How are you?

Alright, this is the second lecture, seventeen, eighteen January. Second lecture eighteen January, 1971. And this is the product org officer system.

(Fine, thank you.)

There has not been at this time, sufficient time, I have not had actually sufficient work time to write up all of the material which has been developed in this particular field. And the material is considerable. There has been considerable development which is not at this moment recorded. You will find then, at this time, that what I am giving you are the basics, and these you will not find changing. These basics are not going to be changing, but you will find that this area will develop.

Well some of you are alive. Now what happens here, this is the eighteenth of January AD 21. What happens here, very often, used to happen at Saint Hill occasionally, is the developmental line would exceed the write up line. And that essentially is what has happened here. And I found it best to give you a very rapid rundown of the, one of the several developments which have been made in the field of administration.

Now the first facts of the case are again, that a small group which is well organized, has good technology, and has good data collection and services of that type, and applies what it knows, can not only survive but can make considerable progress. But I again tell you that organized technology.

The area of administration is comparable to auditing on the third dynamic. And where an auditor has one pc, an administrator has a whole bunch of them. And he audits on standard procedures, and he audits at a very rapid rate.

Now the technology we have, without any thought at all; we can make the sane saner and the insane sane, and the breakthrough which exists here technically is so strong that it actually cuts though the normal protective mechanisms of the mind, wham, wham. And that the use of this material by any but a well organized, well disciplined group would be very fatal, quite lethal. And therefore we're in the peculiar position now of not being able to export all the technology we have, because the areas into which we would export it, and the orgs into which we export it are insufficiently organized to be able to handle and control it.

Now if you can perceive administration in this light, as having a great many procedures, but all of them very standard, you all of a sudden get a new look. In the field of PR, for instance, the main trouble is that no one uses standard PR. It's practically no one. There is a textbook on the subject. One of the reasons why the textbook is not completely applied is the discipline is poor in this field, because the subject itself didn't have any great use. Well we'll touch on that this evening, but I just wanted to give it to you as an example.

Now our organizational technology suffered mainly by not being known. People say, "There must be something wrong with the org board if something or other, something or other," and then you go around and you ask the staff, "Where is the org board posted?" and they look at you, "Org board? Oh yes, oh we have a good org board. Yes, it's uh..." And you go in and you find something that's a year out of date and not general use, it was the ignorance of the subject. So it is ignorance of the technology which we have which is our greatest bug bear.

So that here is a field, there are certain standard procedures. Now hardly anybody but a Scientologist would know what you were talking about if you said standard procedure. Says, "Oh yeah, well yeah, blaoah. Textbook, yeah, you read that in school and then, then you go out and you do something. You know, textbook hasn't anything to do with it." That's the truth. And one of the difficulties the world is in right this minute is they've thrown away the textbook of economics. And there's a couple of Hungarians, not that there's anything wrong with Hungarians, but it's a great oddity that a couple of Hungarians have been for the last decade or two wandering around from government to government being employed by prime ministers, and they give him a whole bunch of squirrel economic technology, and the country goes broke. It's quite a system. And I'm not joking, actually this has been going on. The last place they stopped was England.

To overcome this we have improved tremendously now, merely by assembly of what we already knew, the technology of how you teach a course. The course supervisor check sheet that has just been developed, and certain things of that character are direct and immediate improvements, which make it possible for an area to train its auditors better, and train them so they can get results. And then when they have gotten results with the material they have, make it possible to put in a special department, a department of special cases. It doesn't matter how many, by the way, departments a division four has, you see? A department of special cases in division four, and then new auditors can be brought on and trained, not the auditors who were there in the org at the time. I'm very sorry, you will find that they are very, very necessary because no technology disappears under this. A new set of auditors can be brought in, trained up, auditors can be graduated up and so on, and they become your class ten special cases auditors. They can crack any case that walks up the walk, if he'll sit still, or if anybody can hold him down long enough to get the cans in his hand or tie them to his feet.

A little earlier than that there was fellow name of Lord Keans. And Lord Keans, he had some, he was part of the Oxford movement I think, and he was part of the Fabian group, and they had peculiar sexual ideas and so forth. They were very strange people. And Lord Keans took the textbook on economics and wrote it backwards or upside down, crossed it with the manufacturer of fire crackers and the burial of dead rats, and began to teach this very broadly so that in the early thirties we begin to find Keansian economics being practiced very hard and fast and furiously, and by the professors only, at Harvard. And from Harvard it swung out into the remaining American universities, and went out into other" universities in the world, a completely untried, ivory tower professorial approach to the field of economics, the central theme of which is create want. So that if you create want, economics all solves itself. Only he forgets that he is simply squirrelling on the law of supply and demand, doesn't state that, forgets anything having anything to do with inflation and deflation, and now we as a group actually are confronted by an escalating inflation. And this inflation subject is a very nasty subject to have much to do with.

Now some of you here have had something of this new technology. It came actually from the OT grades. Why, it answers the question of, "Why does an OT restrain himself and cease to behave as an OT?" It works best in that band, but it also works at the lower end of the band. That's why we're pushing a crew up at the present moment, all the way on up as fast as we can push them up, so that when we give them the technology they can go for broke. It works better at the top end of the band than it does the bottom end of the band, but it works at either end of the band.

Inflation is predicted through the seventies at the rate of about eight percent per annum for the U.S. dollar. Well, that's just another method of placating the public, because it's been escalating, rising much more rapidly than that in the last few years.

So, I doubt any of you have had the questionable pleasure of being insane, and so you probably would not be able to experience the tremendous resurgence which a person gets when he suddenly turns sane. It's quite miraculous. But that is residual in this technology, and occurs rather routinely. And I think we're probably the only group in the universe, as far as I know, knowing the back track, who can do this. Now that is on an individual basis, so you have individual technology now which turns the sick well, the insane, turns them sane, and make a one life being, immortal. Otherwise the technology doesn't have very many targets.

Trouble with inflation, if anybody looked at the basic textbook on the subject, is it goes in an upward, swinging curve. And the curve gets steeper and steeper and steeper, until it gets vertical. And at that point, that's it. You bury your money.

Now we're actually sitting here with this technology. Now what do you do with the technology? Of course you could go off and forget about the technology, and that would be about the greatest overt that anybody ever pulled. The overt of omission. We happen to find ourselves on a planet which has a rather unsavory reputation, and amongst planets would be looked upon as a sort of an Alcatraz, and was a dumping ground. So there is a tremendous need for such a technology here, but it is actually going into the teeth of a planet that is not entirely sane.

Now it's happened with several countries recently, and these countries have bitten the dust, and they have not been the same country afterwards, they were in different hands. So if the primary financial income of our movement is from the United States, and somebody is tampering with the United States dollar on the basis of a squirrel textbook; people have suddenly woke up to it. I mean, it took them long enough, 1930 forward, you know? People suddenly woke up to the fact that they're dealing with squirrel economics. There's beginning to be a fairly good hew and cry on the subject actually. They've traced it back to Harvard, and it sort of, there's a book just been released on the subject exposing it all. Actually I collided with it a few years ago and wondered where all this came from. Found the rest of the world didn't know where it all came from, and did some tracking down on it myself. Somebody who was a suppressive decided to ruin a lot of economics, and they've succeeded in doing so. And this gives us a problem.

About ten to twenty percent, unbeknownst to statisticians, and I can't tell you exactly what the percentage is out in the general public because I haven't surveyed it, but I would just say by estimation it's ten to twenty percent of the at large, walking around population is stark, staring mad. The other eighty to ninety percent, whatever that factor is, are quite sane, but are so caved in by the mad ones that the society has an awful time getting off the launching pad. And you get a cultural boom/decay cycle, which has been going on now for many thousands of years. A culture just about gets going, and then a few of these mad men swing into it, and the next thing you know, why she goes up in smoke. It's just the madness of the later day Roman emperors is an example of this. And the Roman culture of course caved right on in. And it was supplanted by religious culture.

Now how does this come in to what I'm going to talk to you about tonight? Well it comes into this because I'm presenting you, there's an actual problem. Money will be worth less and less, but probably under the weird duresses of the thing there will be less of it. Worth less and less, and be less of it.

