From squirrel@echelon.alias.net Tue Mar 16 14:20:20 1999
Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!howland.erols.net!portc02.blue.aol.com!nyd.news.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!news.lava.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x2!mail2news
Date: 16 Mar 1999 21:20:20 -0000
Subject: FZ BIBLE 13/35 SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT 9TH ACC
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology
From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Comments: Please report problems with this automated remailing service to
	<squirrel-admin@echelon.alias.net>. The message sender's identity
	is unknown, unlogged, and not replyable.
Message-ID: <777e019eaaf55ec293f4dd887d2f8e97@anonymous.poster>
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Lines: 1240
Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.religion.scientology:689992 alt.clearing.technology:76122

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST

9th ACC - THE SOLUTION TO ENTRAPMENT CASSETTES 13/35

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But the Christians are not good and obedient Jews and yet
are allowed to have their old testament regardless of any
Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

**************************************************


9TH ACC CONTENTS

December 1954 to January 1955 in Phoenix, Arizona.

Based on the solution to entrappment cassette version.

F# = File number (** = not available)
O# = Original Number (according to the master list posted by Pilot)
REN = As renumbered in the Solution to Entrappment cassettes

F# O#  REN  DATE  TITLE

01  1   1  Dec  6 Introduction to 9th ACC: Havingness
02  2   2  Dec  7 The Essence of Auditing, Know to Mystery Scale
03  3   3  Dec  8 Rundown on Six Basics
04  4   4  Dec  9 Communication Formula
05  5   5  Dec 10 The Practice of Dianetics and Scientology
06  6   6  Dec 13 Conduct of the Auditor
07  7   7  Dec 14 Mechanics of Communication
08  8   8  Dec 15 Havingness
09  9   9  Dec 16 Pan-determinism and One-way Flows
10  9A 10  Dec 17 Hist. & Dev. of Processes: Games & Limitations in Games
11  9B 10A Dec 17 History and Development of Processes: Q&A Period
12 10  11  Dec 20 Games (Fighting)
13 11  12  Dec 21 Anatomy of Games -- Part I
14 11A 12A Dec 21 Anatomy of Games -- Part II
15 12  13  Dec 22 One-way Flows in Processing
16 12A 13A Dec 22 One-way Flows in Processing: Question and Answer Period
17 13  14  Dec 23 Havingness and Communication Formulas
** 13A --  Dec 23 After Lecture Comments   
18 14  15  Dec 24 Pan-determinism
19 14A 15A Dec 24 Pan-determinism: Question and Answer Period
20 15  16  Dec 27 Training New People
** 15A --  Dec 27 Curiosa from Dianetics 55!
21 16  17  Jan  3 Auditing Requirements, Differences
22 16A 18  Jan  4 Time
** 16AA -  Jan  4 Q&A Period
23 17  19  Jan  5 Auditing at Optimum
24 18  20  Jan  6 Exteriorization
25 19  21  Jan  7 Elementary Material: Know to Mystery Scale
26 20  22  Jan 10 Education: Goals in Society -- Adult Education
27 21  23  Jan 11 Fundamentals of Auditing
** 21A --  Jan 11 Auditors' Conference
28 22  24  Jan 12 Definitions: Glossary of Terms -- Part I
29 23  25  Jan 13 Definitions: Glossary of Terms -- Part II
30 24  26  Jan 14 Definitions: Glossary of Terms -- Part III
31 25  27  Jan 17 Auditing Demonstration: Six Basics in Action
** 25A --  Jan 17 Auditors' Conference
32 26  28  Jan 18 Auditing Demonstration: Spotting Spots
** 26A --  Jan 18 Auditors' Conference
33 27  29  Jan 19 Auditing Demonstration: Exteriorization
34 28  30  Jan 20 Background Music to Living
35 29  31  Jan 21 Axioms: Laws of Consideration -- What an Axiom Is

Note that 6 of the 9 discussion periods (Q&A periods, Auditors'
Conferences, etc.) were omitted from the cassettes, leaving us
with only 35 files instead of the 41 that were recorded.  It is
also possible that material was edited out of the lectures which
are available.  If anyone has a set of the original reels, please
post any missing material.

========================

9ACC file 13/35

9th ACC 11 (12) - ANATOMY OF GAMES, PART I

Transcript of lecture by L. Ron Hubbard 9ACC11 - 5412C21 
(Renumbered 12 for "The Solution To Entrapment" cassettes)

ANATOMY OF GAMES, PART I

A lecture given on 21 December 1954


The talk yesterday on the subject of games was not
completed. There's too much to say on this subject. I
digressed too far, so I would like to say a few more things
about games. Maybe it will make them a little clearer.

We covered the idea that the basic idea was to have some
action, some games, and we should take a very close look at
the anatomy of a game and find out who, what and how is the
exact anatomy of a game. Now, I haven't written this down
anyplace. I actually hadn't thought about it very much. But
I think it might be amusing to take this apart, and let's
us just figure out, now, how many parts there are to a game.

Well, first and foremost we'd have our communication
formula of the two horseshoes. Must be a two-way cycle of
communication, one way or the other, or we find the game
doing some strange change of character. We find it changing
in its ethic level or something of the sort, unless there
is a two-way cycle of communication.

Talked to you yesterday and didn't say all there was to say
about it by a long ways, about the problem between the
known and the unknown terminal, as the two terminals of the
game. You got that? I mean, the known and the unknown terminal.

Naturally, if one of the terminals of the game is unknown
and the other terminal of the game is known, such as in the
game which is played in every city hall in the world,
called cops and robbers - they've never quite grown up. And
they are - they are terribly afraid of ending this game by
the way. If you gave any real good solution to crime, it
would be - the police forces of the world would be on the
back of your neck. They would be as mad at you for doing
this as a preclear is mad at you when you've taken away his
last game.

