Thank you.

This is the last lecture of this particular congress. Hope to see you all tonight at the party.

We haven't really covered to the degree that we could have, Dianetics 1955! There's quite a little bit of information in that volume. There is, for instance, a chapter there on another process called Make Some Time. A very interesting process.

A very able auditor I know comm lagged on it for two and a half hours before he finally fell through and started to make some time. This would be a companion process to Make Some Space, Make Some Energy, Make Some Matter. Time is the single arbitrary factor.

There's other information in that particular book we could have covered. And then we could have gone into and covered completely, from beginning to end, The Creation of Human Ability, which only runs some hundreds of pages and contains at this date, I think, seventy-six processes, all of which are of greater or lesser magnitude and which repeats some of the processes contained in Dianetics 1955!

Where it comes to processes we're very rich. There is no doubt about that. If there is any sudden phenomenon contained in the human mind that we have not observed and cataloged, then — well, I don't know, to tell you the truth — it just doesn't seem possible. Because you get out and scout around and look at anybody's machinery and it sort of runs that way.

And on the creation of machinery and games, and things like that, an individual begins to do this rather ably under processing. We don't have in processing, of course, the finest possible process. That will be invented in the year 3627 AAD. That AD, you know, stands for After Dianetics.

The auditors who use these processes should remember to use them in good two-way communication. Communication is very important and the auditor who uses these processes upon the deranged mind — if he wants to do that — should remember that if he employs two-way communication, that he should never validate the bizarre, the weird, the peculiar. When processing the psychotic, validate or mimic or answer only the rational, the average, the agreed-upon manifestation behavior. Any failure anybody has in processing of psychosis is entirely delineated under this heading: They validate the bizarre, the strange and the unusual and they disregard any average manifestation the person has left.

The psychotic nods his head with a yes — that's a normal manifestation. The psychotic jumps up and down and screams — that's an abnormal manifestation. The auditor in getting into communication can mimic the head nod, but if he mimics the jumping up and down and screaming, he will have given strength and power to the machine or machinery which is driving this psychotic.

Psychosis itself is simply one game amongst many games. That's a fact. If you look on it like that, it doesn't look quite as weird as it has looked. This individual who is psychotic simply believes that he has rendered himself proof against further punishment. He is trying to say, "Well, I've lost and I've lost so thoroughly. You see what you've done to me? I have no further responsibility even for my own actions, and I'm crazy. And that's what you did."

If you could only get a psychotic to mock up somebody saying — communication — "I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry," this individual would probably become sane. There's a thousand ways to tackle this problem.

But they're trying to say to people, with all of these weird and wild manifestations — trying to say, "Look what you did to me."

Of course, in a time and place where death is not allowable — you know, there are such places, you know, death is not allowed; death doesn't occur — an individual can't say, "I'm through and you've won," by falling dead. He isn't able to do that in these places so the only other thing he can do is say, "Look, you have driven me crazy. I am now crazy and I am insane and I am not myself and I'm no further — I have no further responsibility for my own actions. And you've done it. And you've won, so you might as well go away because I don't even know myself anymore." And this, of course, ends a game, too.

The problem of ending a game and of declaring oneself the loser is a much more difficult problem than declaring oneself the winner.

Now, this is so much true that if you were to buy yourself a few yards of blue ribbon and go out on a street corner with this blue ribbon pinned on — you know, the way they put it on bulls and so forth at the state fairs — and you were to say, "Well, look, I won, everybody." Nobody would question that at all. Nobody would go into communication with it either — so unusual for anybody to win. People believe you if you go out and say, "You know, I won. I won. We won. We won." They don't believe you if you say, "I lost." They don't believe you.

Fellow comes out of a poker game and he says, "Well, I've lost everything I have in the world."

Fellow comes out of a poker game and says, "You know, I won everything that those fellows had." People think that's just a good joke and they let it go. They'll accept this. Maybe it's not true.

After somebody has blown his brains out at Monte Carlo — people can always be heard to say afterwards, "Well, just look at that; he must have had something to live for. Must have had something to live for." In other words he couldn't possibly have lost everything he had in the world. Isn't that a funny thing?

One of the easiest things in the world is to win, and one of the rarest things is to win. It is so isolated, these wins, that one would think the scarcity of win would make it incredible, but it doesn't. It's so scarce that everybody just says, "Well, he says so. That's that."

