I don't know how a fellow sees a mock-up if he depends on wavelengths. And having been wooed into this field with wavelengths, I do not now know, that there are any such things. Science is all falling all over itself wondering, where these – you know, "What's the mass of the wall? And what's its velocity? And what's its this? And what's its that? And what are its basic rules?" and so on. And they get down and they say, "What is the mass of the electron? And how many skins does it have around it?" And, oh wow! They are getting down to where they are subdividing the subdivisible and the indivisible becomes supersubdivisible and here we go. And they are looking into things to find out little things that go wiggle-wiggle. And we have a wonderful time, it's quite a game, except I don't know that there's any perception possible. See? I don't know that any of the laws of the physical universe account for you sitting there, seeing me standing here. I don't know that they could account for it.

And so therefore, I've had to go overboard and conclude that all perception is knowingness. Come on, catch up!

Now, that alone would require no perceptions. That is to say, it wouldn't require lights and this and that. You'd have to know that a light was on and know that you couldn't see unless a light was on. Do you get the idea? Hum? You'd have to know that a wall was there, and know that other people knew that a wall was there. You got it?

And we go round and round and round on this and we finally only then turn up with this idea of perception, but it must be alone an idea. Now, what's the proof of this pudding? It's not hash, that's physics; it's pudding. What's the proof of this pudding. Simple.

Can you permanently improve somebody's eyesight by handling optics alone? No. But I'll tell you, you can certainly change the living daylights out of his eyesight if you can change his knowingness. Only that do I know of as an ability to change eyesight.

Now look! This opens up the doors, so wide, to speculation, that we almost look at a brand-new subject in Scientology. See? We just drop all this junk called physics, it was a good pretense, but a game while it lasted, and we enter on a much more adventurous game. How does a thetan become MEST-like? By becoming known of course.

So how would we reduce weight? By convincing him he could be less well known! He didn't need that much identity! You got it? Oh, this gets wild, see? You can get spooky about this too, but this accounts for space.

Now, you always think of an idea going across space, but I don't know that space exists beyond a viewpoint of dimension. But is there something else above viewpoint of dimension? And I can give this congress a new definition for "space." It's knowing it is there. That's silly, but look how well you have to be able to receive in order to quote "perceive." Man, do you have to be willing to be an effect in order to perceive. Hum. Fascinating.

That tells us the fellow who "cannot at any time be an effect because being an effect is too horrible so he always has to be at cause," that computation you know. A fellow says, "I have got to shoot everybody because it's too horrible to be shot. You know, and they'll all think it's horrible, and so they won't try to get around me, and therefore I can be cause!" Everybody leaves him alone after a while. He's not cause or effect either. But he's got to be this obsessive, terrific – make a terrific impression! Beat everybody's head in! Kill everybody! Bomb everybody with atom bombs! You know, a federal government. Got to make this big effect!

We know, objectively and definitely, that his own idea of perception is terrible! And we have a gradient scale here of the idea of perception, graded against the idea of satisfactory effect.

Now, if an individual has – can create his idea of a satisfactory effect is touching somebody's shoulder lightly, see, "Hi, Joe." Joe will say, "I am okay." This is a satisfactory effect, the fellow says, "Well, I have done all right today, I have made an effect on Joe." You get the idea? Well, this fellow can see! He can look!

But when his idea of a satisfactory effect is – Bikini, he says, "What wall? What wall? What atom? What – what textbook? How are you, General Smedley? I mean, Corporal Smith." He is a "What wall case!" See? "Got to – got to blow everything up, you know." He can't see.

Well, now you could say that is all explained in cause and effect and perception. But we can't explain perception, so we would have to say it's knowingness.

In other words, this fellow must have an insignificant idea of himself, if he has to do so much over here, to make these people over here know he's here! Have you got it? So we might get something very interesting, we might just start writing letters to congressman and State Department and so forth, saying, "Russia knows you are there. Russia knows you are there." "Russia knows you are there." And that is the magic clue you see, they're not sure.

Or you could say, "You're doing all right. Nobody's being critical of you. You're okay; we know you are all right. We know you're okay." You get the idea? Then they don't have to make these fantastic effects on everybody! See?

