1.) Hello! The subject is ESTABLISHMENT OFFICERS. The background history of this begins in 1950, when I was the Establishment Officer.

We have a dichotomy working here. Now, it will ebb and flow. The Product Officer will continue to make inroads on the very hard won establishing ground that has been won. "And I don't care what you have to do with those CF folders, I want right away eighty-five names out of them..." Of course he gets the eighty-five names this week and then nobody's developed any eighty-five names for next week, because CF didn't get established. Everybody in it was writing letters and they never got a chance to file in all the requests for training and processing. You know how bad establish, you know how bad establishment can get?

2.) I brought the desk, did all the products, gave lectures, did most of the auditing and worked about 18 to 20 hours a day, and to some degree made it come off OK.

A radio ad in the Los Angeles area in l950 was pulling in a hundred and twenty five new people a night. They came in, they were given cards, they were given a very bright lecture, they were very interested, they were given these cards to fill out as to whether or not they wanted training and processing, and what was their home address and phone number. The cards were handed out to them. The organization left them on the chairs, they fell off the chairs and on the floor, and eventually an old showman, the janitor, sort of got the idea maybe he shouldn't be burning up all this trash and started turning them into me directly. So the line which was established was the janitor swept the application cards up off the floor, sorted them out from the chewing gum and handed them to me. That was the operating line of PE, l950.

3.) When I dropped out of the scene, there was an instant collapse.

The organization was making a fortune, until it all just went bong bang crash thud bong on just too much dev-t, out-ethics, dishonesty, various things. Somebody decided he'd like to cut himself a whole piece of the organization, things of this character. But the organization could be put back together again to run at that high rate of speed anytime, any minute. We have found out it doesn't matter what the papers say, it doesn't matter what Time Magazine says, it doesn't matter what the psychiatrists say, the word of mouth in the streets, it doesn't matter one bit at all. It doesn't matter how many football matches, it doesn't matter how many this, how many that and so forth. An effective, efficient organization which is viably running and so forth, makes a mint. It makes money exactly in proportion to the amount of production done by each individual post in it without dev-t. And that is how an organization is put together.

4.) The organizations "ran" to some degree, but had out ethics, out tech, out policy, and eventually went down the drain. (Those were the "First Foundations".)

Now, let me give you a tremendous flaw that has been going on. They hat somebody, that's a flaw, they hat somebody. There's a period there, see? There's the remainder of the sentence, hat somebody and get him to produce what he should be producing on the post. And that is the full sentence embraced in the word hatting. And that doesn't make the Establishment Officer a Product Officer at all. Now, let me show you how this goes.

5.) I was NOT on the Board of Directors of those Foundations, so I was not the prime mover. I was a managing officer and "doer".

There was an OOD item which will probably be in the thing, but I'll just read it off to you rapid fire. A new guy comes on post, see; this isn't all, I'm going to continue beyond this, see; new guy comes on post. The Establishment Officer would say something like this, "There you are on the org board, there's your desk, here are your supplies, here's your hat pack, the guy you relieve can answer your questions, here he is, go ask, and so forth, read your hat pack, I'll be back in a couple of hours to check you out.

6.) The Board of Directors was a barrier to getting ANYTHING done mostly because they believed they should be "popular" (have status), and do "usual" things (conform).

"Now, what's your post? Who's your senior? Now, what do you produce on this post? Take hold of these cans. What are your misunderstoods? What word is it?" Method four. This isn't necessarily how you guys go about it, but this is just a review of ways I have hatted people and gotten them. "What machines do you have here? Where's your instruction manual for operating that machine? Study it for an hour, identify all the parts, I'll be back in an hour to star rate you on it. I'm sorry you're confused. Sit right in front of me, sit right here and confront your area for two hours. Good. We'll run reach and withdraw on your boatswain's locker, or typewriter or desk or whatever it is."

7.) "Popularity is one thing, and TRUTH is another.

By the way, do you know how to run reach and withdraw on a steward? You have him walk into the dining room and walk out, and walk in and walk out, and walk in and walk out. And that's running reach and withdraw. Berthing steward, walk into the cabin, walk out. But you know you won't do that unless you've done a two hour confront first? The gradient of the TRs. These are work TRs, and they work. All the TRs can be done.

You would just be amazed, around here someplace is the account of Bill Robertson hatting somebody by reach and withdraw on one of the wildest dev-t artists we had had for some time. And he had him walking into the dining room and walking out for quite a while. And the guy would go in and he would give him all sorts of cognitions and he would come out and so forth. And it is a howl, because the fellow actually was one of the worst that we had anywhere, he just caromed from this and that. All due respect to it, after this sort of thing he did produce on his post, he did function on his post and is doing quite well as a Sea Org member now.

9.) "Reputation is ALL, truth is nothing" is their motto. And that is the downfall of any University, Research Organization or Research Scientist.

Now of course, there would be your repetitive actions and your, of, or there'd be your acknowledgements of three and so forth when you're repiti; you'll find a lot of guys who are on, on their posts who have gone downhill because they don't acknowledge and they've never been acknowledged. They don't report, they don't say they've done it, things like this. Their TRs go out, you see, on their post. TRs have a lot to do with this. Alright.

"Now, let's go on with this hatting. Read Problems of Work, I'll be back in four hours to see if you've finished. Alright, go to admin cramming and attest if you make it. Buy Volume 0 from the book store and read it. Oh, you haven't got any pay? Well, we'll arrange for some credit for you or something. Now, come over here and we'll show you the comm system. Here's what the comm system is, this is how it runs." And it says it goes on for weeks. Now, the funny part of it is that would be a Hatting Officer operating, you would, could be more detailed. You as an Establishment Officer could actually drop back and see if he actually was doing his confront, see if he actually was reading his Problems of Work, see if that, this thing was going on.

11.) So, that type of "editing" of the org actions and that type of government, is one that will FAIL.

Now, these are degrees of hatting. On the job training was the modern solution to the fact that university students who had majored Medieval Arabic or something, were producing and doing nothing and couldn't do their jobs in England. English engineers were getting bad, they were sitting in the little cloisters of their offices wondering "what wall?" So they introduced the idea of on the job training, and they sent them to school for six months and then they sent them over into an architect's office for six months or a shop for six months or an engineering firm for six months, and they alternated training and practical. And it wasn't just practical.

12.) The SUCCESSFUL management lines in the world are - were they exist - conducted by men in a mood of DESPERATION and EXASPERATION.

Now, we're going to step that up enormously. We're going to instant hat him and have him produce the product of the post, and then we'll hat him a little more and have him produce the product of the post, and then we will hat him a little more and produce the product of the post, and hat him a little more and produce the product of the post. We're going to do on the job hatting, so that you could fully expect to bring in a brand new typist, into dissem, letter registration, and have her immediately getting out some letters. And tomorrow, they're going to be better letters because you're going to spend some time in the middle of that hatting her. And then you're going to have her produce some more letters, and you're going to have her produce post. Post production, post production.

13.) They are carried on the back of ONE person, and there will be a half a dozen "stalwarts" (loyals" in a very large group that keep the show on the road one way or another - over slumberous (sleepy), alter-ising, editing "all for the best people" - MOBS.

Now, I had somebody the other day get the FMA and track the FMA around to get him to do an investigation. Now, in that wise you could see what the FMA was up against and what he became confused against. Now, he unfortunately ran down his criminal to being one of the people he couldn't touch and the other person was a bit high up. I don't know if you heard the aftermath, but he couldn't quite complete his investigation and he didn't complete it in a half an hour, but he got it narrowed down to two, neither one of whom he could tag. But he was probably for the first time doing something that resembled an investigation.

