My Boy Jambo

In these notes, L. Ron Hubbard describes the correct treatment of South African natives, willing workers but improperly handled by their "masters". From a Conference with the Guardian  between Hubbard and his senior Guardian Office  staff to discuss his hasty departure from Rhodesia.

[Long paragraphs split for better readability. -ed.K]

18th July 1966

CONFERENCE with The Guardian, LRH Aide, LRH Communicator, Legal WW, Guardian Communicator and the Head of Intelligence Branch 5 Office of LRH:

This action has to do with the recent adventure and the current suits on the London Daily Mail; has to do with the Newspaper Proprietors Group or whatever you call that activity and is very short and sweet. I just reviewed this situation with the Guardian and I find out as follows: That a criminal act has occurred and that the publications of materials copyrighted and classified materials have been published in this newspaper belonging to this particular group. Now this makes not a civil suit — this is a criminal act and I just thought about this and it seemed to me to be relatively simple to classify the subject and to label the head of the Newspaper Proprietors Group as accessory to crime. Now exactly what that crime would be is at least receiving stolen goods. Now I'm perfectly prepared to put in a claim to the police that on my return certain classified papers were missing and pursuant to that that these classified papers — which were NOT for public issue and which were para-Scientology and did not represent Scientology and so forth, had been filched and that they were accepted and purchased apparently by these proprietors and that they have published them in first one and then another of their newspapers showing that there is association between those two papers and they are purchasing stolen goods and making use of them for their own profit.

Note: Peter Younghusband was an award-winning foreign correspondent who worked for Newsweek, Reuters, the Cape Times, and the London Daily Mail at various times.

Note: Cecil King was chairman of the International Publishing Corporation, at this time the biggest publishing empire in the world, which included the Daily Mirror and 200 other papers and magazines

In addition to that, that they sought to bar out the principal witness and plaintiff, — not necessarily plaintiff but an interested party to the libel suit against them, without whom they thought they might succeed in defending that libel suit. In view of the fact that their libel has caused a fantastic amount of damage to date in terms of financial recompense and is attempting to build a false image of a man and an activity and an organization, their expenses on this could be considered to be relatively high. So therefore they did undertake to send Younghusband to Rhodesia to get me imprisoned or shot and then if that failed, denied re-entry into the United Kingdom and then vilified and discredited so that the testimony would not count in this suit. And this is sub justice and it is not intimidation of witnesses — it is the intent to kill one. And that is a criminal offence and Sir William Carr and Cecil King are, at the very least, accessories if not one  directors of these crimes. And this is a criminal matter and therefore of great interest to us. Now I think it should be explored on that basis and we do what we can on that basis and see where we get. OK?

Now there is one other action here. There is exchange of policy — I have found this to be the case in carrying out investogations  of noisome and slanderous remarks — they are very often invented, as one knows, but they come quite commonly from criminal sources. Now that was the first datum I had on the subject in 1954 — I found out in counting noses that the people who had done the most — twenty-one people — who had done the most to damage Dianetics had criminal records and seventeen of them I verified; I just got tired at seventeen and said this is too many. Now this was very interesting because subsequent history of these people is also very interesting. They all came a cropper with fantastic spectacularity before they got through. So I never worried about splinter groups and haven't since. You notice this thing called "The Prophets" or something like that — well that's just typical of the splinter group. You notice we don't hear anything of this Watson — "Amprinistics" or whatever he was, we don't hear anything of him anymore and so on. I don't worry about splinter groups.

What I worry about is entheta  — and this is a change of policy. Something I've just discovered. That in view of the fact that they have criminal backgrounds or in view of the fact that investigation will reveal this, our investigation should therefore go forward to the discovery of crime. In a case of entheta or enturbulation , that we should go forward on this matter to the discovery of a crime as a first action. Then we should act on this crime, not use it as blackmail or make some illegal use of it, but just as a public body and a reform organization act on this crime and then when it is acted upon — then we sue. This is about as malicious and vicious perhaps as one could get but then you are suing a discredited source and this would become hallmarked after a while. They'd say "the Scientologists must have done that because first he was jailed and then he was sued." And so that you could lead to an expectancy that if somebody was very ambitious in spreading malicious gossip and rumour against Scientology or its principles, that they would be investigated with an effort to discover a criminal act; that the organization would then act to have them incarcerated and at that time, when they are discredited in this line, they would then be sued for libel and slander.

