Thank you. Thank you very much.

You look unusually — well, let's just say unusual, let it go at that.

This is the fourth lecture of the 18th ACC, July 18, isn't it? Nineteen fifty-seven. Beg your pardon, year 7 AD. After Dianetics.

Well, these lectures should follow a very orderly course. Each one should take up in turn exactly what should be taken up at that moment. And the outline which was going to be used for these lectures was the Student Manual, but isn't. Because I looked over the Student Manual very carefully on its table of contents and discovered something fantastic: the Student Manual spoke for itself. All it is, is all of the exact data of Scientology, all of the exact data: the old Dianetic Axioms, the Prelogics, the Factors, what auditing is, how it is done, all the TRs, how you sign up a preclear. You know? Just…

And I was so overwhelmped (that's different than being overwhelmed, you know — that's really it, being overwhelmped) that I hardly could make any lectures at all. So I'll just have to go along here on my own steam somehow and muck it out one way or the other.

I take that as a vote of confidence.

Well, the lecture this evening is — could be clumsily stated, what Scientology is addressed to, or what it is shot at, or what it is done to. You know, in this day and age, a subject which has no application is only in favor in the universities. And they teach them there, but people who have to get along in the world and who have to get things done can't allow themselves this luxury.

So Scientology is shot at something. And let's just take a very fast look at what it is addressed to. It is addressed basically, fundamentally and accurately to you. And on that via is addressed to the physical universe, the forms of the physical universe (including live forms) and to all other beings in the physical universe regardless of what they may be, and is also addressed to the nonexistence of many beings who aren't. You got that? It is also addressed to beings that aren't.

Now, there are a lot of imaginary and legendary beings and beasts just like there were in the Dark Ages. The way the ancient mariners kept people from coming over and trading with the American coast was quite interesting. We read it that every mariner of Columbus's day believed that you just sailed so far and then fell off the edge and that there were terrific monsters and beasts of one character or another who would devour you if you set sail and sailed beyond the sight of land. And this was an excellent way of tying up a monopoly on the part of Icelandic, British, Danish, French, Spanish and some Mediterranean sailors — the entirety of trade with America and the codfish banks. Those Grand Banks up there were quite well known; that's where Columbus found out about it, you know.

So a great many beasts have been invented — not only to debar careless voyaging into somebody else's hunting preserves.

By the way, somebody might be caused to doubt that. It's an interesting thing. It's well known in the Explorers Club, and it's one of the biggest jokes in the Explorers Club is the derivation of the word America: there are seven sources for the word America, none of them America Vespucci. There were the American Indians. There were all sorts of things.

There was a great deal known at that time by a specialized few who wanted a monopoly. And therefore they peopled their preserves with imaginary beings and thus kept out interlopers.

Now, I am not going to tell you that the field of the mind has been only inhabited by imaginary beings. But something of this order is done by the fellow who invents a tremendous nomenclature of the brain or a tremendous nomenclature of the bone structure or something like that and then says you have to know all these names before you can know anything about, and then says each one of these parts of the brain has a specific and peculiar function, and adds to it, "Nobody should tamper with the mind because it bites." You see? I don't say that that is the same thing as the Spanish sailor did with the sea in order to keep guys like Columbus from discovering things. See, I don't say that for a moment. I merely insist upon it!

Now, we have here a functional subject. And in view of the fact that it is a functional subject, it must perforce carry with it a great many routes or tracks or ways to go. And if you have routes through the primeval forest or the raging seas peopled by monsters eighteen times as big as Texas, you get a very snide idea of the sailors who peopled it, you see, with imaginary beasts so as to keep others out. You say, "Somebody was telling fibs." That would be about the least you would say.

You've been told, "Never go across that field over there because it is full of snakes." And then you finally one day by accident in a rainstorm find yourself in that field and you look around carefully and you find all of these snakes are stuffed dummies, fixed so that when you trod on their tails they shoot out their tongues. You can't possibly imagine that they got there by some agency that didn't want trespassers. Oh, no, nothing like that. Oh, no!