14.) And as a result, the LIFE SPAN of organizations approximate the WILLINGNESS span of their prime motivators.

Now, that of course could speed up, that would get better, that would get better and better. And that could be steeped up to a point where the guy all of a sudden would be a top investigator the like of which you never heard of. "Oh, I know who that is." You know, it's almost that, you know? "The modus operandi of the crime is so-and-so and so-and-so, the head of it must be so-and-so, up to it again. Let's go out and check this, there's about three more. Pang pang pang did whop whop whup, that's that investigation, bing."

15.) And after someone has wrestled with it long enough, and has been caved-in by it, he tends to move-off or quit it to some degree and put his attention to something else. Then things cave in here and there. So then, with great heroism he goes in again to try and make the machine go and leaves bruised feelings and HE&R widespread, but he does get something done.

Now, people will tell you, and I have C/Ses right now telling me, "But you see, I know where to look for the technology, so I don't really have to know it, do I?" Aah so, aah so. A C/S of all people has to know of the existence of the technology so he can tell the auditor to look it up. He has to know the existence of the technology so he can plan and put it together with the case. I see C/Ses stumbling around on things that I find it very difficult to credit that they would stumble around on. Our C/Ses are not all that bad, but they make mistakes, they make mistakes. Now, why do they make mistakes? They just haven't been over their materials often enough.

16.) And then he relaxes and it tends to fall apart again.

It's a very funny thing, I became an absolute genius on one subject through my formal education. And that was basically because, for some reason or other, it was always in question that I had done it, because I never seemed to get a formal credit for it. I would either leave a class early before it was all over or the examinations or something I never really failed an examination on, I just didn't ever get a formal completion. I've studied basic physics, the same textbook, five times. That's an awful lot of times to study basic physics with all of its laws and so on. I have studied it within an inch of its life five times.

17.) You ask any executives who have been the causative factor in organizations and they will tell you that cycle is very TRUE.

One day, maybe you've heard this story, but one day I was walking through the senior's lab at George Washington University, where I "never went," and I found a senior sweating blood. He happened to be a pal of mine, I was a freshman at the time, but he was a pal of mine. And I said, "What's the matter?" and he was trying to design a railroad locomotive and he didn't know how big to make the fire box. I said, "But that's easy. It's the number of BTU, British thermal units, that you can recover from coal efficiently at cold water percentage of about nine or eight percent. And that converted into power..." And he says, "British? British thermal unit. Oh yeah, I've heard something about those." "Yeah," I told him, "Well, you go look it up, and you'll see that..." "Gee, thanks." Here was four years of education, fancy education, hanging up on high school physics.

18.) And it is the cycle of CIVILIZATIONS, not just the cycle of one organization.

Do you know that C/Ses hang up because they don't know what an engram does? They don't know what it's capable of. They'll send a guy to medical right after he's had a Dianetic session because he's suddenly broken out with a rash. Never occurs to them, "Hey, I must have restimulated, must have restimulated something," because that's caused by an engram. I have to take C/Ses back to their basic textbooks, basic textbooks. I never bothered to teach them the upper story of this. And you'll find out with every post that isn't doing its job well has its basic tech fundamentals out, to the point where they don't even know they exist.

19.) EX: A missionaire goes into an org, does what he is supposed to do, leaves, and one week later it is GONE.

You'll find you're just sweating, absolutely sweating trying to get a letter registrar to write a letter that doesn't ARC break the screaming hell out of somebody. And you get him to check off on the policies and you get her to go to cramming, and then you'll find out she never heard of the ARC triangle. You think I'm kidding? I just found it, not in a letter registrar but in a person who was writing letters. Never heard of it, didn't know anything about it, couldn't handle the staff members around him or anything else. He had never heard of the ARC triangle. And you say, "That's impossible." It's very possible in the absence of an Establishing Officer. Administration these days is just like auditing. There is the policy letter that resolves the case. There is a thing called Standard Admin. There is a way to file a CF. It has to do with cabinets, and it has to do with folders, and it has to do with a prefile set of baskets.

20.) ESTABLISHMENT then, is the KEY to organizational prosperity.

And who's out there right now at AOLA putting in those exact standard actions but Herbie. And he's actually operating really as an Establishing Officer crossed over into a Product Officer, because he's making it produce. But he went out there and he found three children were part of their staff. And he found one guy he couldn't hat at all, so he picked him up by the scruff of the neck. He couldn't get the Ethics Officer to do anything so he handed him over to the AG who disposed of him very promptly.

21.) And, it has never been recognized to what DEGREE ESTABLISHMENT accounts for the prosperity and long life (or longevity) of the organization.

Now, this is the kind of thing that people at command level, driven around the bend trying to produce, never get a chance to look at. They could keep saying to Sally Glutz, "Please write a letter with some ARC in it, please." I guess we've got to go into quality of letters instead of quantity. Now, it's against policy but we'll have to go into quality of letters because we just, I just keep hearing all the time from these people saying, "I never want to hear from you again," and so forth. And he really hasn't got time, and frankly he hasn't, to sit down with that person and find out where the hell this gradient is missing. On this one letter writer he would have found the incredible, unbelievable thing of somebody who had been around for ages and had never heard of an ARC triangle. Didn't even know that if you wrote pleasantly you would get a pleasant reply. That was how far that was out.

22.) Man, in his cultural, ethnical and anthropological background, is essentially a NOMAD. (A wanderer or traveller)

Now, what does it take? What does it take, then, to put somebody on a post and hat him? Well, it actually takes putting him there and saying he is there, and showing him where he is on the org board and what his position and relationship is, and what terminals he goes immediately to just wham, see, "And that's it and there's supplies and so forth, produce something." And that begins to reveal all at once. Now you find his misunderstoods. Now listen, you can muster him, you can march him, you can teach him to chant in unison in front of an org board, but when you put him on that post you won't find out if he knows anything about the post or not unless you ask him to produce something. And then all confusion starts to rise to the surface like the body after three days. Yes.

23.) When you have a society at a high tension and where its values are changing or variable, and where the society itself is enturbulative in the extreme, the individual society member is knocked here and there, back and forth, around and around, and is himself, in a state of foment or change.

"Well, alright, let's see a sample, let's see you do a sample now of the product of your post." That statement will probably get fantastically blank stares, and that's why you've got dev-t, because the guy will do something. Now, people never do nothing on a post. And that's exactly the first point at which dev-t generates. Now, it's up to you to figure out what is the product of that post and see some of it. You want him to do it. And now you know what policy to start feeding him and how fast, now you know what supplies that he's got to have and how he'll run into these, now you'll begin to know what this division eats up in terms of materiel. The lines start exposing themselves the moment you say, "Produce the product of that post."

24.) It's a continious state of CHANGE - the number of addresses that have to be changed in an organization to keep the address list up to date is great. It's WORST in the United States where the society itself is the most chaotic. But it is certainly bad enough in UK and EU.

Now, this would seem to be in collision with the Product Officer's duties. Now the Product Officer, he wants all the products of that post and he wants them all now. He wants them so they can be numerically counted and if he doesn't get them, he gets bloody minded. And bloody mindedness immediately pursues into ethics and heavy ethics and witch hunts, and all the witch hunts we ever had probably had amongst them only one or two or three that were valid, had a real valid target. The rest of them were simply dev-t merchants, through unhattedness were too damn stupid to know that their actions were totally suppressive. They wouldn't even know. The guy might even be producing some of the product of his post, but his producing it and shooting it off and handling other things that aren't his post to such a degree that he's got it all snarled up in a ball, and nobody notices.

