Now, normally you don't offload somebody unless the terms of his contracture or his staff application form or his contract has been falsified. And you'll find out the bad off ones have normally falsified it anyhow. They have certified that they are free from debts and they owe ten thousand, they have certified this and they that, and they certified that and the this, there will be something wrong in regard to that. Well, you're not looking for loopholes, but there is a time when you can hold up a guy just so long, a time comes. So where you have people who are parked in this particular sector, get them handled. And if there are disappearances off post and there're this and there're that or the other thing and the nonsense that goes on, if they also are generating tremendous amounts of dev-t, you're much, much better off to put them into a category where they can function and get better, and where they can be supervised directly on simple jobs.

Alright. This is the second of March, l972 and it's the second talk on ESTOs, Establishment Officers.

The treatment of bad off people, not just the insane, anybody that was bad off in any way, shape or form was called insane in another year. Back in l846 they were all insane. By the way, there's another category, there's another category entirely and the person, the person is just a bad, he just lives a weird, oddball life. You can do something about that. He never goes to sleep and he doesn't eat and he burns his candle at both ends, you know, that sort of thing and so on. You can cool him off, too. You can tell him, "Look, now listen you. You go to bed tonight and get some sleep. I want to see you bright, shining and bushy-tailed tomorrow." And you will just be amazed how often you have to do that. In other words, he's something you can do somebody about.

As you know, the technology is not totally covered anywhere at this time. That will be amended and policy letters will be written. You should note that the Product/Org Officer system which is the immediate predecessor, there's a word that you'll have to look up or be blank the rest of the lecture, the thing that went just before the Establishment Officer system. The Product Officer/Org Officer system was not put into policy letter because it was a tape system, it was taped, it was run, it had success and it is a very successful system. But it had a fatal weakness, and the fatal weakness was that establishment could not occur. And there were two reasons for this, is the flurry and urgency of production make it very difficult for establishment to occur, and the establishment personnel of the org were insufficiently numerous to stand up to the demands of production. And therefore, the org was relatively unhatted while production was being demanded of it, and the demands of production then produced fantastic quantities of dev-t, which then drowned the org which had not been established.

He's, he looks like a bad administrative risk, you see, on the administrative scale he just looks like a bad risk, that he ought to be processed within an inch of his life, and this/that ought to be happening. You do a little breakdown you see, you're doing this, you're doing that, you remember to put things on it like, "Do you get sleep?" and "What do you do at night?" and all that sort of thing. And all of a sudden you just find out a guy, he's not eating the things he should eat, he's not sleeping when he should sleep, and he also has some habit or another of he just loves cream cheese and it kills him. You know, you find out some weird thing. Why, you just put him under orders and say, "Do so-and-so." Well, usually that's your first action. When a guy's goofing off and you can't get him to produce and you can't get him this and that, you're trying to handle this bird, your first action is just to handle it, just directly, you know, boom. That's always your first action. You tell the guy, you look into it, you find a little why, you tell the guy; now we're off onto something else, I'm talking about evaluation of personnel, I'm not talking about handling him. You're first action is tell him.

Now, I can give you instances and examples of how dev-t drowns an org, but the dev-t pack which you have, and policy and so on rather covers that ably. We have known about it for a long time, and somebody will come along and say, "But we've known about dev-t all these years, what is so new about this?" What is new about this it was, there is and actually does occur in one of the sentences of dev-t policy, a faint reference to unhattedness. It didn't step up the importance of this fact. The cause of dev-t is unhattedness, and dev-t drowns an org. So we had the technology of dev-t, but it's like a person turns yellow when he has jaundice. And you say, "Well, he's yellow and therefore let's get some cosmetics or something and cover up this yellowness," when the actual truth of the matter is that jaundice is caused by a liver illness, and the liver becomes infected, and the person should be given horse needle shots of antibiotics and double handfuls of pills and put into strict isolation. And all the cosmetics in the world would not cure the jaundice.

Now here comes R, and an Establishment Officer has got to learn this horrible little fact, that when you tell a person the truth, and not in any nasty way or otherwise, you get GIs. It's an interesting thing that a Commodore's Messenger is trained to run a message back and forth until he's got GIs. Why? He'll get GIs if he's hit the truth. She'll get GIs if she gets the truth, if we've got the why. A student that passes and deserves the pass, told that he has passed, has GIs. A student that passes and deserves the pass and told he hasn't passed, gets BIs, bad indicators right away. Why? It's not the truth. You'd say, "Well gee, that'd make the guy feel great, you know." Oh, no it doesn't. Now, a person who hasn't passed honestly and is told he hasn't past honestly, will have GIs. This is strange, and people really don't believe this, but the way you get GIs is with the truth.

So you could keep battering away at dev-t and should, but you must recognize that it is the yellow skin, just a symptom, it is not the disease. So therefore, you have the weapons of detecting unhattedness by spotting dev-t. So a continuous dev-t survey, going on on an org, will deliver into your hands the persons, you think at first glance, that are causing dev-t. No. It delivers into your hands the people who are unhatted, and unhatted to a degree that they are consuming the labors of two additional staff members just to take care of their nonsense, while their own post functions are not done. So, dev-t tells you at once that you have an added staff load and that you have additionally a camouflaged hole. A camouflaged hole is one that looks like there is something there but it is actually a hole, and of course that itself would generate dev-t. But because the person is so noisy, you will at once say, "Well, but look, we have a Qual Sec or something, he's always on my lines, always on my lines. Just yesterday he was saying that he couldn't get anybody to walk into the org while handing out the bills to the customers." He's very obvious as a being and he may be carrying the title of Qual Sec, but if he is not holding the actual post duties of a Qual Sec, he will generate just by that missingness, enormous dev-t, because the people all around him will have to wear the hat of Qual Sec, and cope with the nonsense that is coming from that pretended post.

Let's say you've done a little meter rundown on this guy, you've talked to him, a most casual thing, and you find out that he's, that he's got three girlfriends simultaneously, he's promised to marry two of them. You say, "Boy, you have got yourself in a tangle the like of which I have never heard of. Now the thing for you to do is get it straightened out right away." Tell him. Sigh, "Alright, OK," GIs, see? He knows he ought to. See all this, whatever it is, see? You hit the right why, you get the GIs. And the thing, the first thing to do is just tell him, tell him to do it, tell him to straighten it out, that's it. Don't monkey around with it, don't go shilly-shally on the thing, just tell him. Once you've got some kind of an idea, you know what you're talking about and so forth, you tell him.

So dev-t is a primary diagnostic tool for the illness of an org. It's got jaundice. A division gets jaundice. What's causing it? Now, it isn't a who. You shouldn't really think in terms of who. As we say, "Who is suppressive here? Who shall we fire? Who shall we shoot? Who needs to be flung out onto the garbage can?" That is not the way to think for an Establishment Officer. It's "Who needs hatting?" Crunch down over the head, clear to the ankles. Now, that's an interesting thing, isn't it? That you are actually working with a diagnostic illness, the symptom of which is, a diagnosable illness, the symptom of which is dev-t. It just means that somebody isn't doing his job and he's not only not doing his job, he's involving the time, effort and material of several other personnel. And you can have eight thousand six hundred and fifty-five staff members getting out the production of one small boy, who would probably be kicked in the head if they caught him at it.

Now, if you don't have GIs on this, it isn't right. It isn't that he's a bum, recalcitrant, doesn't agree with you, that he's just a dog anyhow. You see, you go off immediately and you find the right, wrong why, you go off into, you'll tend to go off into accusing the guy. You just didn't have the right why. You think it's because this guy is drinking and you say, "Now look, lay off the booze, no more of it see, that's it, no more booze," and so forth, and BIs. You say, "Well, of course he would have," you get the reasonability of the humanoid starts coming in. The cultural reasonability will get in your way. "Well, of course if he's told to lay off the booze, why he'll have..." That isn't what's wrong with him. You know you've missed. So you better find out, you better find out just like that.