But I don't happen to admit ownership of thee and me and any equipment we have come by, by fair means or foul, by a bunch of fellows who think it's their private preserve.

There's one thing that people voyaging early in the levels of the mind (so they said) overlooked, is: you have one and I have one and other people have minds and they aren't locked up in any safe anyplace, and all a fellow has to do is look right where he is and he will see something about the mind. But if he's been told it's very dangerous to fool with the mind or do something with the mind and he doesn't know that those snakes are simply dummies and those raging sea beasts were simply mocked up to keep fishing preserves, why, he says, "Well, I better not look; I better not look," he says, "I better go blind."

Well now, when anybody gives me the alternative of walking on his private preserve or going blind, his toes are going to hurt. Because I'll walk close enough to step on his toes, too.

And that is exactly what happened about twenty-five years ago, right here in this city. "I was told that the mind was not a subject which should ever be addressed by anyone from the engineering department. Hah!" Unfortunately I was also associate editor of the college newspaper, and after that made it my business to write numerous articles about the psychology department.

However, I wasn't just rebuffed — I was, you might say, failed in line of duty. I was studying the smallest possible particle in this universe. I was studying wavelengths of light. And in studying wavelength I found that the wavelength of ultraviolet still left holes between the particles. And I wanted to know if anything ever went through those holes, because I had reached the highest end of the visible spectrum. Now, obviously we didn't have anything solid yet, and the first application of this was a microscope. I wanted a microscope that would show up virus and show up other things. Very legitimate engineering problem. How do you build a microscope that can see tinier than anything else, than any other microscope ever has? And I tried to get some means, then, of focusing ultraviolet light and making it visible, found out that the ultraviolet light so focused burned anything up that you wanted to look at, and this was a very poor microscope. It ought to only be used, I would have said in later days, on psychiatrists.

And he'd say, "Yes. Yes, I have a picture of that."

And "Well, is the picture in motion?"

"Yes. Yes."

The picture's in motion — oohhh! How do you get a picture in motion? Well, a fifteenth of a second will give you enough frames to get a picture in motion that doesn't flicker, much. See, I was being very, very, very generous about this whole thing. And everybody I ran into had these pictures. And these pictures were memories as far as I could see. And I wanted to know where they got stored. Because all I had to do was tell somebody to get a picture, he'd get a picture. And I'd say, "Fine, throw it away," or something of that sort, and he'd put it away somewhere, and I'd say, "Get it back," and I — where is he storing the thing, you see?

So I went over to the psychology department to find out. And I'll be a son of a gun if they knew anything about the pictures! "Pictures?" they said, "Pictures? What pictures?" Right now we know what they were: they were invisible cases or black fives. They didn't have any pictures. They didn't know anything about pictures. "What are you doing with pictures?" they says to me. I said, "What are you doing without them?"

"Oh," they said, "there's some little-known authority that cursorily wrote at the tail end of a book that was published someplace else and isn't accepted by us, on a subject called eidetic recall. There is something about that, but don't believe that!"

Now, this later on came back from Vienna as a theory. It went as a disproved theory, and the computations in it were very exact. And it came back from Vienna about 38 or 39 or something like that, as a fact. And I would have said, "Well, somebody has done independent work," except he'd made the same arithmetical error I had made. All right. I conceived, as we would have said later, that there was a camouflaged hole in this subject. A camouflaged hole. And then I found out that it was a very dangerous and reprehensible thing to look into or have anything to do with the mind. And if it had just been the fact that these chaps were ignorant, I never would have said a word in criticism and you today wouldn't hear me say a word in criticism.

But routinely and uniformly since, I have had them behave in no other way than to make me believe or try to make me believe that I was poaching upon some private preserve, peopled with bogeymen who would bite me. They were pretending ownership of this! And I never had one produce a bill of sale for my head.