Oddly enough a person's life and time track can get more stuck on wins than loses. People will let him win, but they won't let him lose.

Look at us guys, auditors — look at us. This fellow has worked for years to develop a gimpy leg. He's worked for years to develop some tubercular lungs.

He has slaved in order to dull his eyesight down to a point. And we come along, and we say, "Be three feet back of your head. And do this and do that and so forth and so on." And now after we've gotten him well straightened out, "Is there anything you'd like to straighten up in that mock-up?" And he, of course, will go ahead and straighten it up, mostly because he knows wins aren't obtainable, so he goes on and wins. And look at us, we've taken an exception to the loser.

Life actually doesn't like a loser. It comes around and pokes at him and bothers him. That is one of the dwindling-spiral mechanisms that you'd better understand as an auditor. You actually cannot lose. Not even the insane has lost. There is no bottom in the game. It's a horrible game that has no bottom in it at all. It's got some tops — you can win — but it has no bottoms.

The way an individual gets into this lineup in playing in life and so on is a simple way. He gets into it in a very simple thing. He says, "If I just let that fellow think that he has won, he will go away. If I could just convince him that he's won, he'll go away."

So that if people can convince you that you have won, then you have to leave, don't you? If you want to stick around, you'll have to say, "Well, I'm really not quite that hot. I just had a good day today and that's why I won that fifteen-hundred-meter race," you know. Then we attribute all this to the fact that we have to be modest, or we give it some social grace.

Matter of fact, if you were to hang up the all-time record across the boards in the field of sport and so forth, you'd have to quit. Just like Wild Bill Hickok out here in the West had to quit. You see, at the end there, he didn't even lose at the end. I mean, you couldn't have lost to anybody like the fellow that shot Wild Bill Hickok. I mean, this little guy couldn't possibly have won. He had to catch Wild Bill when Wild Bill was sitting with his back to a door and he walked up to him and blew his brains out. That was hardly a win. But it was so bad for Wild Bill in the later years of his life, it was so bad that nobody would fight with him. And that's the definition of a complete win: A state in which nobody will fight with you.

We have not discussed pan-determinism, but in The Creation of Human Ability there is a little bit of a booby-trap which I would like to point out to you. The uninitiated will not make Creation of Human Ability work as well as somebody who knows the book and knows auditing, for this reason: There are four steps in it numbered backwards.

Isn't that a mean thing for Ron to do? Here he's handing out information in all directions and yet he numbers these four steps backwards. They are supposed to be run in reverse order to the way they are numbered. That actually was on no design, particularly. It just happens that that was the way they were set down and tested and so that's the way they got numbered.

But somebody running The Creation of Human Ability Intensive Procedure might not discover that these steps are backwards and might plunge in to the top-echelon step before he had graduated up to it, and so would discover that top-echelon step not winning. And that top-echelon step is pan-determinism.

This is a very controversial subject: pan-determinism. We have graduated up from self-determinism. Self-determinism is nonexplanatory. It works all right for man. He can say, "Well look, I fight with myself only and therefore I am self-determined." He can say it in some fashion so that himself — he determines himself, but he doesn't determine anything else.

Self-determinism could mean all this, but it really doesn't express it. So the invention of this word, pan-determinism. And that means the willingness to start, stop and change — in other words, control — the willingness to control two or more identities, whether or not they are opposing.

If you were pan-determined, you'd be perfectly willing to control the activities of two football teams whether they were playing other football teams or each other. Get the idea? It takes at least two.

Now, when you have somebody say, "Hello" to you in mock-up, you are actually exercising pan-determinism, aren't you? You've got this other spot and you're making it talk. So you're exerting your pan-determinism, and that's one of the reasons why this particular process works as well as it does, because pan-determinism is being exercised.

But there is a graduated scale into this thing called pan-determinism, which is a terribly interesting scale. Because Pan-determinism starts, as far as a process is concerned, with What Are You Willing to Repair? And it goes into the next process up from that: Give Me Some Things That Mustn't or Must Happen Again. And it goes from there into What Are You Willing to Fight? And it goes from there into What Are You Willing to Control? — pan-determinism.

Those steps are just exactly backwards in The Creation of Human Ability. They run Pan-determinism, Fighting, Must/Mustn't Happen Again, and Repair. That is their order. They should be run: Repair, Must/Mustn't Happen Again, Fighting and Pan-determinism. And they make a package of four and a tremendously interesting process, and tremendously interesting results occur from that quartet.

