FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST



LONDON GROUP COURSE TAPES (1953) 1/8



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



LONDON GROUP COURSE (Jan 1953)



The LGC lectures were given after the Philadelphia Doctorate

Course and immediately followed by the PDC Supplementary

Lectures (which were given in London).



1. LGC-1 EDUCAIIONAL SYSTEM, HOW TO GROUP PROCESS (part 1)

2. LGC-2 EDUCAIIONAL SYSTEM, HOW TO GROUP PROCESS (continued)

3. LGC-2X WHAT WE ARE DOING IN PROCESSING

4. LGC-3 MECHANICS OF THE MIND

5. LGC-4A THE MISSING PARTICLE

6. LGC-4B THE MISSING PARTICLE (CONTINUED)

7. LGC-5 THE PROCESSING OF GROUPS BY CREATIVE PROCESSING

8. LGC-6 CREATIVE ADMIRATION PROCESSING



The R&D dates all of these as Jan 10, 1953. The Flag Master

List is uncertain of most of the dates and places the last

two on 13 and 15 Jan 53.



These are based on the R&D transcripts plus we were able

to check a number of them against the old reels.





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



STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 



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.



They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be

stamped out as heritics. By their standards, all Christians, 

Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered

to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.



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 even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,

the rules of religious freedom allow them 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



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





EDUCAIIONAL SYSTEM, HOW TO GROUP PROCESS (part 1)



A lecture given on 10 January 1953



LGC-1



[Based on R&D transcripts only]





Okay. We have here the first lecture of the Saturday course

in Dianetics and Scientology.



This course is designed primarily for the teacher or the

person who would normally process groups of people out of a

pre-prepared list of questions. You understand the

difference between that and professional auditing, or

individual auditing.



A list, perforce, must be a sort of a broad shotgun and

uses a mechanism which is very general to every case. A

list of that character makes it possible, however, for an

individual to process with considerable success a large

group of people no matter how scattered their techniques are.



You might - might be very interested to know that the - that

Group Auditing is a very important technique; it is not a

technique which is merely, "Well, it's better than anything

else we could do for a large number of people, and so we're

going to do that," and so on. No, it's a very specialized

function, a very specialized application. And people who

are doing this work will acquire, actually, an entirely

different viewpoint in processing than they would acquire

only processing individuals. It's another thing; it's a

specialty. Now, when they talked of low-cost therapy in the

last two decades, nobody dreamed of anything like this,

because the cost of Group Processing with Scientology is

probably something like a halfpenny per child for every ten

years of processing in the schools. It's incalculably

small; and as a matter of fact, makes money because it

delivers the attention of the instructor to instructing

those who can and be - can be instructed.



Get that as a difference. Here we have an instructor who,

all day long, is trying to pound reading, writing. and

arithmetic into the heads of children who have no ability

to absorb it. That's a waste of money.



That is a big waste of money. That wastes the pay of the

instructor and it wastes the cost of the quarters; it

wastes light, heating and it wastes government. And the

only benefit is, is the child is kept out of the hands of

his family for a certain period of time every day. That's a

pretty high price to pay for a nursemaid, a pretty high price.



And where we have a nursemaid who has to have the degrees

and training of a school instructor, there's something very

wrong that should be righted. Because unless children of a

certain bracket can be brought into a level where they can

study and absorb information, they belong in the hands of

an attendant, a nursemaid, not in the hands of an

instructor. All right.



Then what do we do just on that level! We don't alter the

system. You will find as you go through this life that

systems are less and less susceptible to being altered. The

government objects to the alteration of a system. Councils,

school boards and so forth object to the alteration of

systems and plans, And where we have a system, we'd better

match up with that system. All right. The instructor - the

instructor is there to teach children.



Once upon a time in a war which occupies much space in

American history books, a fellow by the name of Teddy

Roosevelt and the Rough Riders received orders one fine

morning to attack and take a place called San Juan Hillz

against the Spanish forces there on the hill. And at 4:30

in the morning, everybody rolled out to take San Juan Hill.

And the orders said, "Jump off from El Caney and take San

Juan Hill," That was very good - that was fine - except they

hadn't taken El Caney And they had to remedy this situation

by fighting in the hot sun until noon to get El Caney, and

from that, they jumped off and took San Juan Hill with

dreadful casualties, because they hadn't taken El Caney.



Now, this is applicable in instruction, But let's take El

Caney - that is to say, let's have a child that can be

instructed. The system has provided a room, it's provided a 

trained instructor and it's provided a large number of 

children. And then the system says, "Instructor, now

instruct these children so we will have an educated

public," Well, that's something like saying - something like

telling a fellow to go out and sit down in that airplane

and fly off to the moon. And he goes out and he'd be very

happy to sit down in this airplane except for one thing:

there's no airplane there.