So, we look at this, we find this two-way cycle of
communication. And this two-way cycle of communication
balances in such a way as to continue a communication.

And we find the game is only this: The introduction of a
necessity for a communication. You see, that adds the
reason why; the reason why.

And when we make it necessary to communicate, of course, we
make it necessary to have a game. And if communication is
not necessary then no game is in progress, or it is just
one team resting. You get the idea?

All right. So we have this problem of communication very
intimately associated with games and we discover quite
easily that the need to have a communication in the first
place would result from the need to have barriers.

Now, to any group or any civilization that is extremely
well equipped, you might say, with barriers, it's a fallacy
of that communication to believe that barriers are bad. You
see, it's got too many barriers and not enough action in
the game, then it is liable to say, well, barriers are bad.

Well, this would lead them to believe that entire and full,
complete and utter communication is desirable. Well, now,
if we take it reductio ad absurdum and simply get full,
entire and complete communication, we're in a realm of
theory which tells us at once that we wouldn't have a
barrier. There wouldn't be any barriers around.

So that affinity would emerge in its truest definition,
which is coincidence of location and beingness. That is
the ultimate in affinity: Coincidence of location and
beingness.

If Joe and Bill could occupy exactly the same location, and
if they considered themselves the same person, why, the
affinity would be very high, providing you had not entered
in any identity at all. No identity existed there at all,
you would have, of course, just a thetan occupying the same
area as another thetan. And you would have the theoretical
height of affinity, which, of course, is not obtainable.

It actually is not obtainable. It's an absolute. And there
would be an inaction resulting from a complete affinity.

Now, anything that we would discover to be a partial
affinity would not be enough to bother with in terms of
this complete affinity, you see. I mean, we think of
affinity and we think, well, there might be something
approaching this. But actually, if you got real busy and
looked it over real hard and examined it with all the
imagination of which you were capable, you would just begin
to get the idea how far a high level ARC would be from this
ultimate - this absolute affinity. It will be a long way -
long way to go.

All right. When we look over the idea of barriers we
discover that everybody present and in this civilization
at this time undoubtedly has too many. And so he's liable
to think in terms of an absolute communication. See, an
absolute affinity, an absolute communication, so forth.

Naturally you wouldn't have any barriers if this took place
at all, and at the same time you wouldn't have any game.
Now, we have talked and condemned, talked about and
condemned this idea of a one-way flow. Well, it's all very
well to talk about a one-way flow, but the truth of the
matter is a stuck flow is not necessarily bad. It's simply
a flow that's going to keep running that way, isn't it?

So let's get real practical now and let's tackle the whole
problem from another angle entirely. We find that a game
has to have opponents, it has to have players, has to have
some rationale of some sort or another. It should have
somebody for an umpire. It should have some mass. There
should be some mass in both of the units that are
contesting one against the other, and there is some sort of
a mass or particle to be contested about, see. Actually
what is best is an idea. That is the most elusive of all
weenies. Now the - you can never find it. Just utterly
impossible to find an idea.

If you tried to root out the idea of communism out of the
world, or the idea of democracy - by the way, these are not
opposites.

A democracy is a method of operation of government and
communism is a method of operation of - well, it's a method
of operation. No, all joking aside, communism is a method.
It's a methodology by which people cut down the amount of
currency and so forth - what they consider barriers and
blocks in the society - for a freer distribution of goods and
work; and a breakdown of the bigger massive terminals. They
break down the more massive individual terminals inside the
society by trying to make the whole society a terminal.

And you get good - pretty good flow, pretty good interchange.
But in view of the fact that everybody is so interested in
playing a game in order to really make communism work you'd
have to have a completely sane, utterly rational population -
each and every individual in it. It's this - has the same 
foolish arbitrary - it's got an absolute in it, the
same one that anarchy has. The anarchist and the communist
are always hand in glove in various revolutions, and so forth.

Of course, what is meant today by anarchy isn't what it
says in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Lord knows what they
mean today by communism, by anarchy, by democracy and so
forth. Lord knows. Nobody has defined these things for so
long that they're just words. And communism, from being an
idea which nobody could find, is now a symbol which goes
around and it has some mass. It has some mass. People can
chase after the symbol itself.

I think that if you walked up to McCarthy and said to him,
suddenly "Senator, would you mind giving me a precision
definition of ideal communism, practical communism and the
modus operandi of communism itself as a government?"

Actually it can be stated in five or six paragraphs. I
mean, it's very, very - a very brief statement can be made on
each one of these points. That boy would stand there with
his mouth open. He does not know any one of these things.
What is communism as an ideal, what is it in its practical
application, and what is its modus operandi in a state.

He looks at it as its modus operandi in invading another
state, which is not the modus operandi of communism, you
see? Another thing.

Fascism, same way. I didn't know until recently, though, in
my innocence, that actual fascists - that there is a state
of mind known as fascism which is a state of mind. We have
described it utterly on the Tone Scale, just as gorgeously
as it ever got described. It's sitting there right at 1.5,
just as neat as you please.

But I never knew that a pure, absolute state of beingness
known as a fascist could exist until I ran into a couple of
them. Perfect. I mean, they were right out of Mein Kampf
They were American. One was an American industrialist and
the other was an American military man. The ideas these
people had, the - the operation in which they were willing to
engage, what they thought was right was so confoundedly
aberrated that a fellow had to - had to look awfully close at
them to make sure they weren't joking. You know, it was
real silly.

For instance, they believed in an insulated state of
beingness, unless you could overflow with force and force
your ideals onto somebody else. I never quite found out how
you could force your ideals or ideas on anybody. But I
suppose it's possible. Fascists keep trying to do it.