Now I have had to step up the bargaining of ethics  on the public front — that is to say the duress that we apply because we obviously aren't applying quite enough pressure to cause the people's banks  to behave while we get on with our job. Now with ethics lines you see you've got to apply just enough restraint — you don't ever apply too much restraint — and you don't apply too little: you've got to apply enough restraint. Well obviously we have ethics and we are putting it in on a public front — we aren't putting it in with enough velocity. Now if we expect to get technology in in the world we must then, first, get in Ethics.

Now Ethics springs up as enturbulance against Scientology — when Ethics comes up with enturbulance against Scientology it makes it impossible for us to get on with the job. Now this is regardless of any operation which comes up OT Base or any operation of this kind. It's obvious to me, after my study of four months, that we will have to get in Ethics on a broad social level before we can ever get in technology because these people are just too crazy and it's like trying to help a wounded buffalo out of a wallow and that is not the same activity; we say to this fellow "you've got a lot of worries and you have a lot of family trouble and that sort of thing can make you clever and if you were a bit more clever you could handle your problems" and we say this and instantly we get gored. So it's a case in point.

So this I'm officially telling you that this is the new policy; it's on a broad social basis. We concentrate on getting in Ethics and then we follow that up with tech. And that is the policy. And then where possible — where we have discovered a great deal of entheta coming back at us, then we intend to get this handled by investigating it back to a criminal act by the person. A criminal act is dissassociated  from the entheta of course but that's what they are trying to defend or something and we get that and then we put on the pressure publicly to have that person prosecuted for that particular act and then, when they have been prosecuted — or are being prosecuted — or are just beautifully discredited at that particular moment, then we serve them with a summons   ?   ["?" in original -ed.K] law and order, assault and battery or whatever they did is not of interest to us except to discredit them and then we serve that with a suit for libel or slander. That seems to me to be a fairly good workout of it.

Now I've been cheek by jowl by the water in the wog  world all on my ownsome, no barricades, no barriers of anything and I'll tell you with this much velocity how I lasted for four months I will never know — I will never know.(  ?  ) ["(?)" in original -ed.K] these people were scared stiff of me, they were scared stiff to do anything else and I probably would have gotten away with it all the way if it hadn't been for this action here in England.

But this is obvious to me that Peter Younghusband came down and now this despatch in the hands of Mrs. Draper of the Salisbury Office in which he  reports to me the telephone call of Peter Younghusband and my reply to her to stall him off, tell him to come in next Thursday. Now here — this was a waiting action: he was calling me up in beautiful timing to find out if it had happened to me yet, to get the comment. You see and this was the rumor line and this caught me before the other — before the actual service of this letter. The letter was just nothing you see; it actually refuses to extend my visa beyond its first extension: it had already been extended once. And the consequences of that are rather fabulous, but in view of the fact that their action denied me the profit of about a quarter of a million pounds worth of deals and jeopardised s  fifty thousand pounds worth of assets and brought damage and would spread dismay so as to destroy another quarter of a million pounds worth of good will, which had been built up during that period. I would say that that is not an actionable thing in Civil Court. I would say it is a criminal act, but more important, that is actionable in a Civil Court but the reason it was done comes under the heading of crime.

So my whole proposal here is that we explore and leave it to you from here on because I've got an Organization to get back together again so all I'm doing is winding up my cycles of action  on this and you've had press to handle, you've got public presence to handle, you are now going into worldwide ethics — you know we'll do it here before we move it into anything like OT Base or something like that. But unless we get Ethics in very broadly, we won't ever get technology in on this planet. And all I'm doing is ending this cycle of action and giving you my views or, if you wish to so consider them, orders and instructions with regard to this. Now I do not say that you can in actual fact implement this act but you can try and you can explore it with some enthusiasm to see if you can't possibly do this because, if we can pull this trick off, then I see that without any OT machine guns hanging in mid air firing madly, we might be able to get Ethics in You  see, on a planetary basis. Now we must go in on a gradient  so we'll take it from where we sit at this moment with the primary Ethics problem which we face and let's see if we can't use these principles and move forward on this with some success.

I wish to point out to you that the world is in sufficiently bad ethics condition as to make not only Scientology but civilisation in peril. It is a very, very sorry situation whereby you have the United States now encroaching on and treading upon the toes of an atomically armed nation, China. You have Russia about ready to turn around and back up China even though it's an enemy. You have at this time three forces involved in Africa. You have the empire — the old Empire — forces from England. You have the resistive white supremacy population and you have the Communist interests which are going to prevent any reasonable solution if they possibly can until war can occur. And then when war has occured , then they will take their chances of getting into power. But if they can just lock the situation up — lock it up good until finally it bursts into flames, then they feel they might have a chance of taking over.