It is very easy to think of this in terms of maliciousness, because the destructiveness is so great. And you as an Establishment Officer will continually receive, continually, continually receive demands, from the production and program side of the org, to shoot. They don't have any why, it just seems absolutely desperate. The Germans, by the way, in operating in World War II intelligence circles, could not believe that anybody could be as ineffective and as inefficient as Italian intelligence. And so they conceived that they were full of spies, and boy did they take that organization over with a crash. There was nothing wrong with Italian intelligence, it just wasn't hatted. But it looked to the Germans like they ought to all be sent to the nearest concentration camp and crematorium, shoot them, kill them. And in the desperation of operations with the funding going down the spout, the human emotion and reaction which can generate is very great. And its first expression and so forth is, "Them guys is doin' us in. Where are some lions to throw them to?" So if you wound up automatically going overboard, sacking, firing, doing in, comm-eving, shooting every person who was indicated to you must be shot, you would soon have no organization and the people in it would be so terrified that they would lose the war like Italy did.

Now, you say an Establishment Officer has no business inquiring this deeply into people's lives. That'll only happen to an Establishment Officer who doesn't find the right whys. People love to have their lives inquired into, actually, it's a great relief. But the psychoanalyst is not liked in this degree because he finds the wrong why, he's indicating the wrong why. Psychoanalyst, idea of the psychoanalyst using Dianetics, gets him down the track, finds out that he was mad as a baby at his father when he failed to change his diapers. So while the guy is down the track he says to him, "Now, the reason this, what's wrong with you is, you hate your father because he didn't change your diapers." The guy goes out and spins. You think I'm just pulling a long bow, no, that is actual, that is an actual case, a little history.

You can generate a level of insecurity in an organization this way which is unbelievable. Posts aren't safe, nothing is safe, eventually you hear a rumor coming up the line, "I don't think it would be safe to be an executive. The last six on that post have been removed." Actually, I've had this come up in sessions, read it in work sheets. "But I really don't want to be an executive, you see, because they always get shot." That kind of a thing can generate in an organization where the yellow skin has gotten very, very, very yellow, because people trying to get things done do not have necessarily time to go down and find why this division will not send out the bills. And you'll find out that they think bill is the name of a friend they had once. The depths to which humans can sink in terms of non-comprehension are very, very low. That is no reason to lose your faith in the whole human race because the funny thing is, is they can be pulled up, too.

And they started trying to tell me, "Well, it really works you know, it, he did hate his father because of the diaper change and, but I've never gotten him to remember his childhood before. So Dianetics is OK." And he never did it, he didn't null the thing and he didn't go for earlier similar and he didn't find anything else. In the first place, he also, he already knew what was wrong with the fellow because he hated his father, but yet the guy didn't hate his father at all. You see what I mean.

We had a very funny one happen last night, a very, very funny one happen. Three stewards had slipped in the last twenty-four, forty-eight hours. One of them had fallen heavily, another one of them had broken all the dishes on the tray, another one had run into a door. And so I, it took actually two investigations, and I sent a messenger down to investigate this and she came back. Well, the reason why she came back is she assumed she knew the answer, found that it wasn't so, so returned to me to tell me that they were just being careless, you see? I actually was interested how she thought and why she came to this conclusion, and I found out that she already knew why before she went and looked, and then when she found it wasn't why, she didn't look for a new why. In other words, she knew before she went and having found it wasn't true, why she just discarded the investigation, she didn't find a new why. Do you follow?

So, know before you go, find it, indicate it, say, "Look. Do it." Give him the order, that's it. It doesn't matter how you find the information, the first action is the straightforward one of telling him, if you get GIs you've got it, if you didn't get GIs you haven't got it. You got it? If you didn't get GIs then immediately find the right why. Actually there is a Class VIII who is drifting around the ship right now, she has probably not had the right why found, and she feels very gloomy. We came close to it but it was too much to work with. Too many chances, too much dev-t, too many snarls on the lines, too upsetting, and it was interrupting production to a degree that you just couldn't keep straightening this body out, because it was wrong every day. Get it all straightened out and next day it's all wrong, next day straighten it all out and it's all wrong, and the next day you straighten it out and it's all wrong, and the next day you straighten it out it's all wrong. Dowww.

The other one was a little sharper, mostly because I kept banging her back into the investigation, and it sounds, doesn't sound possible, but somebody, the floor of the galley was soaking wet and the stewards were getting their feet wet and then were walking out in rubber soled or leather heels, a little bit of grease that'll get on such water, they were walking out with slippery shoes. And they were sliding and skidding and running into things like mad, and what had actually happened was, is three days before now, during two of those days people were getting hurt, the dish washer had cut her finger. And she now wore huge gauntlets; gauntlets, a glove with a long arm; which had a point which dropped way below the arm. In other words, back they came, and was washing the dishes with the water streaming back along the sleeve of this glove, and it was running onto the floor in streams, in utter streams.

This becomes an auditing problem, there's some deep-seated something wrong. Now, what do you do with a person like that? Do you leave them on the lines and beat your brains out and begin to hate the human race? No. We got the first case, you found out what it was, got GIs, you told him, he did it. See? That's that, they're straightened out. This is a perfectly lousy horrible staff member, that has never worked before. Now he all of a sudden, he's working fine. See? That's great. Next one, you find, you tell him, you search, do what works and so forth, and you keep at and you patch it up and so forth, and what you're really trying to do is get Central Files filed. You know? And next day it's wrong and he's still got them out and he put them down, and he's taken the orders from a dock worker and he, sigh, and the next day... He's generating dev-t, he's generating dev-t.

And the messenger said to her, "Where's all this water coming from?" And she says, "I think the Jackson boiler is leaking," and looked around with the water running off her sleeve onto the floor. There's still a funny bit. The messenger came back and told me there was water on the floor of the galley and I said, "How did it get there?" and she told me how and I said, "Well, did you point this out to her?" And she looked sort of vague and said, "Well, no." So I said, "You go back and tell her to roll up the sleeves of those gloves and where it is coming from." And she did so and the dish washer thanked her very much. It was a great relief to the dish washer to find out how that floor was getting wet.

There's something you should know about this type of individual and this is one for you to write down on the inside of your forehead in letters of fire. If they generate dev-t for you, they are raising hell with everybody else around them, because you are the expert, and the other people around them aren't and they can't defend themselves against it. And they're trying to work in the middle of all this howling noise. If he generates dev-t for you, if he's hard to handle, he is hell on other people's lines. You are only getting a small portion of what he is handing out elsewhere. And when you're training executives, it is the most remarkable thing that that simple remark to an upper level executive will bring in the most stunned look and then, "Say, you know that's true." You will get a considerable reaction. They had just, it never occurred to them that the guy who is generating dev-t for them on their post, back down the lines and out of sight has got his staff tied in knots.

Now, that is an oddball investigation which an Establishment Officer would think is outside of his premises, because it isn't on a program sent down by the Commanding Officer. It isn't on a formal program, it is something, simply something you would have to do sixteen hours a day as an Establishing Officer. Continuous, continuous discoveries of why, because it's the why you can't hat, it's the why that's going wrong, and it has to do with an individual. And what do you know, there's always a why.

Alright, this guy you can't handle. Well, you could give him a comm-ev or something and offload him and so on. But there is another way to handle this, there is another way to handle this, and you can salvage personnel and it is well worthwhile to salvage personnel. You don't carry it to extreme, extreme lengths, you give them a chance and you always give them a chance.

Now at command level, these discoveries or workouts which then go into a why and which go into a formal program of do this, do that, do the other thing, are normally worked out to the last inch and they have targets and certain things have to be done on these targets. You have an example of that, one has just come out, and it gives the Establishment Officer something to do in each one of these cases. And I found out the only person who could do it would be the Establishment Officer. There wasn't anybody else in that tight a communication, there wasn't something you could do otherwise. There is usually a why.