Individuals get to a point where they are only willing to repair — not willing to fight. They are preventing many things from happening again one step up from there. And up — only when they get up above that are they willing to fight. But fighting is not civilized, is it? Well, I'm afraid an individual, to be free, must be willing to fight, and that is not a philosophical opinion that Ron has derived; it just happens to be the way preclears behave.

Now, to leave a preclear in a level where he has to fight is an unkindness, but that's a lot higher than an awful lot of preclears are. He's willing to fight something. When we bring preclears up Tone Scale, we very often find them fighting.

It's quite amusing in an organization to watch several people who are undergoing processing come on up the line. They start fighting their fellow auditors. They start fighting the management. They start fighting each other. And they get a little more processing and so forth and they start determining these things. You see, instead of doing it by fighting and making a game out of it, they start to get something done.

Any team starts fighting itself, inside of itself, before it finally coheses into an operating unit which is willing and able to turn outwards and fight the environment. You've seen this very phenomenon occurring in Dianetics and Scientology in its organizations.

People would get processed; they'd come up along the line. The biggest thing around there to fight was probably the organization, so they start to fight it. Oh, and they'd have a good time fighting the organization, dream up all sorts of reasons why they ought to be fighting the organization, and then process on up through there and start pushing the organization forward as a team.

There's where we're trying to get — teamwork. We'd sure love to have a few hundred horribly effective fighters who operated smoothly as a team. That's an unbeatable combination. We have ways to do that.

What are people willing to control? Well, that lies above what they're willing to fight, and we come back to the communication formula. We don't know but what Bill on that chart didn't create Joe in the first place.

But there's Joe and there's Bill, and they start building barriers and after a while they are fighting. Makes a game, but after you have all the Bills and all the Joes fighting, then somebody comes along as an umpire and says, "It is now illegal to fight." And the umpire does something horrible enough to Bill and Joe, in their conception, so that they are not willing to have something happen again — a punishment. And having made Bill and Joe unwilling to fight, they have made them willing to prevent something from happening again. And now when they've got an enormous number of things which they're trying to prevent from happening again, their only activity is devoted to repairing. And after a while, they even stop repairing. But at the moment they stop repairing, they're dead.

A person who is busy repairing or who is fixated entirely upon repair is actually unable to create or destroy. Repair would be an activity engaged upon to continue survival as a form — not to create a new form or an end of form.

Now, these people who are pan-determined would be willing to create and willing to destroy. They would probably do far more creation than destruction. Under actual test, this is the case.

But they drop down in their creation to create competitively. You know, "Let's all be writers and in competition with each other." "Let's all be painters; only let's be in competition as painters." Kind of a silly thing, but that they drop into the category of contest — competition.

And man even writes it into his documents — his political documents — such as the Constitution, which says, "There must be competition. We mustn't have trusts and monopolies of any kind."

And they get down below this level of fighting and then they're merely trying to prevent fighting from occurring. They're saying certain such-and-so mustn't happen again.

Well, that leaves them with just one mock-up, usually — a couple of little old moldy biscuits or a spare head would be about the most that they could acquire in addition to just one mock-up. So they have to keep it repaired. It's a sad thing.

Why don't they create another mock-up? Well, you process them enough, and they will.

Of course, keeping a mock-up going that's already fallen apart is some-times an interesting activity. A mock-up gets some desirable identity which fits into a certain game and set of goals, and instead of creating one like it, an individual is, to some degree, forced to carry along this mock-up. Well, that's the condition most people explain themselves into on this problem with mock-ups.

But wherever we see an individual getting up high enough in tone to fight, we know the next place he's going to go. He's going to be high enough in tone to pan-determine at least his own team.

Now, if you had all the players on a team perfectly willing to control or exert control over, start, stop and change all the other players on the team, you know that they would work in very, very smooth harmony. They wouldn't fight.

But where you get a team full of stars, where you get a team where everybody is the star quarterback — did you ever see an all-star football game? The number of flubs which occur is a fascinating thing to watch. They get all the champions in there and they fall on their faces. Any scrub team could whip them. They're all stars. They are not willing to control the other players on the team. They are only willing to demonstrate their competitive skill in comparison with these other players.