Hubbard wrote in the Scientology Creed "that all men of whatever race, colour or creed were created with equal rights", but he also wrote in Science of Survival (p.127) that "while all men are created with equal rights under the law, an examination of the individuals in the society rapidly demonstrates that all men are not created with equal potential value to their fellows." Note the "potential value" of the native African population in what follows (Conference with the Guardian continues):

Now the reason they want Southern Africa is very obvious — its fantastic quantities of wide-open productive land on which enormous quantities of food can be raised, tremendous labour supply in the Bantu, the Mshombe, the Matabele, these people are very hard-working people and under proper direction are quite productive. The place has not even been tapped with regard to gold and there is probably oil there, the greatest world supply of chrome — there's a mountain five miles long which is a solid chrome-owner. There's all these various things. Now, Brazzaville — up in that area — there's tungsten and they've already made a bite on that end of it. But here's this fantastic, wealthy, relatively empty land — perhaps the last great empty land then and here is this perfectly valid labour supply — the African, who at this time is not being well utilised at all; he's not being utilised really. I know we think he's enslaved and is in chains and is working like mad; the fact of the matter is he's sitting rather hopelessly out on the Reserve wishing somebody would put him to work because he hasn't got enough to eat and he hasn't the implements or capital with which to develop his tribal lands and he's in bad shape. So — and also he's sort of been blocked out of society, he's not been permitted to participate with the white society. Now of all this adds up to just this — here's a very large, wealthy land and, just to give you some background here.

Note: J.H. "Jack" Howman was the Minister of Tourism and Information in the cabinet of Prime Minister Ian Smith. He was one of the signatories to the UDI and one of Smith's closest confidants and friends.

All right, holding this up is just one person who has got this thing tied up in a nut  — the person who prevents a settlement with England is Jacky Harman  Minister of Information, Tourism and Immigration. Nothing that has struck me — because it naturally would strick  me — now he will neither clear up the security — the insecurity inside the Rhodesion  government nor act to alleviate the British situation but he fears anybody who is anti-Communist. All a man has to be is anti-Communist and Jacky fires him. Now this has gone to three stubborn anti-Communist personalities — Ivor Benson, a fellow named Haaker  and Nigel Bruce Hankey: these three chaps are very very good, are experts on this subject and Harman  has fired them. Now in addition to that he operates with very poisonous influence upon the Prime Minister and the society itself is utterly controlled by his super-secret police which are entirely different to the normal internal police forces and they just stockade anybody at the drop of a hat; he does anything, he is a Goebbels and a Hess all tied up into one nut — there's one Suppressive  and he is sitting in the middle of the Rhodesian situation, breaking England's heart, causing fantastic quantities of trouble overseas — there he sits.

Note: The Rhodesian Front was the political party of Prime Minister Ian Smith, formed by whites opposed to (black) majority rule. Among the principles it endorsed were: the Land Apportionment Act, which formalized the racial imbalance in the ownership and distribution of land; opposition to compulsory racial integration; job protection for white workers; and the government's right to provide separate services for different races.

Now if Mr. Jacky Harman  put himself in stockade, I assure you that the entire situation would be solved. We used to say "Well, its  the Whites  Supremacy people of Southern Africa who are stopping it all." I think if you counted noses in South Africa and Rhodesia — I think if you counted those noses, I think you would find out that you were probably only dealing with a dozen people in all — or less! I know that in Rhodesia, the Rhodesian front, is just dying to settle with England, so are the Africans, so are the Asiatics, so are the Coloureds — these people all want to settle and Ian Smith no longer represents, don't you see, the will of the people. So here is an Ethics situation which comes down to an individual.

Now I don't know what we need in order to resolve these situations but we needn't go out on a far flung world front in order to find trouble because we've got trouble we can experiment with already. But I think that Ethics should not introvert onto Scientologists quite so much as it is doing. I think it should extrovert out into society against people who are really non-Scientologists, who are actively harming Scientology — those are the thoughts I have had in regard to this and whether they bear up in long practice or not we have yet to see but I have had four months here of jeek  by jowl observation of the wog world and I find out that their  not very smart; that they tell very very weird tales; that they are extremely suspicious and in absence of factual information they make it up. They are very information-happy and I have an instance where the Number Two — probably Vietnam is No. 1 but probably number two international situation to-day I have now found the guy who has got it blocked into a situation that will not resolve — one man, one man! And everyone thinks it's Smith you see, they think it's the Rhodesian Front. They've made this mistake so that's inadequate — let me point this out — inadequate investigation. There may be somebody had to be in there, inside cheek by jowl with these people to find out this datum and maybe that insight isn't given to the normal intelligence operative of England or America's C.I.A. or something like that but they depend to a marked degree upon the newspaper reporters who themselves are creating a situation in order to serve other masters or write news about it or something like that.