Now, if in an organization, if you were working let us say in AOLA or someplace like that, you should have an organization called a Project Force. It would be the Estate Project Force. Now that isn't just somebody assigned there, well, let me show you what will happen with one of these. If this isn't handled correctly, the most remarkable things will happen. You assign this guy to Estate Project Force until he can be processed and remedied in some way. The most remarkable thing will now happen. People will use that as a personnel pool and they put him right back in the org. You get him over there and they put him right back in the org. Because they're short of personnel, they look on this thing as a personnel pool.

It is not that people won't get out the bulk mailing, there is usually some huge bug. Now, that would be a command level investigation, evaluation and program. Bulk mailing stat low, wof wof wof, investigation, he goes around and he finds this, he asks this, he asks some Establishment Officers and so forth, and he finds a why. He finds the general, big, broad why. They weren't given any postage. Postage has not been FPed for in the last, and the reason for that is, is not that there is no money, but that it isn't on FP number one done by Joe Smogesboeg for Keokuk and applied to this org without further questioning or... It'll be some damn weird, cross line which just breaks the back of things. Now that's a production, that's a production target and investigation. You wouldn't have too much to do with that until it came down to remedying the unhattedness which would cause it, and at that moment you do have something to do with it. So there's always a target or two kicking around that has to do with the unhattedness of it.

Well, people who are just coming into the org could also come in through an Estate Project Force, so there's an Estate Project Force category A, which are people who are just coming in and getting in their basics before you let them onto a post. And then there's category B, those who have had a chance and are put back there until they're handled. Well, the category Bs, you better not let those back in on your lines before they are handled. Now, in l846 the psychiatrist; or the alienist they called him then, they didn't have psychiatrists yet; he simply kept the person employed and exercised. And employment and exercise, and a bit of a change of environment and something to do, will do remarkable things with people. It'll extrovert them, it'll handle them most remarkably. If in the meantime he's over there going up through, on his part time study, his basic courses and that sort of thing, and getting his hat on, getting his fundamentals on and so forth, why, he can have another chance. You'll find out that you will bring a lot of them out that way. So there should be some such unit. But if it's handled wrong...

I found one. There was a direct why of unhattedness just last night. I found out that a folder to be able to tell the difference between one type of income and another type of income in the Sea Org was causing a treasury division never to work at collecting money, because the money it had and was collecting didn't belong to it. They immediately assumed that that belonged to it and then neglected a huge amount of collections because they, well, they didn't need it and they were all right. It's like saying the Bide-a-Wee Biscuit Company says that they, says that Uneeda Biscuits is solvent, so we needn't bother. You can't figure one that dim and you wouldn't believe it, but demand after demand after demand after demand after please, my god, after practically a screaming fit of, "Give me the income for l971 of org A," wouldn't, wouldn't. Had it right there sitting on the desk. The income of org A was considered to be the income of org B. And so, what was all the flap about? "There's plenty of money. Org B is making fabulous quantities of money."

Now, let us say we treat the guy who is just coming into the organization, we put him on an Estate Project Force and there he is, and he does his part time study and his basics, and then we just leave him there and we forget him. See, the idea can get around that you don't take anybody out of Estate Project Forces. The guy will get parked. If you bring him in as an HCO expeditor, you will find out he's immediately sneaked onto a post untrained. Nearly all of our major post failures here have occurred when a recruit came to Flag who had no training and was immediately put on an organizational post. He had no basics. It was the most uneconomical thing you ever heard of. Four of them put on such a post as a mimeo files, eight months later had accomplished nothing. They had wasted that whole eight months, they just didn't have any basics in.

You say nothing can be that dumb. Well, it can get dumber than that. "There is plenty of money in Switzerland. Why should we make money?" I know it just overwhelms you. You say, "Well, geez, how can anybody think that?" And that didn't unravel until I suddenly realized and then proved it, that not one single scrap of finance policy was known to the people on those lines, not one tiny scrap, not a single paragraph. Income must be greater than outgo, not known.

Now, if you just let that Steward's Project Force, or Deck Project Force or Engineer Project Force or something like that, wander around and be put on posts and given hats, the whole thing is defeated at once. Immediately you get a defeat. So it is a one job, one place, one time. And when that one job, one place, one time is violated, then you will not get any result from your action of ordering somebody to the Estate Project Force until case and study are handled. It takes an MA of that division or section in charge of that force. They usually work on projects, somebody scribbles up a project for them; do this, do that, do the other thing. You know, paint the this and polish the that and refloor the this and move the that.

Now, there's a much more subtle one that was not known; much more subtle. The management organization must be supported by the service organization attached to it. And that's in policy and it isn't kidding, because if that management organization is so lousy that it can't make that service organization right next to it solvent, it doesn't have any business trying to fill its pockets up full of remote, far away organization incomes. Right? So that policy is what it means. It was the unknowness of both of these two policies that pointed up the fact that there's a total unknowness of any Scientology finance policy being used in that zone of management. Why is it unknown? Somebody must have said at some time or another, "We're not on proportionate pay in this org, so therefore policy doesn't apply." And I know that earlier it was stated, "This is an SO organization, so Scientology org organization policy doesn't apply." I know that.

Now, these guys are actually then doing productive work so they are not a drag on the organization. You got it? So this is the one job, one place, one time thing, but a person who is part of that division, that is to say like you take a deck division. The deck has got to furnish a person who then is designated as an MA. He works with them and he musters them and he keeps them working. If he's in Steward's, then a steward who is a regular member of the Steward's Force is with them and telling them where to work and what to do and furnishing their supplies. You got it? Now, that is what is known as a Project Force, and a Project Force is not something where you just throw some people and so on. It is a run thing because it is valuable. You will eventually get some people out of it.

Now, you don't have to find that why on individuals any further than that, because there's a thing called a disagreements check. And disagreements check can be done in department thirteen, and department thirteen should know how to do a disagreements check without backlogging it for the next six months. So you will find one of these wild twists wherever it is going wrong. They're very difficult to believe and so in the realm of the incredible, it is easy to substitute for them, "Shoot him. He's a traitor, he's treasonable. Nobody in his right mind could think that." Well, that may be true and maybe he isn't in his right mind.

Now the person A who comes into the Project Force, when he comes into that Project Force, when he's got some of his basics in, he's got his basic SO member hat or his SS I, his SS II, this sort of thing, he's got those basics studied in his part time study, he could move up into an org and be hatted or he could move up straight into the force where he is part of the project force of. Now he is a posted post. You move him out of the Project Force into the division of which he is a project force. Do you get the idea? Now he can be posted as a post. You'll find the people in that division will normally attempt to scramble all this up in their anxiety to get personnel. Their anxiety to get personnel is a method of spreading dev-t throughout the entire organization. The next thing you know, every plate in the steward's department is broken, and if you look back on it as to why and you'll find out that you, there had been fifteen people at one time or another sent to the Steward's Project Force in order to recover. And you'll find out they didn't study, they didn't get any auditing, they didn't do any work either, but they simply got posted as stewards. You got it? Fah! The whole steward's department will disintegrate. The chief steward is doing her nut and starting to scream at people and wants to shoot people out of hand, you got the idea. It's a wild and horrible scene.

Now, there is a scale of management actions which begins with case and then goes into other, it's in policy, there's no reason to quote it. The first thing you've sounded out is the person's case in the matter and that's when you're checking out personnel, mostly for employment or recruitment. Now, you start filling up an org with people whose cases are below the center line of an OCA, and you're going to be in trouble. Now, it is elementary, the reading of these graphs. Now, you've turned over the second page of an OCA, you will find out that testing has done a beautiful analysis of the case that reads like a horoscope. And that's fine and the public love them. That isn't how I use them. You use an OCA simply and totally this way: Down on the left below the center line, wild screamingly out of valence; down on the right, evil purpose, wildly nuts. And that is all you need to know except this one fact, that a person who is very theety wheety has tremendous number of significances and has a very high OCA. They're kind of fey. It's all very significant. Super significances.