That they are better than anybody else as individuals and
as this political unity and so forth. I suppose I wouldn't
have been amazed a bit about it if I had been in Germany
during 1934-35-36. I imagine that people were talking about
this quite a bit. And other people like myself were being
very amazed that such individuals could exist. It's
impossible, but there they were.

Well, here is your - just no divergency on this to amount to
anything - here are your various compartments of a game. You
have the terminals, you have the weenie, you have the
communication barriers.

And these barriers, of course, categorize into matter,
energy, space and time. All of these are barriers. And with
all this, of course, we get a reason why.

And what is that reason why? It is a reason why we must
interrupt or crash through communications. See, it'd be
just all built around this same thing - reason why.

So what factors here in - are there in communication that
are also employed in a game? Well, the stuck flow, the - is
a very definite used factor in a game. You get something
discharging in some direction and it keeps on discharging
in that direction. You got a rocket ship. You see that? It
is a stuck flow and it's no more than a stuck flow - a
reaction engine drive. And it just keeps on pouring fire
out the rear end, that's all. That's a stuck flow. And they
work in a direction to make it a real stuck flow. And how
does it get to be a stuck flow? It's because the reaction
engine is jetting flame in or radioactive material into
space. No terminal.

Now, if you just worked with this principle of communication 
a little bit you could probably evolve the - a basic 
reaction engine which would be very, very close to a
perpetual motion machine. The mass ratios, and so forth, go
completely haywire. Elementary physics as taught in high
schools has never really been disobeyed. But the moment
that you start throwing the time factor around, you start
to get up to the speed of particles and that sort of thing,
why, elementary physics goes by the boards - just sswamm.

You're, of course, you're getting up toward
instantaneousness, and the closer you approach
instantaneousness the closer you approach life in its
functions.

Well, anyhow, here we have these various components of the
game. Let's go over them again. It would be the two-way
communication; it would be any frailty of communication; it
would be the terminals - two or more terminals; it would be
the thing that everybody is after and it would be all these
communication barriers.

Now, nobody has ever - that you have ever seen in a football
game - has ever pitched a football straight down. And the
reason for that is, is ground under him. If it's used in a
game, a football has to rest someplace or another. And it
rests on the ground. Ground. This sounds awfully silly, but
unless you break down some of these problems you really
don't see much application to them. Ground is a necessary
part of a football game. No reason to go on ignoring this.

Well, what is ground but the doggonedest, solidest
communication barrier you ever ran into? The next time you
want to communicate with China, don't stamp your foot. Your
message will not be received.

And now, they go worse than this. They put up - they put up
ends to the playing field in the form of goal posts. And in
almost any game, if there is a ball in use, they will put
up backdrops to keep the ball from going further away, you
see, than in the playing field itself.

And you get looking at any kind of a playing field, you
will be amazed, utterly amazed, when you start to count up
the intricacy of barriers, the number of barriers actually
employed in this game.

There is also the matter of too much space. You see, too
much space is definitely a barrier. And that's a beautiful
trap - too much space.

So, we get this idea of a communication barrier can exist
of too much of something. Too much space.

All right. And we find out that home runs are quite easy in
some ballparks, but they are not in others. And they play
the big-league games in the big ballparks that have too
much space to make a home run, you see. So that ball can go
back there and at least somebody in the outfield can pick
up the ball and pitch it in.

But where you have - you - where you have limited your space,
why, the ball can then fly over the fence. And it's gone
and nobody can pick it up because they don't provide
ladders and parachutes for the outfield.

You see, actually in an anxiety to play a game, if barriers
were uniformly bad in all directions, you would naturally
concentrate mainly upon equipping your people with materiel
which would uniformly and most efficiently overcome any
barrier met.

So that in a football game the first action of anybody's
part would be to shoot the timekeeper, wouldn't it? To
provide the outfield with ladders and parachutes. To make
the baseball much lighter, and much springier so that it
could be thrown - well, I say much lighter, it should be
given a better mass so as to be able to assume more
velocity and more bounce. And yet they don't do that. They
get a - get a good dead ball, you know. They do all sorts of
things in order to limit this.

By the way, did you ever hit a golf ball with a baseball
bat, or a cricket bat? They go wham! Man, do they travel.
They travel most alarmingly. So that if in playing games
people were actually even vaguely concentrated on
eliminating barriers, they would play baseball with a golf
ball, and so forth.

But they're not. They're not. They're concentrated in an
entirely different direction. Put up those barriers, keep
them there, and keep them functioning. If a set of goal
posts - the one thing that could really end and bring to
nothing a football game, would be if its goal posts fell down.

They'd "time out," and you would see whistles blowing and
people running around trying to find carpenters, and so forth.

Now, the head of one of the teams could drop dead and the
game would go on. See, they'd just throw in a substitute or
something. Or play without him. But a goal post - oh, no. No,
the game would stop right there while they patched it all
up again.

You could say that the barrier is far more important than
the player in most games. If you have ever tried to play
tennis on a court that had no backdrop - have you ever had
this unpleasant experience? Why, you spend all of your time
going out to get those balls back. You get what I mean.
Well, looking over then the problem of communication in
games we find out that barriers are desirable in more than
one field. You could look it over, you'd find thousands and
thousands of fields in which a one-way flow was desirable,
where you get a stuck flow.

Of course, the way you get a stuck flow would just be to
eliminate the answer part of it, or eliminate the terminal
entirely that the communication was going toward.

And any time you do something like this, why, you are
liable to get yourself a nice, even outflow of one kind or
another which will just go on and on and on, you see.

