You've got to know personnel if this was what broke the Prod/Org system, the mishandling of personnel, failure to take them on in quantity, failure to hat them and train them up, failure to let the failures out through Qual. If this was what broke the Prod/Org system and brought the orgs up; that system is a tremendous shock when it breaks, and it breaks on the subject of establishment, and the establishment breaks on the subject of personnel, and in desperation they use the wrong personnel pools. And so therefore you can expect the Esto system to break similarly unless you correct that error.

OK. This is the fifth of March AD22 and Establishment Officer lecture number five. I'm lecturing to you on the basis of a very upstage, highly advanced, graduate level. Undoubtedly, some hearing these lectures will get disestablished by saying, "My god, I didn't realize there was that much to it," or, "What are all those heavy big words, like is?"

Now, built into the Esto system is the correction of that error, or I wouldn't be talking to you about personnel right now. One of the main things is there just wasn't enough guys there establishing. It took more people, that is all. If we're going to run this kind of an expanding perimeter, there's just got to be more people there hatting faster and handling faster than has ever been done before. The fastest HCO in the world would be a slow turtle compared to what an Establishment Officer today would have to be, to keep an expanding action going. Otherwise than that, the Product/Org system is gorgeous and is still with us, only I've fixed it up now so that it'll gun an organization even harder, and I expect the Esto to catch it, to catch the ball, to keep the disintegration from occurring because there has been expansion.

The day an Establishment Officer comes on post fully trained will probably never arrive because I am still learning about establishment after twenty-two years in Dianetics and Scientology organizations, and I haven't quite counted up how many years on the track. There have been some very fancy org boards, there have been some very fancy organizations, there have been several systems, several billion systems, several infinities of systems of organization. And the Scientology organization, as you can read in a policy letter, was taken from one of the better planetary, interplanetary organizations, which as far as I know is still running. And its basis was mind, body, product.

And do you know that this was the why of the disintegration of the first Foundations of l950? They expanded so rapidly they disintegrated, they couldn't be patrolled and policed and handled fast enough. That is the basic operational why. This drove their executives criminal upside down and backwards. I didn't control those first organizations, the Board of Directors of those organizations were quite opposed to my policies, by the way. They knew best, and they knew so best they crashed it. When I pulled out of the line up and decided I'd write another book and so forth, she went for a little while and she splattered. Why did she splatter? Well, they didn't hat and they didn't train, they didn't insist on good training, and there she went. Quite in addition to that, she was also being run into, that whole area and myself were being run into, by one of the lousier sets of bums that ever walked down the path. Their group had decided that this was very dangerous, it lay across a political plan of such magnitude that the world was very well saved from it and it probably has been saved from it now. But those cats are still walking around in circles. It was a bending of the law by reason of a disease known as mental illness. If people had this strange disease called mental illness, why then jurisprudence, as normally practiced in sensible countries, would have to be laid aside. And the knock on the door in the middle of the night, and the no legal procedure for the incarceration so that you could kill somebody, was intended as the political future of the countries in which we were operating. And we ran square into that, and all of a sudden we came along and said, "Hey, you can make these guys well, you can handle them, haha." Whoa. And they said, "Oh my god," and they pulled every gun they had. And by l968 we had their backs almost snapped, and as far as I'm concerned right now, crossing my fingers, it has snapped. But we had exterior pressure that was quite unusual, but it could start up again. Now, how would it ever be prevented?

Now, the question will be asked at once, "How does the Establishment Officer system fit into the Product/Org Officer system? Well, it fits in very, very easily. If you change Org Officer to Program Officer and if you change HAS to Establishment Officer throughout the series, and possibly some minor change in lines, why, you will have a conversion of the system. It is a conversion mainly then of title, but the concentration of function has not, in actual fact, varied. When I first started out with the Product/Org Officer system, I piloted it myself, I found immediately having gotten out the product, that I had in my hands a program; the one-two. Trying to get out that product resulted in a program, thinking about getting out a product in the future resulted in a program, and these programs both required a formal investigation, by me. Not "Appoint a board of investigation to discover..." no, no, no, no. And not by asking a lot of people, but with the eye. In other words look, don't listen, and find the why, and that would turn into a program.

Well, they never influence the prosperity of an org if the org remains established. But an org that is hit which is unstablized, which is not stable, tends to go guuhh. Some bad news comes through the place, something like this happens, some rumors come around, a couple of pcs are picked up and executed or something. Christ, they, the people get kind of unstable there; they were unstable to begin with to get unstable. If they keep on rolling it and so forth, it'll handle.