Now, I learned more than this. As the years went on, I learned that they were supposed to do things with the mind across this basic premise — this basic premise: that IQ cannot change and personality characteristics are unalterable. Well this, if you please, is a defeatism. They only could be justified in existence if they could change characteristics or IQs. If they can't change something, why are they? If they can't get anything done in this society and if they're sitting there saying, "Under no circumstances must you poach," looks to me like we've struck a third dynamic mental block in the field of the mind. Nothing more than that. They say, "Nothing can be done and you mustn't do anything." And saying these two things at once was adventurous; they should never be said to anyone with red hair.

Now, I'm not damning these people particularly. They undoubtedly have reasons of their own for their dishonesty. Basically it possibly is something on the order of, if anyone got into their heads they'd find out what they did when they were three, and it was nasty.

But I do not consider they have any right to the brains or sight of thee or me if all they would do is tell us that nothing could be done. Therefore such a group would condemn us to blindness. My total quarrel. Because we refuse to be condemned to blindness, we are here.

All right. Here I have given you a blasphemous picture of the mental sciences of long time ago in the dark ages of man. They failed because their subject wasn't really functional. It wasn't practical and didn't invite anybody to make use of it. The total function was to study. And I suppose someone who is obsessed with the idea of studying can see that as a total function.

But engineers are not oriented in that fashion. They study to do. Got the difference? It's studying to do, not just studying.

I was auditing Mary Sue one day and she told me about a great big place up someplace in the universe where everybody there — great big building, tremendous desks and everything in it — and everybody in there just knew about everything. And I said, "And what did they do?"

She said, "That's it, they just know about everything."

I said, "Yes, but what do they do with this?"

And she said, "That's just it: nothing. They just know about everything. They just catalog all of the things that go on."

"Well, who do they catalog it for?"

"They don't catalog it for anybody."

"Well, who do they send it to?"

"Well, they don't send it to anybody."

So naturally you and I don't know about this place; it's totally out of communication.

Well, it's quite interesting. It's very interesting that Scientology has more background than psychology. It has the background of the Greek, Roman thought, Middle Age thought (which was more or less sparked up by Saint Thomas Aquinas), fifteenth century faculty psychology — these are all backgrounds — the basic philosophies of Hume, Locke, on up to William James and on up to now. It is a consecutive track of development which we have tapped in on, understood, sorted out and made workable. Our findings today are in no great disagreement with the earlier Greeks or a very little-known fellow who lived in the day of Julius Caesar and who wrote a book about the nature of things. There's no great disagreement with these great philosophers up along the track. We are not, then, really in scholastic disagreement or basic disagreement anywhere.

You would be quite amazed at the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas, about 1265, 1275 — I've forgotten exactly when — it was June, I think, I talked to him. Well anyhow, his comments on the subject of knowingness are of great interest to us today. I invite you someday to, if you're in a library or something, to crack a book on Saint Thomas Aquinas and read what he had to say about knowingness. It's quite interesting. He had some curves, he was trying to convince some people of some things, his work was definitely biased in some degree; but we find in his work the early ghost of Spencer's knowable and unknowable theory — we find right there.

And in Dianetics we more or less started out on the premise that there were a lot of things that were knowable and there were probably a lot of things that were unknowable, and we didn't have to know any of the unknowable things to know about the things that were knowable. And that was an advance on Spencer because he just sort of dropped it right there, you see? He said, "Well, they're unknowable and nobody will ever know about them."

And Kant went further than this. Kant says transcendental — I don't know, exteriorization or something. Transcendentalism, I think, that horrible subject is. Yes, I remember. I missed every lecture on the subject at his university. Anyhow . . . Nobody could ever keep me in.