But anyway, I didn't want to make a speech about it — just pointing out to you that Ethics situations hang up on individuals and the less we generalise the more particularise the better we are.

So there's always a preliminary investigation as to who is it — now we've somewhat taken this in that we've found out that there were only two directors of the Newspaper Syndicate but we in actual fact don't know which one of those two is the Suppressive — it's not necessarily true that they are both Suppressive. But nevertheless we will move in that direction. Now we know that they've committed a criminal act because they confess to it by using the material. So what my contribution to this is; my streak  of genius on the matter is the accessories to receiving stolen goods at least and then if there is some way we can make that stick in some fashion and get them under the gun for that, then we follow right in behind with a civil suit on our libel slander. Then, perhaps — and if I don't know of any reason why you can't follow a criminal suit with a civil suit, I think it's rather common, isn't it? (Legal: Yes…) All right. Look — now we'll explore this — probably you'll have a lot of considerating  — perfectly all right with me if you hire a seemingly huge… of barristers or something of the sort — this we couldn't care less about — understand? Don't feel that you're going it alone on this basis but unless we plough forward on a programme, we will continue to be in some sort of trouble, so let's test this programme out; let's see if we can't unravel this thing in that way and let's pilot our way through this thing without any magical occurrences. OK? All right — now are there any questions?

Guardian: (Well its  not a question but I just was thinking that you were saying there that maybe one Suppressive and I would think that would be Cecil King).

Very possibly. Because it was his newspaper that paid   ?   [ "?" in original -ed.K] to steal material down here and it is his relative that owned the Daily Mail, so there you've got two factors that say that Cecil King might be the one) . Oh — you'll have to tie it up — I don't even know the position if where a Company can be sued for a criminal act (Legal: Yes…) Well this might wrap it up, you see. I think he's thinking right now in terms of the company. Any other questions?

(Legal:

Well, if you  action needs any further investigation, you should instruct your investigators to do so. Now I don't know what your investigators have at this particular time on psychiatry but they in actual fact should find a psychiatrist who had made libellous utterances against Dianetics or Scientology or against me and they should find the crime of which he is guilty — they should get him arrested, just one. They should promptly get him arrested for this and then we should sue him. Now we can make that a pilot project on the lines and this would tend to co e the general situation.

Now when we first came out with this plan of investigation and so forth, we ran into a liability. I want to point that out. That if we did not carry it forward ambitiously and successfully, it would backfire. Well, it's backfired so therefore we havn't  carried it forward ambitiously enough. We've not exerted sufficient pressure. Now the purpose of Ethics is to exert enough pressure to make the exterior duress slightly greater than the interior duress of obeying the bank. And that is the whole secret of discipline. And they commonly over-discipline.

Note: In this document, Hubbard calls his servant "Jamble"; in About Rhodesia, it's "Jambo". I suspect the former is a transcription error. Jambo is a Swahili term of greetings used for those assumed to be tourists who do not know the language, i.e., something the natives would say to the colonial interlopers. Swahili is spoken primarily in eastern Africa. -ed.K

It's very, very interesting that any trouble they have with the Africans in Rhodesia has been that they're disciplining them but they have relatively few internal pressures to overcome so the external pressure is against somebody who is perfectly willing. And that's what's causing the trouble. For instance, my boy Jamble — he smokes dacca , he gambles and he drinks, mostly native beer and so forth. Now although I've seen him a little bit reeling or his eyes describing slight circles when he fixed them, I have never seen at any moment — oh yes, and I've suddenly seen him get eloquent — under a bit of native beer after he'd been out in the afternoon — not one single one of these acts got in the road of him doing his job. So I used to tell him "yes, I know Jamble — you're a good boy even though you do drink and smoke dacca  and gamble — that has nothing to do with me, you're still a good boy" and you know he came way up tone arm. I noticed he drank less and I think he stopped smoking dacca  entirely but he didn't stop gambling because Master used to give him a pound to go out to the race track with and lose. Now these boys were all willing but they're over-disciplined.