25.) The society itself doesn't take care of a person's RIGHTS.

And you keep wondering, "Why can't we hold this division down? What the hell is going on? It's always exploding." Go in there this morning, there's nobody working and so on, there's two guys saying they're going to quit, and they're going to leave, and they've been... What the hell happened? It was all cool yesterday afternoon at sixteen hundred. What happened? Ah, just too god damned much dev-t, really what happened.

26.) Examples: Divorce laws, debts, shoddy products. You could probably spend 100,000 Dollars to try to get your money back for a rotten basket of blackberries you were sold, and it would take years. If there is an injustice in the USA, then the US government has probably committed it.

Now, for instance, we ran into a state of heavy ethics just at the instant when we were starting to establish. Now, it tended to knock out the enthusiasm for getting established and it was one remedy, but it was the wrong why. It wasn't that the people are lazy, it wasn't that the people are other-intentioned, it wasn't that the people are this, it's just that they were stupid on their post product beyond belief, and were half the time producing products which were not the product of that post and that nobody wanted.

27.) As a result, these injustices and these social stresses, and economic stresses, create people who are PTS to the Society, cannot concentrate on what they are doing, and who, themselves, are in MOTION.

The worst producers of dev-t in an organization, now hold your hat, are auditors. They are trained as auditors. Now, because they know Scientology auditing technology, they think they know Scientology. And you're dealing with somebody who knows he knows, and you try to get in admin tech on him and it has nothing to do with his post. Now, because he is such a good auditor, you graduate him up to an executive position in total ignorance of policy. You're just absolute demanding an organization go total dev-t, because an administration is itself a technology quite separate from auditing technology and is just as standard, and has just the same horrible consequences to an organization or a division when done wrong that auditing misdone on a pc has on a pc.

28.) They, themselves, are UNSTABLE.

So, what is the, what's the score? When you're establishing something, why, you've got to make it all mesh so that it produces because that is its purpose. You'll find out you'll never have any morale, production is the basis of morale, unless the guy produces. So, your final test as to whether or not the person has been hatted is whether or not he produces a quality product of his post, not whether or not he can do an examination. But the funny part of it is that if he produced a quality product of his post, he would be able to do an examination, what do you know? So, we introduce the idea of on the job training, we won't get into conflict with the Product Officer. That makes a bridge across.

29.) So, you have a Dissem Sec today and you don't have one tomorrow. And you don't have a Dist Sec today, and you are not about to get one.

Now, wrong whys is the bugbear of the Establishing Officer, and it's also the bugbear of the Product Officer. That is the failure point of all management units, they operate on wrong whys, they do off the cuff management not based on sound evaluation, and introduce programs into the area which are unreal but which develop and involve everybody in the organization. So, you've got a two page program that is busily being done that has nothing to do with the other end of the thing because it's based on a wrong why. But you don't dare establish anything in that organization because that program has total emergency and has got to be done now, and nobody has any time to be hatted. If that is a wrong program that is based on a wrong why, it'll practically destroy the organization. That means an Establishing Officer has to be a better why finder and evaluator than a Product Officer, who has to be the best in the world.

30.) In other words, the EBB and FLOW of PERSONELL is the primary DIS-ESTABLISHING factor.

Now, the qualifications of an Establishing Officer would then consist of being able to perform and take responsibility for the functions of each one of the departments of HCO. He doesn't actually deliver the dispatches, that is about the only thing he doesn't do that is an HCO job. He does not just duplicate HCO's work, however, but he is a hip pocket HCO. And if you want to know in the final analysis what his authority is, it's the hip pocket HCO. And just like an HCO, if he himself is inexpert, he will descend into heavy ethics as his final solution. And instead of solving everything with Department 1, recruiting and hatting, he will try, start trying to solve them with Department 3, heavy ethics.

31.) The stresses the personell are under, and their nervousness and restlessness in the society makes them UNSTABLE.

Because when you can't get any area to produce, people in it get bloody minded. But bloody mindedness comes from an inability to find the right why. All bloody mindedness ceases throughout an organization when the right why is discovered, which is quite remarkable. It's a sort of a case gain the place makes. They got the right why, they blew the right engram.

32.) Now, our organizations are built out of PEOPLE. So we have an analogy in a machine - whose parts are there today and gone tomorrow, whose parts are OK today, but broken tomorrow - in other words, that machine would have an awful time trying to keep running!

In 1950 I was looking for group auditing because I was well aware of the fact that groups could get an engram, mutual. And group auditing has been experimented with and worked with from time to time, even on a continental level, in an effort to do something about this. And what do you know, we finally have found what it is. It's a wrong why that causes a group engram. And to de-engramize a group, all you have to do is do a complete, competent evaluation and find the right why and handle it correctly, and the group will dis-emote. This is quite remarkable. In other words, data analysis is third dynamic de-aberration and is as remarkable a technology as running engrams on the individual case. Interesting. The right why, the right why. So therefore, the aberrations of the planet are simply built on the wrong whys of yesteryear.

33.) Also, the ECONOMIC stresses of this society make no allowance for this INSTABILITY.

I'll give you the most flagrant example of this in modern times that has any relationship to our field or activity. Psychiatry operates on a wrong why, and it gets itself into miserable trouble, and has miserable programs which are terribly unpopular. It thinks there's a thing called mental disease and that that disease is a physiological thing. And Kreplin's chart, the largest chart, I have a copy of it here, gives all the diseases. It's only on a little section of the last page that they say that something might be caused by purely environmental stresses. The rest of it is all physiological, insanity is physiological, schizophrenia is physiological, paranoia is physiological. It's because the guy hasn't eaten the right brand of beans or something of the sort, and they dabble around with this. Freud's breakthrough was that it might have something to do with mental, but psychiatry at large has never really admitted to itself that this is the case. So they have this thing called mental health. What the hell is this thing? Szaz, Dr. Thomas Szaz, exposes this in a very scholarly way in a terrifically well annotated, and cross-indexed and so on, set of books. He's a marvel, he's a psychiatrist, he does not believe in institutional psychiatry. And this is actually what it is.

34.) So the hustlers, bill collectors, tax man, and landlord must all still be paid. So no matter if an org is suddenly, or slowly, disestablished, the economic burden is STILL THERE.

And so therefore, they let the medical doctor into the mental field. And how did he get there? He got there about four and a half hundred years ago by saying that witches were actually possessed or not, whether it was physical or produced by demoniac possession or spells. And the medical doctor, from that period to this, has been the hidden factor back of psychiatry. Four and a half hundred years ago they called in the MD to find out whether or not the guy was physically ill or whether or not he was obsessed by demons. And if the medical doctor said he is physically ill, they treated him; and if he said he wasn't really physically ill, they tortured the guy on the rack and burned him at the stake. And that's been going on for four and a half hundred years and hasn't stopped yet, and that's basic psychiatric law.

35.) But that's not all. Not only does the economic burden NOT decrease, it INCREASES - because of INFLATION.

"The Manufacture of Madness", a whole book devoted by Szaz to this subject, and at first you believe this is just a gag, but no, the references are total. They were operating on a wrong why. There is no such thing as physical mental disease, and yet in every university the Psychology Department teaches people that they think with their brains. I was busy running this out the other day as a long series of locks, and you never saw anything so funny in your life. You keep blaming the prefrontal lobes and it makes them kind of hurt. All they are is just some meat. People have been told this so often that they become suspicious of this area of the body. Now, it is true in paresis, which is syphilis in its advanced stages, why, people get some weird states; they do, they get very weird states; but then perhaps it would just be the hiddeness of a disease and the cut off of any future procreation that would produce a mental response such as you get with that. There is no evidence of any kind whatsoever that there is anything called a mental disease. So therefore, the whole of psychiatry is based on a wrong why, and the whole of civilization for four and a half hundred years has been tossed into dungeons, and tortured and burned at the stake, and electric shocked and pre-frontal lobotomied and put in ice packs and everything else. Wrong why.