To instruct a child, it is necessary to have a child that

can be instructed. That seems to be one of these

supersimplicities that so easily gets overlooked. All right.



The devotion of twenty minutes a day of putting children in

a - Puttin not just a state of mind, but a state of health

where they can be instructed, would salvage all the other 

hours in that day. And so we would have taken El Caney. We 

would have children who could be instructed by the investment 

of that.



Now, of course, it is up to you to demonstrate to your own

satisfaction that this condition does occur, and we do get

this advantage from using these techniques.



They tell you in old-time psychotherapy, "Yes, we could

have remedied the condition of a child. We could have

remedied this situation, but you see, individual address is

impossible, and therefore the situation cannot be

remedied," Oh no, I'm afraid that does not happen to be 

the case now, because we don't need very much of this

individual attention. Once in a while, if you're - as an

instructor, you keep having to ... One of the children that

you're processing there, and he keeps leaping. out of his

chair or his seat, you see, and flying up to the blackboard

and leaping out of his seat and flying up to the blackboard

and knocking over other children in progress and so forth,

you'll have to give some individual attention on this; you

will have to glue him to his seat or something of the sort.

But we are not interested in individualized, high-paid

consultation for each child. What we're interested in is

taking a big group of children, and by the use of processes

such as those contained in Self Analysis - Self Analysis is

the one you have available; there are others under

preparation, or even now in your hands - and putting that

class into a state where it can be instructed.



That's our aim and goal. There you will find that their IQ

comes up and that they are able in most cases to address

studies where they were unable to before. This is quite

startling. You can look for other things to happen - 

certain psychosomatic illnesses will turn off in them and

so on; there's a lot of odds and ends that will happen. But

that is not the goal of what we are doing. The goal of what

we are doing here with children, immediately, is to put

children into a frame of mind where they can be instructed. 

That's what we're aiming for and that's what we can attain 

with this. This is something like - something like giving 

somebody a diamond, by the way, and saying, "Well now, you 

see, that is very good for marking doorknobs," See! It's 

very silly to think of this along in such a supersimplified 

level, but you will find nobody will argue with this level.



We can say, "All right, now this puts the children in a

frame of mind where they can be instructed."



And everybody will say, "Well, that's right, that's fine,

that's good. Good roads," where everybody is in favor of

good roads and good weather. Everybody is in favor of good

roads, good weather and children in a frame of mind where

they can be instructed. So you just take it from there and

take it on that level and expect that result to occur, and

that you won't be disappointed and nobody will be upset by

it. You can expect all sorts of other things to happen too,

but we won't go into those. They're none of them bad;

they're extra results. With everything considered on Group

Processing of children, everything is an extra result

except the child in a frame of mind where he can be instructed.



Now, let us take another type of group, not just the child. 

Let's take a group of people, of men, who have lost much 

of their ambition, who feel that they themselves are quite 

useless in life, Let's take a group of veterans at a 

government hospital. Well, what can you do with these! Does 

Group Processing apply to them! Yes, it very definitely does. 

If you were trying to go down and sell the Home Secretary 

(I'm a very good friend of the Home Secretary) on the idea - 

or the War Ministry or somebody - on taking groups of adults 

and giving them something that made them more efficient or 

made them again an asset to the state instead of a liability, 

you'd run across this same thing. They would say, "Well, 

we've always been able to do something for them, but you see -

you see, it - you can't give individual attention,"



And you say, "We don't want any individual attention. All

this is, is we want half an hour, an hour or something like

that a day for adults. That's all. And the cost of it is

very slight. Extremely slight," They wouldn't be able to

argue with it very much.



Now, the chances of your running up against very much

opposition on the level of a veterans' hospital - quite

slight because nobody has got anything for them to do.

Nobody has really any planned programs. Tnere's the - it's

very good, you understand. I mean, they try to do something

for them. But again, the mission of these programs is to

get a man interested in life. If the man has no

potentiality to be interested in life, you can dream up

programs and write up programs and systems and throw in

auxiliaries and Wacs and movies and anything else you want

to throw in and nothing is going to happen. And yet, you

will find for two, three, four years, five years, ten

years, a man will stay in a state whereby he cannot be

interested in life.



So therefore, here's an enormous amount of money being put

out on a program of keeping these men interested in life

without putting them in a situation where they can be

interested in life, The truth of the matter is, is they are

incapable of being interested in life until given something

on the order of this Group Processing. Now, there again we

take El Caney, we get them interested in life. If you just

went in and showed a man that he could make up pictures and

look at them, if you just got him into that state only, the

odd part of it is, you would have given him a new interest

in life, wouldn't you! It was quite personal. And we won't 

worry about its therapeutic value. Just do that, and that 

would be very interesting to him. And so you would have 

improved his interest in life in general.