Now the Scientologist, not to make a comparison but the Scientologist is perfectly willing and is at this time by Ethics being over-disciplined, so we are over-disciplining the Scientologist and under-disciplining society and we should reverse that — reverse that very definitely. If anything, under-discipline the Scientologist and over-discipline the society. Now in that direction you'd still win but in the direction we are going we won't. If you underdiscipline a society and over-discipline Scientologists, why, we've had it. As a Scientologist normally is very, very willing. We've got to upgrade the idea of what is a Suppressive, as Suppressives really are nuts. They are really damaging suppressives and so forth. You only need a few heads on a pike . Well, I didn't want this to be a lecture — this is a conference. Any questions?

              

In the lecture "About Rhodesia", recorded for the general Scientology membership and incorporated into the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (in current use by the Church), Hubbard went into slightly more detail about his treatment of black Africans:

"The Scientology religion is based exclusively upon L. Ron Hubbard's research, writings and recorded lectures —
all of which constitute the Scriptures of the religion"

I had a staff — actually I employed about thirty-eight Africans — coloreds and Europeans. And my own staff — I had a staff of about nine. And they were the pick of all the consular staffs. You see, the various nations helped Rhodesia by kicking the African in the teeth. And when their consuls and missions left, after the declaration of independence, of course they just callously sacked all their staffs, you know, and pulled out and they just left the town mobbed with the highest order of domestic African. And I sorted them out one after the other and picked out the best ones and wound up with a staff, as I say, of about nine.

But the Rhodesian was always very helpful. He was always telling me how to handle the African. And it was quite, quite remarkable — quite remarkable. The advice was very sound, very sound — at least it made sounds. But I began to realize they didn't know anything about Africans. Truth! They didn't. Because they didn't know this about Africans: simply that Africans are people. Do you follow? They respond to Scientology formulas just like any other people. And people don't have peculiarities. But if you don't know Scientology then people could look awfully peculiar to you. They say, "These boys go sullen on you. And you have to be very careful and you have to watch them very carefully because they'll go sullen. They'll go outside and stand around and be very, very sullen. And you have to watch for this sign and symptom."

Note: In other words, the Africans became sullen because they were not acknowledged, not effectively controlled, and not sufficiently trained to perform their assigned duties. But Hubbard dispelled the sullenness of his staff by training them well as servants and praising them for their "snap and polish".

Oh, the Rhodesian — white Rhodesian — was very helpful with this, see? I found out why they went sullen. After they'd been told to do something they couldn't do and then cross-confused, the 8-C  was all mixed up and then they were bawled out, they went sullen. Now, of course, there are two errors being made with regard to the African. One is to take a bird who does not have any background — educational or experiential background immediately — that has anything to do with politics, economics, statesmanship and all that sort of thing… They've gotten out of this line, you see, if they were ever in it. And we can't instantly take one of these boys and say, "All right. You are now an expert economist. Run the country." Because he's immediately overwhelmed and baffled because he isn't able to do it. Any more than an English laborer out here, you walk up to him and say, "You're prime minister now." Very often he'll take it and start shooting other laborers or something.

[…]

But on the one side, why, part of the world is saying, "These men are totally educated, completely grooved in and should therefore be able to take over all the concerns that any other society has." And on the southern African side, why, they say, "These fellows are too stupid to live and can't learn anything," you see? Somewhere in between here there's some truth about the situation, but it's just truth about this. Well, recognizing that fact, my boys were very, very happy boys. I denationalized and renationalized them, which is one of the reasons their morale was good. I told them they weren't Rhodesians anymore, they were Americans. And this was highly acceptable to them.

Well, when they first started to work they were a bit lean. They were a bit thin. And when I left they were very fat. They were very fat. And of course, their uniforms were spotless and they had lots of them, you see, and they really looked very snap and polish. Any guest coming in the area was practically overwhelmed by car boys and things opening doors, you know, and shoving drinks in their hand and all that sort of thing. But they served with great enthusiasm. Those people sure can work. The African sure can work. That's one thing nobody has ever quite noticed about them. They are very hard-working people.