36.) Money at this stage of the game is becoming LESS valuable per unit. It takes MORE money to buy the same things you used to get for less.

Now, we come along and we find the right why, we find the right why, we find the remedies of this sort of thing. The fact that somebody might actually get cured and that they might be wrong is really what drove psychiatry down the spout, it wasn't really our publicity. They were so fixated on the fact that if we got loose with this idea, and they knew very well that we produced results and they didn't, they knew that well. The only thing for which one can't quite forgive them, they knew Scientology worked, they knew, they knew Dianetics worked, so that made their whole theory wrong and it drove them around the bend. We had another theory, it worked. They were operating with this other theory, it didn't work. So, they ceased to be able to broadcast with sincerity from their top echelon because somebody could catch them out, somebody had missed the withhold. They knew psychiatry didn't work. Somebody missed the withhold. That's what's taken them down the drain.

37.) Money is thus INFLATING. And that is because there was no ESTO to hat the President of the United States. Instead, he read a book by a pederast named Keynes, who was part and parcel of the "Fabian Society", an honored guest of Stalin, the husband of a Russian ballet dancer, and who has dominated the political-economical scene for decades. They are just starting to get wise to this now and throw out his text books from the university courses.

You get some long program, "And so, the HCO Secretary will immediately ta-wa-da and da-de-da and do programs one, two, three, five, eight, nine and twelve; and the Distribution Secretary will do so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so. It's all based on the idea that the public now wants something stimulating." No survey, no survey of any kind, no proof of any kind. Yet here is a long time involving program that pulls off the hat of practically everybody in two or three divisions in order to all-hands this thing into being, the end of which is going to wind up in the complete soup. Aah. So perhaps there should be a side check on the Product Officer's evaluations by the Establishment Officer, side check.

38.) He advocates "INFINITE INFLATION". The keynote is "CREATE WANT". He sure IS creating that where governments use his principles.

Now, there can be such a thing as the guy knows he's so right, that it fits so well with all of his data, that it will resolve. But the funny part of it is, if it doesn't bring in GIs, it's outside the reality of the people he's working with. What do you know? The program and evaluation which was done which brought into being the Establishment Officer and so on, was unanimously agreed with by staffs all over the place that HCO had failed to establish. Bang, that was unanimous. Alright. That's part of the observation, and the rest of it is when I released this other program, I absolutely received a snow storm of DRs of cheers, cheers, cheers, yes, yes, yes, true, true, true. In other words, it was just like blowing an area of aberration. This was a great mystery we were living with.

39.) There were also two Hungarians who used to go around and advise governments on economics. I'm sure they were backed up by the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) or someone like that. Somebody wondered about this and checked up on theirs back-trail - IN EVERY COUNTRY THEY HAD "ADVISED", there was a trail of "RUIN and BANKRUPTCY" afterwards. They advised Wilson (US President) just before the depression (of 1929).

Now, people very often get into the idea that the great mystery must be a who. And there was one organization that was completely blown up. A fellow went from the Los Angeles area, pretended he was a Sea Org missionaire, told the whole staff that they had a suppressive amongst their executive strata, got them to looking for who it was. This organization, then as a group of staff, got together to send somebody, one of their members, out to the PAC area with special reports that were to be couriered straight to me on what they had found. The guy who was carrying the things, however, was not quite as stupid as some of the others, and when he walked out the aircraft terminal, the airplane terminal gate, the airport gate, he turned around and walked in another gate and he got on the phone and he called the Guardian's Office and he blew the whistle on the whole deal. But it didn't save the org. The org crashed, it's executives blew, the staff kind of blew all directions, and we're still trying to put it back together again. And that organization is New York. And the man who pretended it was R. Zorro, and that happened about three years ago, and you know, that engram is still sitting around in the New York area.

40.) Now also, England's economics were not built originally by 2 odd-ball Hungarians who drifted in with some "Keynesian" theories. But now they are using it too!

Now, a fellow going into that area as an Establishment Officer could do worse than, in his spare time, do a why, an evaluation, and publish it to the staff and mail it to all the old executives. Just a standard evaluation, whether it had very much program on it or not. This was the why.

41.) Now, nobody has evaluated this economic scene because first and foremost, they don't know HOW to evaluate. But the other reason is that Governments are on a sort of "suicidal kick". They are not constructive, they are destructive.

Now probably, I don't have the whole why. How, because the why would have to be, how was the staff that weak? How was the staff that weak that it didn't do anything on standard channels? Why did it suddenly grab other channels sideways? I don't know the answer of it to this day. I know the events, but I don't know the why. How could they be unstabilized into believing that three high-producing executives were actually, one of them was suppressive? How could they believe this? I don't know. But the data is kicking around New York and an evaluation could be done. Right now New York is still having a bad time. It has never really been able to get those blown executives back in. They're ARC broken clear back to the beginning of track. It would really require something to destimulate that particular environment, but it could be done. But it would be done simply by finding the right why, and if that why was found and it was it, and so forth, it'd blow charge all over the place. Funny part of it is, it doesn't have to be a PR why. It just has to be the truth.

42.) The only answer a government has to any given situation is VIOLENCE. You press them a little bit and you get VIOLENCE, you don't get anything sensible at all. They cannot be talked to.

You'll find more staff members who will develop more PR to explain why they aren't producing, and develop more PR in lieu of production per square inch, than you ever heard of. So, the Establishment Officer has to be an expert in PR. I recommend to you the first tape of the FEBC course, which is totally valid. That piece of technology is part of the Establishment Officer's action, not part of a public action. It's not part of the Org Officer's action, it's the Establishment Officer's action. He has to be able to handle this sort of thing, H E and R, human emotion and reaction faster than scat, without taking sides with the staff against the executive strata. Now, he himself is part of that executive strata. His authority stems from the chain of command. If he goes too worker oriented, he'll destroy the workers. If he goes too thoroughly martinet, he will destroy their confidence in him.

43.) Now you could understand VIOLENCE if they were being attacked by violence, but they are not, and they use it mostly against the weakest and most easily controlled people - their own citizens.

So, there's a happy ground in between where he's got to be the friend of the staff member without agreeing with the staff member that he is being done in, because the staff member probably isn't. His ignorance of recourse to justice and things of that character, the way he's getting kicked around and so forth, all have channels for recourse. And he must have been standing in the wrong place at the wrong time to get shot at in the first place. So, you have to teach them how to stand in the right place at the right time. Don't ever take the side of a staff member who is natter natter natter. Auditor's Rights, all of the peculiar human reactions contained in Auditor's Rights, are also part of an Establishing Officer's kit. And I would recommend to you CS Series #1, Auditor's Rights, as the basic reaction of human beings as far as auditing is concerned.

44.) So here is a planetary economic scene with "squirrel tech", and it gives the establishment of anything a "curve" (a tricky situation).