You can't do this without knocking his case into a cocked

hat. That is to say, he will right and come back to

battery the moment you start doing this, for odd and,

sometimes to some, very obscure mechanical reasons. But

what you have here, then, where you have a group of

veterans, is you have a restoration of interest in life.

All right.



Now, when we've restored that, then we can bring up the

Wrens and the movies and the hobby shop and all these other

things. You see, we can roll in with the tanks, you might

say. But let's repair that; let's take El Caney once more.



You know, Group Processing is not new. It's old. It's very,

very old. Effective Group Processing, however, has been

nonexistent. You get the difference there! Because you're

going to run into this. People are going to tell you, "Well

now, look, Group Processing, creative imagination, these

things have been used since time immemorial. They're old,"

and so on. Don't criticize that statement; just thank your

stars that somebody has this delusion. Because it's "Open,

sesame." They know this: this is old, it's done, it's

usual, there's no argument with it. Of course, but don't

try to tell them there's any result from it. They've

written up in journals and things how wonderful all this is

- everybody stays crazy or everybody stays disinterested.

And it's wonderful how people can stay that crazy or that

disinterested, but don't try to batter through on the idea

that this is something new and startling. No, no, no, this

is something old and sort of mildewed at the edges and

nothing has been added. You can't put anything into a

mildewed system that creaks that isn't mildewed and creaks.

See! So kind of chew up your copy of Self Analysis, you

know! (audience laughter)



Now, you may know what's going to happen; don't bother to

tell anybody else what's going to happen. In other words,

don't bother to make any promises, either on a level of

schoolchildren or a level of veterans or anything of the

sort. You're just doing something that's interesting, and

that produces some interesting results. And if you have a

very conservative attitude toward all of this, you see, the

process will shock them - the results of it, rather. These

results will be quite shocking.



If you were to take a group of veterans who hadn't done

anything since Dunkirk, and you suddenly had these fellows

very alert, very interested in going out and getting jobs

and going and contacting their families and getting things

going, and the dickens with being on - in a government

hospital, and the dickens with this foot that's hurt ever

since, and the devil with it sort of a thing and interested

in life again and ...



"Because that's funny. We've had - this week we've had

thirty-five discharges from this hospital, and there hasn't

been a discharge from this hospital since 1946. What's

happening!" Well, if you're extremely bright, you won't

even be obvious enough to be pointed to in doing that work.

You'll let them go out and hire some scientific expert on

an investigation of the increased incidence of the cosmic

rays in the ... In other words, this is totally obscure.

There's no reason why you have to do that. Of course, you

will get spotted; there isn't any doubt about that, And

what I'm talking to you about is the same thing I'm

doing - see, don't overrate or overestimate something 

which does not have to be either overrated or overestimated. 

Do what you do and let's be done with what gets done. The 

idea that you are advancing into something new and strange, 

peculiar, unusual is something you should abandon right 

here. You're not. You're not really going into anything 

strange or peculiar or unusual, but you are going into 

something which is effective.



Because man helping man is something that has been going on

for Man he an awfully long time. You're just being a

little more efficient. That's about all.



That we have discovered here - one can say that we've

discovered here psychotherapy of actuality and validity - 

is a true enough statement, but it's always been there to

be discovered. It's always been there. Somebody had to

look. And perhaps the single difference between me and

former researches - researchers, simply this, is I looked

at the MEST universe. I didn't look at books about the MEST

universe. You know that could make a big difference. I

looked at the MEST universe. I was foolish enough as a boy

to get all tangled up with the MEST universe one way or the

other - go out and get run into, and various things

happened. And I found out there was a universe there. And

most people that studied this have been sitting up in the

back room of someplace or other; they've been reading about

the universe being there. That's a big difference. And it's

possibly the only thing that shortened this route. Somebody

sooner or later would have discovered all this material.



We're discovering it here at a catalyzed level. It's

just - it's been very fast for a subject to have progressed

in three years of public knowledge (actually in twenty-five

years) as fast as Dianetics and Scientology - appears just

a little bit dizzying. That's no great compliment to my

wit, it's no great compliment to anything except that ...

This subject itself: if you hit the - if you just started

in on the right track, you couldn't help yourself. There

was a great big hurricane started behind you. And you had

raised a sail in this hurricane and, fortunately or

unfortunately, you just went from there on, see! It would

have been much more difficult to have stopped developing

this subject than to have continued developing it. It would

have been very difficult to have stopped, and yet it was

very interesting. And on every hand you could see various

things happening and - did you ever walk out of a movie just

as the villain grabs the girl? Well, to have stopped

developing this subject would have made that happen.