Now, when they really get up, they're perfectly willing to start, stop and change any other man on the team. And that is a horrible thing to think about — a team like that. That's a horrible thing. You just think that over for a moment. That would be a rough thing for an organization composed of Repair or composed of Mustn't-Happen-Again levels to contest because these fellows would probably never have to fight to win. They'd just go on winning, and the game would be wins, or at least close up to the top on wins.

Now, there is no bottom to the game. Below Repair is an inability even to repair. And below that level would be a slight remaining ability, maybe, if we worked at it covertly to slightly deteriorate something — if we are assisted by time and the physical universe. That's a nice level. And below that's nonexistence.

But how deep is nonexistence? It's unfortunately unobtainable. There's no bottom to the game. Why could there be no bottom to the game? Because a thetan can't do anything else but survive. He can lie to himself. He can change his identity. He can say, "I don't remember." He can say, "It never happened before." He can walk up to this piano and find out that he goes into a screaming rage just at the idea of touching a key on this piano, and then simply explain to himself that, well, it's because of something his dog did in its youth, or some psychoanalytic description of it. And he can explain it all away.

The only real use of psychoanalysis is to explain how all the traumas occurred early enough so that you don't remember them. It isn't true. Doesn't work that way. All right.

If this individual cannot do anything but survive, how could there be a bottom to the game? Well, only by forgetting, only by changing in his existence and accepting no responsibility for it could he alter toward the bottom.

But because it's an unobtainable goal, a complete lose, I'm afraid an awful lot of people tend in that direction. They say, "If I could just lose utterly — if I could just lose entirely, I'd be all right."

They come in and they sit in an auditor's chair and they say, "Now you process me so I'll be outside of my body when I kick off." (laughter) And of course we're ornery people and we know this would be an unsightly thing.

And an old lady who did this — she was a very old lady — she came in, she said to me, "Well, I just don't want to be caught in my body when I die and therefore I want you to process me in such a direction that this can all be very easy." Little further questioning elicited the fact that she actually expected me to have her drop dead as a body in that chair. And this is not the social thing to do. So I fixed her.

I said, "Mock up yourself dropping dead."

So she says, "Gee, he's really going to do it," you know?

"Mock up yourself dropping dead. Okay. Now mock up yourself dropping dead. Okay. Now mock up yourself dropping dead. Okay. Now mock up yourself dropping dead. Okay. Now mock up yourself dropping dead. Okay. How do you feel?"

Something very bad had occurred. She no longer had an obsession on the subject of dropping dead. We'd run it out with one of the oldest forms of processing we have in Scientology just plain Mock-ups and End of Cycle.

That was a long time ago and she's still alive. She has a hard time, though. She can see while outside, but she's bound and determined her body is going to do the seeing. And that's the game she's playing. So she gets a double image, one of which is the proper image — the proper and correct image — and the other is very bad.

So if she'd just close her eyes, she reaches, contacts, walks with great accuracy, with her eyes shut. But that's not the game she's playing. I should get a hold of her again and say, "Mock up yourself totally blind. Okay. Mock up yourself totally blind . . ." She's obviously trying to do something in that direction.

Thus an auditor armed with the understanding he has, actually can considerably alter the game that the preclear is playing. As a matter of fact he can entirely control it. It's an interesting thing, isn't it?

But if an auditor is unwilling to control the game the preclear is playing, if he's unable to start, stop and change the preclear, then his auditing is to a very marked degree going to be in vain. Because the most he'll do is get the preclear to patch up a hangnail.

But the horrible part of it is if the auditor's in that condition where that he would only permit the preclear to change that much, if the auditor is so low on pan-determinism that this is all he'd permit in the preclear, he doesn't even effect repair. Why doesn't he effect repair? Because it's the preclear's hangnail.

So he sits there and waits patiently for the preclear to repair it while the preclear sits there and waits patiently for the auditor to repair it while the auditor sits there and waits patiently for the preclear to repair it, and they'll play various games called, "You have broken the Auditor's Code." But they won't get anything else done.

Now, I'm not telling you that case level is the monitoring factor. I'm just telling you that when an auditor or anyone working with Scientology pulls a remarkable error, you know, like suddenly getting up and falling over the coffee table — preclear is in a semi-boil-off and he falls over the coffee table, you know? Bang. (sigh) That knocked out any gain that preclear had made, didn't it?

Why does he fall over the coffee table? Well, he's playing a game, too, but that game doesn't include letting the preclear change. If the preclear shows any sign of changing, the auditor's liable to cancel it.