Now, if you can get somebody patched up who is in a sad effect by having his ARC breaks of long duration pulled, and if you can get somebody patched up by pulling his withholds, if you can get somebody who is dramatizing a service facsimile handled... It doesn't matter the guy's OT 3 but his, nobody's ever, that service fac list was wrong and it wasn't tripled, so he just generates dev-t to make everybody wrong. In other words, he's not doing his post, he's dramatizing his bank. There's a big difference. That isn't in Auditor's Rights, the action of a service fac, so the HCOBs about service fac are definitely part of an Establishing Officer's kit. And all of the Data Series and expertness in it, and all of the Org Series of course, and all of the HCO series are all tools and weapons which the Establishing Officer can use.

45.) So you plan an establishment costing "X" Dollars per week, and several months later it is much more. Added to that are the increased stresses economically on the staff members which add to the DIS-establishment and you finally have to have "4X" to keep going.

Now, there's probably an Establishing Officer's code, which hasn't been written, because he's something new, because he's something new. Now, I've tried to get you, give you something of the width and breadth of the post and the importance of that post. If an Establishing Officer does his job well the organization will not rolly-coaster, but will continue to expand. He will have more and more facilities with which to deal.

46.) And you will have auditors leaving the org to make "more money" in the Keokuk franchise, and they will be lured away by the promise of "big bucks". (But probably will end up making LESS.)

At the time of expansion, the one thing he will forget to do is put on an assistant Establishing Officer, because when a division goes up to thirty, forty, fifty, and he doesn't have an assistant Establishing Officer, he will no longer be able to establish it, because he has the model behind him of HCO in an org of thirty, forty, fifty, was unable to establish it. So therefore, he must remember that what brought the Establishment Officer into view was the fact that there were not enough people establishing and therefore when he finds himself having too many people to establish, he had better get an assistant Establishing Officer and hive off the two sections of this and split up the duties in such a way that it can be done still. And when the organization has a division which has about two thousand members in it, I would say that somewhere in the vicinity of how many? If it's something, I don't know what the figure is, it's probably one to ten or something like that, there would have to be two hundred Establishing Officers. Wild, isn't it?

47.) So there is also an effort to "pull off" trained staff or experienced people.

Now, somebody is going to give you, sooner or later, the economics of having an Establishing Officer on post. "You see, our tech/admin ratio is two to one, and we really can't afford enough Establishing Officers." The answer to that is that the size of an organization has nothing to do really with the effectiveness of its individual staff member, but tends, it doesn't have anything to, no improvement factor on the effectiveness of its individual staff member, but has a corrosive effect. An organization does not get more productive the more numerous it gets, it gets less productive the more numerous it gets. They can't afford not to have an Establishing Officer, they just can't afford not to have one. It is the most heroic, wasteful action that anybody ever heard of to have a thirty man organization without some Establishing Officers.

48.) Now the answers to these things are not so grim. But, if you have the view that an ESTO is just needed to put it all there in concrete and then he is no longer needed - well, forget it.

Let me give you some kind of an idea just so that you will have the genus of it. An organization of three staff members should have an Establishing Officer. It's one auditor and one CO and one Establishing Officer. That would have a possibility of functioning, because it would very shortly become an organization of five or six people, if it had an Establishing Officer. It'll stay an organization of two or three if it doesn't.

49.) It WON'T just stay there because of the restive economics of society, the nomadic tendencies of people and the violence that governments use against their populations. So you get shifts and changes in the society around you and in the staffs of the organization you are trying to establish.

That this isn't understood is represented in some stuff I got here the other night. "I don't want to be an Establishing Officer I/C for my organization because the ED has wanted to have an Organizing Officer for some time." You see, he doesn't realize we're changed over and phased over into a refinement of the Product/Org Officer system. It isn't the Product/Org Officer system is gone, it's been refined so that it works. So he wanted to be an Org Officer. I can tell him that he could have and be and Org Officer and he would not raise the income of that organization one five shilling piece. He just wouldn't. But as an Establishing Officer, he'd probably quadruple it. You see, that's the difference. So, it's not a well understood action, so you're going to have to do some sales talks.

50.) So, ESTABLISH and MAINTAIN ESTABLISHED is the index of it all.

Right now here locally, I've had somebody say, "I don't need an Establishing Officer in my division, I hat my own staff." The only thing he's missed is, is they aren't hatted, and what production comes out of there, I do it. Otherwise, all is well. So, the truth of the case is, that one can't afford not to have one. So, the evolution would be one Establishment Officer would have to be there even if you had a staff of three, one of them would have to be an Establishing Officer. You say, "Well, of course he wouldn't be a full time hatted ESTO." Oh yes he would be, oh yes. He would probably be the only person there that was single hatted. The CO might be the registrar and the D of P and everything else, but not the Establishing Officer. Single hat. So, there is no such thing as a double-hatted Establishment Officer, even beginning that low on the org board. There is no such thing.

Your cycle is: ESTABLISH & MAINTAIN, then, ESTABLISH & MAINTAIN, then, ESTABLISH & MAINTAIN, etc.

Now, let's take an organization of about ten or twelve, or something like this. Now at that stage of the game, you would have an Establishing Officer I/C and an Establishing Officer for divisions seven, one and two, and another Establishing Officer for divisions three, four, five and six. And you'd have three Establishing Officers. Why? Because it will very shortly then, if it has Establishing Officers, it'll shortly become viable. It can't help itself now, it's had it. All of these hopes of decay are gone. It'll soon become an organization of twenty-five or thirty. Well, what do you happen then? That's too many people for three establishing terminals, so at that moment you start going for broke. You've got to put in a TEO/QEO, specialized, so that brings it up. Now your organization gets up to around fifty, something like that, well you just better cover it across the boards now.

51.) You are handling stuff that makes quicksilver look like iron.

Now, what about a CLO? Well actually, a CLO is in a position right at the present time, Officer for the Operations Bureaus, four of them, all by himself. And that would require an Establishment Officer I/C, so the minimum number of Establishment Officers for a CLO would be an I/C, one for the early divisions, one for the late divisions and one for the middle would be four Establishing Officers. See? See how it goes up? Now, what happens when they really start getting busy? Well, you figure out where they're busiest and put your assistant Establishing Officer in there, your Establishment officer.

52.) So the ESTABLISHMENT OFFICER IS probably better named as the: ESTABLISHING OFFICER

Now, I've used Establishing and Establishment Officer interchangeably. It's a descriptive term. The actual term is Establishment Officer. His duties are establishing. You'll find out that a lot of people don't understand what this post is and that sort of thing, so any Establishment Officer going on post has to do a certain amount of personal identification. If he's in charge of divisions seven, one and two, well he had better tell each one of those divisions that he's in charge of these three divisions. Otherwise, each one of them will think he's off post three quarters of the day, and what an easy job. In other words, he has to identify himself.

53.) "Day to day and sun to sun, the Establishing Officer's work is never done".

Now, we have yet to put together the uniform of an Establishment Officer and the insignia of an Establishment Officer. We will be doing that. We will be building a corps. There will be an Establishment Officer senior, top Establishment Officer in the Management Bureau, for Sea Org and Scientology orgs. In the PAC area for instance there will be two Establishment Officers on Flag, putting in the network. Their opposite numbered terminals will of course be the Establishment Officers in charge of each of the orgs. So this will go in as a network.

54.) Now if you are dealing with a "guicksilver society" with that much disappearing, then you must learn to establish very rapidly. Rapid establishment is the answer.

Now, what happens on something like Flag? Now here you have a numerous, although the organization is big, it is not as big as the biggest organization will be. Now, it has a peculiar fact. It combines a bureau and a division, and it combines two entirely different sets of policies in the one section. So the Establishment Officer, you don't have an Establishment Officer for the bureau, because in most of these bureaux like bureau two for instance, I think has one person in it. It's just got the Aide, you see? He has the job of realizing that he has two different organizational types in the same division, with two different, entirely different, products. One, the bureau is external. A bureau always has external product, its products are external. It may have some internal functions, but at that moment they're divisional. So, external, the external lookout, the external management function and so on is the bureau function.