Now, we have - talking to you now from two rather, the

rather comfortable security - now the two very workable

processes: one of these is those lists and mock-ups contained 

in Self Analysis. Terrifically workable, very, very workable. 

It's built on a formula that is very workable, and done as 

it's done, it gets the job through, one way or the other. 

I don't say how long - I don't say how long it will take 

to get the job through, but just that all by itself will 

get the job done maybe 150 hours or 2,000 hours, or something 

like that. It's just one of those things that's just - 

you just go on and on and on, and that's it.



And the other one is Theta Clearing. And this is an

esoteric and strange, undoubtedly daffy, sort of a thing

that couldn't be, of course, and all that. And there,

actually, lies the main body of knowledge. It's a very

technical subject, by the way. It takes quite a bit of

study to digest it. And that level now is a gunshot, you

might say, on cases, The missing links have been found

present after all, been isolated and so on, so that we

don't have problems. It's true, you know, we don't have

problems, And I can talk to you from that level of

security. I know what we're doing, and if you do Group

Auditing, you will find out a lot of what we are doing and

what can be done. And if you were to become a professional

auditor, you would be able to do the rest of this work.



Now, don't try to exclude out of Group Auditing groups of 

any kind. You can audit any group you want to audit with 

this same technique, and that includes groups of raving 

psychos - guys that are really spinning. The fact that you 

could get eight or ten psychotics together around a table 

and have them talk for a short period fairly rationally 

has been known in institutions for a very long time, very 

long time. That could happen. Something or other happened 

from it once in a while, but what they were doing, whether 

they knew it or not, was opening up a few communication 

lines that were otherwise closed. And they had what's known 

as "group processing," only they didn't call it group 

processing. They had a group therapy, and it has more coats - 

it has more coats than a sheep has. Now, you can apply that, 

and you'll find back along the line that this one has a group

therapy and that one has a group therapy, and it was not an

inclusive phrase, But when we say "Group Processing," we

are saying precisely "Group Processing," and we mean the

techniques which we are talking about here today. We mean 

a very specific thing.



Now, you could take, then, a number of psychotics in an

institution, and whether you could get their attention or

not, in any great degree, if you put them down in a group

and you gave them mock-ups on this level as a group, or

made them give the rest of them mock-ups on this level as a

group, is quite immaterial. You would get a job done. I

don't say how many hours it would take or how ragged your

nerves would be, but it will do the job.



There's something about people in groups that opens up

communication lines and brings about an accessibility. 



A child, for instance, that you would not be able to

process individually because you couldn't hold him still,

yet will quite often (not always) but will quite often be

susceptible to processing when included in a group. There's

something about this. And therefore, the individual - the

individual who is in poor condition will very often be

found inaccessible as an individual and may become

accessible as a member of a group. Now, that's something

for you to remember; that's something for the professional

auditor to think of once in a while.



You know, man behaves differently as a mob and as a well 

policed group and as an individual. He's three different 

people: as an unpoliced group, which is to say a mob; as 

a disciplined group, such as in a schoolroom or something; 

and as an individual. He behaves those three ways.



So the only thig a disciplined group is, is it meets

on schedule, it meets for a certain purpose and it

agrees, as it meets, on who is the monitor. That's the

disciplined group.



And an undisciplined group just sort of surged up and got

there. An You take a lynch mob, for instance, there's an

interesting spirit - difference. And the difference of a

disciplined group and a mob: the mob is pouring out,

disagreeing, and the disciplined group is willing to take

in and pour out. So a disciplined group is characterized by

a two-way flow, and a mob by a one-way flow, And the

individual - god help this fellow - don't know how he'd be

characterized as bluntly as that. He has one-way flows and

two-way flows. He can flow out only or he can flow in only,

or he can flow out and in, and an hour later he's changed

his characteristics again. Well, a group is more stable

than the individual and changes its characteristics less often.



Now, that should be of interest to you. That means that

your processing is going to be held down by this stability

of the disciplined group. Stability of this group is itself

going to inhibit a change in the group. But when they do

change, you ordinarily have a relatively stable change.



When you change an individual when he is part of a group,

you will see the marks of that change on him years later.

You change him as an individual, you quite often won't see 

the marks on him at six o'clock Interesting, isn't it!



For instance, I had a ship one time, organized this ship,

booted it up the line, did quite a few experiments with its 

personnel and so forth; it was in combat quite a bit. It's 

very easy to cohese a group that is facing a common danger 

and has a great deal of excitement going on. So it was very 

easy to handle a group that way because they don't choose 

you for its randomity; they choose you for your ability to 

help them confront this danger, The danger exists, then, as 

the villain there, not the leader of the group. When you get 

a group which isn't faced with danger, they generally will 

choose the leader or some other inner group as the villain. 