And after a while these Africans, drifting around their own townships, going out for an afternoon off and having boys in on their own, you see…

You know, the African has — he's a very interesting character. But he has flaws just like whites do, you know. And he has good points, you know. And I used to tell Jambo, the number-one boy, I'd say, "Well, you're very good…" This almost killed him because always before he'd just been scolded and nagged at about this. I'd say, "You're a very good boy, in spite of the fact that you smoke dagga, drink and gamble." And, of course, he never expected anybody to really know that he smoked dagga, drank and gambled. But he ran practically a gambling establishment out in the boy's huts every night and boys were in there from far and wide. Terrific communication line. And these boys kept telling other boys that there was Mr. Hubbard here, who was an American who was building everything up and he actually believed in everybody getting a break and that the country was now going to amount to something, you know? And you know how they could blow this sort of thing up. They really can blow one up.

I gave the chef one day a note one night when it was very late — so that if the police stopped him, why, they wouldn't chop his head off. And the note simply said that if he was stopped and if there was anything wrong, to call me at once. And I gave my phone number. He showed this all over the town. Only his interpretation of it was — is, "You see? De master tell da police what to do!"

The Conference with the Guardian continues:

              

Guardian-Comm: I have one more: This guy that came over from England to Rhodesia that instigated having you taken out. What was his name?

Peter Younghusband. London Daily Mail.

Guardian-Comm: Oh, I see.

He has a brother, oddly enough, in Rhodesia — so he was the logical choice.

Guardian-Comm: The Daily Mail, then, was the source of his coming to —

Oh yes, and it's obviously ( ? ) ["?" in original -ed.K]. Now he went to Harman  and he told Harman  a bunch of lies. And Harman  avidly  because I was not for the Communists, excepted  these lies and stampeded the Prime Minister with them, who then re-uttered them to a Committee of the Rhodesian Front that knew they were lies, that succeeded in discrediting both Harman  and the Prime Minister in the face of their own political party and this will have fantastic repercussions. Although we are playing around the basis that it was political — it was actually an effort on the part of this group to get off the hook because we can throw some damages at them. But this has been my thinking on it, that's all.

Anything else? All right. Oh these are just verbal instructions. I have made a tape, so that you can review it in case of argument. I won't bother to review unless there's an argument because I think it's all pretty obvious and I wish to tell you that I'm off that line now, don't you see — I'm definitely off-line: I was snapped off it rather interestingly — Bonwick took me a tour of the branch and what he'd been doing last night and I snapped straight to Saint Hill totally and frankly it's been like digging in the mud to dictate out the reports and the letters and finish off this other cycle of action because I'm frankly no longer very interested in it.

I'm interested in right now the Organization; I want to see if its  functioning all right and I'm going around picking up things that are quite obvious and we picked up two or three, like HCO is full of unanswered dispatches — the last Division in the place that should be full of unanswered dispatches but I understand you just transferred the HCO Area Sec., but now I suddenly spot that this new HCO Area Sec hadn't had time enough — in fact hasn't had time enough to let that many papers accumulate so your new ES Comm/HCO should of course go to the Org Exec. Sec. or the Org Executive's Course straightaway and should specialise in the policies of HCO because he didn't read somewhere along the line that HCO's communications organization and as particles travel with rapidity and he's Clear  so he will pick it up in an awful hurry.

And next section I found the usual — that Letter Registrar didn't know that she should look for things and could query and get into real communication with the person so that she would get a proper response. I think I've spotted also that they are not stuffing information bits — for instance right now I would be stuffing Clear Seceds into their outgoing Letter Reg mail. Then the guy'd read it. Any currect  Clear Seced, you see: Clear No. 19 — I'd just stick this in, completely non-commitally. That's an under-sell. I'd do something like this but it's interesting that Joan McNocher doesn't know how to do this because she was the specialist on it in Jo'burg — she really carried on a — stuffed into those letters like mad, so it maybe being done but probably the wrong stuff is being stuffed.

We have a new book and also we really do need a book that is a very plain basic public-level book, which explains everything — it's much harder to write though than any other book that you might think of.

I discovered a new gadget that I might tell you about just in passing, to close you off on another note, entirely non sequitur . Somebody has been critical of Scientology, you see. You take a copy of "Problems of Work" out of your pocket and say, "here, here's a book on Scientology — read that and find out if there's anything in there to be critical about. Well, go ahead — find something to object to". And the guy's supposed to be looking for something to object to and of course he starts reading and doesn't find anything to object to and he gets interested and it washes it away and that's a trick — gimmick, but that is also a cousin to getting Ethics in in general.

Now Ethics WW will undoubtedly be gotten in from OT Base but apparently we're involved in a problem right this minute and so I think we should get on it.

OK — thank you very much for coming in.