So there is a way to salvage people. You don't just comm-ev him and fitness board him, offload, necessarily. If they're too foggy, if it is just too difficult, if there just isn't any possibility of ever, and this guy was falsely contracted to come in and he was obviously a pc... We just had a guy who had dev-t scattered through this whole ship, he's seven months overdue from a leave he was granted, suddenly write in and he wants to come back now and join the ship and so on, and there wasn't an auditor in the joint would audit him except one. He wants to come back because he's ready for more processing. You get where we have now the pc, the difference between the pc and the staff member?

"Oh, I was wondering if you'd come around and see me today because yesterday I sort of had an idea that I saw you looking in my direction and this told me somehow, when I got up this morning I was almost certain..." It's all sort of not quite with it or on it. Such a person with super-significance and a high OCA will fall on the OCA under processing to an extremely low left side and then a very low right side, and then will come back up into normal range and be sane.

If your staff is involved in the business it's involved in, it is handling the world. And believe me, it's got no time to have pcs within it it also is handling, because it won't make it. The amount of dev-t would engulf it, interiorize it and it will not be able to function. So there is your category one. The first thing, that is the guy, is he alright, isn't he alright. Alright, he isn't alright, I have given you the methods of establishing that he isn't alright, and I've given you the methods of handling him when he isn't alright. And if you look these things over, you'll find out that it's a sort of a standard tech like running ARC Straightwire on a pc. It is standard administrative tech. This is what you do.

I've now told you in these few sentences all you need to know about an OCA, and if anybody gives you any more significances than this, you don't need them. That's all you ever use. Now, that can be interrupted by a D of P evaluating an OCA, telling people what to write on the OCA, falsifying an OCA, or an OCA graph being done by somebody who has been a test I/C and knows all the right answers. That is usually caught up by an aptitude test and an aptitude test, when it grades below sixty-five, is a person who will break things and will have accidents. You don't want too much to do with him.

Now, category two the guy's perfectly all right and so forth and you're going to train him and up along the line, you're going to hat him and you're away. And the next thing you know, when you've got a division that's functioning and everything's fine and the guy can be hatted and he goes to study and see, ratta-tat-tatta-tat-tatta-tat-tat. What you're going to bog on is that category one.

So the OCA can be cross-checked with the aptitude test. Believe me, I've told you everything you need to know about an OCA or an Oxford, the Oxford Capacity Analysis or the American Personality Analysis. That's all you need to know. Now, the American Personality Analysis does not have the nice center line, it's just the middle of the graph, it's the plus and minus. The OCA has a much better looking and easier to read graph. You look at the two graphs and you'll find out they're both the same except one's got shaded areas properly and the other one hasn't.

Now, you could actually as an Establishment Officer, get totally fixated on this. We had an Establishment Officer on the trainee level do this. He got fixated on one staff member who couldn't do his job and he spent all of his time in that division trying desperately to get this fellow hatted and to get him to do his job. It was the reward of a downstat and when he wound up, he didn't have a division. You see this?

This tells you a great deal about personnel, right? Now, those tests which require opinion to evaluate, are tests that you want nothing to do with. Like the Rorschach, the Minnesota multi-phasic. You might as well just go out in the pasture with a shovel, you'd get the same answers, if you pardon my crudity. But the psychologist has gone over into the significances of his own evaluations because he is so significant and his right, left side graph would go down if he were processed, and then the left side, right side would go down if he were processed, and then they would come back up. You see that that throws your significance test, do you get it?

Now, do you know that a C/S can get fixated similarly. He doesn't do the normal steps to give himself trained auditors. He sticks. He just keeps writing them, let us say, he just keeps writing them, writing them, writing them notes, writing them notes, writing them notes, writing them notes. The notes are getting crosser and crosser, there's more and more adrenalin, the stuff that makes people angry, getting in to glandular fluid getting into those notes. He's stuck. It's like he's, he's got a three part process and he keeps running part one, part one, part one, part one, and he never runs part two or part three, and so of course the pc never recovers. The situation isn't handled because there's three parts to the process. Now, I'll show you how wicked this can get. So the C/S who is a training officer and one you will have to train, sooner or later you will have, you'll find, and you'll say, "Well, my god, the man is a Class XII or something. We know all these, oh yeah."

If anybody ever gave you a Rorschach and you simply said; Rorschach's the inkblot test, and the way they make them is they drop some ink on one side of a sheet of paper and then they fold the paper over and then open it up again, and now they've got inkblots on both sides and that makes an inkblot. And then you're supposed to look at the inkblot and see what you see in it, that sort of thing. If anybody ever gave you one of these things, don't ever bother to answer much and say, "I don't see anything in it." It absolutely ruins the test. Or say, "It's ink on a piece of paper." Actually, it was a child's game.

An auditor very seldom knows anything about administration or administrative procedures and that is one of their weaknesses. Just because the guy is a Class VIII they make him an HCO Exec Sec, but he's never cracked a book on the subject of the standard tech of HCO. In other words, they didn't get an HCO Area Secretary and they lost an auditor. So you're going to have to hat such guys because that thing will occur. Now, it's a very terrific thing when you've got a guy who is a high classed auditor who is also a trained administrator. Oh wow this is, this is bombs, this is great, terrific. But it can get lopsided, you can also have a staff member who doesn't even know their ARC triangle, and yet he knows something about administrative tech but he's falling on his head all the time, all the time, all the time. And you finally find out he doesn't know the ARC triangle.

Now, most of these tests and so forth were born out of the area of phrenology, which is reading the bumps on people's skulls to tell their character, and that's where psychology came from in the first place, and why they eventually went deeper and thought it was the brain. You think I'm kidding now, I'm giving the actual fact.

In other words, he didn't know some tech, he didn't know some HCOBs, and you'll find people on administrative posts say, "The HCOBs don't have anything to do with us." And you'll find the people on the tech posts say, "The HCOPLs don't have anything to do with us." And you'll find both conditions. So here's this C/S and he isn't making auditors, for some known or other, he can't make auditors. And he keeps telling them, and he will tell you if you're trying to hat him and establish this thing, he will tell you, "But, but, I just keep, I, I tell them everything I know, I insist on it, I send them to ethics and sometimes and or, but I, I do, I, I follow the rules, I keep sending them to cramming and sending them to cramming and sending them to cramming. As a matter of fact, right this minute I only have three auditors auditing because all the rest of them are in cramming." Now, this C/S is stuck on step two. He's done one and two but he hasn't done three. And he will keep doing one and two and one and two and one and two, and one and two, and two and two, and he's just going down the spout. He isn't doing the whole procedure. The third one is retread.

IQ, precisely timed, is another factor. You don't want anything to do with a person whose IQ is below seventy. I'm now talking about personnel. You want to regard with some suspicion somebody whose IQ is only ninety, and processing will raise an IQ at the rate of about one point an hour of processing. These are really the three types of tests.

So you instruct him, sure he'll be perfectly willing to write an auditor instructions a few times. The next one, you're perfectly willing to get this guy, you're perfectly willing to get this fellow crammed. "Yeah we're cramming, we've got a good cramming officer who finds the why, why the guy goofed up and he crammed him and he did everything you said and the guy came back on post and when he got back he crammed him again, he's a good cramming officer, brilliant cramming officer." The whole HGC is just caving in, because he's forgotten the third step, retread. You cram and you cram and you cram, then you say, "This one ain't going to make it." This is a retread.