55.) There are three types of establishing targets:

It actually operates in a difficult way because it operates not only on all the basic policy, but it also operates on FOs and CBOs, the Central Bureau Orders. So it has entirely new, different packs; it's an entirely different bit of expertise. Furthermore, there's quite a lot of expertise into just the matter of being an Aide. And we find out that people have an awful lot of trouble when they come on if they don't just know the song of being an Aide. It's rough for them, they don't know what to expect of it and so forth, and some of the things expected is quite outrageous. But that on Flag has an Establishment Officer who is covering both the bureau and the division.

1.) INSTANT

Now, the divisional function is normally internal functioning. Out into the public we don't consider it external because it isn't, it's just that division operates that way. A bureau is something that operates another org, it doesn't operate the org that's there except it also does. And you will find out that uniformly an Aide will operate the other org over there and will not operate the org immediately under him. So there will be a tendency, there will be a tendency for the Establishment Officer to forget about the bureau. The person is a senior, the person has different problems than the division, it all looks internal. And on Flag, guess what? It is the external function that's important. The external function brings in, for god sakes, eighty-three percent of the income of Flag and the internal function only brings in seventeen percent. And yet the internal function is enormously manned up and the external function is terrifically undermanned. Isn't that interesting?

2.) MEDIUM

So what is the effectiveness of that external function? It will be as effective as the person is hatted and doesn't indulge in dev-t and as long as he is served well by the internal group. So therefore, you have a divisional secretary who has a senior as an Aide, who doesn't pay any attention to him. That's awful. And you'll find out those lines are raggity baggity. So that the division operates, however, as Product Officers. Your Product Officers' Conference is your divisional secretaries; the Aides and the pure bureau functions are all devoted to another body called the Aides' Council, which is engaged in management of external orgs. Now, how it is worked out has just recently changed and has not been implemented any further than a set of notes by LRH Personal Comm, but those notes exist. And its chairman right this minute is practically doing her nut because she hasn't got this other system in yet.

3.) LONG

And so the Aides' Council does not engage in the running of the ship, but can monitor the living daylights out of it if it isn't served. Now, let me show you how important this works. Each big boom of Scientology orgs was when Flag was very heavily on the lines managing. And when the internal organization noise became so great as to distract the attention of Aides and management back into the ship internally, a crash occurred on the external lines. And that is the subject of a very searching evaluation. You want to know why these booms and depressions occurred. There is the bigger why of unhattedness and dev-t, but the local why is extremely just this, the ship unhatted develops sufficient dev-t that it distracted one from the external lines and crashed the stats. Dev-t and unhattedness was the reason.

You are ALWAYS dealing with ALL THREE.

So therefore, the internal functions of the ship are very, very important, but they are important from the degree of hattedness and no dev-t to a degree that no org would dream of. The dev-t discipline on this ship has got to be so extreme that an org, a very efficient org on the subject of dev-t would look totally dev-ted on Flag. We cannot afford one tiny scrap of it, not one little tiny scrap, because that's what broke the international stats. And that's why you were on the job and summoned so immediately and so urgently, and why this system was going in so rapidly. Found the why, you find within, oh within seventy-two hours and so forth, we got the whole system within grasp and being established.

56.) They don't go in gradients. You are ALWAYS dealing with an INSTANT WHILE you work on a MEDIUM WHILE you work on a LONG.

Now, you are being asked to go on the job without yourself being totally established as an Establishment Officer. I call to your attention a Sea Org FO where a Sea Org member is expected to be doing anything. We expect a Sea Org member to be able to do anything. And so you are an Establishment Officer. That's it. That's all there is to that. Now, you can make up the deficiencies of your technology as fast as possible by putting in your normal study time plus an additional study time. Now, if any of you ever go out to an org as an establishment inside, you will find that this same condition occurs. This will repeat. You cannot afford to spend the next two months training and training carefully in a classroom a bunch of Establishment Officers. You won't be able to afford it. So Establishment Officers will probably always be trained this way and that's on the job training though, isn't it, because you will rapidly find out what you don't know and have to go look up in one hell of a hurry. I wouldn't be a bit ashamed of you if you suddenly disappeared from sight around the back of a bulkhead or something like that, and were hurriedly shuffling through a bunch of policy letters to find out what the hell it was.

57.) The successful ESTABLISHING OFFICER will have all three of those balls in the air simultaneously. Instant, Medium Range, and Long Range.

If you look at the number of things you have to know, you have to know all the policies and functions and operations of a division, plus all the functions, policies and operations that have ever been written about HCO, plus all the functions and policies that have ever been written concerning technical application to the control of human emotion and reaction. And that gives you the scope of what you should know in order to do your job successfully.

58.) Ex: You have a Dissem Sec in full time training, due to finish OEC next Tuesday. But today you have no Dissem Sec. What to do? That's the typical ESTO problem. I can only advise you: "Do it!" (Put her on post, finish trg. in study time.)

This talk today was to instant hat you, to show you to a marked degree the scope, the reason why, the background of your post, the need for it, and the reason that you cannot possibly afford to fail. So, you are an Establishment Officer. Thank you very much.

59.) So we have a 22 year history of "Booms" and "Depressions".

(Thank you, Sir.)

60.) When the DATA SERIES was developed, we then had a tool to penetrate these obscure mysteries - booms and depressions, booms and depressions. Not only with the network as a whole but also with individual orgs.

OK.

61.) Ex: The BOOK receipt monies at SH in 1967 were greater than its total income today!

62.) The "ban" (1968 Summer) had very little to do with it, but they did lose their American trade. But they didn't listen when I told them to build up their domestic trade.

63.) I noticed that since 1950, EXTERNAL actions to an organization have almost nothing to do with its survival factors at all.

64.) You can go almost anyplace, and establish an org and get it producing, and it will get, IN DIRECT PROPORTION, the income which it is ESTABLISHED to achieve. Now that is a factor that an ESTO has to learn.

65.) And that's a tough one to learn, because the staff around you all have their aberrated "whys" for why the income is down.

67.) The tool to discover CAUSES exists, and that is the DATA SERIES.

68.) And when the DATA-SERIES was used against this whole picture of booms-depressions of orgs, the answer emerged:

"AN UNHATTED STAFF GENERATES DEV-T" - They develop enough bad and sour traffic that they impede all productive traffic.

69.) And the reason back of Dev-T IS UNHATTEDNESS.

70.) These orgs can be "BUSY", and work themselves to the fringes of exhaustion - WITHOUT PRODUCING ANYTHING - but more Dev-T.

71.) An adequate description of any GOVERNMENT on the face of the planet today would be - Dev-T.

72.) If they all VANISHED, the world would be far better off.

73.) The Dev-T they generate also affects you organizationally - and the best way to handle it is to just "hive it off" - or compartment it off. (Into a special section that just handles it and nothing else, and doesn't cross the production lines.)

74.) Call it "ACCOUNTING" or "LEGAL" or something. Ex: Capitol airlines had 25 CPAs (Certificed Public Accountants) that did nothing but handle the government tax men.

75.) So there is Dev-T all around an org, so it is no wonder that it gets into this "tradition" that has been going on for the entire history of man.

76.) And that Dev-T comes from unhattedness. And the reason the economics of the US are bad, is because there is no ESTO hatting the President - as I said before.