Well, that program required a certain amount of execution. The programs were not always feasible and a program takes longer to get out than a product. The speed of establishment necessary to accomplish a program always exceeds the hope of the Product Officer. The Product Officer looks it over and he's, he's now, he's set a target of some kind or another and he wants some this or that, he wants this new course started and so on, and he looks it over and sees what he's got to get, and therefore he will turn out some sort of a program. He's got a new course that of course has to have a supervisor and has to have packs, and it has to have promotion and it has to have maybe a tour, and it has to have this and it has to have that, and it has to have an opening date, that sort of thing. You see? Ratta-tat-tat. And it's got to have somebody sign them up who won't say, "Oh, you're here to sign up for the new course? Yeah, well, what do you know? I guess I'll have to ask somebody," and so on, "It's alright."

The Guardian's Office is probably the best hatted. You know that they, what they do in terms of hatting could be a great lesson to an Establishment Officer. They go to the wildest limits to hat people. They bring in somebody and the person is trained in the office there, and if the person doesn't make it they just off load and they get somebody else. And they work, and they work, and they work, and they work, and they work in order to make good personnel, and they get them. So the upshot of it is, is there is a very good example of hatting. And now they have taken care of the external perimeter that would take care of another push of this type.

Do you believe that a registrar could exist who forgot to take the people's money? It just happened in Auckland, that's why Auckland was going broke. So you see, if he says it has to be registrared, the Product Officer, why that would mean that the registration of the course was not just simply to get a blank, that person would have to be genned in. And little gen-ins like talk to the person, "Here is a flier for the course, it tells what it is, here's the information about the course and here is the cost of the course." We just started a course and nobody had set its cost yet, for instance. "And here is what you do and here is the hat relating to interviews and you take the money." Show you how daffy this can get, you said, "The registrar can invoice the money received," see, intention; because we found out in London after they were signed up if they weren't invoiced, huge piles of sign-ups accumulated at the cashier, some of them as much as a year old. The person had left the registration office, but had never arrived at the cashier's office for some reason or another, and the cashier either wasn't there, wasn't on post or there was no cashier, and so all of their business was falling between these two posts.

Another area that we depend on is the Port Captain's office, nowhere near as well as hatted as the Guardian's Office, they do pretty well, they do pretty well, but somebody's really got to roll up their sleeves in that area. So it all breaks down to personnel and the stability of that personnel and that is the test. And if you can achieve a flow of personnel, you can then get stable personnel. How odd. It doesn't mean that everybody is absolutely fixed upon his post, it means the speed with which you can hat somebody and get him producing, and with which you can get him off of a sensitive post and get somebody on who can be hatted, when he doesn't. That requires a flow, that requires personnel, you've got to have personnel to pick from, you've got to have personnel pools, you've got to have people in training. If you got that, you got it made. That's a flow of personnel. Whenever you see an org suddenly static, you know you are looking at a future crash. How long has it been since anybody has been hired in this org? It's been four months. Oh boy, we're about thirty days from a crash, because all that has to happen is Mamie Glutz's husband has all of a sudden got to or something else untoward occurs which knocks a couple of pins out of the line up, and you've got nobody being seasoned coming up the line. So you suddenly, you start to run out of your experienced people.

So, we remembered in the earliest days that the registrar always did write up her invoice with her cash and so on, and then turn this over into the cashier. The policy letter was unfortunately headed "Registrar Invoices" so do you know what happened? I just got a horrible suspicion when I looked at this. This was one of these things where you do an investigation by flare. That is to say, the obvious answer to make this situation would be this goofiness, and you hit these every once in a while. Now, be careful because you can also, don't get drunk with your godliness on this, because you can also be wrong, but in this and many other cases, these are very right. And I said, "My god, they have dumped all registration, all invoicing and all money handling and balancing, on registrars. I'll just bet you this is the case." And we instantly put it out on the telex lines and looked over and so forth, aaaah, it's true. They had taken the cashier off post because "the registrar invoiced now." The registrar was invoicing books, mail, the registrar was writing all invoices that were written by the whole org and was taking in the money, was balancing it up. So, complete nuttinesses can occur that you don't believe. So when the Product Officer says, "And register the course," where does the Establishment Officer fit? Now, that means you've got to have a hatted registrar.