Anyway, this fellow, the great Chinaman of Königsberg, he was sort of adrift but nevertheless he's on our track. I mean, the things he was saying about the innate moral nature of man. He — in The Critique of Pure Reason, why, the fellow demonstrates conclusively that there is built into man a series of moral factors, and then he wrote another book which proves conclusively that there aren't. Then he says that these moral factors are something you never get paid for, and then he says in another book that these moral factors are there because you're paid for them and if you aren't paid for them, they're not there. It's quite interesting. But he nevertheless was trying to shake apart some of the basic data of the universe and understand it. He was trying to hang things together.

We actually are working in direct succession, very direct succession, from somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty-five to three thousand years of what's considered formal philosophy. We don't vary anything off of this line at all.

But there has been a variation within the last century. I'm not just pounding something down here, I'm just kicking it in the teeth. In the last century there was a tremendous departure from formal philosophy. Psychology has always been the study of the mind or spirit. And psyche is Greek for spirit. And you will read in all of the textbooks (which, before they were burned, were quite informative) on the subject of psychology that psychology has nothing to do with the mind or the spirit or with man's soul or anything, but is simply some kind of a dissertation on brain cells or brain functions. And demonstrates conclusively that all thought comes from mass and that man is an animal and that's that.

And these words of great wisdom, at complete variance from anything that had been said in all the centuries preceding, were uttered by a chap by the name of Wundt. He was the only Wundt in Leipzig, Germany in 1879. And he is the direct father and the direct descendent of all psychology taught today in every American university except, perhaps, Catholic universities. He's the only authority for modern psychology as taught in universities. And he has no bearing whatsoever on anything else man has ever thought on the subject of his own livingness and beingness.

Now, that's perhaps to you an extravagant statement but it is not extravagant. I studied it carefully before I made it. And I have read the fellow's lectures and his textbooks, and it was strictly "from what universe?" There is nothing of the tradition of man's thinking or man's philosophy over the ages to be found in that work. But that work, because it is degrading and animalistic, was accepted for reasons best known to somebody else as the formal study of psychology.

And when somebody in the government says the word psychology, he does not mean faculty psychology taught in 1500 — and a pretty good psychology it is, too. It's quite interesting; you read it over, they almost tell you about an engram.

Female voice: Yeah!

Yeah. They almost tell you about a lot of things. They add them up — it would make sense to a Dianeticist. But nothing of this other school would make sense to any of us.

Now, I don't know whether man at large just gave up on the subject of himself and quit, or not. But I know that nobody had any right to quit as far as we were concerned.

Now you, a Scientologist, think of yourself, undoubtedly, as being something new under the sun. And this is not true. You are in the best tradition of man's philosophy on the subject of man. And just because the data has been summated and pulled into sharp importances which evaluate and then which

do more for man than philosophy had done before, does not divorce you from this very long track, at least twenty-five hundred years in direct, consecutive length to the earliest records we have on thinkingness.

I mentioned Buddhism: that is actually the formal entrance of philosophy as far as written history is concerned. It was mythology before that time.

Now, here — look here, then: can it be that man was subjected to a raid of some sort or another where all of his information was swept away from him, he was disenfranchised of what he knew basically was true and then somebody supplanted it for activities to their own selfish benefit? Could that be?

But you are in the best tradition. The very best tradition. You will go back and read something by a well-educated man in 1805 and you will find him discussing the possible uses of religion in the control of populaces. And this fellow is not drawing any wool across his eyes — he's talking quite intelligently. He's thinking, he's understanding.

Read something like the work of Edward Gibbon, 1790 or thereabouts. And you find that this man is well in command of an understanding of his fellow man and he is not at any time trying to vilify his fellow man with being an animal and degrading him utterly, even though he's cutting to pieces the totality of Christianity. He didn't forget himself so far as to abandon all formal knowledge of life. Quite informative.

Take an educated man of 1950 and you found him with no command of basic philosophy, no feeling of humanity or understanding of the human race. Something had happened.

An educated man of two centuries ago was expected to know a great deal about human behavior and livingness. But something happened in between there.