Now we've got a boom/depression then in terms of cultures. At this particular time and place we have an opportunity because of many factors which have combined. We have an opportunity to make a very definite line plunge, to use football terms, or to make a very definite forward push in this. It is rather optimum at this particular time. We're in, for some reason or other, a period of peace, and it's the culture is on the way down, and it's just a little bit touch and go. They give us several, we've had several of these little touch and go things. Like there are a bunch of guys monkeying around with this peace/war button, you know? And should we have a war or should we have peace? Well, they've moved in on the button again, and then they go off of it. Well of course, a war would just finish any human communication and cultural lines on which anything can travel. So therefore, we don't really have all the time there is. We can't really sit around on our hands and do nothing. Furthermore, the planet could be expected to resist any such movement, because the most resistance you get toward being cured by anyone is an insane person. An insane person will resist being cured harder than anybody ever heard of, because he knows everybody is Martians and they're all out to get him. And he knows there's no help, and so on. Of course, that's what makes him insane.

Now therefore, a movement which is expanding requires certain things. It is expanding into; we are actually expanding into a world which is to be, make an understatement of the age, a bit mad. And we have to exist within the economic framework of the society. If we don't exist in the economic framework of the society we'll have had it.

A certain number of these on the planet, in high positions, bring about the conditions known as war, and so on. Now recently we traced, by the way, how a person moves from the lower stratas of the society up to an executive position or a political position of magnitude. You can see the pattern of it can be seen in your own org. A person cannot hold the job of central files clerk, and he argues and argues, and finally moves himself over to some other portion of the org. There's very few people in that portion of the org, so he gets an IC, in charge of something, then there isn't anybody else around, and he seems to be very active. And he becomes a departmental head. He becomes a departmental head by accident, and he actually is pushing himself up.

For instance, it might amaze you, but that SMIRSH, the World Federation of Mental Health, the National Association of Mental Health Network, is having an awful time. We decided some time ago" to cut off their supply, and we are doing so. They nevertheless have all the government appropriation there is in the field of mental health. They are dependent only on the bayonets of the government, really, and to the degree that they're supported by governments. That makes a very weak movement. Makes a very weak movement. The wheel turns, the political wheel turns, the political fashions fade, because they're not delivering anything, which brings us closer to our subject tonight. Their product is death.

Now he has, he doesn't have the motivation of helping others, he just has the motivation of protecting himself. And the higher he rises on the pyramid, the more he thinks he will be protected. That's part of his insanity. You get up to the top of the pyramid you spend ninety percent of your time ducking bullets.

Now anybody can produce that, without going to a university for twelve years. I can see Amathea Hood right now requiring her certificate that he has studied for twelve years... Now this is not into an unsavory line. They are badly organized. They appear to be fairly well organized, but they're not. They're badly organized, they're badly financed. A group such as our own, going into a world which is not too orderly, succeeds to the degree that it is efficient, that it has workable, useful technology, and to the degree that it stays alert and handles the situations as they arise. Those three conditions are necessary to a forward movement and an expansion.

But the facts of the case are that there is a sort of a system by which a person who can't hold any post winds up with a very high post. I don't, for instance, know what the current president of the United States would be able to do in a law court, I don't think he's ever been able to do anything in a law court, but here he is in the political arena. Most of these fellows who are in the political arena have never studied government, never. They wouldn't know what you meant, they wouldn't know you're talking about. Yet there is a technology of government. But these are politicians, why are they there? Usually there for their friends, and so on. This makes a rather queasy scene in which to operate.

So it has been my basic work here in 1970 to bring forward enough administrative information, and enough administrative technology to bring the field of administration into a par with auditing, which as you know is terribly precise. Now that has been accomplished in the theoretical and in the practical aspects, both. Now therefore, the FEBC and the material which is being taught at this time leads up to these breakthroughs in the field of administration. You are not dealing now with somebody's idea of how the thing should be, you are dealing with some natural, basic laws. It isn't because I have an idea that if you say, "Do you have an ARC break, ARCU, CDEI. Is there an earlier, similar ARCU, CDEI? F/N." It isn't because I say this works, or that this is true, or that the mind should operate this way, that is not that. It is a basic discovery, it incorporates many parts, but these things assembled come into flying a rud. Now there's theory merging into practical application with which you are all familiar.

Now the answer to this operation is to be as efficient as all god holy hell. And you have administrative technology which is sharp as the teeth of a bear trap. And what you're doing with your own technology must be very effective indeed, and you must be able to pick up and use data available, and control the human emotion factor in your immediate vicinity.

Now this can be gorgeously abused. This is for a pc who has an emotional upset. So if the pc is sitting there with a high TA, we say, "Do you have an ARC break?" Misuse of the tool. So, the auditor struggles around, and nothing much happens, and sometimes he actually makes it and gets the TA down by some other means which is disguised inside this subject, but the truth of the matter is, is after he's done this with this pc a few times and so on, you'll find the pc is now ARC broken about ARC breaks. The technology is sufficiently good to obtain a recovery from that too. But this is a standard technology.

In other words, if you're tremendously well organized you can not only survive but you can expand. But what you have to know in order to do this, and what the technology has to consist of, and how well you have to know the technology exactly determines the amount of expansion you are going to attain. Given the technology, it will only be because you do not have total knowledge of it, or expertise with it, that would cause one to fail.

Now what is this? Basically the situation is that there is a situation. That is the first thing one has to be able to recognize, that there is a situation. Now to know there's a situation one must have a familiarity with an ideal scene and with" the existing scene. And he finds the existing scene is different from the ideal scene, so he knows he has a situation.

Now you can have a staff which isn't hatted, and no matter how clever you are, they'll manage to make you fail. They don't really know there's anything there. So therefore, it isn't enough for you as an executive to know how to do all this, you've got to be able to relay it, train it, check people out on it, and handle it. So a general knowledge, a particular and very broad knowledge is required of any person who is regulating any group.

Now the situation can be analyzed by taking the data related to the situation and narrowing it down, and then we find what caused the situation, which we call a why. And having found that, we can remedy it, and the pc recovers from the ARC break. Oh you thought I was talking about administration, didn't you?

Mary Sue got together some estimates here, and she says, "Based upon recent figures in relationship to the training of executive directors, it takes approximately three hundred and sixty hours to make an administrative expert in nine divisions. Therefore, it would take roughly the following hours to train various organizational personnel. One hundred and twenty hours, an executive secretary or expert in three divisions. Forty hours, a divisional secretary and expert in one division. Thirteen and a half hours, a department head and expert in one third of a division, three hours, a section head and expert in one fifth of a department. With staff training hours of two and a half hours per day, it would roughly take the following number of days: An executive secretary, forty-eight days, a divisional secretary, sixteen days, a department head, six days, and a section head, two days. But therefore you'd have to be determined that these fellows do get trained, and you would have to have some program by which these people did check out, and you'd have to have some system by which they did have some understanding of the hat and duties they were wearing." Is that agreed? You'd have to have that, wouldn't you?

Now if you put these two things then a frame of reference, you find out that we now have in our hands a superior administrative technology, still in a developmental stage, as all progressive or dynamic technologies are. Progressive and dynamic technologies actually do not cease to develop, they continuously refine. That staggers somebody if he doesn't realize that what is being refined is the progress being made by the basic law, not the change of the basic law. They think the law of gravity keeps changing because somebody eventually develops a method to make anti gravity, don't you see? The law of gravity has not changed.

Well supposing you did all this. And you use this scale, and you got everybody in your org hatted. Almost unimaginably, almost unattainable. You always have one or two guys sitting around someplace that can't find their hat and never did have a hat.

When you have isolated the basic laws you get a continuous refinement. Some people are idiotic enough to call mixing a bunch of chemicals in a test tube and getting soup instead of dupe basic discovery. No it isn't, what it is is simply development from basic discoveries which are made. There probably has not been a basic discovery made on the planet for the last twenty(c)five years, except perhaps in our field. This is pretty interesting. All we get is a developmental progress, whereby people refine what they already knew. There were several basic discoveries made in the early part of the century, and the last of them probably was how you tickle the tiger's tail and plutonium, to cease to exist at rapidity, and then how you managed to make hydrogen de(c)hydrogize at vast violence. Those took some basic and original discoveries which were not new at the time, but the developmental line exposed them into a practical application.