Preclear all of a sudden looks up alertly and says, "Good heavens, there's my body!"

And the auditor says, "Touch the wall."

The preclear says, "But I'm trying to tell you. I've exteriorized," and so forth.

And the auditor says, "Touch the wall." The preclear goes pseewwwboomp. Ptock. No acknowledgment. No communication. I guess that auditor won, but whose game did he win? He won his game. And what's his game? No change.

Well, the definition of no change is survival in some people's character, but believe me, if you can't change, you don't survive. That is this universe. When you can no longer make time yourself, you don't survive.

What do you mean, you don't survive? I'm talking about you as the knowing identity that you are at this moment. When you lose the faculty of yourself making time, of making space, of making energy and causing those things to vanish, when you lose that faculty, you're having a rough time. And one of the roughest times you'll have, is you have no choice from there on but to try to lose so that maybe you can get in another game.

And people stand around and won't let you lose enough. Try to jump out of a ten-story window, they come up and pull you back in. They make it illegal for you to buy strychnine. Only in Arizona can you walk into stores and say, "Give me a .45." The clerk says, "Okay, what size waistband do you have?" (laughter)

The problem an individual faces on the level of nonsurvival is to try to forget it or muck it up in some fashion so that he could at least pretend he's not surviving. And most of the preclears you get hold of are well along the line — I mean the roughies — they're well along the line on this, you know. They're saying, "Look, I've almost got it nonsurviving. Now with just a little more help from the auditor, I'll have it all the way out."

And the auditor — the dog — says, "Touch the wall." He says, "All right. Now, you see that book? Okay, walk over to it. Look at it. Pick it up. What color is it? See that bottle? Walk over to it. Look at it. Pick it up." Etc.

Fortunately these processes bring him up above the level where he no longer is so anxious to lose, and where he gets some little glimmering that he might win. If a man believes he can no longer win, if he believes he has no chance to win, then he will work actively in the direction of losing, and he will try to lose as fast and covertly as possible so nobody will detect it because people won't let him lose. They think they have a vested interest in him.

But it's only when a man believes he can't win that he goes in this direction and becomes one of these nonchanging cases, you know? He'll change sort of downward, but he won't change in any other direction.

And the auditor at this time can take such an individual that — he could say to him, "If we were playing a game, and I was blindfolded and I had both hands tied behind my back, and there's a checkerboard lying there set up where you had eight kings and I had one piece, could you win?"

The preclear says, "Yes, of course" — one-up. All right.

And we could just go on from there sort of on this basis and all of a sudden the preclear would get some glimmering of this win–lose scale. He'd get some kind of a glimmering, "You know, there's some vague possibility that if the cards were all stacked, the dice loaded and everybody had gone mad I was playing with, that I might possibly have one white chip fall off the table and be disregarded at game's end, and so I'd have a white chip. There's some possibility if the gods, of course, are in their proper houses."

Most people's ideas of what they can win is fantastic. So therefore, we take an auditor who isn't too well up on wins, anyhow, and we give him a preclear who makes him lose--aaaagh! How horrible.

Now, let's take the field of work with the human mind and with human ability, and look at it frankly and give it a good solid stare in the eye. And let's discover something: Everyone has said in the past that if you let somebody fool with your mind, this would be horrible. Bad consequences would result. Psychology has agreed upon that. Psychiatry has agreed upon that. It knows. It has experience. But that observation was based on a lack of information, a lack of data, a lack of a codification and organization of material which would win.

Why was it dangerous with psychoanalysis, psychiatric processes, witch doctoring, to fool around with somebody's psyche? Because it would give the practitioner a lose, every time — except in that 22 percent who, if fed flour and water pills, would have recovered from an acute infection of the corpse. But otherwise it wasn't safe.

And perhaps there have been times in the last four years when it wasn't safe for an auditor to audit. He might not have had in his possession sufficient information to do a good job of auditing. And therefore it wouldn't be safe to audit because he'd have loses. And these loses were very easily come by. Anybody will give you a lose and then prevent you from having one.

You process this fellow. He's had acute lumbosis, that famous disease, and he's had this lumbosis most horribly for a long time and it starts to let up. You run an engram, you run a secondary, you found out his father had lumbosis and his father is dead, and you spill the secondary on Papa's death and you get that all run out and this individual is in wonderful condition and then he turns around to you and he says, "You see what this Anacin I take does?"