There was an interesting fact, the L.A. Org, big stat days, had as executives people who are no longer around. They may be in franchises or they're out someplace or so on. Scientology orgs cut their own throats with their two and a half year contract. At the end of about two and a half years, the person thinks he ought to leave, yeah, or at the end of five years, the contract was up so immediately he should leave. Two and a half years, it takes about two and a half years to make a staff member.

Now, there was this sad fellow one time who was found hanging himself and he was a former Establishment Officer who was reasonable. That would be the most deadly flaw that an Establishment Officer could have, "be reasonable." Next to it would be a deadly flaw of "take somebody's explanation." I have heard all the explanations I ever care to hear, and do you know, I look forward to the day when a correct one is given me. You know, I have never had a correct explanation from a staff member why this thing wasn't working? It's almost uniform, they almost always have the wrong reason, and that's why it doesn't correct. Now let's go over into auditing tech and we know that if the person doesn't have the right problem, it won't resolve. So they're usually trying to solve the wrong problem. Well, that applies to every staff member there is. If he has a problem on his post, it is not the problem he has on his post, or it would not be a problem. Do you follow? It has to be a false problem for the thing to persist. So the right why is another way of saying "the correct problem" or "the correct reason."

A flow, a flow of personnel, a flow of personnel; how you build up a very strong organization. Static personnel, you won't. And that doesn't mean every time somebody stumbles, why, he's kicked in his head or something like that. You're not being an executioner of personnel. But it does mean that if you're operating without a personnel pool, you will be in trouble consistently and continuously and the problems which you have you will find sooner or later will become insurmountable, you just won't be able to get over them. You got a division, that division is supposed to number anything from three to forty. And if you haven't got personnel pools in a little division, you may go longer than a big division, but if you haven't got personnel pools, at the end of about a week of staticness you will now have a problem. It happens that fast.

So as we look down the line we find the Product/Org Officer/HAS line-up was frail just to this degree. But it doesn't take long to write up and even to do an investigation; although if you do a wrong investigation it can take six or eight months of re-doing the investigation and re-doing it and re-doing it and re-doing it until you really do get the right why, and that can happen to the best; but it doesn't take long, proportionately speaking. Now, it is easier to demand the product than it is to get the program bits executed that will give you the product. Now, it is easier to demand the program bits of the program than it is to establish in the MEST universe. Many thetans disagree with this, that is to say they disagree with this idea, and you'll find this quite prevalent, it extends all over the place in other words. The guy says, "Well, why can't I just sort of make a postulate and there it is?" Well, that is the way that made the MEST universe and that is perfectly true, but working in the MEST universe there is amount of time involved, there's preparation, there is construction. But a thetan will hang up on this. So he says, "Well, bop, and therefore that'll materialize," see? "Eight thousand dollar GI, bop," it just ought to materialize. And almost no one ever estimates the amount of programming and organization it requires to get an eight thousand dollar GI. So look at these, look at these, the quick postulate of the product followed by the slower, but nevertheless fairly rapid one-two-three-four of getting the program in for that particular thing.

Take a Tech Division, the ebb and flow of tech personnel is fantastic. One of the things that knocks you in the head in the Tech Division is the C/S because he's following the rules, and he should. And if he follows the rules, you will eventually have a marvelous Tech Division; if he doesn't follow the rules, you won't. On any similar error repeated, it's one instruction, one cram, one retread. All a guy's got to do is repeat the same error or a similar error, retread. "Yeah, but my god, we've got fifteen public and they are already backlogged and you all of a sudden have swept away three auditors." Well, you better have had swept away three auditors, because the number of hours you will now run up patching the number of goofs those guys are making will exceed anything you ever dreamed of. You, by keeping an inexpert auditor on the line or an inexpert supervisor on the line, you have promptly backlogged your org. He's a backlog even before he touches a pc because if he audits ten hours, there's going to have to be five to patch up his ten. If he's trained this group of students, somebody else is going to have to come along half way through this course or something like that to get a product because they just aren't graduating. Do you see?

His idea of demanding the product is he wants it far sooner than it can be accomplished, and the demand of the program checker is he is demanding it far sooner than it could be gotten, and he is demanding it through other actions in progress, routine post duties and dev-t. And a wrong program will itself generate dev-t, so getting the program actually accomplished is sufficiently arduous and sufficiently difficult from the viewpoint of establishment, that you very often get not-dones and half-dones. There's a PL on this, "Not-dones, Half-dones and Backlogs." The not-dones and the half-dones will result in a backlog, and the backlog kicks their brains in because it serves as dev-t to all fresh traffic. So the system, the Product/Org Officer system, had these frailties. But it was very, very easy to demand the product, to do the investigation and to write up a program.