Now if all of this was going on, and if somebody was putting their hats on and that sort of thing, I'm afraid you still wouldn't have anything, because the other side of the coin is production. Now what is all of this training and so forth about? Is it to attain production? That is what that is all about. So, the other half of this coin, production, supported by the first half of this coin, organization, gives us the coin. And we have what you could call the product officer/org officer system.

So anyway, there hasn't been any basic discoveries to amount to anything. Nearly all these discoveries which you see around, they're not, all these developments which you see around, the faster automobile and so on, is simply the refinement of something. So you can continue to expect refinement from the basic discoveries which have been put together here in the last year. And actually within the last twenty(c)five years in this field, because it's been under investigation.

Now undoubtedly this will be shortened up. We can't call it a PO system because that means purchase order. We might very well hear it called the prod-off system. But I've simply been calling it the product officer/organizing officer system.

Now these laws which we're working with now are not resident in just last year's work. You will find them spattered all through the OEC course, these fundamentals. Now as these fundamentals are put together you approach something that appears to be a standard procedure. A standard procedure is subject to refinement, just as you get a further workability. In the field of public relations itself, we have just started the subject. The subject actually did not exist, except in somebody's imagination, as an applicable technology, because they didn't apply it the way they should have" applied it, and they didn't know what it was for, and they didn't know it's basic laws. It's very amusing, but public relations just began. Now every professor that teaches public relations would contest this madly. "Oh it began back in the, 1911!" And I would say, "Professor, for the love of Christ, will you please research your subject. It began in Rome with political campaigns, painted on the outside of the coliseum." I don't happen to be kidding right now. But as far as our written technology of public relations is concerned, it goes back, way back. And as far as the written technology is concerned, it belongs in Rome. And it started out there as a formal subject to get senators elected.

Actually however else these things are stated, or what words you used, it is exactly this. It's the product officer, not the production officer. These are the niceties of it. The product officer, and the organizing officer.

But there's been very dim fumblings all the way along the line. Now what would you do if you suddenly took this subject, if you took this subject in so many wads, and all of a sudden it had a precise, exact role that you couldn't get along without? What would happen? All of a sudden it wouldn't be something that they hired six guys in this hundred million dollar firm to exploit and to monkey with, and they sit in the back room and figure out how they can do this or that with this or that. If any of these guys use their standard technology they'd probably run, run well. But it's very difficult to get these fellows to use a standard technology, because they really don't know their own textbook too well. There is a textbook see, but it's some technologies. Now what are they for?

Now the first thing we run into by the introduction of this system is the question of, "Is production necessary?" The org series, as the org series goes back it speaks of this, and I've had a letter or two and a DR. It makes it look like a very exhausted world would be the result of this. Nobody ever says anything to me that bluntly. There's just a little bit of a curve on it. And this idea of production unfortunately carries with it the label which has been given to it by the communist who has tried to get at the bosses of their existing society as production monsters, who are sweating the last drop of production out of the poor, suffering worker. And we have gotten into a period where that orientation occurs. And now I'll tell you the cream of the jest, the jest has real cream on it. It's the primary production problem of Russia is how to get production out of the poor worker! And the Russian is now going mad, and he even brought a whole bunch of guys back from Siberia and so forth, because they knew something about production. He started going mad. And the top men in the Presidium these days are ex-production officers, because it is such a crucial problem in the Soviet Union. Kruschev, he'd sit down; I don't know whether he would have talked to you much about politics, but if you had mentioned something about the electric light plants he would tell you exactly how you should get production out of an electric light plant. Brrrrr.

As a result, they have let an entirely different part of the university walk off with about fifty percent of their subject. I can tell you what public relations is for. What is this subject for? Public relations is for the handling and control of human emotion and reaction. Ah, we've got a subject now. Yeah but look, they gave fifty percent of this away to the psychologist who fumble(c)dumbled it all up and applied it to rats. Now there's something coming adrift. So they split their subject.

Now the capitalist society deifies the money lender, or the money haver, and tends to down grade the producer. And the production man, by title in a plant, is not the general manager, he's not even the general manager's assistant. The plant manager has a production man. It's about eighteen echelons down the line, because for some reason or other, the guy who inherits the money was king. Throughout the nineteenth century the social stratas, and so forth, are not quite straight.

It's a third dynamic technology. The psychologist moved it all over onto another dynamic. He tried to get it over onto the first dynamic, and this, that and the other thing. So what is the central subject itself? It's the handling and control of human emotion and reaction. Good. Well now you have to do quite a bit with this subject. Immediately you have to do quite a bit with this subject. Ah, we're away now. Oh this is what this stuff is for. Good.

The whole field; you get into this in a non-production oriented society. The whole field of psychiatry and psychology and so on stunk to high heaven, simply because they had no production orientation whatsoever. They merely had status orientation. And the thing that makes these guys insufferable is they have status. One of the things that makes a Spanish official rather insufferable is he has status. And they have status and they look around, and it's status, status, status. But it's status based on nothing. A Spanish engineer gets a certificate as an engineer and he never has to engineer for the rest of his life. That's what's wrong with these birds. I'm a line man, I think there was one once that graduated some time or other that did produce something. They produced revolution.

Alright, now what parts of what do you have to use in order to do this? Well, according to the public relations technologies, you've got one that runs something like this. You do a survey, and on the basis of this survey you put together a program, and you use your various communication media, word of mouth, newspaper, magazines, loud speakers. And with this various communication media, based on this program, you alter human emotion and reaction. Actually it's such a failure the way it has been done, that in the public relations textbooks they say, "People who say they are molding public opinion of course are just silly. Newspapers think they" mold public opinion. Ha, ha, ha," you know? In other words, they're laughing at their own subject. In that little line it says, "This subject has failed."

But here, here is a subject. Now the reason I'm making these little comments on it, it has many ramifications. And in studying the org series, and in studying this which I assume you all would have done up to this point, since this is additional org series material which I am giving you. You, possibly the question has passed you mind, "Production, well it's not too popular. It's, I wonder. It seems to be a strange orientation." So you find yourself in a position actually, if you're trying to get production you will usually face to some tiny degree some little resistance to production as a subject, because it has been subjected to so much propaganda, and because it sometimes requires some sweat. And the guys who are objecting to this are the birds who hoped that they would be able to hide in the coat closet while everybody else worked anyway.

Let's go back to Science of Survival and see how this thing works. We do a survey, we put the exact arithmetical number on each question of this survey in its response. Alright, let's ask this question, "Do you like dogs," and the fellow says, "I hate dogs!" We put.5. You got it? Science of Survival, put it down arithmetically, you add up that question and its arithmetical values, and number of people it was asked. You could do it as crudely as then divided by the number of people, and you find exactly what tone scale point you are working with. To control a tone scale point you move; old law; you move half a tone to a tone above it. Your campaign must then be half a tone to a tone above it. Instantly and immediately you have a successful campaign, which molds public opinion, which controls human emotion and reaction.

This then, there are social or human reaction factors connected to the subject of production itself, just as a word, as a name, or an activity. You must face that. It is a subject which is able to paralyze the economy of the United States for months on end, is paralyzing right now the subject. The entire British postal system right at the present moment, labor management relations, General Motors in the United States, weeks or months of strike. The largest business in the United States totally paralyzed, tied up. Management's saying, "Produce," and the worker is saying, "Wages, wages, cash, cash, cash."

So there we are. Yeah, but how do you get these questions, I mean the question, that's it. That's very simple. There's nothing much to this question. Three questions, one is the equivalent of be, one is the equivalent of do, one is the equivalent of have. Very good. Be, do, have, three questions. Above and below it why, you could have a couple of null questions. You're trying to find out if somebody on the assembly line likes automobiles. He's building them, does he like them? Well that's an easy one, because it's already a human emotion. "Do you like automobiles?" Well lets' find out if he's going to work on the assembly line. Let's make it a little bit tougher. Now we're going to find out, "Are you going to work on the assembly line?" Alright, we go around and ask the public relations thing, "Are you going to work on the assembly line?" The guy says, "No," and the next guy says, "Yes," and so forth. You're no place.