Now, therefore, loses could be real bum if an auditor were fixated solely and completely upon repair, if he would never do anything but repair, if he never thought of restoring ability or raising ability or pulling people out of the mud with regard to various qualities of beingness, if he couldn't conceive an individual as being a better individual, as having more ability, as being able to control life around him much better. If he couldn't conceive of these things and all he could think of was a little mediocre, minor repair of somebody's secondhand anatomy, and he got some loses, we'd lose an auditor. He'd stop auditing.

Let's go at it the other way. Let's take an auditor that has enough wins and enough potentiality in winning in any one of these four brackets of Repair, Must/Mustn't Happen Again, Fighting, Pan-determinism. He knows he can have some wins in these brackets. This is his experience. You take this boy — he can take a very relaxed look at two things. One, the possibility of losing. So, he'll lose! So what? And the other one, he'll dare put into life another individual who is able. And by making another individual pan-determined, the pan-determined character of that other individual might, you see, by cautious extrapolation, cause the person who put him there to lose. Who is to say after Bill has created Joe, that Joe did not create Bill? That's very tricky.

And so an auditor must be in a frame of mind to afford loses or afford wins. This tells you he has to be a pretty go-to-hell sort of fellow. He has to be relaxed — really relaxed.

And we get a psycho in — it's not that psychos are hard or interesting or anything of the sort, we just get a psycho in, you see, and the psycho is saying, "Look, I've lost. I've lost. Don't convince me I could win, please. I've lost. I've lost. Really, I've lost." He'll tell the bedpost or the auditor or anybody that he's lost, and we get this preclear in. And we get an auditor who's there stuck on repairing hangnails as the end-all of existence. And we get this auditor in and we say, "Now, Oscar, see that psychotic? Now you process him."

The fellow says, "Ps-ps-ps-ps-psychotic! Mmmmm! Brrrrr! Mmmmmm! Sure, I-I-I-I will. I will (sigh)." "Supposing I did something wrong?" he's saying to himself. "Supposing I really got this guy lost? Supposing I really let this fellow lose? Gee, how could I possibly make him win, though? He's awfully far gone. It's an utterly impossible thing, to do anything for him! (gasp)"

You know what he'll do with that psycho? He will cross up his communication so thoroughly that he can't possibly have any responsibility for what happened. He's liable to get the window to slam on the back of the psychotic's neck, if possible. See, anything to cross up the line so nothing can be traced through to him. He's scared! What's he basically scared of? He isn't basically scared that he himself is going to go psycho. He knows better than that. He's scared this psycho is liable to lose entirely. That's impossible. Well, then he's scared that the psycho is going to win somewhat! Oh, man, wouldn't that be horrible, to have a completely able psychotic? (laughter)

I asked an auditor that one day, and that was really what he was afraid of. "Think if I built this fellow up. Think of sending this fellow completely recovered and cleared back into the society doing all these things!"

Well, wherever we look we discover a very distinct necessity to know what we're doing. And we discover that an individual who knows his materials as contained in The Creation of Human Ability, Dianetics 1955!, even Book One if he knew that well, professional auditing courses, well trained on the subject, we find by experience that this individual can no more get restimulated — he'd have to try hard to get restimulated by a case — because he has become, through experience, completely accustomed to big and little wins and big and little loses. He finds out that he can do these either way. And he also knows what he can do and he can also forecast the fate of the case. Well, so much for auditing. What happens on the remaining dynamics if this is the state of mind one has to have?

Never look to win in a gambling game if you have to have the money — one of the oldest saws of the gambler. Awfully true, too. Naturally, if you have to have the money, your anchor points are far enough in so that you don't even dare look under the other guy's card stack.

You wonder how these great gamblers are always so confident when they're sitting there with two deuces. I used to get a lot of prop wash on this, see. They'd say, "Well, you read it off people's faces. You get their reactions," and so forth. And the best gambler I knew of fell into my hands as a preclear one fine day. And I said, "Be three feet back of your head."

And the fellow says, "Why?"

And I said, "Well, just be a good idea. Be three feet back of your head." "But why? Why come in that close?" (laughter)

Of course, you can play the game of going and finding a gold lode and then coming back and, by some bird augury as the Romans did it or by noticing that the moon is in such and such a position or by casting some dice or by a witching wand or something — anything you could think of, then let it have the responsibility of leading you to the gold lode. I mean you could play that game if you wanted to. But if you were in real good shape you wouldn't have to play that game. You'd find too many other interesting things to do.