So it's the personnel in that particular case that creates the situation with inexpertness. Now, we don't follow this out but will shortly be following it out with supervisors. All he's got to do is miss on a student and he gets a heavy instruction, and if he misses again on a student he'll be crammed, and if he misses again, retread. And then you will see all of a sudden, training pick up to the skies. Retread. If you fail to retread, now let me show you the Esto's problem, if you do retread people it means people are going to be missing out of your line up and you're going to go mad because you haven't got auditors to fill in, and he was half way through Mrs. Glutz and now all of a sudden the D of P has got to tell Mrs. Glutz that her auditor... But the funny part of it is, she'd feel great confidence in the organization if all of a sudden you said, "Your auditor is being retreaded." And she would probably say, "Well, he seemed all right, but it wasn't quite as good as I thought it should be."

Now, it required a considerable longer period of time to check out that exact program and run around and see everybody and get all that, those point in. That'd be the Org Officer now would be the deputy, he's the Program Officer, and trying to get those points in and complied with will usually wind up in the lap of, usually the Org Officer wound it up in the lap of the HAS. And the HAS just had Org Officer around his neck and he looked like one of these statues where this ancient mythological family had, was attacked by snakes and there were just snakes all over the place, and boom, boom, boom, and they sort of went bonkers. So, it wasn't posted in proportion to the amount of work necessary. Just that. It made overloads. In other words, the Product Officer could very easily overload the Org Officer. "And get this fixed and get that fixed, you got that now? Oh, that's fine." And the Org Officer says, "OK," and he runs at a dead, flat out run. Well, the fact that the Product Officer is running made the Org Officer sprint like a racehorse. Now these guys, the Org Officer doing that, had to get establishment out of an HAS who was already swamped, backlogged, routine duties, so on, gone dog. You see what was, what was essentially wrong, all that was wrong is that the system was imbalanced.

So there you are, guy gone out of your line up. Where do you get another one? How do you fill it in? Well, therefore it requires an auditor pool, doesn't it? What org has an auditor pool? None. Well, one of the ways you make an auditor pool, you can ebb and flow off upper level training, ebb and flow. See? Every time a guy hasn't got pcs he's on full time training, you could bring him up, you could actually work out some kind of a scheme. There isn't such a scheme operating, but you could make an auditor pool where the auditor would either be studying or auditing. One of those operations we started, to show you how these things backfire, we put a set-up auditor on a Dianetic rundown; it was a spare VI, so as to keep the Dianetic auditors running. So we'd take this auditor and we would run him, he would put in the ruds and patch something up and give the person back to the Dianetic auditor, when upper level actions had to be done, just to get this person so he could go on through with his Dianetics. I looked over and here we've got a hideous looking stat like this: A set-up auditor, thirty hours and thirty-five minutes; average Dianetic auditor, nine hours. Well, what's that mean? It means you didn't have enough set-up auditors. It isn't the system is unworkable, it probably required fifty percent of the number of Dianetic auditors as set-up auditors.

Now, the Product Officer could very easily have his hat ripped off then by getting interiorized into organization, make-do, other things, and a great many things are demanded of a person who is the head of something that are not necessarily product at all. Oh, he has social things and he's got this and that and the other thing, he's got administrative lines, he has in-basket trouble and he's got seniors way up the line are saying, "Why in hell, wrong why, wrong why," you know, something like that. He's got to handle that and so he really doesn't have too much of a purity of duty, his duty is very colored by all kinds of other things hitting him. He needs in actual fact a yeoman, if you wanted to go into a large org, he needs a CO's secretary, receptionist to handle his traffic, shake the dev-t out of it, get it in some kind of order, keep his day and tell people about appointments and things of that character. He needs a deputy to keep the yeoman or secretary's hat on, keep that straightened out. It's really a sort of an interesting situation that I see by experience whereas the deputy keeps this guy hatted, keeps the yeoman hatted; doesn't use him, but just makes sure that traffic handles right. Do you see? And just by that fact alone his own job is enormously lightened. So this permits then a Product Officer to do an enormous amount of evaluation.