Now one of the things that you will run into perpetually and continuously is you're talking to somebody about production, and he's talking to you about wages. He's talking to you about return for production. These subjects do not necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with each other. They are a non-sequitur. And that's why there's so much problem on it, because the term opterm really doesn't match.

So therefore you take the questions you want to know on the subject of be, do, have, and you encode them into human emotion, using the ARC triangle. We don't care whether you put A or R or C after each question, you're going to translate the basic question that you know into human emotion, in order to obtain involvement. And you immediately have involvement. So you get the true answer, don't you? But the target of your subject is of course the control of human emotion and reaction. So if that is the case, then you would have to have involvement in human emotion and reaction.

Now what is this subject? What is this subject that doesn't have to do with wages, and company contracts, and then what the hell is this subject? Well now, you hold your head, hold your head on, because this will blow it. Production is the basis of morale. In the absence of production you will have problems in morale. The cure for morale is production.

So how do you put this question together? Let's go right back to battery now. This subject is the control of human emotion and reaction, so therefore the questions of your survey have to be what you want to know, transported over into a human emotion and reaction. B, "Do automobiles exist?" translate at once across for an A is, "Do you like automobiles?" Now you will get then an emotional response which can be plotted.

Alright, now let's give us some actual actions here. What has happened? Some things that have happened here. Cases and staff morale, the PL, the F/N, VGI PL, they're perfectly true. But that's out of the field of first dynamic tech. Now because it says staff morale tends to throw it over into third dynamic tech. Cases and staff morale is perfectly true from the viewpoint of a C/S. The number of people that you have doing F/N, VGI at the examiner's will, to a marked degree, determine your staff morale. And after you've got a hundred percent F/N, VGIs at the examiner, you have accomplished staff morale on the first dynamic. And your organization is liable to be a bogged mess.

Now why all this? Now you see I'm teaching you this backwards. " I"m moving back. Now the penny drops. The primary barrier to production is human emotion and reaction. The primary barrier to production. All at once we know where PR lives, there's its use. Not in getting somebody to become a man of extinction by drinking Seagram's Whiskey, to aid and assist advertising, which would be a minor use, but actually to sound out the public to which the campaign is addressed, so as to handle the human emotion and reaction.

So we say, "Alright, we will have to get on," you see to have no staff auditors of any kind whatsoever would be fatal. So, we say, "We'll have to get on some auditors, and they'd better audit the staff and get all the staff up to F/N, VGI status." So we do that. And the org falls apart. They got morale on the first, but not on the third.

Alright, now I'll trace it back through the basic laws that we're involved with then is, the primary barrier to production is human emotion and reaction. Public relations is the technology of handling and controlling human emotions and reaction, so you have to find out what is the human emotion and reaction, so you get an encoding of the question. Three questions, one be, one do, one have. You translate those over into an emotional question by adding the ARC triangle, you plot that now, you get your human emotions in response to these questions. You add them up, you put your program together against the tone scale, one half to one band above. You will have a pretty uniformly successful method of reach.

Now the funny part of it is, they really don't have morale on the first. They just have morale about that part of the first which is their case. Now it works this way on the management cycle. If they're having a great deal of trouble with their case trying to pull them up much further than that is very difficult. So you start with the first factor of the management cycle having to do with where you're really having trouble as an org officer, dealing with the person's case. That's just the beginning. That's the first step up.

Now are you willing to argue with me that I all of a sudden tell you that PR has suddenly become of age? So the subject has been around since Rome, and it does have its own technologies. But the most ignorant people of its technologies are some of the PR guys with whom I've worked. Now I've been trained in this field, and the oral tradition of the field does not contain a great many of the textbook solutions. The textbook technology is missing to a very marked degree in much of what you call the oral tradition, when you're taught verbally by these fellows. They know what to do, kind of, but they find themselves often adrift.

Now let me give you, let me give you the sixty-four dollar punch now. Hold your head. If the individual is auditing, the auditor is auditing a pc and he has a win, the auditor's morale is good. Right? Do you agree with that? Hm? Alright. Now if he audits the pc and he has a lose, the auditor's morale is bad. Right? Alright, good. The monitoring factor is clothed in this ugly word production. He's accomplished something. Production is the evidence of the demonstration of competence.

I went back recently and read the textbooks of this subject on its developmental line, mostly accumulations of experiential application. And I was struck by the fact that very few people use, in this field of PR, very few people in this field actually use standard approaches. They're a little bit squirrelly, but there is a standard approach. Ah so!

Now after you've gotten all the case gain there is, how do you get any other gain? That's an interesting question, isn't it? Well actually it goes case gain, right up on the line to a cross line, and from there on it is competence. Competence is what gives the case gain. And you say, "Well look, somebody flying around out here on a, doing a good job on a set of water skis and so forth, appears to be very happy and so forth." He is merely engaged in the exhibition of competence. His morale is up because he is making an expert demonstration of water skiing. When he falls in front of the large crowd...

Now, why don't they use a standard approach? Well the subject wasn't oriented. What is this subject for? So the dumb fools go and hire a psychologist. They're the birds who control human emotion and reaction, so they hire a psychologist. I think this is marvelous. Right in their own technologies. Now these were then insufficiently exact as procedures to impress the practitioner. They were insufficiently exact, insufficiently precise. So he thought he had some judgement involved.

I saw the sorriest sight I ever hope to see in my life. It was a command performance before the queen. And there was a clown who had waited all of his life; he was a tight wire clown; and he'd waited all of his life for a command performance. The lights went up, the drums rolled, the clown with his umbrella and his baggy pants climbs up. Gets onto the tight wire and starts across the tight wire. There he is, total exhibition of competence, twirling an umbrella between his legs and over his head, and dancing on the wire. And at that moment the apparatus collapsed. They killed the lights, and in that dark blackness removed him from the scene. Seen afterwards in the dressing room he was one of the saddest, sorriest looking fellows you ever saw in your life. Exhibition of competence. Production is an exhibition of competence, an exercise of competence.

But if you know Dianetics and Scientology, and you move into this field, you will all of a sudden find that they mourn the absence of a science of the mind in their own field. Like how can you do anything with this subject unless you have a science of the mind? That remark is made in their textbooks you see, types of remarks" like this. They mourn their lack of success, and actually they don't even know our communication formula.

Play can become eventually very boring, because it has no cycle which proves the competence. No cycle there at all. So, he skied on water skis, so the crowd cheered. So he had to ski on water skis so the crowd cheered. What's he got? Nothing. But his morale went up because he exhibited competence.

Our communication formula is vitally necessary to the practice of this field. Vitally necessary. It's as simple as cause, distance, effect. If you take just the short handed formula, cause, distance, effect. Their public relations are communication media, and they think of themselves as a communication technology, they do not have that of cause, distance, effect. They don't have it streamlined down like that. So, when they say, when you make a survey, they actually have missed. If you go into some of their textbooks, they've actually missed certain points that were vital.

Now production actually confirms it. One time in a bunch of actors, a bunch of actors were under training. And they were just hammered and pounded, and pounded and hammered. These were Hollywood actors, starlets and that sort of thing, going to be the stars of tomorrow and so on, in a theatrical training group used by the big studios. And they hammered and pounded those poor guys. The most invalidating, mean, snarling; my god, no stage director would ever be as mean as those instructors were. Sarcastic, weird mimicry, awful. After about three months of it, these actors became utterly impervious to it, and were able to exhibit competence to their own complete and their group satisfaction, regardless of what anybody said. They got so they knew competence. They knew competence in themselves. Their morale came way up, they became very cocky. So their morale wasn't necessarily built by everybody being nice to them.

There's an FO right now which gives you the proper cycle, and it does not agree with the textbook cycle because the textbook cycle has simply left out a couple of steps, that would have made somebody fail. I needn't go into it any further than that, it's just there's the reason why, why one was turned out, which was a public relations form for submission for an OK. And it follows a definite cycle of action which is based on, actually, the communication formula and so forth. It's highly precise. And that was because they didn't have the communication formula, so they couldn't write it up in their textbook as to what you did exactly, so they missed out a couple of points. And then, those two points of action would bring about a failure.