Now, there are some other tests, there are some other tests that are given, such as how often can you, how long does it take for you to arrange the blocks on and get the round pins into the round holes and square pins into the square holes. This type of spatial relationship test, and so on. And they had one, and those are very quick tests and they're usually were used by Ds of P to determine how many hours of processing somebody needed or something like that. A little, little test that only took five or ten minutes, it only took a short period of time. I say it only took five or ten minutes to evaluate, it might take much longer than that to do. But these tests were thrown out very early in Scientology because Mary Sue could do them all in one minute and thirty seconds and they're supposed to take twenty minutes or a half an hour. So they didn't think the test had any validity, because it had no grade range for one minute and thirty seconds.

Now, a retread is a specific thing. It is just a method four which is just on the meter finding any misunderstood word with regard to a specific piece of material, word clearing. Very, very high, the other tech, and very easy to do and one that you yourself should know how to do like that. "What in your hat don't you understand?" Too broad a question. "Is there anything in this PL, is there a misunderstood word in this policy letter?" And you've tried to get it in, you can't get it in. "Is there a misunderstood word?" and you get a read. You say, "What is that?" It cleared up, it cleared up. That's it, bong, that's right. It's not a method two, it doesn't interrupt auditing, it doesn't ruin his case, and it doesn't upset C/Ses.

Now you are dealing, you are dealing in personnel then, against certain stable things, and these stable things are those tests, and I've now given you the types of tests. There are some other things which you can evaluate personnel against, which is past record. But that is subject to false reports. But they're, it has validity. Statistics are usually fairly valuable, and the higher in the org the statistic is, the more validity it has. The individual statistic of how many envelopes he stamped today, or something like that, have a tendency to be falsified or not be as accurate. But the higher you go, the wider a span of org the statistic represented, the more value, validity it has.

So, the guy fails to send him to retread, and retread simply consists of find the method four of this particular body of materials. They're usually given the examination. And this specific body of materials and so forth, he doesn't know anything about, so they take that whole body of materials and makes him redo it. And they do, they method four it. "Misunderstood word, any misunderstood word?" and they clear it up and the guy restudies that, and he polishes up this other thing that he doesn't know much about and so forth, and he comes back and he starts auditing again. Alright.

Well, let's start at the obvious. The Commanding Officer of an organization whose gross income and paid completions were very high, you know, that sort of thing, that's, the validity of it is great. But somebody who licked stamps, the validity of that certificate isn't, you see, that's open to question. But no statistic at all and he never kept a statistic on the post, is also terribly significant. So therefore, the evaluation of personnel can be done with fair rapidity. It includes the test battery, it includes his ethics record, it includes his personnel record and it includes any record of statistics the person might have.

So we're willing to instruct him this time, instruct him, and we'll write him C/Ses which are OK and then we'll send him to cramming and we'll send him to cramming and we'll send him to cramming, and it's getting too thick again. What happens this time? Do we shoot him? No, we send him to retrain. Now, what's retrain? Retrain is the entire course as any green student would take it, from beginning to end. An auditor's allowed one retread, one retrain and that's it. That's all anybody is willing to spend. Remember it's expensive, you're spending coins, you're spending auditor coins, you're spending supervisor coins and so forth in doing such a thing. You are spending something when you handle a personnel, or when you order him to be handled, you're spending coins of supervision, coins of auditing and so on, you're spending the coins of the org. So, don't always spend them on the same guy.

Now, that is very, very good to know; that you can actually have some index of evaluation. You will err more in the direction of failing to believe it than you will err in any other direction. The person had a very, very thick ethics folder and he was very, very wrong, and you say, "Well, he's a good boy now and so therefore we will..." and oh god, you've had it. Now another thing is, is the strange hopefulness that people will get, in lower level organizations particularly, of putting somebody on a post just to have a body there, and hopeful that then auditing will handle the person.

Now, you will sometime or another, I hope this doesn't happen to you but it possibly will, you as an Establishment Officer you'll get into a position where all of a sudden you'll find out the third step is missing. They've never done it. "Yes well, we couldn't ask them to retread because it would ARC break them." We found that the other day, "We never send a guy to cramming because it might ARC break him." How about all the pcs he's ARC breaking, you see? "Uh, don't think of those."...body on anything. Not auditors, they just never have retreaded anybody on anything. And you find out they've all been to cramming and they've been to cramming and they've been to cramming and they've been to cramming and they've been word cleared and they've been to cramming, and they've been chitted and they've been given courts, and they've been yelled at and given courts and sent to cramming.

Now, it is true that auditing will handle a person, but you as an Establishment Officer have to know the degraded being technology. There are two or three policy letters with, HCOBs with regard to this which make this very, very plain and should be part of any Establishment Officer's packs, because he'll fall into this hole. Orgs since time immemorial have fallen into this same hole. Yes, yes, it's perfectly true that a hundred hours of processing and all of his expanded lower grades and that sort of thing and so on, will make this person far more able than he is. That's perfectly true. You've hired a pc.

It's the third one's missing, they never got retreaded. And what's normally missing? It is a missing gradient in study and it has to be found. They can't learn for some reason or other, or they can't do for some reason or other. And nobody did send this guy to get him to do, nobody sent him to the Steward's Project Force, nobody sent him to the Deck Project Force to get him to do something, to be able to confront MEST, to be able to be there in the universe instead of just sitting there figure-figure-figure-figure-figure. See? Nobody got him exteriorized, nobody extroverted him, made him look outward, reach outward, nobody made him do this and your whole thing is backlogged. And you're in a horrible position of having to send three quarters of the division for retread of their hats or retread of, or Steward's Project Force, and you haven't got any division at all. That's it. Gone. What do you do? You send them. Heroic, isn't it?

Now, a staff member is somebody who handles pcs. Pcs do not easily handle the public and you've just mixed your personnel pools. You've tried to take your staff from the pc pool. Now, the second you put him on staff he will absorb or tend to absorb all of the auditing that should be available for staff, and the F/N VGI percentage of your staff will fall if you have too many of these people, because you will be processing them and you will not be processing the staff at large. So therefore, the staff at large will be going for weeks, months, even a year without a session, while obsessively people in the department of processing will go on continuously processing Joe Schmoe because he's in such terrible shape. So you're rewarding a down stat and the principle of rewarding a down stat is the principle which drives civilizations right on out the bottom. He really ought to be out there with a job, shoveling coal or something, and buying his processing.

Well, if you emptied out stewards to that degree, you wouldn't have any food on the ship, so there's got to be some sense employed there one way or the other, of the Product Officer would start screaming like mad. But you could work out something there which one went at a time, or two went at a time, while the crew was fed food that was burned or... You get the difficulties that you'd run into? Well, actually what you do is you, you just get the people there to cope like mad, you just shoot them if any dev-t occurs anywhere. You, you say, "These are your lines, this is your job, let's see some production on the job," and you start peeling the guys off one after the other for retread. In other words you hold it by Fort Maine, which means just main force. "That's it, yup, that's it. You gotta, you gotta do it, that's it. I'm sorry, I know it is tough that you are not permitted to go up to, go up to the sun deck every day and study, but your job right here is peeling potatoes. So, I'm sure you can do that."

Now, you can get very soft in the head on this. "Poor old Joe Schmoe is a good fellow, let's send him to Flag where his case really can be handled." It's very true that Flag could handle his case, but it's also true in many instances that Flag is not about to. Now, that's very important to an Establishment Officer because you'll find these people scattered through your divisions. So how do you estimate this sort of thing? Well, by the factors I have given you and by the thickness of his pc folder while on staff, plus his current meter check. Now, an Establishment Officer should know all about meter checks and meter checks are not sec checks. You just put the guy on the meter, what does he read, that's it. Where's his TA, does he F/N, does he have a dirty needle? It's just a meter check, you just hand him the cans. Furthermore interviewing and so forth with a pc on a meter is a very, very interesting activity because you will immediately find the charged up areas.