So, even the stuck flow is used. We start eliminating other
parts of the communication formula and we get other
manifestations. We get the manifestation called gravity.
Now, gravity is used in a football game. Once more, it's a
very effective barrier.

In the absence of gravity you would be able to kick a
football so far and so high that there would be no point in
it at all. The ball would simply not come back. And it'd
cost everybody a fortune buying new footballs.

But on the moon - I well cognizate this particular datum:
Football isn't played. It isn't. There is no atmosphere to
restrain the flight of a ball, and the gravity is only
one-sixth that of Earth, so that if you gave the ball a
good, sharp kick it would go on and on and on. Might even
escape the gravity of the moon. I mean, they maybe never
come down.

So, oh, by the way, every once in a while - here's a little
trick for you just in passing on that particular point of
gravity - once in a while you'll send a preclear up to the
moon, and Earth and sun, you know, doing a Grand Tour, and
you get - you get a fascinating reaction from him if he is
really on the ball.

There's a space station on the back of the moon-that's
space station thirty-three - and it has corridors and
observatory domes and a lot of other things, a lot of odds
and ends. But these corridors are on different levels. So
that we have a hallway, you see, a corridor, and then we
have one which is maybe twelve or fifteen feet above the
level. You see, the next level.

So we'd go down this corridor, and then we'd have to go up
twelve or fifteen feet to go down to the next corridor. And
they'll take a look at this and they will see that there is
nothing but sheer wall face between this lower corridor and
the upper corridor floor - fifteen foot sheer drop between
these two corridors.

And they will say, "Something is wrong here. There are no
stairs. I don't know what I'm doing here, or what's going
on, but this place is kind of funny. There are no stairs
here." Why should there be any stairs where gravity is so
slight? And where the animated doll - they, by the way, get
a very disproportionate picture of the size of space
station thirty-three. It's quite amusing. It's a
doll's-house, really. They get quite a disproportionate
picture because they look at an animated doll or something
like that and the height of it is usually a meter or less.
Seldom more - just about thirty-nine inches tall, something
on this order - thirty-six, thirty-seven and a half inches.
Something on that order.

Well, that's real short, isn't it? But we have this ten or
fifteen foot apparently - they aren't that high, you see,
because it's a doll's-house size jump that a person would
have to make if he wanted to walk on down the hall.
Naturally it could be made with great ease.

A man, as heavy and as massive as a man is - man is
five-foot-ten, something like that, six feet, whatever,
what's the average height? Five-foot-nine,
five-foot-eight? - he would be able to jump straight up in
the air thirty-six feet on the moon. That's a big, big jump
from start. That is to say, if he could jump six feet on earth.

And you get a running start on the thing. Well, we are not
talking about - I guess we are not talking about the average
businessman. The average high school athlete finds no
great difficulty in jumping his own height. Matter of fact,
this used to be one of the ways they told whether or not
troops were disabled. You know, the fellow is all shot to
pieces. He can't even jump his own height anymore. That was
in the Greek army.

Anyhow, here we have an absence of steps, and this is the
obvious thing that should be part of the game called a
house or a base. And the preclear will immediately notice
this absence of mass.

He may not comment on it at all. It may never strike him at
all. He may be a rather dull fellow. But there are many
other things which are similar to this in various parts of
this universe. He notices these barriers or absences of
barriers or something of the sort.

Now, wherever you have a game being played, you have
communications being cut. And that is why you will never
get an answer out of a general of armies. If he is
interested or used to the game called war, then he is
better at cutting communications than he is at doing
anything else. They are wonderful at it. And they dead-end
communications most gorgeously.

Now, of course, by the very nature of the position of
command in an organization, we discover a fascinating
upset of communication in an organization itself, which,
of course, makes for a stuck flow.

Let's take an army regiment, something like that, has a
colonel and - or colonel's command squads, or I don't know
how they do it these days since the navy got in there. The
army and the navy, you know, are all the same
organization. The day - I walked up to a naval officer the
other day and I was about to say something pleasant. I all
of a sudden noticed he was wearing his bars exactly like
they wear them in the army on his raincoat.

The one saving grace of the navy in the old days was that
you - all you had to do was put on a raincoat and nobody knew
what rank you were or anything of the sort. And you could
act as nasty as you pleased. You might even get to be able
so you could act as nasty as an admiral. But in that case
you would have to leave your hat - I mean, as - pardon me, as
fatuous as an admiral if you - you'd have to leave your hat
home because they still left the scrambled eggs on.	   

But they - I saw a couple of seamen the other day and my God,
they were wearing first-class private stripes. And I
suppose the army these days sleeps on the deck and goes
topside. I don't know.

I - what I - really looking forward to a belly laugh in this
next war when they start putting generals on battleships. A
general is always good for a complete bellyache of a
laugh - in his own position. This ought to be a real, real
fine thing.

I have seen admirals in command of troops, and that is an
interesting situation to be in, too. They keep telling the
troops to go topside or something of the sort and nobody
understands their language. Squad starboard, indeed.

Anyway, you see that an up flowing communication up the
line of command - I don't know why it's up, it really ought
to be reversed. They ought to show command on the bottom.
But you see this up flowing line of communication.

Let's say we have a thousand troops. And here we've got
this colonel up there and everyone of these troops
undoubtedly has something to say about the running of this
army or this regiment, you see? Everybody's got a beef.

And they would like to enter into communication on the
thing. So the army has to go in for a series of
interruptions. And we have what's laughingly called a
command flow plan. If they called it a command stop plan,
they'd have a much better look at it.

All right. So the privates have to get the permission of
the corporals -I mean, in a very well-regulated army - in
order to speak to the sergeants. United States army - you
don't have to have permission to speak to anybody below the
rank of- what is it? Lieutenant colonel - something like that.