And the group will exist, really, because it has a villain. 

And therefore, managers are dogs. It's of necessity true, 

managers are always dogs, if they're successful managers. 

What do you know.



And you can take me to any plant in this area, and find a

plant where the manager is well liked, and I will show you

a mess, just a complete ruin. And you'll find the dust all

swept under the carpets in the offices and you'll find the

iron filings all dumped in the engines out in the shop.

You'll find all the communications missing and everybody

sad and the absentee-because-of-illness list higher than

any other plant in the area. Why! Well, he's liked, you

see! In other words, they inflow on him. He agrees with

them. You can't agree with anybody in this universe and get

anything done. It's obvious.



That's a peculiarity. You can tell a manager - whether a 

manager is going to be good or bad, by the way, by discovering

whether or not he has to be liked. If he has to be liked by 

his people, he's not going to do too well. If he doesn't care 

what, he'll do all right. But if he wants to be hated by his 

people, he's really better off as a manager; he really will 

do a better job than the fellow who has to be liked. That's 

an oddity. The officer who has to be liked gets men killed 

in action; the sergeant who has to be hated will generally 

save their bloody mortal lives.



So you want to remember these various characteristics, I

haven't gone into them in any detail. Giving you some sort

of an idea of what you're facing here. And you're facing

them with more hours of this lecturing here.



I've given you some sort of a rundown here on the purpose

of the course - very general - just to give you the data 

and, perhaps, a prediction which will assist you in aiding

groups of individuals. These individuals could be then

anything, any kind of a group. They could be a bunch of

workmen; they could be a group of veterans; they could be

a - they could be a group of insane people. By that I'm not

recommending that you practice on the insane. I definitely 

frown on the practice, of any practice on an insane - beyond 

giving them space.



You take a man who is utterly mad because he hasn't enough

space, you see, and then they give him less space. And

they take a man who is quite mad because he has - 

too much energy has been thrown at him in his lifetime of

one kind or another, so they give him some more energy.

It's a sort of an insistence on his continued state of

insanity. And by the way, this is nothing new. This practice

has been going on for the last thirty-five hundred years,

so there's no reason for you to get excited about it.

Instead of that, you should admire constantly the fact that

man is so incapable of change, He shows a constancy there

which is very admirable. Of course, it's more admirable in

an elephant or a pyramid, but that's what happens.



Now, in other words, practice on the insane - a

professional auditor that will go around and practice on

the insane is - that's fine, that's fine. There's nothing

wrong with that, if he wants to do that, but the truth of

the matter is, is he would probably be much better off if

he left them utterly alone. And the reason for this is not

because he can't do the job, because he can do the job. But

there isn't any reason why you would go down here to the

Jaguar plant and get their top motor mach, their top

engineering artist, and put the two of them together

running a kid's scooter outfit.



Now, what would you do if you had those two people

available! You would provide more automobiles and remedy

some of the problems that had to do with automobiles,

wouldn't you! That would be the smart thing to do with

them. And you would make able automobiles more able. And

you would have more able automobiles than you'd had before.

You wouldn't - you wouldn't go around and find all the

broken toys in the back - in the back room and drag out

these broken toys for that pair to repair. No, I'm afraid

you wouldn't do that.



Now, it's a horrible - and that's just utterly gruesome of

me to talk that way and so forth, but if you were - if you

were tens of thousands, instead of scores, I wouldn't have

to talk that way. But if you only knew it, you're spread

awfully thin there. If you don't believe me, read the

newspapers. (audience laughter)



Now, your main - your main goal is to do something for

mankind, I hope. That's what we want to do, want to do

something for subdivisions of - that is the third dynamic,

the fourth dynamic - and therefore, we're getting there. 

We're right there at the third dynamic now, and we're not 

passing off the third dynamic to you as a little light 

thing that say, "Well, we can't address that because we 

don't know enough or we aren't doing enough or we don't 

have the techniques to do enough on the first dynamic for 

each one of these people." That's the wrong way to look 

at it. Look at where you've arrived. You've arrived at 

the point where you can hit the third dynamic - that is 

to say, groups, bing, without hitting individuals.



Now, you can do something, then, broadly for groups. That,

believe me, is triumph, And if you can do that, there isn't

anything at all could stay man from shifting a bit for the

better. There isn't anything at all could stop him.



Now, the groups are wide-open for this sort of work, The

individual auditor, the professional auditor who will go

out and take a group of children, take a group of people in

a hospital, take a group down in the old ladies' home - I

don't care where he takes this group - he'll just go down

and pick up a group and go down and process it. For what,

how much? Nothing.



And he will find, by the way, that he is unable to keep up

with the individual - individual bids for processing.