Now, it's very gratifying to my ego to stand before you and say, "Well. . ." (That's a Greek word, not a Freudian one.) And it's very gratifying for me to say, "Well, I thought this all up and actually it's just me, you know, it's nobody else; I mean, nobody else had a hand in this." Then we change the violin off to the other arm and play "The Great I Am" on that one. That'd be very flattering, wouldn't it?

But it's basically not true. This work couldn't have been done at all if people had not been thinking in the times of the Greeks, if Buddha had not been writing and talking in his day, if the faculty psychologists had not opened up. And if modern psychology hadn't convinced me to such a degree that they were working an operation, not doing a subject, we wouldn't have had any Scientology.

Now, some important things have happened in Scientology. Basic importances have been sorted out so as to evaluate other data and make a consecutive, organized whole of observations of life. And when that was done we had a tremendous resurgence of information on the subject, our power of observation became tremendous. And it became so large that it dwarfs a power of observation immediately before the point. But it couldn't have been done if Pythagoras hadn't been thinking and talking, Anaxagoras hadn't been in the picture and if Buddha hadn't been energetically walking fifteen miles a day just to talk to some people — we'd never gotten there at all.

It's true of all civilized status that things begin rather slowly and then as you pick up a larger amount of data, you get a sudden integration of things.

The advantageous spot which I occupied was being trained in the East and then being subjected to — also against my will — to Western engineering, philosophy and mathematics. This puts you onto a logical pattern like a highwayman puts a pistol in your stomach. If — it says, "Be logical." It says, with the most critical air possible, "You're wrong." It tells you and teaches you this philosophy, which has never been heard of in the East, that those things are true which work. It ends speculation with application.

Now, when you add that tradition to twenty-five hundred years of formal philosophy and some understanding of the Eastern philosophies and you take a hard look at it, something is bound to happen. Well, it happened. That's all — it happened. And we're here. And we know how to do things. And we probably could have given a witch doctor — if we could pluck a witch doctor out of two centuries ago and set him down here, he could probably show us "Poga-poga, and you show him the magic eye and you do this, you do that. . ." And we'd have probably said, "Well, walk over and touch that wall," and he'd have run out his witch doctoring, you know? I mean, we could have given him cards and spades and probably beaten him at his own game if we applied our own wits to it. You understand? Because we would understand what his witch doctoring was all about.

Now, I'll give you a graphic example of that. The juju of Africa was of great interest to me at one time. And I almost decided I would take it up one day to find out why the dickens these people were actually able to put curses on people with such ease. We have the answer to that. The second you saw any juju boy working on the native populace to extract a few coppers (or his wife), you, a Scientologist, say, "Ha-ha-ha, that's pretty good application of that axiom; yeah, that's pretty good." Or "That mechanical principle is — that's dead easy."

Actually they walk up to you with a long horsetail switch — it's a horse's tail on a little handle — and they fill the horse's tail, see, full of fleas. And they walk up to you and they switch this all around your face, see? And right in the middle of when they're doing it, they say, "Die!" Confusion and the stable datum, nothing else. And of course the guy will — this is done to, is — of course, seizes onto that single clear statement in the middle of all the confusion: he's got it! It's the nicest little engram you ever observed. And there are dozens of them like this, all of which would be easily understood by a Scientologist.

But the funny part of it is, they're not understood by a witch doctor. They're not understood. He just knows that if he does this it works. He's gone on total workability with no understanding.

All right. There are many auditors around who do a certain process for its workability only and don't understand it at all. They go through the mystic rites of 8-C and something happens. And they say, "That's good enough, why understand it?" But the understanding is available; it is there.

Now, you could consider that I am a very — very much of a madman indeed to run down psychology, to run down these other formal studies. You say — I've had it said to me that this damages our position. I'm afraid I was too good a cavalryman once not to understand more about tactics than that.