You could either build up, we say, "their opinion of themselves," no, build up the idea in their minds that we know they're there. That would build up self-confidence in the person and make it unnecessary for him to render these smashing effects that kill everything! See? Or, we could tell him that this thing he is going to smash knows he's there. It would be in the realm of knowingness.

But knowingness, we see very clearly is totally pinned down by not-knowingness. The fellow vigorously not-knew everything in the first place so he could have a game, and then he found some things he could know. So we find the workability of a process which is already covered and that process is the Waterloo Station – old Waterloo Station. And we found out that people's perception and their ARC and all kinds of things came up scale when we asked them to, "Go around and take a look at things and not-know certain things about them." You know, "Look at that body and not-know it has a head."

Well, this raised knowingness. I talked to you before about communication, if a fellow didn't already telepath to you what he was thinking about, then you would never find out by the sound wave. And in view of the fact that this knowingness is not a communication across space, what do we have here? We have this fantastic thing: There is no space to know across, if space itself is a knowingness. Wow! Where are we going here? We are going to telepathy!

And I tell guys around the operation all the time, "My crystal ball says so and so." They seldom argue with me. And once upon a time I had a – had a hole in a chart table where the chronometers belonged and I had them elsewhere and I put a goldfish bowl upside down under there so I'd have a crystal ball so I could tell where our location was. An old admiral came in who was traveling with us, and he was trying to be companionable, and he says, "Well, navigator," he said, "Where are we?" And I said, "Well, sir" jokingly, "I haven't looked at my crystal ball this evening." And he reported me to the captain.

You are not supposed to know these things by telepathy. That's the one thing you are supposed to not-know is that it's all done by telepathy.

Well, what's telepathy? It'd just be a transfer of knowingness without other aids and means across nothing. And we get these odd characteristics of thought, that thought can transfer across vast distances, just as easily as it can transfer across short distances, and we get the fact that people predict into the future and have it land in the past, and all kinds of random actions occurring when we start into the field of prediction, mind reading, fortunetelling and that sort of thing.

I have always been pretty good at that field; I had to leave that field though because I was applying it mainly to money and bank accounts, and bankers didn't agree with me a lot of the time. I was spending money I had made in the past life. I had my time factor a little wrong.

Well, so then if we are studying something called telepathy, it must be that darned little is known about telepathy or that telepathy – everything that we know is known by telepathy, so that we know a great deal about telepathy that we are busily not-knowing. So there must be some telepathic knowingness interchange which goes on below the common denominator button of not-know and that is the thing that we all know together is "that we know not." So this must be the single most important datum of existence. We know not.

Well, the limitations of the old process Waterloo Station existed, and today it is very easy to run the process. We never tried to run it across short distances. We were always taking somebody and taking him outside and running him across long spaces. Well, you run Waterloo Station today on a very gradient scale. And I don't know, give him one of his wife's hats and an ashtray or something of the sort and have him "Not-know either one alternately" or something of this sort. Or "What could he not-know about it?"

Now, of course we had Op Pro by Dup in which we were doing this, but it wasn't an integral part of Waterloo Station, it was a different process.

We would graduate a fellow from not-knowing simple things close up – or by postulating that he didn't know them. "Get the idea that you don't know the color of that ashtray." You know, control not-know, and we would start moving him out step by step to further and further distances, until he could not-know things on the walls or in the width and breadth of the auditing room, and in close and out, and in and out, and in and out, and then take him outside and have him start not-knowing, and then we would really have things going. If we did this other thing, if we run Trio in between.

Have him not-know things for a while, just as a process, and then have him "Look around and find things he could have for a while”, because it's actually the third leg of old-time Trio, "Look around and find something you wouldn't mind making disappear or dispense with." That reduces havingness all the time, and we know more about havingness now, so you just intersperse not-know with things you could have and I think you would find a rather remarkable process. And along with several other processes you would undoubtedly arrive at a state of Clear.

It actually is a process above the level of those processes given in the book Clear Procedure which was issued at this congress; it's above that level. You'd have to do these others first.

But it is probably the upper route to Operating Thetan, so I thought I just might as well tell you about it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.