Now, you can find a right why and you can spring it out. Now your expertise is really put to the absolute limit of test. Now you've really got to be expert because you're handling people who long since should have been retreaded, who should have been. You'll find people scattered around who have never done any basics, they don't know why they're there, they haven't got any orientation. The first thing to conclude about them, wrongly, is that they are malicious, that they are insane, and the wrong thing to do is instantly shoot them. I'm giving you ways and means by which this is handled. The right thing to do about it is figure it out, figure out why, get them on post somehow, and they've never done their basics, well, if you can spare one who has never done his basics and there's only one, you're very lucky. And immediately send him back to do his basics. Get him over into the Deck Project Force, Steward's Project Force, something like that, Estate Project Force, you know, and get him to do his basics and so forth and come back on, that's fine.

Now, I always do a D of P interview metered. A personnel interview I would also do metered, if it really came down to the fact that the person was on staff and I was trying to find out what was bugging him. Not somebody you're hiring off the street. I would have him on a meter and I would have an idea, I would make a bunch of guesses, let me tell you how I would do this. I'd make a bunch of guesses. Is it his home life, is it his wife, is it his boss, is it an overload, is it because he can't study? I'd just do a little bit of an assessment list, see, I'd think of all the things that might be bugging this guy. And with your experience which you would pick up very rapidly; if you haven't got it already you would pick it up with great speed, because it is survival for an Establishment Officer to accumulate more experience in one small unit of time than anybody else does in a lifetime. Experience with handling something.

But what if you had nine people in the division and you had eight of them like that? Now you're really in a, you really, you really got to be on the ball. You'll need every piece of trickery that I've been able to teach you to get the guy to say something to you so that you can now find out. This is not, you know, tricking him into anything, it's beyond, you've got to be on the ball.

So you do his little list and you sit him down, you say, "Well Charlie, I want to ask you about some things now. How about your blok-a-blogs and how about your wok-a-blogs and how about the wik-a-wogs and your home life, and how's your wife treating you these days, and so on and etcetera and so on," and my god, you find out it's his boss. He was bugged on the subject of his immediate senior. His wife was getting a divorce from him, his creditors who were charging into him from all sides, these things don't bother him at all. So you could a terrible mistake by assuming that you knew all about this person. "Well, Charlie is getting a divorce you know, I mean of course he's upset." And that doesn't bother him a bit. You see what I mean?

So don't think that you won't evaluate anything. I would say the number of evaluations that you will do in a single day would be a very, very light day of evaluations if it fell down to four. Twenty, yes. But this isn't the type of evaluating that you do by writing it all up and writing up a big program. You do your evaluation, you've got the why, you say a little plan and you boom, that's the order. "Roll up the sleeves of those gloves." You got it?

So an interview of you standing around frowning at the guy and talking to him and trying to get out of him somehow or another what is this, I mean how come he keeps being absolutely unable to put file folders back in the files, and how is he so disturbed that he never seems to be able to do this, all he does is take them out and put them on the floor. You're trying to hat this guy to make some files, you see, how he doesn't file the invoices into the base file, you know? And you argue with him and you talk to him and you tell him a half a dozen times and you keep finding this is not done, and it's bog, there you are. See? And you can just waste fantastic quantities of time and yourself generate a lot of dev-t by throwing the guy into cramming, by sending the guy for a disagreements check, for doing this, doing that, doing a lot of other things, because you're trying to do something before you know a why. And so, before you take any broad, sweeping actions on a case, you better know why.

Now, you're handling, you're handling human beings and they have feelings and H E and R is definitely a commodity, human emotion and reaction is definitely a commodity, and when it is wrongly handled, god help us. It is correctly handled by finding right whys, by indicating the correct action, and by being very forthright and never being reasonable about it. Once you've found it, that's it. Now, you'll get some people that this doesn't work on, obviously doesn't work on because they don't better at all. But you see, you're right back there to the guy who is a sort of a pc. Now you have to decide what do you do with him, and what's he going to do as a Steward's Project Force or where's he going to go, how's he going to do his basics and so on, because this is an auditing situation.

Now, there are certain lists that help you out a great deal. When you send somebody to study who can't study, why, there's a study correction list. We're rich in this material now. You go down the study correction list and you will find why he can't study. It is a very long formidable list and it's an auditing action, and an Establishment Officer would not be doing it for the excellent reason that it's an auditing session. And it would have to be done by an auditor and it'd have to be done at that point of the pc's program that it could be done. You can suddenly order these things into the middle of a program and practically wreck the case. C/Ses will raise hell with you at that moment and they will say, "You get off my lines and so on, and stop ordering these people over to correction because they're all here and we don't want 'em." And the reason for it is is they then have to pick up the pieces, and they get tired of picking up these pieces and then they take it out on the people who ordered the people to have these actions.

Now, this is going to be requiring handling in depth of the being who is way off the rails. He's so far off the rails, you won't be able to make it, because he's basically out of communication, he's other-purposed, he has problems he couldn't even, he doesn't even know he has. After auditing him for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours, the auditor finally comes up with, the guy finally comes up and realizes that he has a problem all the time with his mother, but his mother's been dead for twenty years. In other words, you're looking at aberration, aberration. You're not looking at insanity. Aberration is just the basis of out-points.

Now, you've right now got salted through the organization about a hundred and fifty people who have had a rather down tone set of questions asked them. They got reads on these things. He talks about you're about to shoot the organization, you know I mean, they're all sort of down tone, they're really trying to leave or something, and this kind of thing you see, they're very down tone. And they've got lots of reads on them that weren't cleaned up. I took four of them, got a twelve auditor to clean them up on four pcs, and they felt marvelous right afterwards. See? So these checklists and so on which then don't get anything handled, can be sometimes very gruesome. So don't make them down tone or accusative. You can ask the guy anything you want to ask him and he will feel very good as long as you don't invalidate him too heavily in the questions.

I probably didn't make that too clear to you, by the way. There's the insane, the PTS and the aberrated. There're three, there are three categories of being which produce non-optimum behavior. They are three entirely different things. The insane, you detect them by graphs and behavior and so on. The PTS, they by the way cry a lot and get weird and go up and down and look hollow-eyed, or sometimes on a different emotional band they suddenly go antagonistic and then they're nice and then they're propitiative, and it's weird, it's non-optimum behavior. PTS. And then aberrated, the guy thinks it's perfectly all right to pour the baking powder down the funnel. He's just aberrated, he's got out-points. That is handled with an HC list. It's called an HC list because there was one time going to be something called a Hubbard Counselor and it's still got the list and it's an out-point list and it's simply assessed. Where's this guy got data series out-points crossed in his skull? And it'll make him look very stupid. So there is this other category. I should outline those three to you very precisely. The insane, he'll pull out the rug. PTS, he's just is on everybody's lines. The aberrated, he'll make stupid errors that you won't believe. The insane will make errors that weren't errors. He knows all the time the right way to do it, but if he does it this other way, oh boy. Now he, he fortunately is fairly rare. Now, these are your three categories of that lowest grade of personnel. You move up the line, you haven't got anything to worry about. You haven't got anything to worry about at all.

You get off, you see you can get easily off into the sec check zone. When I'm talking about this little list of, "Is it your wife and is it this and that," I'm not talking about sec checks, I'm not talking about, "Are you really stealing money?" I might say, "Have you got overts?" but I wouldn't try to tell him what they were. You get what I mean? See, you just want to find out the zone where he's having trouble with. You're not auditing him. One of the first things you do when you do that say, "I'm not auditing you." Yeah, you let him talk about them a little bit and you'll probably get an F/N. I wouldn't turn it into a big auditing session, but I would find out such a thing, the guy just can't bear to study.