77.) Currently the US is handing out about 75% of the National Income into channels that will never do anybody any good at all, and which solve nothing. And then they wonder why they have inflation!

78.) AND they are working on the "wrong why" that the working man's demand for more wages is the reason prices are increasing! WRONG why. The working man wants more wages because he can no longer buy bread!

79.) No, the great, gaunt, wolf at the door is UNHATTEDNESS generating DEV-T.

80.) Now for an ESTO, "unhattedness" is too simple a statement. It isn't JUST that. It's also the LINES, the "meshing" of these hats, the space in which these hats are worn, the arrangement of it, the adequacy of it.

81.) Ex: A division with its comm center 3 floors down in the basement.

Ex: Two hot traffic lines crossing each other.

This is SPACIAL Dev-T.

82.) The space arrangements are then important to an ESTO.

83.) Also, the equipment used in production.

Ex: A Dir. Comm at AOLA who let the Address Machine break down making it hard to get out a mailing.

Ex: A folding and stuffing machine at SH, which needs a repair part costing a few pounds, and which has never been fixed. The whole staff has to work to put out a mailing. And they don't design the mailings to fit the machine anyway! Terrific Dev-T!

84.) Now this planet is rotating on a 24 hour day around a 12th rate sun at the outer corner of one of the smaller galaxies, and it inexorably rotates at 24 hrs per day. And as hard as you try, you can't make it rotate at 28 or 36 hrs per day. If it would, you might have a chance.

85.) The Product Officer who is trying to handle 5 auditors who quit because of the cramming order, with 10 public waiting, and one asking for a refund, and trying to hold off the bill collector while he gets the income up somehow, is not likely to notice a broken machine even if all the staff disappear to stuff the mailing.

86.) Now the boom and depression cycle was caused by the exhaustion of the exec in trying to handle, and to dispersal of staff due to the nomadic character of society.

87.) The "boom-depression" cycle can be looked at as an "establish-disestablish" cycle. It is accompanied by an increasing cycle of Dev-T. And that is an exact description of why orgs rise and fail.

88.) If we are ever going to take this planet, we are going to have to eradicate (erase) the "failure end" of that cycle.

89.) That's elementary, isn't it? so a vast study of this has shown that there is a "division of labour". ESTABLISHMENT is what adds QUALITY to a product.

90.) Ex: You can't quarantee a good dinner, without stove, fuel, supplies, food preparers, a hatted chef, etc.

91.) It's no good to scream at the ED of an org about the quality of his product if the org isn't established. The Dev-T in it would be enough by itself to DIS-establish it.

92.) And that would be enough to shatter the quality of the product he is trying to produce.

93.) Now I can hold one of these orgs together, and I normally can build one up, but it gets so bad sometimes that it takes a 20 hour day, and you wouldn't believe some of the things I have to handle.

94.) It's because the hats are not known or worn and because the hats are not meshed with each other so the lines run smoothly and coordinatedly.

95.) The material breaks down and the spacial relationships get tangled.

96.) And the economic duress puts barriers and brakes on what you can do.

97.) And that brings us to RESOURCES. "An Establishing Officer must always work within the reality of what resources are available".

98.) It's OK as a plan to "attack the German Army" - but the resources available? One corporal with a broken leg.

99.) It is called "megalomania" when the plan is far greater than the resources at hand. But it CAN be accomplished if you establish up to it.

100.) Resources is the limitation factor. "What do you HAVE to DO WITH?

101.) And now we get into the genius department: "THE LESS YOU HAVE, THE MORE GENIUS IT REQUIRES"

102.) And that's the rule of the ESTO:

"The LESS resources you have, the MORE genius you have to inject into the situation to substitute for the lack of resources."

103.) Ex: How do we establish the division with only 2 people? "Well, I could get in there and do it all." - WRONG ANSWER.

104.) The primary ERROR the ESTO can make is to start handling the traffic of the division. The org will never grow, and he will not be an Establishing Officer.

105.) It is an ILLEGAL order to give an ESTO an order to start handling the traffic of the division. It's also ILLEGAL to take him off post and put him on another post because "personell is so scarce". That is the exact way to never have ANY personell.

106.) So, the resources are made up for by the brilliance of the performance.

107.) Ex: Sweden is a small country but has maintained its position in the world thru technical developments and efficient organization with regard to its relationships with other countries. How did they stay out of those world wars? How did they emerge prosperous on the other end of it? So you can always substitue for numbers by efficiency and brilliant ideas.

(Note: Sweden allowed Hitler to march thru Sweden to attack Norway in exchange for Swedish soverignty and neutrality. Also their policy is that, since they are neutral, they can sell weapons and explosives to BOTH sides and produce needed ball-bearings and machine parts for them. Thus Sweden came out of the war neutral and rich. Also they had to make a treaty with Russia to REMAIN neutral after the war, so that Russia would not be threatened by NATO based in Sweden.)

108.) So, you can always substitute for "numbers" with efficiency And BRILLIANT ideas.

109.) If your technology is BRILLIANT, and your efficiency is FANTASTIC, you CAN take the lame corporal and attack the German Army. And have a very good chance of winning. (Joke - I think that's what Hitler did - attack the German Army - because he defeated it, utterly!)

110.) The G.O. (Guardian's Office) at this time (1972) is one of the hottest, smartest units of its kind in the world today. It was handbuilt for a certain definite plan and policy, with a certain and definite purpose. It is BETTER, today, than MI-6, CIA, D.I.M., State Intelligence, or the Abwehr (German Intelligence).

(MI-6 is British Counter Intelligence)

(CIA is America's Central Intelligence Agency)

(D.I.M. is Defense Intelligence Ministry)

111.) The decline of psychairitry on the planet came about because they attacked the wrong target - us.

112.) There wasn't any unpopularity of psychairitry till we opened our mouths - now its generally thought to be the case that they are sort of a failed, half-baked, murderous, sort of "bunch of bums".

113.) The World Federation of Mental Health (WFMH, called "SMERSH" in those days) has now just been transferred to the West Indies (it was in Switzerland, then Scotland, previously) and put in the hands of an obscure psychairitrist nobody ever heard of in a back village of blacks.

114.) That WAS the world's most powerful Mental Health Organization, formed by the Death-Campers who escaped to England. Now, how did it ever get to Jamaica on the back street of a small village? You get the idea? The G.O. doesn't have vast amounts of money or resources of personell. But they have TECHNOLOGY, some of the hottest tech you ever heard of.

115.) One piece of that technology is over 2000 years old. It comes out of the "Art of War". It's called the "Dead Agent Technique". But the "Art of War" doesn't state what the DA (Dead Agent) technique could be - in full. So it was developed fully.

116.) Ex: A newspaper reporter going into his own "morgue" files, any paper, any place, to get some material to write about Scientology, collides with data on "how bad psychairitry is". Now, how was that done? By DA tech. The people who were running the psychairitry push are DEAD - they were "worried to death".

117.) Psychairitry had a huge escalated program:

1.) To degrade the human race.

2.) To supersede normal justice with psych justice, which is "guilty" before trial" and "punished before proof".

118.) They had legislatures all over earth proposing and passing laws that allowed imprisonment, seizure of property, setting up "camps" for mentally disturbed, etc. and were moving forward toward the heaviest totalitarian "police" state that anybody ever heard of, based on only the pschairitrist's opinion of who was "sane" or not.

119.) Then they made the mistake of attacking us, and attracting our attention. And it was quite a feat for a little handful of guys to knock the multi-billion dollar financed organization flat on its back.

120.) And the whole organization (GO) was put together in 3 months, and accomplished its job in 3 years. That shows what CAN be done.