I used to have a letterhead when I was writing down in Hollywood. Everybody had a fancy letterhead of one sort or another, so I had somebody draw me one of a cavalryman at full charge with saber outstretched and so on. And I omitted the motto under it because it would have been too much for the boys out in Hollywood. And I used to put this on the heading of — make it first page on my MSes and turnovers. They kind of got the point. The motto that went under it was "Ride over everything you come to." Which is, by the way, a tremendously workable philosophy. If you ever feel utterly downtrodden and you can't possibly make the grade, why, just grit your teeth and somehow or other get up to speed on the idea that you can ride over it. And you could make it.

What is that saying, in essence? You understand that at once: that's saying, "Communicate like hell if you're worried about it." But at it. Not to somebody else.

All right. It would be a great error on our part to remain quiescent in the face of considerable counterattack which has come from the various psychology organizations at this time.

If you do not know they are under attack, you could find out fast enough simply by calling up some outfit and asking — you, a Scientologist, don't announce the fact, just ask this university, "What about this thing called Scientology?" And you hear blue smoke and raves and sour grapes, and you might even hear your name as being one of the offenders in the local area. These people, for instance, are always turning us in to people like the Better Business Bureau and so forth in an effort to really do something to quash this down. But they're still mocking up ogres; only they have us to some degree mocked up as ogres.

Well, I'm going to give you something that would help you if you ever confront that, and that is: they don't mock up very well.

Now here — here was the battlefield that Dianetics and Scientology walked upon, and here is the battlefield on which it is fought. And don't get an idea that it isn't a battlefield because it is. It's a great mistake to walk out between two lines of soldiers who are shooting like hell at each other and pretend there's no battle going on; you can get hurt doing that. There is a battle going on. It's a worldwide battle. And the target of that, the end goal of that, from the communist point of view, is ownership of the mind of man. And they have announced this over and over and over and over: 1933, 1935, 1938, 1940, 1945, 1950 and 1957. Their communiques and party line contain this over and over and over again: that they are not going to invade with arms, that their total conquest is the mind of man. Why, just — just this last week it was in Drew Pearson's column that they were giving up over in the London conference because they'd already said their best target was the mind of man.

Well, they conceive this as something that can be owned. They believe that communist philosophy can somehow or another give them dominion so that men can become slaves. Now, that is the battle which is going on in the world at this time and should be understood. They have all sorts of mechanisms by which they do this. But it is a battle. They believe in hypnotism, fixed loyalties of one kind or another, and an idea that nobody can do anything with his mind anyhow. They believe that man is an animal, that he thinks with his brain. They believe that — and teach people (because they know these teachings are destructive) — that all thought emanates from force only, that man has no soul and he has no mind. They had to fight the Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church and they adopted these things. In other words, they're winning with Wundtian psychology. There's not much differentiation between these two subjects.

All right. The world, then, in which you operate isn't just going along stupidly like a bunch of somnambulists. No, no — that's not what's happening. There's somebody in there pitching all the time, saying, "Manhood, thaah; courage, blah. What you are — you should be a cell member, blah." You'll hear this one around you these days — quite interesting little operations, these are — this one is a killer: "It's been thought of before." See? "The cult of the individualist." You'll see this country coming into the grip of these things. They already ruined Russia.

Now, it is a world, then, in which a great deal of propaganda about the mind is flying around. And we're actually doing a cowboy in the white hat and a cowboy in the black hat, like the kids watch on TV. We're actually doing that. There are always two great forces at work in the world: black forces and white forces. Now, there — to get very mystic on you and tell you what I was taught up in the Western Hills of China, there are always really three forces. There's the baddies and the goodies and the gold lodge. And the gold lodge referees it. The black, the white and the gold. And it's quite fascinating.

Now, we could easily flip over into the role of the white in this particular fight because we're the only people on earth fitted for it today. But the truth of the matter is, that isn't where we belong. We belong over in the gold.

Why?

Because we have a belief in the self-determinism of man and his essential freedoms. We've got that so strongly that today we can put him under very heavy control and run it out and make him free. We can even free him from control today. That's quite remarkable.