Well, anyhow, they go on up the line and in a
well-regulated army it would be planned this way: The
corporal, who is in charge of eight or ten men, would see,
it's eight men in the modern army. That's right. The
corporals aren't as able. In Roman times they could handle
ten men, now they can only handle eight.

So that we get to the next level up and that would be a
buck sergeant and then we get our sergeants of oh,
specialists, and command line sergeants and so forth. Then
it's stopped there again. And then theoretically it would
be stopped at your platoon officer and that would be a
second lieutenant and then the - or first lieutenant. And
then it would be stopped again at the captain and then it
would be stopped again at battalion by the sergeant-major
of battalion. And stopped again by the adjutant and stopped
again - they really - they really get to work there at the
level of battalion. And they - stopped again by the major.
And then it would be from there on, of course, if you
considered any flow possible, the major occasionally over a
glass of beer or a glass of wine or something of the sort,
happens to mention incidentally that morale is mighty bad
these days. And this summates the tremendous effort of some
nine hundred men to make their communication felt at the
top line.

But look what would happen if this were a wide-open chart.
There is only one set of ears, by definition and by
postulate, upon this colonel's head. And if he listened to
everything that was incoming - all originated despatches - he
would get nothing else done. And if he listened to them and
acknowledged them, again, he would get certainly nothing
else done, no mistresses, no rake-off from the supply
department - nothing. And he wouldn't get any of the real
business of a colonel in there.

And, so now he goes back down the other way and nobody
permits this communication to stop anyplace. It's as much
as your life's worth in battle to stop a communication from
a field rank or even a colonel. You wouldn't stop the
communication. Somebody comes up to you and says that
Robert E. Lee has just uttered the statement that "you is
to fall back." And this fellow says, "Who the hell is he?"
Why, they just shoot him and go on with the war, you see?
No barrier must exist from the top down.

Well, would you look at this as a loused-up communication
system? Isn't that gorgeous? If it wouldn't be designed to
make solid mass out of everybody involved after a short
space of time, why, we don't understand this system at all.

But you see what would happen? Back flow entirely stopped.
Down flow must go through. Now, the colonel never really
ever gets an acknowledgment. He never really gets an
acknowledgment. The privates to whom he is really
addressing his communication, and so forth, they never sing
out over the telephone line. They never walk up to a
telephone, one after the other, and say, "Okay colonel.
Okay colonel. Okay colonel." See?

So, this really gives this boy a stuck flow. It gives him
the idea after a while that anything he says will go
through. Nothing sillier ever occurred in a commanding
officer's mind. See, he gets totally formed on the idea of
a stuck flow. He knows that communication is going through,
if he knows anything. He is convinced. That's because he
never gets any acknowledgment on the other end.

So he gets acknowledgment hungry once in a while and
court-martials somebody just for the hell of it. Because
there weren't enough dead men on Hill 101, or something.
You know, it couldn't have been held, possibly, and so on.

So, he'll get frantic. Well, now what do you think the
affinity level is for this kind of an operating system,
huh? Is it good? No, sir. But of course it was used in the
Roman legions. It was used with malice aforethought.

The way this was done - the legionnaire who did not feel
actual terror about his officers, not just fear but terror
on the subject of his own officers, wasn't considered a
good legionnaire at all. He had to feel very brave in the
face of the enemy and he had to be very afraid of his own
officers. And this was the way they had it rigged, good and
solid. Of course, his officers took extraordinarily long
lengths to make sure that they were feared. We still have
survivals of it mentioned. Oh, I don't know if any of the
European armies still use what they call field punishment
or not. But they might, they did in World War I. I heard of
a few examples of it in World War II. But it was just
nothing to stake somebody out on a wheel and other niceties
that they used to practice.

An officer would suddenly see a spot of rust on a
legionnaire's armor, or something like that, he'd have him
flogged. He'd have him flogged dead. You know, I mean they
just - . But look at how long Rome was in action as a
military force.

Therefore, look how stuck that flow must be - the command
flow must get - under that kind of a condition of hundreds
and hundreds of years. You see, Rome was a highly
successful military organization for, oh, I don't know,
seven or eight hundred years before Christ. And that's
already several times as long as we are old as the United
States. And it's longer than Great Britain has been a
united nation, certainly.

They held together to this degree and it got to this
terrific point where an officer was so certain of no
acknowledgment at all from a private, you see, that he
would have to make that private pay one way or the other
with pain, agony, something, you see. It was the only
satisfactory acknowledgment - was the guy screaming? You 
get the idea?

See how stuck one of these military organizational plans
will get after a while when we look at it in progress for a
few hundred years in Rome.

Now, it breaks down every once in a while when the purpose
and reason for having an army goes by the boards. You know,
like now. Now we're talking now about the "big brother"
policy. Right after the atom bomb, why, the army started
talking about the sergeants should be big brothers to the
privates, and the colonel is just your father, after all.
This is in their regulation books.

So that this communication setup does result in a solider
mass and a stucker flow, and it is used in games. And it
makes quite a game. The game called Roman legion was quite
a game. It was a real rough one. They marched at 120 paces
to the minute, if I remember rightly, or 130 30-inch paces
to the minute. They camped - they would immediately, if one
didn't exist already on a standard line of march, they
would immediately build a small town before they went to
bed that night. A legion camp was something to behold. They
just were right on the ball. They were fantastic in the
amount of discipline.

Of course, after a few hundred years of Christianity we
find out a whole Roman legion just standing still and
letting itself be slaughtered because it was too exhausting
to wear armor.