That's a real, you might say, highly practical way of

looking at the thing, but he is not wasting his time; and

he is not, by giving something away, doing something for

which he will not be paid. There is an interchange possible

there, and that interchange becomes possible when you do

something for the third dynamic.



What is money! Money is an attention unit of a society. Get 

that. There was something called "technocracy" in the United 

States not too long ago - Howard Scott. And he said that 

money was something on this order. And one of my auditors 

in the US, who was a disciple of Scott's, thought it over 

one day. He came up and he said, "Money is the attention 

unit of a society," Even going further than that, with 

"Money is the attention unit of society" Looked around in 

his head, and he figured on this, and he worked with it and 

so forth. And he was trying to figure out marks of commerce, 

economics, transportation and that sort of thing in a society. 

Oh no, the problem is simpler. The problem is much simpler. 

You will get as much money as you get interest.



[R&D note on Howard Scott: "an American engineer and writer 

who was instrumental in the development of technocracy, a 

theory and movement for social reform, prominent about 1932,

advocating control of industrial resources, reform of

financial institutions and reorganization of the social

system, based on the findings of technologists and

engineers. Part of this reform and reorganization would

have been to discard monetary terminology, such as balance

sheets, dollars, etc., and replace these with terms like

ergs, calories, etc.]



Now, let's look at it economically, and let's look at it

very practically. Did you ever hear of anybody that nobody

had ever heard of, who was ever receiving any interest or

attention! (audience laughter) Let's look at that. Now,

let's just consider that the dollar, the pound, the

franc are the attention units of a society. And let's just

consider that, and we'll see there that they flow to the

degree that interest exists. The main thing happened in the

United States in 1929 was that everybody got disinterested.

That's the truth of the matter. They got worried and they

got disinterested, and so we had a stock market crash and

depression. Anybody who could have come along at that time

and have dubbed up a new - and mocked up a new ruddy rod

or something of the sort that was of such fascinating ...

Supposing somebody had come along at that time and say,

"You know, I've just come back from Mars. Ahem. They have

diamond mines up on Mars, and I'm in the market for these

ships and here are the diamonds. Yeah, here's eight gallons

of diamonds, and I've just come back." What do you suppose

industry would have done! They said, "It's very hard to

build these spaceships," and that sort of thing. It's just

interest.



You see, none of this matter, energy, space or time is

actually purchasable or not purchasable. You never own any

MEST; really, you never do. The only thing you have is 

your own interest in life and your own ideas about life.

The most valuable thing there is about a man is his hopes

and his dreams. When his hopes and dreams are dead, the man

is dead. I don't care how much MEST he's - has, how much

material matter he has accumulated. It just doesn't matter.

And that's why, sometimes, you will talk to somebody who

has an enormous amount of material objects around, and you

realize you're talking to a dead man. The fellow has not

established any flow of any kind; he's just sitting there

holding on. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. He dies

holding on, too, by the way. It just kills him dead.



They say a rich man - a rich man couldn't go to heaven any

more than he could go through - a camel can go through the

eye of a needle (old Arab proverb, wandered into the Bible

and other places). The reason why is he is just holding on

so hard, and he is so isolated that he can't move. That's

why he couldn't go to heaven; he couldn't go anyplace, and

when you process him, you'll find him stuck on the time

track. He's stuck and he's holding, and that's the

characteristic. He hasn't got any flow.



Well now, an auditor, for instance, who would just simply

go and it wouldn't matter, he could outfit the most

beautiful office in the world and he could put a gorgeous

secretary out there and he could be this ... Oh and do

all these various things, everything necessary to the

equipment of that and he'd just sit there, just sit there.

Nobody would ever hear of him, he wouldn't hear of anything

else. No communication line. Well, a communication line

consists of particles, consists of interest.



So therefore, if he were to go out on a third dynamic

level, and if he were to devote - if he were to devote an

hour of every working day, or five or six hours a week on

the third dynamic, he wouldn't be able to put the brakes on

that MEST. You want to be careful of what you start like

that. You want to be careful what you start.



I'm very careless about starting things, by the way. I

don't give a doggone. And I'm always convinced that the

interest level will be less than it is. I always

underestimate the interest level, I suppose because of my

own interest level or something. So I know what it takes to

get me interested in life and so on. Gun this through and

it gets very fascinating.



Next thing you know, people are putting up their storm

windows and bringing in the cat, and tying the roof down

and so forth. And I say, "What's going on! What's the

matter! What's the matter!" They give me a dirty look and

go on battening the place up for the storm, you might say.



To come into an area - come into an area and calmly announce

that the so-and-so and so-and-so, and then do something on

some individual, and then go ahead from there, so on,

stimulates interest. Well, how does it stimulate it! It's

just - well, you just do something, that's all. You just do

something beneficial and something interesting, preferably

on the third dynamic.