Therefore we are dangerous. Therefore we are dangerous. We're dangerous to any slave maker who walks up the street. We're dangerous. Because we can bust all his charms, we can turn the spotlight on the monsters in the sea and show that it's an empty sea. We can open the gates on his private hunting preserves that belong to us and walk through. And such people are always dangerous.

Now, fortunately, the subject only works as long as it's used for good. That's very fortunate, you know? Because if we only do good with it, we become not merely dangerous people to have around, but utterly formidable. Utterly formidable. Nobody could do a thing! We occupy a position from which we could not be thrust, to the degree that we have done good and benefited man. And the funny part of the subject is it only works when it is — does good and benefits man!

What kind of a rat race are we in here? Well, I'm afraid we're in one of these rat races that can only win. Besides the Great Okay, we have the Big Win.

Now, all right. Now, Scientology is a doingness subject. I don't think that an auditor could run an engram into anyone. He just doesn't operate that way, basically. But I have seen somebody sort of grit his teeth and decide he better had, for the good of the race or something of the sort, and wind up by processing the fellow. You know, he decides if he added enough Code breaks together and he did enough other things, somebody'd get really dazed and wouldn't be so efficient.

Well, I made a test of that one time, and I found out — this is terrible; I hate to tell you this. It's terrible. It'll show you why this is the Big Win. We decided that by restimulating people we could reduce their ability. So we conducted a long series of very expert tests. And they went this way: we gave the guy an IQ test, ran him into a very heavy engram, snarled him in but good, didn't relieve it at all, and then while he was still grogged and stuck on the track gave him another IQ test and had him finish that one. And his IQ always went up. That's an old-time one.

Well, we increased things to be aware of and increased his havingness and that did it.

Now if you turn around the other way and you strip down his having-ness, you can fog him up. But the fogged-up doesn't last very long; because it's artificially done, it wears off rather rapidly.

Oh, I'm not saying that if you put a bullet through somebody's head you wouldn't do something to his IQ, you understand. But I'm using Scien — — I'm not using psychological, but Scientology processes, to demonstrate this.

The whole subject of the mind must continue to be a free and open and inspected subject. In other words, the information known about the mind should be available to anyone.

Why?

Because nobody owns his mind but himself. You see, there's no suchthing as an army composed of a whole bunch of minds that are owned by ageneral. Now, there can be a whole bunch of soldiers who owe their allegianceto a general and who think in coordination to serve a cause. But to say thenthat they are owned is to say that they are slaves. And we know at once thatthis is nonfunctional, since there is no slave-owning state or any state supported by slaves, prosperous or in good shape or alive today on Earth. That'squite a remarkable condemnation of this principle of making slaves. It's avery fast way to go by the boards; just make some slaves. They cave thesociety in faster, much faster than if it's just left alone. Nobody needs slaves.You need slaves just like you need a glass of cyanide.

All right. The subject of the mind is a personal thing. The contents of your mind may or may not be, or may or — should or should not remain a personal thing; that's beside the point. That is not even a question that could be answered in any other field, save debate or philosophy or something. You know, whether or not you have a right to all of your own engrams and secrets or whether or not they should be aired or something of the sort; you could debate this thing one way or the other. But in view of the fact that you continue to have your mind, no amount of legislation or debate or anything else could disturb the fact that you do have your mind. You see?

And if you have a Ford car, you're certainly, by my thinking, entitled to a how-to-fix-it-yourself book about it. You're entitled to an instruction manual for the machinery you're expected to run and keep in good order.

Now, the state holds everyone responsible for keeping his mind in good order. Well, if you let an engram about kleptomania slip into shape and hook the jewels off the counter of the jewelry store, the state says, by throwing you in the clink for a year or two, that you didn't adequately handle this machine called the mind.