PR is not necessarily being nice. To bring people out of apathy the PR campaign would be fear. Demonstration of competence. Now I've had a couple of busts by commodore's messengers here. They were tricked by a piece of electronic equipment and so on. And you never saw anybody look so woebegone in their lives, and drag around for the next day or so. But these young characters actually have their own concept of competence. It is fairly high. You don't often see some of the hills they're put to climb. You probably see them going back and forth sometime, you see them, they go down the ladder and that way, and then they come back. And then they go down the ladder and that way, and then they come back. And then they go down the ladder and that way, and they come back. And then they go down the ladder that way and they come back. Have you ever seen this? Maybe some of you have been subjected to it. What is actually going on is they're being asked to accumulate data, ask questions, find out what the score is, get an order across, find out what's happening, and be able to relay the thing back. So that a situation can be estimated, and if there is no situation, dropped, or if it's there, handled, or some future planning.

One of the reasons why managers sometimes throw them out the front door and won't have a public relations firm anywhere around is they very often popularize a flap. They don't pre(c)survey. Somebody just gets killed in the plant, newspaper reporter calls up, "What's this I hear about somebody being killed in the plant, Bud?" You know, in good English like they use. And the public relations man gets on the phone and he says, "No comment." See? Or he says this or he says that or he says something else. And he mishandles this, and then he assumes that there is a situation, that the people in the town are going to be very alarmed because somebody has been killed in the plant by poisonous gases or something, so public relations at once gets out a campaign saying how these poisonous gases are not very poisonous; they didn't bother to survey. Was there a situation? You see what point was missing?

Usually a CO or executive director hat is basically a planning coordination hat. A planning coordination hat is the real place where planning belongs. It belongs in the executive director's lap. And the coordination can only be done from that status. So you've seen one of these characters go back and forth, back and forth. Now, very few, and there've been quite a few on that post, failed to eventually get a certain amount of aplomb. And their aplomb and their morale and so on, rises considerably out of proportion to their age. You've just seen one go out of here on a mission. Now I imagine there was a little ripple of shock through the ship when all of a sudden, "That little kid is going out as a missionaire." Well that little kid can confront more dumb explanations and more bad data, and more false reports and know what to make out of them. They got together one day and they put together a little roster of everybody on the ship that didn't know what they were doing, because they never gave them any kind of an answer but an explanation.

So public relations very often is involved in handling situations which don't exist. And they very often find themselves involved in bringing about situations which didn't exist.

Their confront on the third dynamic is very, very high. They continuously exhibited competence, and it reflects in their morale. Now one or two have tried to make the grade, and they haven't actually gotten into the run yet, and their competence didn't match it. And they had a rough time. Momentary, we'll catch them some other time. But competence doesn't just go, your case gain goes up to this line, and then from there on up it is competence. Actually the competence sets in coincident with the case gain. Then the demonstration of competence is the basic factor of morale. And production is the evidence of competence.

Let's take a fellow who isn't good textbook in the field of public relations now. He glanced at the textbook on his way through class one day, by accident. Now he goes out, and he's worked alongside of some guys who are old timers, and they know best. And, frequent change of auditors is one of the reasons why the firms they go to work for fail, by the way. It's actually just that. The company account, your company's account is handed through so many account executives, and the turnover of account executives is so rapid, that the service being rendered from that account is poor. And" this is traced as a primary reason why you shouldn't use an independent, outside public relations firm. Frequent change of auditors. Goes back almost to an auditor's code, don't you see?

So in production one gets an exhibition of competence and its evidence. If you want a high morale activity, get them to produce. If you want a low morale activity, have them skip it. "Oh we're just going to be nice to you fellows, you don't have to work. Nobody has to work around here, I mean we don't work." And you wonder, "Why the hell are they all falling apart?" Why? I'm telling you this because it happens to be true, not because I'm PRing this subject of production. That's the truth of the matter.

So this guy, he fumbles around, and he gets himself some kind of a; he's got a job. He's sort of trained experientially in practical aspects of it. Maybe he gets up as far as TR0, see? But, practical aspects of it he puts into practice. And these various practical aspects are some little rules that have sort of been made up, and he manages to go through. Whereas a matter of fact, a matter of fact, there was a procedure in the textbook, if he had studied it, which probably would have brought the situation off. So he goes off half cocked on some kind of a campaign on somebody's hunch, "I'm just sure that these characters will like these Wheaties with green tops instead of red tops." Get over in the field of market research, you see? "I'm just sure of that. Alright, now we're going to have you tear off your mother(c)in(c)law's head and send it in, and we will send you a box top," or something, you see? And he lays a god awful egg with this campaign. The company puts out a hundred and twenty(c)three thousand, seven hundred and ninety(c)four dollars and sixty(c)two cents, and they don't get any mother(c)in(c)law's heads at all. And then somebody goes back and he says, "Say, what do you know?" He said, "We did, you know," he gets a tip some place or another, you know? "You should have asked people first. You know?" "Yeah, I guess I shoulda asked people first."

Now a guy can run, run, run, run, run. Actually it won't be until he runs into a failure that you'll see his, begin to feel tired. And begin to want a lay off, and begin to do this and that and the other thing. Because people involved in this sort of thing are running bodies, there are just so many hours they stay awake, and there's just so long they run without having their gas tanks filled or their batteries recharged, or whatever type of body we're; oh, it's eating. Yeah, that's right. It's just so long that one can run, and so it is that a sustained period of production normally should match the fact that you're running an intermittent type of body. A body is intermittent, it's on and it's off. Do you see? And that comes basically because you have a sun situation, which is a single sun type planet. There's daylight and there's darkness, and there's daylight and there's darkness. In earlier times nobody wanted to move around much in the darkness, so they started sleeping and so forth.

Actually, they might not even get as close as a formal survey. But they might get this close, "Well alright, we'll call up the Gallup Company. And after this, when we talk about mother(c)in(c)law's heads we will get a survey made out in the public as to whether you like this sort of thing or don't like that sort of thing, and that costs another two hundred and twenty(c)five thousand dollars." And they get a whole Gallup Poll survey done, and guys go around in the streets and shove microphones at people, and knock on doors, and they get all written down, and send letters to selected publics and oh, they're very expensive. Anyhow, then they find out this survey, when it was all put together, seemed to be very reliable, but now they said to tear off the bottom of the box which is now purple, and that they would, the company would send the family their mother(c)in(c)law's head, see? And then this campaign doesn't work either, and somebody then gets a vast research project together and they finally find out that people on surveys don't tell the truth. And now they've got the bug(c)boo.

And you'll get some people get this blown out, and they start working in the darkness and sleeping in the daylight, and so on. They get this all out of phase. I have a perfect cure for insomnia, by the way. A perfect cure for insomnia. Get yourself from the bookstore a whole bunch of fairy tales, down from the bookstore just get some fairy tales of various types, fairy tales of different countries, and that sort of thing. And sit down and read yourself a fairy tale, and you'll go right to sleep, bong. Marvelous. It restimulates having been put to sleep with the same stories for so many lives. Don't count sheep.

The bug(c)a(c)boo of a survey is that people say what they think somebody wants to hear, and they say, "Oh yes, I love Wheaties," whereas a matter of fact, they smoke Lucky's, you see? And they find out that the lie factor is so great that they have to put a lie question into the survey, in order to, and so on. Well I'm clowning up a series of examples here, but I think you comprehend some of these examples. And this is what it finally amounts to. This is what it finally amounts to, that they didn't know what their subject was for exactly. Didn't know what their subject was' ' for, so it is sort of being oddly used, and it's sort of off its own standards because it isn't oriented. So if they had the definition that there was human emotion and reaction, they wouldn't go around with questions that didn't elicit an emotional response. In the first place they would have to know a great many refinements.