Now, stupidity and the essence of stupidity cannot only be produced by outpoints, it can be just missing data, but that is another thing, and that is the guy who isn't trained or hatted and has missed his gradients. He does not know what a potato peeler is, he's never checked out on the thing. Do you see? You run into that all the time, that's, that's normal; but what it is is omitted technology. Now, you right now are dealing with this whole field of omitted technology; where a staff is generally unhatted, their technology has been omitted. It isn't that it didn't exist, it's just they didn't study it, they didn't read it. So anybody whose behavior is peculiar falls under this third category. There's, it's an out-point situation, he's just an out-point situation, it's omitted data is the out-point that you're looking at with out study. So they fall into those three categories, the insane, the PTS and the out-point.

We had some fellow who went into a total confusion, he was on the FEBC. He arrived here, he was in a total confusion, he was in terrible shape. Every time he tried to read an HCOB, he had tried to read one one time in a former org he was in while he was on drugs or something, and people tried to clean this up and that didn't clean up, and he just went sort of dweee every time he started to read an HCOB or a policy letter. Now that's interesting. He has to take an OEC doesn't he? So we pinned up a bulletin upside down on the wall and had him confront it for two hours and he came through it. There's a mention of this kind of thing in study tech.

Out-point can also be other things, you see, the guy can actually be aberratedly out-point. He actually believes that a proper number sequence is two, one, three and he will really insist to you that it's two, one, three. And you say, "No, it's one, two, three," and he'll say, "No, it's two, one, three." But you might not detect this, that in his communications and so forth he's giving you a two, one, three every time he turns around. His skull has got an altered sequence of events. He was educated and then he was born, do you see, and then he started school and then he quit his job and then he was hired. He's just got his time track all kind of wzzz-boom-boom-boom, he thinks in terms of out-points and that's, simply that, that's simply that.

Now, there's these bugs, these whys. Now, this person is supposed to be occupying a post, he's supposed to be producing something for the organization. That is your point of view. The auditor's point of view, he's trying to do something for the case. You're trying to do, when you do this kind of action and look at tests and that sort of thing, you're only interested in the effectiveness or efficiency of this personnel and how his morale affects it. Now, you'd say that is a very, very cruel, a very capitalistic, a very super totalitarian communistic way of looking at personnel. But it isn't. If this guy doesn't produce, his morale will remain on the bottom. Production is the basis of morale and an individual who isn't completing cycles and getting something done and so on, will never have good morale. I don't care how many ice cream sodas he can have a day, I don't care how many liberties he gets a week, I don't care what you do for him. If he isn't contributing something to his immediate environment, he's a gone dog.

The simplest of these of course is just that the omitted technology, the omitted study, and then you hat him. And your, that one is the one which bridges into the second type of administrative personnel. In other words, he can be trained, he can be hatted, he can do his job, he can be brought on up the line, and you're in category two. So those three actually bridge from the most serious, the insane, to the PTS who is simply connected with somebody insane, to the person who has actually got something out-point with his skull to the omitted data which is just hasn't been trained, and you're into number two so you start hatting him.

Now, a person who is very evil-purposed, a psychosis by the way is simply, we know what psychosis is these days, there is a bulletin on it, but it is simply an evil purpose. It means a definite obsessive desire to destroy. Now, anybody has a few evil purposes when they suddenly think of, of having to do this or that that they don't want to do. They say, "Boy, I'd like to get even with that guy," or something. That's not what we're really talking about. This is the monitoring evil purpose which monitors all of this guy's activities. And that is a psycho, that is a real psycho.

Now, if you're very, very lucky, the majority of people you will be dealing with will be these second types. They just need to be hatted, need to be told, "Go to study, sit right here and read your hat, confront your environment," and so on, your normal technology, like a breeze just fits. Where it doesn't, you yourself have missed a gradient on the pc. Now you start going back into it, now you can start looking up tests, now you can do this, you can do that, you can do the other thing. When you're hiring people you will just oh, save yourself the most enormous amounts of trouble if at that point you don't take on a pc. "Yes, I'd love to work for the organization. Yes. Do you suppose I could get my grades right away?" You say, "Well, these applications are just sent out and we're sorting them out and you will be informed in due course." You just don't consider it any further than that.

Now, there are people who are PTS and who act fairly psycho, and there are people who are, quote, "aberrated." They've simply got out-points in their thinking. The psychiatrist never differentiated amongst these people. That's because he thought people had a disease called mental illness. And I refer you to Manufacture of Madness, this is an exposure of that fact. It is not true, there is no such thing as a mental illness, there is no bacteria which produces psychosis.

You'll, you are dealing actually with personnel, you are dealing with the personnel acquisition and you're dealing with personnel correction, you're dealing with personnel sort out, you are dealing with people and you're dealing with them at a different level than an auditor deals with them. You're dealing with them more at the level the Jesuit priest dealt with them. He was trained to take the world as it is. "God meant the world to be used as it is." I'm probably committing a terrible travesty and simplification of the Jesuit, but I was told this once. But this, you've got the guys, there they are, there they are, yup. They're not hopefully tomorrow, they are there now. These are the people you have.

So it falls into three groups. The guy is a really, an evil purpose boy, he's out to destroy the lot. His whole life is monitored by this, he's getting even with his..., and he does it in the most remarkable way. Criminals and that sort of thing are motivated this way. These are guys, and they're very hard to detect because they carefully cover it all up while pulling the rug out from under anything. Now, these fellows are rare. It is very easy to say; well they're not all that rare; but it's very easy to say that anybody who is acting a little odd or is not doing well on post is psychotic. He may be PTS. One of these cats, somewhere in his life or in his family, may be running into him with a truck.

Now, you can say, "Well, let's give it all up and get an entirely new division." But it's up to you to get the people who are there now as they are now, functional, doing what they're doing. Now, you only have to drop back to the degree that they can't do a straight forward job of hatting, that they don't do a straight forward of this and that; now you're dropping back to this other category. Now you're dealing with people as you hope they will be. Well, how long can you hope? Can you hope a day, a week, a month? How long can you hope?

So he's a potential trouble source because he's got an SP somewhere in his environment, and he will act pretty mad. A psycho may do some strange things or may not. His behavior does not monitor his, it does not show you his psychosis. The PTS guy, he's fairly obvious. He's way up today and he's way down tomorrow and he gets a beautiful session and then he gets terribly ill, I mean, and that's the history of his life. If you look into his folder, you will look at a folder summary and you will see that every two or three sessions is a repair. He, he can't stay on a program, that is to say he can't stay on the advance program, it wouldn't be such a thing as you finish up this guy's Dianetics and you give him his straight wire and so on. Now, that can be a C/S's fault that he was never brought up the grade chart. But the truth of the matter is, if he's PTS why, he goes a little distance up the grade chart and rolly coasters and has to be patched up, and then goes a little distance up the grade chart and then he has to be patched up, and then some fool lets him way up the grade chart and he gets there and then that all has to be patched up, and then he goes a little bit further and then he has to be patched up, and it just, it looks like Coney Island. See? Hence, rolly coaster. He was OK last week but he's not so good this week. The guy can rolly coaster on post, don't you see.

Now, with auditors you're going to have to hope several months. So therefore the recruitment of auditors is something that is started early, way ahead of any time anybody thought it should be started, and you will still always be too late. So when you look at this guy, you're looking at a hope. But you walk into a division, you take what is there now. What can we do with what is here right now? That is your first thought. Now your next thought is hope. How do we hope they will be and what are we going to do to make that hope come true? And that is your upgrade toward the ideal scene. But it's done on hope and many of the loses which one is, has to be willing to experience in this particular line of country.