But in the early days before all of this communication line
simply went into an utter explosion or dispersal, you got a
situation there where they exercised in armor which
was - I've forgotten the factor - maybe twice as heavy as their
battle armor. Maybe two and a half times. All their
exercises, marches, everything else, they would just heap
the weight on these boys and make them operate in mock
fights, you see. And then they would give them this light
armor and these boys would feel like birds - actual battle 
armor.

Well, as we look over the game, we find the game then - let's
look at it - gets more and more interrupted communications
from the players to the - pardon me, from the pawns - the
broken pawns - the pawns to the player. You see this? We find
out there's less and less acknowledgment on the part of the
player, the mover of pieces of the game. Less and less
acknowledgment is received by him. And we get more and more
of a broken communication line in that direction; but we
get more and more of a stuck flow from the player to the
pawns. See this as a game?

Now, we get that stuck flow so thorough that an
automaticity or something like that sets up on the part of
a player. He actually - eventually there's just too much
mass between himself and the pawns. And as a result, he
simply does not move any pawns anymore. It just gets up to
this stuck flow which is stuck, stuck, stuck - glue.

And we get this game called God and religion. It's very
possible that over a long period of time there actually
was, at one time or another, somebody who was manipulating
a great many thetans plus body on a very intimate line.
And maybe you could go out and pray and say "Who do I
attack next, boss?" You know, that kind of thing. And you
might have gotten some sort of an acknowledgment. See, you
might have. Very possible that there's somebody playing,
and along this line.

Well, the tradition of it continues to exist. But that line
got awfully stuck not too long ago. Oh, man, did that line
get stuck. Boy, you obeyed the commandments and mandates of
God or else. You know, hellfire, damnation. You'd be
amazed, but England, by the way, got so tired of this that
practically nobody goes to church anymore. They just - they
got real bored with this whole thing.

The US still has convulsions on this - you occasionally find
something like this. Somebody evangelist is coming around
with the word of God and telling you you're going to heaven
or hell or something of the sort.

But it gets to be more and more hell and less and less
heaven, and then everybody skips it. The communication line
is almost entirely interrupted between these two things.
And then, at that moment nobody credits the existence of
the terminal. You see how this goes?

Now, therefore, therefore after a while you undoubtedly
somewhere in Roman history, just by theory here, would have
found a condition where troops did not believe there was a
commanding officer. See that?

Well, all right. Now, then these other things add up one
way or the other, and we get actually what we could plot
out under its various conditions. I've given you a highly
specialized thing, an army, players, and so forth. This is
kind of general, but it is nevertheless a specialized thing.

And we've gotten - we see then that there's a sort of a cycle
of games. The game cycle, which is another thing which
derives immediately from the communication cycle - a
two-way cycle.

So we get a game cycle. And we could plot out this game
cycle as existing where there was a good, free
communication amongst everybody on a team. And this was a
good, free communication. They all felt like each one was
certainly as important as every other one, that the fellow
who was in command was simply the guy who had more ideas
than the rest of them. And they obeyed him because they
liked him, they felt like walking into his tent at any
time. You had militia, for instance, as an example of
this - militia during its first formative stages is doing this.

Everybody is perfectly willing to attack that hill or sweep
off the Hessians, or do something of the sort. Everybody
is perfectly willing to go through the doggonedest things,
but they are all buddies and they elect their officers and
they diselect them if the guy cancels their leave, or
something like this.

And they all feel very friendly and fine. And usually the
officer who is in best communication with the men is the
leader. They can say anything they want to, to him, and
he'll give them an answer one way or the other. And this
line continues. And then we get the thing more rigorously
formed.

Somebody thinks it's much better to have a highly
regimented organization. For instance, the theory existed
here during the American revolution which would fascinate
you, that we had to have a continental line. That is, we
had to have a - an army of the confederated states. There had
to be a Regular Army. Washington was certainly sold on
this. And every European officer that was hired was sold on
this. And they had the example of those they were fighting,
who were certainly sold on this.

And they never won a battle with this Regular Army. Not
one. They didn't win any battles with this Regular Army.
They lost, you might say, every major pitched battle. That
is to say, in which Regular Armies - they lost every single
one of those, and yet, although militia would scatter in
all directions and be seized with whims and so forth, it
was militia at Bennington that stopped gentleman Johnny
Burgoyne in his tracks. Crash. Just militia.

And it was an officer who wasn't even appointed to the
post, Benedict Arnold, who won Saratoga. And who was being
chased all through the battle by, I think, Greene's or
Gates' aide, who was to put him under arrest. And nobody
would follow anybody but him, so they went ahead and won a
battle.

But here's a very loose state of affairs. And they
wouldn't - you see, there's no rationale actually exercised
about this. Never has been. Look at the hole here.

We keep getting and recruiting and arming and holding
together this Regular Army. And the only thing that is
making mincemeat out of anybody is loosely-organized
fallen-apart militia.

There are other factors enter in which tend to disprove
this sort of thing - many other factors such as food supplies
and things like this. You get a Regular Army that's doing
nothing but fighting, you still leave some guys at home who
are still doing nothing but hoeing. And so you continue to
get an army fed. There's better order existing.

So that very often a militia force will be licked by lack
of supply. It's not organized or something of the sort. But
the Civil War, I think the Union - take the Civil War just as
wars. Wars are interesting things to look at because they
are sort of life speeded up. It's more clearly seen.
There's more action involved and there's certainly more
game being played. And the teams align much more sharply,
one with another.

And during the Civil War, I don't know, let's see, some of
the Southern propaganda went this way. They had to keep
importing people from Europe in order to join the Federal
Army, and they opened the gates of immigration in order to
get troops. And here were all these factories up north,
just grinding away at a mad rate and turning out troops
and supplies and they were training men and arming men and
putting men into the field, and there was 150,000 there and
200,000 someplace else, and men - men in all directions,
equipment - equipment. And a half a dozen irregular Southern
cavalry on the way to the Battle of Gettysburg captured one
of these units fifteen hundred Pennsylvania regulars, and
all their arms and ammunition.