Alright. So a body is intermittent, so therefore a long sustained period of production requires some intermittency, and that's about the only way you'll get into trouble. But, if you try to get an enforced intermittency, and the guys are right in the middle of a cycle and you make them break off, you've had it. So your intermittency can only take place, really, at the end of cycles, because the completion of a cycle of action is the other major factor in production. But when a team cycle of action has been completed, or one or two or three team cycles of action have been completed, it's about time somebody said that, if it's all, all the returns in, "Those who have got them all in now, go on a twenty - four hour break," or something. In other words you're matching up, this is not necessarily native to anything but bodies. And people were horrified when I was trying to give a plan out here. I imagine it was received with complete horror that fifty percent of AOSH DK should be whipped up port and starboard, fifty-fifty, and every weekend one of those port or starboard watch, why took the ship out. And I imagine this was received with some horror, and so forth. Actually it'd be a marvelous thing. So that every weekend why, the fort was held with the port watch, and the starboard watch got themselves a break and they could go for a sail.

Now I'm not ignorant on this subject. I was actually trained by Midwest Rogers one time, when I innocently walked in with my wide blue eyes open, pulled in as a writer to the California Centennial, 1849(c)1949. And they had to get a hold of a writer, and they had to have somebody who could write up the little history books, and so forth, that they needed. And so I said, "OK, yeah, I'll do that. I'd been up in the Mother Lode country, I know all about that and I can look it up and you've got a lot of books, and we'll put them together and we'll give you your little manuals and so forth. So fine, alright boys?" and so on, and they said, "No." And I said, "What's the matter?" Said, "Well we have a rule in the Midwest Rogers that anybody who is working anywhere in, around centennials or things,"; see they're the outfit, wild name, Midwest Rogers. It doesn't say anything, don't you see? They want to remain anonymous, I think. But they put on all of these big centennials like the sesquicentennial of Texas, and all of that sort of thing. The big boom shows, you see?

This is the type of thing which you have to engage upon with a high production crew. Now hold your hat again. You have never seen production the way you will see production, with the product org officer system. In the first place, it only functions with a team. It functions as a team action. So your product org officer system then will speed up the velocity of flow to such a degree that it approaches peak load for the individuals concerned, particularly a product officer, which is really something. But morale matches it. You'll never see so much motion, and you'll never see so much high morale, and you'll never see so much velocity, if you run the system right. So it is not a slight breakthrough, because it combines right over into morale.

And they say, "You've got to study the technology and so forth of how we work, before you can work with us," which is great. American firms have this down pretty pat. Two advertising agencies, or an account executive in the advertising agency and his staff talking to the company advertising contact man, put on about the wildest show you ever wanted to see. Well, one of them is educating the other one into what we do, and then the other one will turn around and educate them into what we do, and they get a feel that; they're good at this sort of thing. They've got a lot of these little gimmicks. They do have technology, see? They don't quite know where it fits a lot of times.

How did we used to have high speed organizations and here and now have low speed organizations? The difference is, the high speed organization was producing, the low speed organization isn't. That's the only difference between the two organizations. It has nothing to do with what you hired on only suppressives or something, that's the difference. You hire a hundred people, you're going to get fifteen or twenty suppressives. I mean, that's inevitable. But the high speed organization and the low speed organizations, the difference between them is production.

So here, they say to me, "Well yeah. What do you think, you're just a writer. And you've got to study what we do, so you come to school," and the next thing you know, I'm sitting there listening all about, and doing the clay demos on exactly how you throw together, exactly how you throw together a centennial. Now don't think there isn't technology in this field, because a Midwest Rogers man walks in with his little grip, and he's got a few little things in there. He's got some tickets and he's got some other little things, with very little money in his pocket. And he walks into this town, and a few months later they have the centennial. It's absolute creative magic, if you ever saw one. This is promotional par excellence.

Now when I write about this, this product system, do you agree now that there is some coordination between production, getting something done, and so forth, and morale? You can see that.

He organizes the various contests, he gets the businessmen, the local chamber of commerce, it all goes off almost by checklist. You do this, you do that, you do the other thing, and then you do something or other, and then etcetera, and then when you've got' ' that the beauty queen contest and so on, and then the tickets are sold in the stores, and that's the votes for the beauty queen. And you do the bla(c)bla(c)rwof, and the Midwest Rogers man, he gets the hats and whips. What's this?

Alright. Now when I look into this, writing this up, and when I tell people the rules of the product org officer system, they get the words without the music. And you can talk to them, and you can tell them and so forth, but unless you tell them, "Listen, there's some music to be gotten here as well as the words," and unless they've actually gone into an experiential action on a short term product as part of a product officer org officer team, why you'd miss the whole boat. You could read all about this, well there's a product officer and an org officer. Yes, they have those in General Motors; they have strikes there; and, you know what they do in General Motors, by the way, on the assembly line? They carefully take away from every worker his product. We found out by the way that the product officer claims the credit for all of the products produced, and gives no credit of any kind to anybody else producing any of the products for him. And if he just continues to take the credits all by himself, his team will go to pieces. If you put men on an assembly line, they're just tightening a nut and tightening a nut, and they keep talking about the final product, the final product of the automobile, final product of the automobile, they're immediately glossing over the fact that this guy that's right on that assembly line has a product. He has a seated car, or a tightened bolt, but he has a product.

Actually I wouldn't be able to tell you too much of the technology, because it's all super technological. We could be criticized on the same ground. They've got their special names for everything. Hats and whips, that's the souvenir business. So the guy who organizes the whole thing, why the Midwest Rogers man, he reserves to himself the hats and whips concession. So he sells out this hats and whips concession, and that's how he gets a side payoff from all of this, and they wind up with the doggondest, biggest, wildest centennial anybody ever heard of.

They never let them have part of the product, so the morale is bad, advertisedly. I don't know that it is, I've never worked on an assembly line. But therefore it is necessary to let the people have the product, the credit for the product, even though the product is sold or walks out or does something else, they've got the credit for that piece of the product. Now we have to redefine then what is a product. And a product is a completed cycle of action, which is then, can be represented as having been done, by definition. See, you'd have to know Scientology, you'd have to know things like a completed cycle of action you see, for it to make any sense. So don't think you're studying General Motors's.

So when I finished with their course and got all set with that, and took my examination and etcetera, I was getting all ready to sit down to my typewriter and write about the dear old days of '49, when Black Bart was preventing the digging of gold, why they said, "Say, how would you like Sacramento?" And I said, "What? What are you talking about?" "Well," they said, "you're one of the best agents we got here," and so on. "You've got the highest grades, and wouldn't you like to go up to Sacramento and take charge of that sector?" And I said, "No, I'll sit here and write your stories. Thank you very much." But they do have technology. There's lots of technology in the field.

So what have you got here? You got a machine that'll run away with you. Just that. If you don't know your OEC, if you don't know your org board, if you don't know everything there is to know about where should be what and who should go which, and how many beans should be over there and so on, and know this thing cold, you'll never make an org officer. And, if you never make an org officer you'll never make a product officer, because a product officer by definition is a good org officer.

Now that's public relations technology applied to promotion. You would apply that type of technology to a congress, or something of this sort. Then there's the other old daily grind technology. But what are you trying to do with all of this? What are you trying to do with all of this? You're either trying to create or generate, handle, control and so forth human emotion and reaction. The whole field of public relations, no matter how many little compartments it got, is actually occupying that zone and area. And that is the subject, if you've got to have one, called psychology. That's what the psychologist should be able to do. That's what a general is always trying to grab ahold of his psychological warfare staff and say, "Bring the enemy to their knees so we don't have to expend all this ammunition. We don't mind expending troops, but firing these guns is expensive, you know?" So he's always asking psychological warfare. Well actually, it's just simply a job in PR. Enemy, job in PR. Friends, job on PR. Just different publics.

Now the first thing that you have to know about a product officer, he has to want the product. Second thing, he has to be able to recognize the product. Maybe I've got those in reverse. Maybe he has to be able to recognize the product and want the product. But that's for sure. If those two things are missing, skip it. Nothing else is going to happen. You have to be able to recognize the product.

We right now could take a survey of the enemy, we know them name, rank, serial number, where they live, why their grandmother had to marry the girl. We know all about them, all we'd have to do is take a survey of them on human emotion terms. Plot it up on the tone scale, launch a campaign to them, mold their opinion.