Now, if there's going to be such a thing as social punishment or social criticism, then certainly it would neither be just nor equitable if people did not know how to handle that for which they were being criticized. Do you see this? I mean, if you can get arrested for it, then it's yours. This is an admitted responsibility. And if everybody admits this responsibility for everyone — or no, by anyone for himself — by punishing people for doing what they do, we see at once then that everyone's mind is his own mind and isn't owned by anybody else. Therefore, knowledge concerning it must be available. And anyone which prevents such knowledge from being circulated and so on must have a very queer idea of justice, to say the least.

In other words, they have advanced a very unworkable proposition. They have said, "Now, if you don't think just right then you are going to get punished." Well then, they've said, "You have the responsibility for thinking just right."

Well now, we know that we can't give people responsibility without giving them some authority. Doesn't work at all. Any army says this. Any court of law says this. So it must follow that knowledge concerning you must be yours. Isn't anybody else's. It never will be anybody else's.

Well, very well then. If this is true, all the people with whom you associate and to whom you will speak and so forth also own a mind. And if that is true, then they have a right to know what you know about it. And then if you tell them that, they meet somebody else who owns a mind and then if this other person owns a mind, then they have the right to know what this second person knew about it.

This is why I call it the Big Win. It's the Big Win for sure. We've had road maps and they're pretty good road maps. We haven't had excellent road maps for caterpillar tractors or the caterpillar tractors or bulldozers to run on those roads, but we have them now. In other words, we not only, today, can draw a road map — we could draw a new map and make sure the roads fitted it. So this is a brand-new sort of a picture.

Well, all right. You expected me, in this lecture, to give you some data you didn't have, and all I've given you is propaganda. But the truth — the truth of the whole thing comes down to this: Scientology could not be addressed to anything else but you. Because any time you address Scientology to anything, it is somebody being another you. You got it? So its address is to living beings, basically, each one of which has a vested interest in being alive.

Now, maybe these people are entitled to hope or help, or they're not entitled to hope or help — that's beside the point. If you're going to tell these people that they must behave, which is the greatest cliche on the tongue of man, then you have no right to withhold from them the mechanisms by which they behave. Do you understand that?

So, what is it addressed to?

Well, basically, it's addressed to life. But what is life composed of?

It's basically, from your viewpoint, composed of those things with which you can communicate. And the most vital thing with which you can communicate, of course, is another being.

Now therefore, Scientology directly addresses to livingness and secondarily addresses to this universe and one's own universe, the other fellow's universe — it addresses the associations amongst these things. And you evolve out of this the eight dynamics. And it addresses to all of these things, whether they are there or not.

And out in the final analysis, then, we find out that we are dealing with the most personal subject that we could possibly deal with. Now, Freudians believe that sex is, but that's not true; Scientology is. It's the most personal subject with which we could talk to anybody — about which we could talk to anybody. Very personal; talks about them.

But if we expect ourselves to get along in a world or expect there to be a world in which to get along, why, we haven't really any choice but to go on and use our information.

Now, today Scientology is called "knowingness, study of." But "knowing how to know," that's a sort of a nondynamic definition. Scientology could better be defined as "summated and organized information about you." It's everything that has been known about you for twenty-five hundred years at least. But it's summated so that it's communicable, so that it's applicable and so that it gets some definite results, and then, way over and above all these other things, is capable of changes. It can create changes. And it can create changes for the better. And it can make things look better and act better and gives one a much broader understanding of life.

We're just on the verge, by the way, of discoveries on the way north. There's less than a third of Scientology wrapped up, to date. But that third includes any being on Earth, and it's just that beings on Earth do not necessarily hit a total zenith.

But there is the subject. And that is that to which it is addressed: simply you. And if you realize that the only way it can be addressed is to make somebody better handle what he has, you realize that it can't be anything but a big win. And that's why I say we're neither the cowboy in the black hat, the cowboy in the white hat or the cowboy in the gold hat, if there is one. We're just us and we're on our way.

Thank you.