It's interesting, the other day, that a newspaper reporter

came up to me and was going, "Rawr-roo, Dianetics and

Scientology is a cult, of course." (She was from

Australia.) Anyway, "Is there any story?" She was getting

all ready to just roll up her sleeves and just whush, you

know, roll up her sleeves and hrrrh, hwrhh. And I said,

"Group processing children, group processing children,

group processing chil - " "I'm sorry. I'll come back in a

month from now. Excuse me, I'm sorry I exist." (audience

laughter)



Now, that's very interesting, isn't it! Because that is an

interest and attention line in the society. You're not

doing that simply because it is an interest and attention line. 

You see, insincerity is doing something - is doing something 

to make it into an attention line without doing anything. 

That, you might say, is that sort of insincerity. You notice 

this on the part of publicity campaigns. Somebody wanted 

to be in the newspapers, they go down and they hire a press 

agent. They don't do anything, they just hire the press agent 

to say they do something. You don't need a press agent. If you

were to walk down to the corner where the blind man is

selling papers and turn his sight on, you'd think you were

pretty good. That isn't enough. Go up to the next corner and 

get the one up there and turn his sight on, and then go down 

the line and pick up the cripple who runs the elevator and 

fix him up. And you go through the level like this, and just 

keep going on without paying any attention to how much interest, 

and the first thing you know, people will be putting storm 

windows on and battening the roof down and giving you a dirty 

look. You'll generate too much interest.



But that's a rough deal, by the way - processing

individual, individual, individual, individual, It's rough

for two reasons. One is the proximity of the people you're

processing, if you're just going at it hammer and tongs and

working hard and on a big frame to make a lot of miracle

cases and that sort of thing. No, do it on the third

dynamic and then you just gunshot the whole group.



One day a little boy was - everything you say to him, he

says, "Hey," or something of the sort and hits his ear, you

know. He's got this mannerism. And his nose runs. His

family objects to all this. And he turns up home one day

and his nose isn't running and he isn't batting his ear.

Did you do it individually! No, you didn't even know it

happened. He was part - a member of your child group. You

prepare to be very surprised at Papa or somebody coming to

you and say, "You know, Oswald has been telling me all

about this sort of thing. I want to thank you, what you've

done for Oswald." Well, you possibly didn't know you'd done

anything for Oswald, so you want to prepare at that moment

to look wise. (audience laughter)



And is it enough to stimulate such an interest with just

one group of children? No, I'm afraid it's not. Go up and

down the line, around; get Lots of groups of children; And

don't just start hitting backwards children because the

chances of tomorrow's genius coming out of that class are

not really worse or better than some other class, but

tomorrow's genius might come out of some other class than

the one you're auditing. See! So you want to spread

yourself around just a little bit, just on the off chance

that this will happen.



Therefore, in following this data and addressing this

subject, you are doing something. You are helping people.

Don't for a moment believe because it isn't profusely

thanked that helping people is ever wasted. It happens that

an individual never thanks anybody for being helped. The 

quickest way you can get into trouble with an individual 

is to help him. You should know that, just bluntly know 

that. And you should know at the same time that the quickest 

way you can get into trouble is not to help him.



And you should also know - and you should also know that 

the only thanks you're ever going to get is going down this 

track, anywhere along the line, me or thee or anything else, 

is the thanks you give yourself. You know you've done a good

job, that's the only person who ever has to know you've

done a good job. Now, I can prove this by processing, by

the way. This is not just one of those Emersonian quickies 

that are supposed to be very epigrammatically something or 

other. Happens to be a technical datum. The only one that's 

ever going istake to thank you is you. The only mistake 

you ever made was expecting anybody else to.



Now, if you go at Group Processing on the idea that you're

doing it, and you're doing it because you're doing it,

because you want to do it, because you're going to thank

you for doing it, and you go ahead and you ... Because

there's more people than you can count, you're - if you 

go at it with that idea, you wind up with a tremendous

satisfaction. If you go at it with the idea that everybody

is just going to swarm around you and pat you on the head

and thank you, huh! No, that's never going to happen. And

then go up and say, "You know, Oswald was all right before

he was part of your course, but he's had convulsions ever

since." You inquire a little bit further and you'll find

out he always had convulsions; they've always been

attributed to various things and now you're the target.



TBD



There isn't any reason to expect any thanks for doing

anything you do. Now, that's a heck of a thing, isn't it!

Heck of a thing. But that doesn't mean there isn't any

thanks, and that doesn't mean there isn't any admiration

for it. 