Now this is an interesting skill all by itself, because you could walk down a line of typewriters, of people pounding a typewriter, and not recognize what the product is. It could be done, but it would take a little bit of doing. But if one is very airy-fairy he would say, "The product is answered mail, you see. For the whole, for one typist, answered mail. For one typist, the org's mail answered." See? Now let's get more airy-fairy, now let's go way outside the whole thing. Of course answered mail is a product, but it is a sections product. See? We have to recognize whose product it is, and to what does it apply.

Now you are mainly dealing in a world where the war for men's minds is rampant. Russia is fighting a war for the minds of men. And America, and every company in America, and the British Information Service are all fighting a war to capture the minds of men. To do' ' this they use PR technology, we don't care whether it's called propaganda. We have here Our Northern Neighbors, published in Canada, December 1970, number one fifty(c)nine. It is written in Moscow, it is published in Canada. It's a fantastic tour de force. Here are several copies of it, different months. July, August, September, October, November, December. "Here's Popov the Clown and his goat. They're world famous, they'll be delighting lucky Soviet kids this holiday season. For a personal look at the sunny clown in the Soviet circus, see pages fourteen and fifteen."

Now we go outside and we get some airy-fairy statement like, "What is your product," and we're talking to some clerk. And he says, "Communication lines around the world." Oh boy! He's a telex typist. He's working on the wrong product all the time. He isn't out there putting in communication along the... piece. He's producing sent and acknowledged telexes, one by one by one by one. He can actually be producing the telexes having to do with one cycle of administrative action, but that's what he's producing.

We open it up, contents, "Big mystery of human growth. The best year yet for us. Sex, seventy(c)three thousand Dr. Spocks." A very intriguing sort of thing. The cover page, "When they speak about sex, how they're ending farm pollution. Will you go short of power and heat, you people in Canada? Well we've got lots of it in Russia. USSR has nine big problems." This is an amazing, it's an amazing tour de force. Fantastic. They have a technique of counter point. Everything that is publicized in the American press is counter pointed in these magazines that it's good in Russia. "You have juvenile delinquencies in the United States, and we don't have them. In the United States you have to have women's freedoms movements, and in Russia we've had them for years. Women are perfectly free in Russia, in fact they're the only ones who work."

Now if his communication line is just to produce, is just the product of an acknowledged telex; he got it through to the other end, and he knows he got it through to the other end. If that is his product, you may find that he will be too, he's too lonely as a member of, you see he's too lonely as an individual with that product, to have that product be a total exhibition of competence, because he... You get the idea? He isn't looking at this as his product, he's thinking of something else as his product, the usual messed up thing. That telex operator would have to be part of a team, and it would have to be part of a briefed team. That's what's important, part of a briefed team. He'd have to know why he was sending the telexes, and he'd have to know what the telex network is and what these telexes did, he'd have to know a great deal about, about the organization he was operating for. In other words, he'd have to have an organization hat, and he'd also have to have a division hat. He'd also have to have a section hat. In short he would have to be part of the team.

"Here is the champion just before," a champion weight lifter. "Just before the world heavy weight lifting champion Jan Tolz left USSR for USA to take part in the tournament at Columbus, Ohio, the international federation bosses stripped him of his title and record, and handed the title over to Robert Bednarsky of USA. Here's what Tolz did to those cheats." And we find out that all the other competitors were on speed, they were on amphetamines. Bet nobody knew that. And nobody listened and so forth, and he really did win after all, even when he lost.

Now when you try to run a bunch of individuals as a product officer on their individual products only, you will find that you are getting into very serious trouble. They are a bunch of individuated people, they are not a team, they are not operating in a team action. Production is essentially a team activity.

"Are Roman Catholics turning to the left?" This is PR. Fantastic. I isolated three systems in use in this. Mary Sue was, did an analysis on it. And I isolated three systems of propaganda which they use. Very effective. Three isolated, technical systems. I gave you one of them, I won't bother with the other two.

Now you've got the stellar star who can water ski beautifully. Very good. It is interesting, and it makes a lot of other people want to water ski too. Actually, the audience is doing a participation, as they watch him water ski. Well, that's enough status and enough expertise, and is rare enough and so on to have other things, so this guy's sitting there. You will run into it often. The reason the telexes don't get answered is because the guy doesn't recognize what this product is, he doesn't know what he's doing with this product, he doesn't know what he's forwarding with this product, because he's not a part of the team. Do you see?

"You got dirty streets, Russia's are all clean streets. You havin' troubles? If you was in Russia you wouldn't have these troubles. Western youth, they have acne. Russian youth, no acne. Soviet doctors have cured it all. They found out what it is, yes." You get it? Counter point, counter point, counter point, counter point. Effective, but somewhat defiant, so therefore it's not very smooth. But this is dialectic materialism at use, which is their mental technology. All ideas result from the collision of two forces. These say it differently, then they implant thetans they use a positive/negative.

So, he's part of several groups within one group. The product officer then has to be sure that his, the team he is operating with, is a team, and this brings in the org officer. When they cease to be members of the team, there is the first point where the org officer will find himself with a problem. Guy isn't a member of the team.

Now just as we're sitting here with the undercut of dialectic materialism, we're sitting here with an undercut of propaganda. Now if you use the existing standard technologies of public' ' relations, and if you use the standard existing means and media, and if you gave them just that little bit of refinement necessary of an orientation of the subject and what is this subject for, and you do it right, straight down the groove, and then the people who use it know what they're doing, that is the important point, you have an impingement on the society. We're being treated to a counter propaganda campaign the like of which nobody ever heard of.

Now a fellow can become, cease to be a member of the team through failures, and you can explain it in numerous other ways. Actually if you want to really crash somebody's morale, is remove him from post. That's a very, a very cruel, wicked sort of an action, but in his own estimation. Sometimes necessary to do it. And then you'll find out something interesting as an org officer, that a guy's job is valuable. And so we look further into this universe and this world, and we find only those places where people are unhatted are they unhappy.

Now somehow or another we've got to move up to the front with this, and we don't have the news media under our control, and so on. We're being treated to a counter propaganda campaign, and have for a long time. This isn't the press talking, this is the people who make the press talk talking. We have had innumerable wins, they are never reported. The enemy never does have any wins, they have hope. Did you ever analyze all of their news articles, and so on? Hope. But they have a news office located up someplace in England, and so on, which is a hand out PR office, and it just sends off all these things you read about, "Psychology is new hope for the," you know, "Mentally retarded will no longer be if certain things succeed," you know, "Hope." And we find out that by our survey of the British departments and ministries that they think the public is terribly; well I actually had them surveyed to find out what they thought was bad propaganda so I could give it to them. And they answered up, and we've got it all written down in the bag. If I ever wanted to machine gun them, why there it is, because their PR men would go mad. And they'd just listen to what the PR man says inside the line up.

So your first action of the org officer is hattedness, as a member of the team.

What is public opinion? Public opinion are what is written in the newspapers and what your PR man says. That's as near as a politician ever comes to it. A government is peculiarly susceptible to clipping newspapers.

Now let's go back here to this Soviet deal. This Soviet published magazine, perfectly legal. They have some agreement with Canada and so on. This Soviet published magazine is given the fantastic job of doing what most embassies and so forth do, in the field of overt intelligence they call it, which is clipping magazines and newspapers. They have to do all this covert. To find out what is being said in the American press and in American technical journals and that sort of thing, it's necessary for the Russians to use their satellite states, and to actually smuggle the stuff, and so on, and just to get what the New York Times says. It has to go back in a diplomatic mail pouch to Moscow, for this stuff to be written. So they do a splendid job, really. There isn't anybody in Canada writing this. Russia export an editor that's permitted to write something in Canada? Oh no.

So, all the material that goes into this is taken from intelligence sources. They have a fantastic network then, just to collect this material. And then this material has to go to Moscow and has to be edited and put together, and the stuff written. Now then it has to be turned around and exported, and all this rapidly enough for it to be timely in order to hit the presses of Northern Neighbors,' ' published in Canada.