121.) They have good admin procedures.

- They follow target policy.

- They program everything.

- It's all carried through to an enormous degree.

122.) Now that's what can be done by "establishment".

123.) That required brilliant technology, small resources but sound, hard organization, and fantastically able management.

124.) So don't underestimate what you CAN DO as an STO. It's a complete disgrace that Scientology and S.O. Orgs haven't taken more territory than they have. people will say, "Maybe the Org Board is out" - "Bla, bla" - no, that's all a "Why is God" - or wrong why. The REAL reason is a failure to Establish and to CONTINUE to Establish. They are destroyed by Dev-T, and that comes from UNHATTEDNESS.

125.) Orgs have brilliant technology - both in tech and admin - but it's not APPLIED.

126.) It (Technology of Scientology and Dianetics) is INFINITELY greater and INFINITELY more effective than the technology the Guardian Office has (on "Intelligence") and an which they operate.

127.) But the tech is not KNOWN or APPLIED.

128.) The old HCO's used to police Dev-T hard, hard, hard. They used to get the staff member's "communication hat" on as a 1st action. (How to write a dispatch, one subject per dispatch, had to be "on hat", and concern also the "hat" of the other person, etc.)

129.) They kept this up until they had a well-disciplined org that would hold its form. That action has not been done for years. When it ceases to be done, the org tends to disintegrate.

130.) So also with building up an org goes HATTING.

131.) I'm giving you here the bad spots, bright spots, and background history of Estoing. It has been very hard for me to do it all these years, WHILE getting out the products, and WHILE developing the technology.

132.) But from the experience of doing it, all the pieces are now falling into place:

133.) The Product-Org System is a brilliant system. BUT it has a FATAL hole in it: It is NOT possible for the HAS to establish the org ALONE. We underestimated the job by a factor of about 10. Thus, we have now the Prod-Org-ESTO-System.

(This was found by observation, survey, and actual experience in many orgs since the FEBC.)

134.) The Product Officer and Org Officer were not backed up at any time by an effective establishing action, under the FEBC system. We know that now. It was a brilliant system, but in these confused, mad, spinny, "whirling-dervish" times, it was underestimated by about 10 times the number of people needed to ESTABLISH the org.

135.) So, using all that WAS good in the Prod-Org-System, a NEW system has been evolved:

136.) The C/O or E/D of an org is the PRODUCT OFFICER of the Org. He thinks, eats, breathes PRODUCTS.

137.) He knows the VFP's of the org and demands them.

138.) If he doesn't get them, he analyzes "why", using the "Data Series", debugs them, writes a program to handle.

139.) The program is executed by the DEPUTY D/D, who also takes care of staff and polices Dev-T for the Product Officer. (Same as earlier O/O functions.)

140.) The E/D also has a Secretary (or Yoeman) who handles the E/D's traffic, fends off Dev-T, and does "executive secretary" actions for the E/D. This person is hatted by the Deputy E/D, so he can spend more time getting the programs done.

141.) Planning, then, is carried out at the TOP, where it should be. (The C/O or E/D does this.)

142.) Planning carries with it:

- SUMMATION OF OBSERVATION

- INVESTIGATION

- LOOKING PERSONALLY INTO IT

- EVALUATION

- WHY FINDING

- DEBUGGING

- PROGRAMMING TO HANDLE

- BRIGHT IDEAS BASED ON A BRILLIANT PLAN.

143.) The program must be short, NOT so long and complicated that it, itself, is Dev-T.

144.) And - ANYTHING BASED ON A WRONG WHY IS TOTALLY DEF-T.

145.) So this short, succinet, program is passed to the Deputy E/D for execution. This IS the Org Officer, but he is really not doing ONLY organization, he is doing PROGRAM EXECUTION. (Organization may be a part of it, of course.)

146.) Now the E/D has a conference with the Divisional Secretaries, and that is the PRODUCT CONFERENCE.

147.) And each of those Div Heads is HIMSELF a Product Officer for his division, and HE investigates and debugs where HE is not getting the product.

148.) And each DIV HEAD has a Deputy who carries forth HIS divisional programs. (This is the Divisional Org Officer or Program Executor.)

149.) And the Deputy Div Head also handles the Administration for the Div Head and polices Dev-T.

150.) That is the new Prod-Org team or Product Officer - Program Officer team.

151.) In the Pac Area, the product Officers became so impatient with the slowness of Establishment they sent a team of students into CF to find names for a campaign and tore the CF apart - and went insolvent.

152.) So this "anxiety for product" carries with it a deadly germ. THE SCRAMBLE FOR PRODUCT WILL DIS-ESTABLISH.

153.) So there has got to be somebody there to keep it established and free of Dev-T. So the 3rd member of the team is the ESTO I/C or Executive EstablishING Officer or Executive EstablishMENT Officer.

154.) Now it is HIS job, in the midst of that hurricane of demand, to ESTABLISH.

155.) ERRORS he can make:

1.) Start to DO the actions of the Division himself.

2.) Not establish in a way that backs up production.

3.) Build an establishment far greater than the org can afford or support.

4.) In efforts to get people, he could offer far more pay than can be afforded.

156.) The ECONOMICS of the org then are in the hands of another conference called the ESTO conference.

157.) F.P. (Financial Planning) is done by the Establishment Officers.

158.) It's done by the rules of policy, so they know how much money they have to establish with.

159.) Now, it is a remarkable fact, that, an organization tries to spend all it makes.

160.) And they usually spend MORE than they make.

161.) And that is a terrible dis-establishing factor in itself.

162.) Now the production per S.O. member in the PAC has gone from $ 5000 per member per week to about $ 100! So they are mostly involved with Dev-T.

163.) So the economics of the establishment are in the hands of the ESTO.

He controls OUTGO.

165.) And regardless of the tax people. The hell with them. They will do you in anyhow, so why worry about it. They've made themselves so obnoxious and so bonkers that you just take those steps necessary to obfuscate them. (Obfuscate - eliminate by putting behind a barrier or in shadow) It doesn't matter whether you submit correctly or incorrectly, they will tell you "all these expenses are really income because we have a new rule that says the worth of a company is its debts plus its assets so you owe on all of it".

166.) So never let the fact that money will be taxed deter you from making a mint! If you HAVE money, you can afford to spend HUGE sums to protect the even HUGER sums you have made.

167.) The "crime" is - not to have made money.

168.) So don't fall for that old "we must not make this money because it will be taxed". No. Just go on making it and figure some way it ISN'T taxable.

169.) An org has to be valuable enough to compensate Management and the Management of it.

170.) In Scientology orgs management does take place on a higher level than the C/O or E/D. Just figure out how much goes into training execs, auditors, providing materials, books, issues, programs, policy, defense, advertisement on a board scale, etc.

171.) Ex: Boston Command Team - they only sent 15% until I called it to their attention how much it cost to provide a non-Boston staff command team for the org. Then They sent 30%. It's still not enough.

172.) An org must compensate management enough to retain management's interest. An organisation HAS to make money to be worthwhile to anybody.

173.) So if you manage it close enough and sweat at it, what do you know? It gets very efficient and prosperous, and CAN afford such management.

174.) The WRONG way to approach it is:

"We need 5000 a week, so we make 5000 a week." - Except for the 2 or 3000 more that WILL be required to handle the factors mentioned before, AND the expansion you need to have viability.

175.) So the solvency of an org is founded on these two principles: The income is the responisbility of the Product Officer. And the outgo is the responsibility of the Establishment Officer.

176.) Got it? OK. Thank you very much!