But it's the only guy who ever gets admired is the fellow 

who doesn't need to be. It's something like coals to

Newcastle. The fellow who needs to be admired is ignored.

When a fellow really needs thanks, he never gets them. The

fellow who needs no thanks, needs no admiration, nothing of

the sort, they throw it on him like Zambezi Falls. Odd,

but true, horribly true.



Now, very rapidly, let me go into the rest of this first

lecture. We know what we're trying to do now, and I hope,

whether you agree with it or not, we know why we're trying

to do: we're trying to help you, we're trying to help

groups. We can heip people. I'm trying to tell you this

afternoon how.



There's - there are two words that you should know, and 

one of them is Dianetics, the other is Scientology.

Magazines - they've been making cracks at me about words,

because my words are getting into dictionaries. And they

call them "Hub-words." (audience laughter) The third

dictionary I've seen now is using words out of these

sciences. And there's about five words in this science have

now wandered into the dictionary besides these two words,

Dianetics and Scientology.



Dianetics means "through mind." I thought I'd coined this

word, and then found out that Dianetics means, in the

dictionary, "discursive logic," and they've now changed its

definition. It means "through mind," so on. That's right.

This definition has been shifted in the new printings. So

it doesn't mean that anymore; it means "through mind," Now,

when you say "through mind," you naturally mean a man. We

customarily think of a mind as having something to do with

a man, a woman or a child or something like that. We don't

think of dogs having minds very much. They have brains

which you can examine. But when we say "mind," we are

normally and usually speaking of Home sapiens, genus Home

sapiens.



Now, we can heal or orient genus Home sapiens through his

mind, through addressing the problems of his mind - anything

in these sciences which would apply to Homo sapiens and

let him keep on being Home sapiens without taking the

package to pieces. The package comes to pieces so easily,

you have to be very careful, be very careful with this. He

falls apart rapidly. They didn't put glue in very good. A

fellow like me can come along and unglue him. I mean, it

wasn't a good job. All right.



Therefore, those techniques which immediately address to

Home sapiens, and would not ordinarily in most cases make

him anything else but Home sapiens, let's just lump these

under the subject of Dianetics. And let's make this word,

Dianetics, the public knowledge of survival, the eight

dynamics, the very basic and elementary processes - those

processes which are in Dianetics: The Modem Science of

Mental Health and others. Anything that addresses

immediately to that level, call it Dianetics



Now, what's Scientology? Scientology is "the science

of knowing how to know," and is the adventurous, fly in the

teeth of that philosophical conundrum called epistemology. 

It's the resolution of epistemology. I'm sorry to have to 

say that, that it's the resolution of it, but it is.



What is knowledge! And how does man know! And what is known

and what isn't known and that sort of thing - these

problems, they come under the heading of Scientology. So

Scientology crosses the bridge between philosophy and

science. It is an embracive subject which takes in

philosophy and science. That doesn't mean that it buttons

up all there is to button up in science, and it doesn't

mean that it ends all the things there are to end in

philosophy, fortunately. You can make a postulate any day

and invent a new philosophy. It does, however - it does,

however, very - get very inclusive on many of the maybes man

has been riding. And Scientology as quickly embraces and

advances the science of physics as it embraces mysticism

and advances it. Now, if you study Scientology, you can

become a very good nuclear physicist. You really could if

you had the knowledge in Scientology and you went along

from there, and you combined it with the routine knowledge

of nuclear physics, you'd become a terrific physicist.

There is no doubt about this whatsoever. It's very funny,

but very true.



Now, let's look on the other side of the picture and find

out that YOU could have a very fine time and become a very

good mystic. Oh, boy! Why, you could give a yogi-minded

fellow cards, spades and the jack of trump and play with

one eye on a novel and beat him hands down. Because you can

actually produce the things they're supposed to be able

to produce in mysticism, in occultism and the rest of

the isms along that line.



This doesn't mean that we should now sneer at those subiects 

any more than we should be amused by phlebotomy - the 

practice of bleeding, which was quite the thing once upon 

a time in medicine and will be again someday.



So, with these subjects you can count on - with these

definitions, these subjects you can count on a very wide

coverage. And Scientology means "There is no limit," And

Dianetics means "This is what we do for Home sapiens, poor

fellow."



Now, the world at the present time is not in complete

accord with everything we're doing, but then the world

never has been with new advances, and particularly if

they're sensational, particularly if they work. So don't 

worry about the degree of acceptance measuring the degree 

of the subject, because it measures in reverse when it 

happens.



By the way, the Einstein theory, right or wrong, was

slambasted for three years to such a degree that fellows

- to such a fantastic degree that on the stage of one of

the great meetings of mathematicians in Berlin, Einstein

was denounced as the greatest mathematical hoax of the 

century.



(Recording ends abruptly)



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