Now we're really getting down to pay dirt. PR requires organization, and it requires pretty hot organization. And if you ever wanted to see an organization have to function it's a PR organization. You really have to know administration left, right and center to do PR. There are very few PR men who are ever trained in administration, yet it's essentially an administrative subject.

It is the failure to keep their clipping book up to date that causes many a PR man to fail. Who organizes all of the stuff that brings this stuff in from, covertly, to diplomatic pouches to Russia to get it spilled out, to get it digested, clipped? Who keeps the office running there? Who supplies it with enough personnel that can speak the language and write it? Who organizes the route back into Northern Neighbors and takes care of the PR to keep Canada happy to having it published. It's quite an organizational tour de force.

So that propaganda of any kind requires organization. That is why, by the way, we knew extremely well, we knew very well that the enemy that we were confronted with was not a few random newspaper reporters, but it was extremely well organized, because the timing on it, and so on. And I made some interesting discoveries on this because searching for it in the field of organization, I can tell you now just about exactly what kind of an organization they have, and about where it sits, and about what it does, and so forth, just by knowing the organizational requirements. And they stink. They stink. They couldn't run a kiddie car. It was just failing to find them and failing to estimate what they were doing and why, is what kept us being hit by the thing, and also they had, they were there first and they had all the, what they call the mass media under total control and under their thumb. So of course they could say anything they pleased, and we were not in a position to say anything we pleased.

So how did we reverse all of this? Well now, there's one little sector of technology, and I've been going along this sector of technology showing you that you can make a breakthrough in a particular field, and give you some sort of an idea of it.

Now PR comes into its own in the field of production. And the reason I am talking to you about PR is the primary barrier to production is human emotion and reaction. And as you move forward you will find you're in collision with human emotion and reaction, almost consistently and continuously. If you don't understand some of this that I've been telling you about PR, you will have an awful time of it. If you think PR is going around and being a nice fellow, or talking somebody around in some fashion or another, why you might as well forget it, because PR is not being a fellow, a pleasant fellow. ARC is only one little portion of PR. PR is a technological activity. Now it always had technological procedures, so we've moved it up onto the front burner."'?Now I'm not trying to sell you anything here with PR at all. I'm trying to give you an example of a technical breakthrough. Now from the basic little laws which I gave you on the subject of PR, definition and scope of subject, you can now develop technical applications, and you can develop practices which are based on these basic actions and laws and formulas, and which utilize anything known about the subject to date. And it puts you in control of human emotion and reaction in your immediate vicinity.

So, there is a piece of technology, and as a piece of technology it has considerable value. But it gives you where you go when you make a basic breakthrough. We happen to be in the field of human emotion and reaction, and therefore we are in continuous collision with this particular field. Being in continuous collision with this field we'd better know something about handling it. And therefore, one of the adjuncts that a production officer would have to have would be a PR arm of some type or kind. So if he moved it up into the upper story, and he was really working at volume, he would actually have to be supported by a PR man. If he weren't supported by a PR man he would come a cropper. Unless you know something about this, and unless you know that a subject exists; I'm not talking to you to suddenly know this whole subject, but you've got to know that such a subject exists, that it does have technology, and that it has found its basic and primary use, which is an adjunct of production. And if you know those facts, your interest in it would be adequate that when you start running into the problem of human emotion and reaction as a barrier, you would know that there is a technology that can move ahead with this, and handle the human emotion and reaction you're running into, as a barrier to your production.

We have a whole world right now to handle. It will eventually go out, something along the line of a forward action. Ahead of where we are there will always be a sort of a PR outpost, or a small PR action going on, in advance of where we are working. Now the enemy has been trying very, very hard, with very knuckle headed PR, which overran itself and began to overrun itself and got mixed up along about the time of the Melbourne inquiry. And ever since that time the enemy has been making the continuous mistake of hitting it too hard. About that time he went too far, and you'll find out there's been a press revulsion, but long before that there was a press revulsion there was actually was a public revulsion. So the enemy, in following through various formulas of what he thought it should all consist of, and following them through very badly, has done a very bad job of it. He has made our name known.

The recent "lost" suit in England was worth easily a hundred thousand pounds in advertising. Easily. We couldn't have bought it. It demonstrated that the government had no case against it, and it demonstrated that a member of parliament can say what he pleases. These are disrelated facts, didn't have much to do with that. But that we've attacked the government apparently made us very popular. "'The formula of revolution is as follows: The person who is antagonistic toward the government joins anyone who opposes it. They ask no questions about who they're joining, they only know that they want to blow down eventually, or change or alter a government. Anybody who attacks the government then, that's how a revolution begins. And that's why revolutions are usually betrayed. The people who join revolutions are usually betrayed, because they never ask the question of, "Who am I joining?" They just join whoever's agin' it. That outfits agin' it? Good. Must be a good outfit, join it up. That formula just went on in England. The psychotic up there, Minister Crossman, he's a real spinner. He's quite mad. And that's not just a casual insult. He runs the new statesman. He thinks the Scientologists are some sort of a revolutionary group that are not as bad as the Yippies, or something. And you read this over, why you know you're reading a guy who thinks the Martians are after him, but he wouldn't be able to differentiate who we are or what. He has already decided that we're against the government. As a matter of fact, it isn't even true. But when they; that we lost in suing the government was not the point. That we were against the government was the point. You seldom get a chance to make a statement, "We're against the government."

Now people who are looking for a raw red revolution of course would liable to be disappointed when they came to us, because people are misreading the whole situation. Left and right, misreading the situation. We have a PR situation. First and foremost we have a PR situation. Therefore this is part of the technology with which we're operating. This technology should be known to you, but there is a method of proceeding into the public, there is a method of handling and controlling human opinion. If you don't understand that, then your own hopes of expansion would be greatly curtailed.

Administration and organization is very complex, but there is a method of extending your own basis of operation into the government, into the people, into the this and even into the enemy. And that you should know that that is that. And come off a rather silly approach of just trying to be good, and eventually they'll recognize your worth. That doesn't work at all. Just has no value.

In the field of PR, good works well publicized is one of the definitions which they give in a textbook on the subject. That's supposed to be the perfect definition of PR. It couldn't be further from the truth. Effective cause, well demonstrated. You see, they've made a few little refinements. Then you can make forward progress.

Now all the organization you do in the world is not going to do you any good unless you're making forward progress into the environment in which you find yourself. An organization must only expand, and an organization which contracts dies. That happens to be the way the universe is built. It isn't because I say so, it's because it's true. And so therefore, you must look considerably to your" various PR factors, as you move on out. And these should not be neglected.

Now in the shininess and brassiness and newness of the technology with which you are now dealing, and the administrative technology which you're now dealing, we haven't yet begun to fight along this particular line. I mean, we're, we're really with it. Why, if you don't know that there is a method of handling human emotion and reaction, and you don't know that that is the method by which you will extend, and you don't know that, that that fancy mailing you are getting out and paying a lot of money for, if this wasn't based on any survey, ha(c)ha! Had no project back of it, had no campaign at all, didn't do anything. Might as well have been thrown in the toilet, because it wasn't put out along technological lines, do you follow? Therefore the technology of PR is necessary, because it forms one of the larger items in the budget of an administrator. It is big, and when it is neglected you fail. And when it itself is bad you also fail.

So, I am PRing the subject of PR to you, and I'm telling you that there has been a breakthrough in this field. I'm telling you that there is a technology, and I'm telling you that you will find it absolutely vital, and that you certainly somewhere up the line, in handling product and organization, will collide with a situation which can only be handled by PR. And try as you will, you won't be able to get any further without the PR being handled. And you will have a hard enough time handling it, even using all of PR. So when all seems too grim and you can't seem to get your point across, and you can't seem to get your product, and it just won't organize that way, then you do have a tool. And that tool is called PR. And it has its own technology, and we have made a breakthrough in this subject, and I actually respect the fellows who have worked hard in this field to make standard technologies extant. They are most overlooked by their own brethren.

So, all the technology there is in this field is adaptable, providing you know what the subject is for, which the PR man doesn't. Isn't that remarkable? Alright, let's take a five minute break, huh?