These irregular cavalry - irregular cavalry just rode over
the top of the hill and saw all these men, and simply kept
riding very hard, right straight at them, and called on
them to surrender immediately and lay down their arms, and
everybody did. They followed orders well, didn't they?

Now, the best-trained militarily - best-trained army on the
face of the Earth of which we have any modern record at all
is the German army. Most fabulously trained army anybody
ever wanted to run into. And it keeps getting licked.
Something wrong here, isn't there? Something wrong with
this theory, that the way to have a regular force is to
have a flock of stuck flows. What we can do is overdo the
game, communication break within our own forces and own team.

The communication breaks and difficulties should be with
the opposing team. And people get confused by this, and an
army is apt to break to pieces because its communications
break down internally.

The German army, for instance, went straight into
communism. We are very proud of believing that we licked
the German army to a standstill - 1918. That had a lot to do
with it. But the funny part of it was that the German army
was still going to fight, except that it was in mutiny. It
was in mutiny against the Kaiser.

When the Kaiser finally heard that his grand fleet was in
mutiny and that the army itself was in mutiny and that red
flags were appearing everywhere, that communism had sprung
up all over the place, the Kaiser shoved off. He quit.

The German navy had an awful time - all of its battleships
were flying the Red flag. They'd put their officers under
arrest and had taken over as communists. Look at that stuck
flow. Look at it break down, see. We are all going back to
the "We're blood brothers again," see. And the command can
get so rigorous that it is no longer real to the troops.
Your reality breaks down.

So, the cycle of games is this one: We get perfect
communication between two terminals breaking down to a
point where these two terminals can play some sort of a
game. They will have mass, playing field, weenie, reasons
why, and so forth, see. These two terminals begin to play
the game.

Now, one of these terminals allies itself with many other
terminals to all be on the same side. And this similarly
happens with the other terminal. And it breaks down. It
individuates, you might say.

And it is all on its side, and so we have two teams, which
were - each team was basically a terminal, and this terminal
became or was - or was recruited up to a team. So we have
these two teams facing each other. Now, up to this time, up
to this time we have the broken communication being between
these two terminals. Right? But how did this individuation
take place with this terminal?

It was by good communication. Good communication actually
produces individuation. It - individuation is not produced by
shocks, blows and so forth to any degree like it is
produced by good communication.

Well, this sounds real weird. But if you look it over for a
moment I think you will agree with me. These two fellows
are held together under some kind of an arduous bond of
enlistment, or something of the sort, and then they start
to talk to each other. And they find out that they are not
just figures in uniform. They are individuals.

Let's see what happened one Christmas when in World War I
when the armies were - I imagine every command post and
certainly every governmental post was in a high state of
hysteria. The exchange of Christmas carols across the
battlefield was enough to break down the war. And if there
hadn't been immediate intervention and the ordering of a
sufficient number of artillery barrages, the war would
have quit right there.

They were recognizing their individuality to a large degree
as men, but that they had something in common. In other
words, something to communicate about. And they ceased
being these bestial masses and became individual people.
Get the idea? Just the right communication. So we must
differentiate between an unknowing being crowded together
and a knowing separating apart.

Now, you can be crowded together into individuality, too.
And we get the manifestation called the "only one." You
know, everybody is forced to be like everybody else, and
finally to assert any kind of individuality the individual
himself has to pick up peculiarities, he has to insist upon
it, he has to have certain rights, he - and so on. In other
words, he just - he's making it the hard way, you know.

Actually, his individuality goes up and starts to soar the
immediate he starts to communicate. Isn't this a
particularly strange thing. You start to communicate- here's
a test in therapy - you start to communicate with anything
bad, really communicate with anything bad, and it ceases to
be able to hurt you if you can really communicate with it.

This is quite curious that individuation takes place on
communication. Because communication itself basically makes
space. John put it - the other day when he said, "Well,
communication is this way. One fellow makes some space and
the other guy says he did it."

So actually, on communication we get greater cooperation.
But greater cooperation does not occur simply because
people are forced to cooperate. It occurs because they want
to cooperate, because they can still conceive themselves
to be individuals, and yet work with.

So, we find out that communication barriers, as such, are
very germane to - are very necessary to - a game. That you have
to keep them cut one direction or another to have a game.
But we discover at the same time that to recover one's
individuality all one has to do is to go into communication.

The way to stop any mutiny is the traditional way to stop
it. This is the traditional way. And that's simply have her
come in - everybody come in and say what he's mad about.
Listen to him, and give him an answer of one kind or
another. People won't mutiny.

They went into communication. Now, we call this blowing the
engram, or doing almost anything. We could call it a lot of
things. But the truth of the matter is that the barriers
are built up by various cuts of communication. And they are
destroyed by the setup of communication lines. Barriers
cease to exist the moment you set it up.

But oddly enough, the oneness of an individual - his
individuality, you might say, his actual individuality - 
depends upon his going into communication. So let's 
make sure we don't have a backwards look at how people 
become individuals. And let's also realize that some
barriers are necessary. In other words, it isn't bad
experience, continuously and forever, which finally drives
an individual to being different than or separate from his
fellows. This is a low-toned look at it.

It's bad experience that makes an individual insist upon
his individuality. There's a funny principle involved here
all the way through. The only thing that ever gets
aberrated is what's true. And it only gets aberrated by
enforcing the truth. And any aberration is an enforced or
inhibited truth. Any aberration is an enforced or inhibited
truth.

That's a funny little rule. It's one of these rough rule of
thumbs. It isn't an axiom or anything of the sort. Just
something that one continually observes in working with the
mind. The individual is too free. He is being driven out.