Now, one of the worst frames of mind a person can get into is to think that he has done everything and seen everything. That's a fabulous frame of mind. He doesn't think, then, that there are any other able players anywhere. I'm afraid the guy is in for a shock. If he's had too many wins, if he himself is in pretty good condition, and yet he can find around him no worthy opponents of any kind, he's going to have a hard time. He can't have a game.

Such an individual will start playing games with himself. He'll say, "Gold lode. Well, I know there's one over there — now, I'll forget it," you see. "And now I'll get this witching wand and so forth and I'll read this old chart here, and I'll detribute the fact and reinterpret it that way, and then I'll go get me a burro and I will walk across the desert and I will . . "so on. "And then quite by accident, I'll look up and .. .

"No, no, that's too simple. Let's see there . . . No, let's see, I think there's a float from that lode and it's about eight miles down that crick — oh, say, that's pretty good — dry crick bed and there's a piece of that lode eight miles south of the actual lode.

"Now, if I find that, it'll probably take me months to find a second piece. And then gradually I can work my way down the crick bed, you know, until I run out entirely. Then I can decide that it's up the crick bed. And then I can pass it, you know. And … well, maybe there's another gold lode someplace that has matching ore, but isn't valuable. I'll go off and look for that." Ehhhhh! Because he doesn't think there's anybody around that's an able player.

The second he really gets up against somebody who's fairly able, this guy's liable to come straight into present time and forget this nonsense. Two of them put their heads together and say, "Well, let's see, we need this gold to do so-and-so in order to play this bigger game. Well, you go out and dig it up and you bring it in, and we'll melt it down. That's fine. That's fine. Now we got that set. Now, get over to this other game," so on — gee!

That's why in war you get such tremendous quantities of invention. All these scientists sitting around playing the game with themselves, "Let's see, I'll pretend that I don't know that this combined with this will do that, but I will experiment for a long time to find out."

They suddenly get their eyes on a bigger target called "the enemy," and they suddenly can — no longer have to play this game with these little terminals. So they say, "Well, you combine this and this and this and you get that. Now here's a cartridge." See? And away they go. See, it brings them into present time. That's actually the same manifestation of a preclear.

But what about the society at large? Do you realize that if tomorrow an invasion of Earth were threatened by some other planet, that you wouldn't have any talk about international or inter-nation-al activity like war? Nobody would be worrying about war between Bulgaria and Fulgaria. Nobody would be worrying about war because another game was sitting there.

Everybody would get a lot smarter. The incidence of psychosis and neurosis would drop most alarmingly. See what I mean?

If all of a sudden some of these flying saucers that occasionally flick around here and cause the army so much upset — they found a couple of them crashed, you know, and they say, "Eek!" They've got molecular sealing construction plates, so you can't find any seam and when you try to go into them with a torch, why, you get cohesion of its seams. And then they can't get it open. And they take x-rays of the machinery through the metal, you know, to get pictures to find out what's in there because obviously nobody .. . They've had a lot of fun. Terrific amount of sport they've engaged in this way. They've found some of these things, but they haven't found enough of them, and it's not comprehensible enough to really upset anybody.

If you had a saucer suddenly pull in over Chicago and say, "Your money or your life. People of Earth, we don't come in peace …" At-at-at-at-at! Earth would mobilize. We're not quite sure what it would mobilize, BB guns or something, but it would mobilize. And you certainly wouldn't have any more international war.

But after you've got this interplanetary war going, what would you do then? I mean, that's going, and they've finally settled peace and we've got this particular end of the galaxy all straightened out. And war is sporadic and occasional, but we have a police force engaged.

I guess this system would have to go to war with another system in order to make enough fight. And then when that was all straightened out, then this galaxy would have to go to war with another galaxy in order to get it all straightened out. And I guess this universe then eventually would have to go to war with another universe to get it all straightened out.

Or instead of such a silly route, we could just get down to work and process the groups of people so that they would be willing to let others live, and live themselves.

Now, there really is no choice, in other fields, than these two. We either put man into a condition where he can extrovert and play a game here on Earth as himself, as individuals and as groups, or we go off and find ourselves a hot saucer and go at-at-at-at-at-at! over Chicago. There's these two solutions. There isn't much other solution. Now, we have a saucer rescue squad ready .. .