Well, the detection of that is perfectly visible to you whether you're trained as an auditor or not, right in the pc's folder summary inside that folder. You look it over, the guy that's running fairly straightforwardly even though lengthily, even though he gets innumerable rundowns and so forth, why, it's going on F/N VGI, F/N VGI, F/N VGI, F/N. And if the other one will run F/N, did so-and-so on Dianetics, run such-and-so, so-and-so, BIs or BER, bad examiner report. And then F/N, then F/N, then high TA, high TA repaired, so forth, BER, BER, F/N. Now, somewhere in that guy's vicinity, he was connected with a suppressive and that's all there is to that. He has some familial connections or something like that. There's something going on in this fellow's life which is most remarkable.

And I would call to your attention the Russian advice and the way they teach school children. Two steps backwards and three steps forward still makes progress, which is pretty good. You're only having a bad time if the frog crawls up the well two inches at night and falls back three in the daytime. He will eventually get out of the well even if he crawls up only three and falls back but two, he will still get out of the well. So if you go in under the basis that you're going to win on every single human being that comes along the line, you are being an optimist the like of which has never been seen before, for the excellent reason that there are many other stresses at work in the culture, many other stresses. And there are other stresses at work in the organization. You may be trying to hold the fort to make something out of this guy and you're, you've got somewhere up the line you've got a deputy CO or something like this who is absolutely certain that this person is complete poison, and he has lots of experience with this guy and he wants him shot and he wants him shot now. How do you do it, what do you do?

Now, just because somebody is connected to a suppressive doesn't necessarily mean they cave in. Sometimes the suppressive does. But where you have staff members who continuously rolly coaster, you're dealing with a PTS. And PTS policy and so on is dead on, dead accurate, and we can solve it these days. The PTS rundown, it can be done by a Class IV, and it's not difficult to do and it is a new accomplishment and that can be solved. Now cases or staff members fall into two categories with regard to this first category, the management scale, which is what I'm talking about. They fall into two categories. They fall into the category, if they're bad off they fall into two categories. Do you follow?

Well you just so forth and so on, no, instead of just bucking up and trying to protect somebody obsessively or something like that, you ought to review the situation and then see what can you hope for. What hopeful look can be put on this thing. Alright well, I would act accordingly. But I would make a sound recommendation, I wouldn't just bluntly defend. Say, "Well, we're going to do this, that and the other thing with this guy and so forth," and so on. You will get into collision this way, but you'll only get into collision when the people you are handling are not effective, and the less effective they are the more collision you will get into with the rest of the organization, not with just seniors.

They fall into one, you're about to take him on staff. Don't. And the other is, you've got him on staff, now what? Those are the two categories. You solve the first one, don't take him on staff. The second one, now what are we going to do with him? Now we're into that sort of thing where you've inherited the mistake of a recruiting officer or a department one of yesteryear. Now, what are we going to do with this guy? We just going to shoot all these birds? No. But there is a thing called a fitness board, and a person can be sent before a fitness board, but in all justice a person shouldn't just be sent before a fitness board and shipped off. No, no, no, because that brings about terrific insecurity, and it is just a damn bad thing to do. It takes a court or a comm-ev to put somebody in front of a fitness board, just like that.

If you have a very, very, very ineffective treasury or a department seven, and it is terribly ineffective and you're not going at a dead run to, "Listen guys, you know, and let's get that and you take that and get this stuff in and let's get the payroll out this week so the crew isn't waiting for two hours in line to not get paid. Come on, come on, you know, let's really do those actions, let's get the information on the thing, let's, let's figure out how this is done, let's really learn to do the right actions here, and then let's do those right actions and let's get the bugs out of this line so that you actually can make files, so that you can work with them. Let's have some files made here, you know, this is how you do it," so forth. Well, the next thing you know why, they're just being collided with like mad. The crew is colliding with them, the crew is yelling and screaming and yapping at them because they haven't been paid and etcetera, etcetera, and wow-ow, and they're nasty to them at dinner and; oh yeah, poo. "I'm going to put a dev-t chit on you, you didn't pay me last time."

So you're already dealing with kind of a losing game if you yourself don't put a hope factor in it to the division themselves, so you've got to get them to put a hope factor in, not just you. You've got to get them to envision a little bit more of the ideal scene that they can envision. Now, if they finally get it smoothed out and they finally are producing and they finally are doing what they're supposed to be doing on post, their morale will go right on up. They will win, and if you guide them well and do the standard things to handle them, why these guys will win.

Now, I'm talking to you right down at the grass roots of, of personnel. Somebody is new at this business, he says, "Well, all I do is I go through action one, two, three in order to hat this fellow, get his hat compiled, and I get it in his hands, I get him to read his hat a little bit, I get him producing on post and that sort of thing, and... It isn't working out. Every time I turn around, he's gone from his desk. Why?" That's your first evaluation. Now be prepared to find out anything. And when you do find it out, handle it. It'd be very lovely if that was all there was to it, you see, you just compile a hat, you get a hat, you get some personnel, he's at the bottom of the board, you put him on the post and you tell him what he is, that sort of thing, and you give him his hat and you tell him to study it and he's all set. "Now do a little bit of your hat," and so on, and it's all going forward and you're winning, but when you hit that hard bump in the road, you can't find him at the desk and he seems to be holding the pack upside down and wuf-wuf and voo, and the productions on the post are all backwards and the payroll is all written wrong, and you're hearing flack from somewhere, don't get discouraged because that is the way life is.

Just train yourself to expect that without getting terribly cynical, but know at the same time what you can do about it. You can find out why it's going that way and you can remedy it. And if you find the right answer to it, it'll straighten out, pongo. And if turns out, and this is the beautiful fact, this is the gorgeous fact, it turns out that the amount of malice at the bottom of all of this is so slight that it can almost be disregarded. That's fantastic. Do you know that you have to have handled, you'll find this some day in your experience if you haven't hit such a thing already, you will have been handling this group. They were antagonistic, they were apathetic, they were sullen, they resented you somewhat, they knew you were trying to help them and they think that's nice of you. And it's just, you can cut the place with a, you can cut the air around the place with a knife, don't you see, and it'd fall apart, it's that heavy.

And all of a sudden through your brightness and your investigation of this and the data which you've accumulated, and through your own increasing command of policy or something, you all of a sudden like dawn came up, you say, "These cats are, you know, the why. Wow." See? That's it, that's it, and you investigate it out just a little bit further, "Yeah, oh yeah!" and do you know it'll break your heart really sometimes. It is such an innocent thing, there is no malice involved in it, and yet these cats were acting like a lot of hoods. They were just so hard-driven in this out-point situation that nobody, much less themselves, had ever been able to unravel. They just sunk into looking very malicious. Their human emotion and reaction was expressing at every hand unwillingness to such a degree that we totally believed that they must be unwilling. They weren't unwilling, nobody had ever found the right why.

You find it and you just, either with a single staff member or with the group of them, you all of a sudden got it, that's it, it brings in their GIs, you straighten the thing out, the program you're doing to handle it is highly acceptable and zing, zing, zing, zing, zing, zing, zing! But the main thing that you will find out about all this is there was no malice there. And I just wish some of these birds who used to run slave plantations, and guys like Napoleon that used to run armies, and the heads of some of these totalitarian states, might do a little study on the data series and get a little bit able at finding out what was which, and where it went in and where it went out, and how to unravel these things, because they would have found out that man was not an evil beast.

It's the inability of the Catholic church, and the inability of the Methodist and Angelican and other faiths, to unravel the why that lay behind human emotion and reaction that convinced them utterly that man was a sinful being and that was born in sin, and he was conceived in sin and born in sin and would die in sin, and that he was evil. You can see them now on the rostrum, on the platform shaking their fingers at their congregations and how they were evil sinners, and they were all sinners. That's just all they didn't have the right why.

So, your own future morale pursuing a line as an Establishment Officer actually is greatly dependent on your ability to penetrate a situation and discover a correct why. And the definition of a why is something that'll move something higher toward an ideal scene. And your reward will be the total certainty that you are not handling malicious beings. Thank you very much.