Well, actually he actually is not a part of the
organization that he is being driven out from. You
understand that? He really isn't. And somebody is trying to
enforce freedom upon him. You see this? Somebody is forcing
freedom upon him. He doesn't want it. But his aberration
would become enforced freedom. But freedom is truth.

You got a lot of cases walking around who are cases of
enforced freedom. I ran into one the other day. The button
on the case - there was a button on the case was "I am a
stranger everywhere. Everywhere I go, I am a stranger. I
belong nowhere. I belong no place." This sort of a feeling,
you know? Constant feeling.

That's the truth! Nobody belongs anyplace. You get the
idea? Yet this person was very, very upset because this
person belonged no place.

So the things people really talk about and that they say is
wrong with them, are some aberration of the truth, which is
making it more solid or making it more barriered, you might
say; making it enforced and inhibited.

If you were to take some little boy, and you were to bring
him in - of course it's true he's a little boy, see. And we
started insisting he was a boy. And everyone of us started
walking around him looking at him critically and saying,
"He's a boy. Rrrr. Boy. Well, what do you know about that.
A boy. Don't you know any better than that? Look at him.
He's a boy."

If we kept this up on him, we would drive him through
various cycles of being a boy. But what would be wrong with
him? He's a boy. You get the idea? But he is a boy. But
that's what's wrong with him. You get the idea there, see?

The most horrible things wrong with anyone - most horrible
things wrong with anyone, are simply the truth. You know,
some fellow goes around all the time and he's mad as hell
because everybody says he's stupid. He is stupid. It's a
fact. But this is what he's upset about. And one can say
the only thing anybody can get upset about is the truth.
Somebody told him that he was brilliant and this was what
was wrong with him, he'd know that was a lie and he
wouldn't pay any attention to it.

Now, you tell some thetan that he is free and that he
should be outside the body and he should be able to run
things from there, this is the truth. And if you raise the
devil with him on this subject, he'll get real upset about
it. Exteriorization is not popular at all. It's not popular
because it's evidently some kind of an enforcement of the
truth. If you want to really, really make people relax,
tell them a flock of lies. Won't bother them a bit.

You want to tell a little kid stories and get him in a fine
state of mind and so forth? One of the big traps in the
writing business is you must - you know, kind of agree with
the society and write about the average man, and so forth.
Who the hell wants to hear about the average man? That's
the truth. He's there, he's average. So what?

Get a bunch of little kids and tell them about animals that
have various adventures and talk various languages and wear
various kinds of clothes. They know this is not true at
all, and so it's very safe to laugh about, and so forth.
You are not aberrating them in any degree.

Curious thing. Something I've subjected to statement
several times. So somebody come out and sell - can sell
"Hadocol." Everybody knows this is probably a pack of lies.
So it's perfectly safe to go and buy "Hadocol." Don't buy
any truth. That stuff's dangerous.

Now, wherever you work with a preclear, you will discover
that he has forcefully and basically followed the whole
pattern and cycle of a game. He's followed it over and over
and over. Heavy enforcement, relaxation of the
enforcement, falling apart, gathering together his militia
again, getting more trained, you know. Finding various
enemies, breaking down the communication with the enemy,
you see, thoroughly, so that you'd have good solid barriers
in all directions in order to have this game.

And then making the barriers solider and solider until at
last you don't believe your own officers exist, or your own
command exists or that you are in command of anything, or
that there is an enemy. See? The unreality goes out on the
enemy first.

I dare say if some war continued long enough you'd have a
bunch of people around standing around arguing on both
sides whether or not the other side was really there - if a
war went on long enough. You'll see that condition exist in
this society, sooner or later the Russians will not
believe the US is here; and we won't believe the Russians
are here. We don't believe they exist. Be the only saving
grace of the atom bomb, would be to have a tougher,
rougher, more convincing Iron Curtain. See how you could
work it the other way? So you could make this formula work
both ways.

Now, the real way never to have an atom bomb, the safe way
never to have an atomic war of any kind would be go into
thorough communication with the enemy. Couldn't fight. See
this? Thorough communication. Now, this would last for
quite a while. Because it could always be built back again.
The other communication whereby you just get a more and
more and more and more and more rigid set of barriers,
gradually falls apart on the reality factor.

First it falls apart on the affinity factor, and then goes
down Tone Scale through hate, fear, grief, apathy, and then
gets into utter unreality.

For instance, you will find the people of Earth don't have
any conviction at all on the military forces of Mars. But
you are liable sometime or another, since Mars and Earth
have been at war, to announce it over the radio or
something and have people reactively stampede on this
basis. You see, it was an existing truth which had fallen
apart into a reality level.

Similarly you are liable to have people getting upset with
each other as they start up communication. But the funny
part of it is the liability of that is nowhere near as
great as it is believed. Communication works fast. It works
very fast.

It tears down barriers faster than anybody can recognize
there was a barrier there. It rips down barriers with great
speed. It's one of the more fabulous phenomena.

Now, what about a practical process? We've been talking
about theory here for quite a while. What about a practical
process? Yeah. Well, we'll discover that this fellow has a
bad leg. This is not an advised process. It's just a
practical process. A person has a bad leg, so we have his
leg sit there and say "hello." Will it work? Yes. It will
work perfectly, without liabilities. We just ask him to get
into what he's chosen out as his enemy. We put him into
communication with what he'd chosen out for his randomity
and it goes into action by having it say "hello."

You can take any old energy mass that an individual has
floating around him, whether it is a facsimile, a black
mass or otherwise, and have the various particles in it
tell him "hello" over and over. The energy mass will disappear.

(end of lecture)