We have — all joking aside — I'm joking, you see. We have actually many ways we could prevent an atomic bombing occurring here on Earth — many ways. Atomic bombing, however, is not the sole enemy which we would face. Several things are definitely preventive in the direction of atomic fission, if they are done. And I told you the other day the wrong thing to do was nothing.

Several things could be done in this particular direction. The education of the peoples of Earth, however, is the first and foremost thing that should be done. And they might be taught that they can solve each other's games, that they can play each other's games, that there is somebody else alive here and that Earth can be an interesting place to be and that something can happen to these things which we today call civilization, that they can go on upwards. Somebody doesn't have to blink them out.

Now, wherever we look across the world, we see that man has very, very little hope that anything could be done about anything. The measure of a civilization would be the measure of the expectancy of win by the individuals or groups of that civilization. If they have an expectancy to win, they can play the game. If they have no expectancy of winning, they want to get out of the game and start another game or they start playing games with their thumbs behind their backs — which is goofiness.

And if man at large had an idea that some of these big secrets and incomprehensibilities were no longer secret, or if he just had the idea that somehow, some way, there was some slight possibility that if all the cards were stacked in his favor, that if the dice were loaded in his favor, that at the end of the game somebody might have dropped a white chip under the edge of the rug, that he could then have — if he was just up that high in the direction of a win, then there could be a game here on Earth. There could be an activity that was very desirable to live in.

As I have said before, we are in the unfortunate position or the fortunate position of sitting here with answers. Well, the thing to do with answers is not go on sitting there with answers because that's a very, very fatal proceeding. That's always the wrong thing to do — sit still.

And some of you here have markedly contributed by your experience and by your actions, activities, your letters, your contributions to the obtaining of these answers, and so you share some responsibility for the fact that they exist. And I tell you very frankly and very bluntly that the wrong thing to do with an answer is to sit still with it. The wrong thing to do with an answer is not communicate.

I'm not going to tell you — this congress — what's the right thing to do. All I'm going to tell you is the wrong thing to do. And that would be to sit still, say nothing and do nothing about it.

If you don't use the material which you have been given, you will find yourself, just in the information itself, with a Frankenstein on your hands — a Frankenstein's monster. Because if you put it back of you and you say, "No, I'm not going to use this in life," after your activities, your reports, your contributions have brought this material into being, you'll find out the backlash on it will be terrible.

One of the least things that will happen will be to put you slightly out of communication with your fellow man. The way to go back into communication with your fellow man is not to forget what you know or abandon it; it's to teach him.

The answers you can teach him are now basically simple. The first thing you can teach him is that there's some slight possibility of a win — a win in the direction of a better civilization. One of the ways he'll communicate with: there is a slight possibility of a win in the direction of atomic fission. There is a slight possibility — one white chip caught under the rug and forgotten by everybody — of a win on a wide political front. How? Well, I don't think the nations of Earth themselves are going to be able to sit still and confront the idea of wiping out Earth. I don't think they will be able to completely tolerate this idea.

If you used what you knew, communicated what you knew, you applied it to groups and to individuals and if you went ahead and cut a wide swath of wins in the direction of human lethargy and aberration and psychosomatic illness, you could not help but attain for man a far better civilization.

And the only real message I have for you along any of these lines is the fact that you, through your contributions, your activities, your reports, were actively of assistance in bringing into being the answers which we have been talking about here for four days. They are yours to use. They are yours to work with, and you will find if you use them, they contain a certain amount of efficacity. But knowing this information carries with it a certain responsibility. Communicate it, use it and you can win with it. Don't sit back and forget it.

We have a great deal of future in front of us in Dianetics and Scientology. The way to attain that future is to somehow or another attempt to work as a team against the forces which oppose progress, culture and civilization to achieve a better Earth. Not to fight each other or engage in activities which claw each other's eyes out, but to all of us get ourselves up above the level of having to fight and then enjoying a good fight as a team against any force which oppose the progress of man.

That seems to me to be a real good solution. I myself am putting it into effect in London because very shortly we are hiring the best auditor we can get for the purpose to clear the whole staff there, and here in Phoenix we are going into the same program. It might take months, you understand, but we're going to clear the whole staff in Phoenix as soon as we can get the right auditor for that job. We would, all of us here, throughout the world of Scientology, be a very formidable team if we all did the same.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.