Now, if you just increased that way up and had this guy studying for his upper level rundowns or doing set-ups, if you worked out something like that, you would have such a thing as an auditor pool. You could fill, you could fill them in. But on the other hand, what are you doing with auditors who can only audit Dianetics? That must have been a, that must have been an oversight in the amount of training required, it must have been a production demand that was there before the auditors were furnished. So you've got problems like this, but they all center around this one thing of personnel. And that's why the Product/Org system, it'll gun an org, it'll fix it up, it'll bring it forward, it'll do this and that, but boy does it have to be backed up, and it's got to be backed up rapidly. So the Esto's job is not a slow job, it's actually a rather fast job.

Now you say, "Well, evaluation is really an I and R department three action." No, it is not. It is a top flight action because he who does not evaluate will not be able to plan, and an org is running on that fellow's plans. If you are not in possession of fantastic quantities of information, you cannot evaluate. If you cannot evaluate, god help you, you cannot plan. So therefore the Product Officer, if he has an idea of just sitting in one place in an org, he'd better disabuse himself of it. Now, if he had enough runners and if he had enough aides or assistants or something like that to dig up this fact and dig up that fact, he might not have to run around, but orgs aren't, at this stage of the game blessed with such a system.

I was interested right now in the one org where the Esto system is running at this moment, that the Deputy CO was found to have been third partying the main Esto and between the main Esto and the Commanding Officer. She was obviously blaming things on the Esto or something or something or something, and somebody had to go over there from USLO to debug this and run a third party investigation and get the thing unbugged. Ha, that, that's interesting, they've run into it already. In other words, the Esto was really not backing up with the speed that was required of the production. And it's true enough I think at this stage of the game he hardly has any Estos working in the org, I think they're mostly under training. Going at it just a little bit wrong. An Esto, you see, is supposed to hat somebody and get him producing what he should be producing on that post. It doesn't matter.

What, what then does the Program Officer do, that is, the deputy? The deputy is administrative and lines. Do you see? Program. The Product Officer's lines, the administrative functions of, and getting the program executed. Now, that in itself is an interesting trick. All programs should be published. They start with an evaluation, then they've got a handling and that plan is incorporated into a program. Data Series 23 and 24 give you the layout. It isn't just a stylized layout, you skip some point of this layout, why, you hang yourself. Alright.

First there's an instant hat and get him producing on the post, and then we mini-hat him and get him producing on the post, and then we full hat him and get him producing on the post, and they're just a little sandwich. So it's only fair that an Esto be trained the same way.

Copy, mimeographed copy of this, if you don't get it around to the staff, they don't know what you're doing. It gives them the existing scene. So, you've got a folder and a mimeographed copy of that is on the left hand inside cover of this folder, and it's marked "master" and the program bits, target by target by target, are put into that folder. This folder is marked "ED woof-woof AOLA" see, something like that. There is the side yellow tab that comes out. And the bits as they're finished go into that. Now, if the Product Officer is running somewhat single-handing, he would get that folder every time one of those targets was done. That would be put, handed to him by his deputy. Targets done, it's all CSWed; that's finished, checked, inspected, done; and it's marked over here on the little lines you see going out and it says done, alright, and it's in the folder. Now, you accumulate those things up and you get the whole thing. If he's rather suspicious of things he keeps... and see how little, in other words it's a sort of a progress report, you know?... And if the organization were running very, very well, he would simply get the one folder with all the papers in it, all targets done, bang. And that would be a very ideal...

Now, there is something about total study that is bad. The significance/mass ratio unbalances and you just get the significance, the significance, the significance, and after a while you say, "Oh my god. If I just had some mass to go with this significance, if I could just see one of these things." And so therefore a person on a significance, significance, significance, will actually try to learn, try to find out, try to find out, try to find out, sort of pull in, pull in. He goes to effect, effect, effect, effect, effect. And the very good student very often becomes a very glib student who then can't apply his data, and it comes just from the mass/significance ratio. So therefore it is vital that an Esto not fall into this because he has to be causative, he has to be at cause, and it is vital that he keep his study up and not skip it, because he has to be the damn bestest hatted person that anybody ever heard of. Boy, does he have to be hatted; otherwise he won't think it's possible that anybody can be hatted. So while others sleep, he ought to be cracking the book.

The technique by which this is done and how these things are nudged, is contained in the LRH Comm checksheets, and the LRH Comm checksheets would be the deputy's bible by which he would go.

Now, in addition to that, he also has to hat himself on the division he's handling. So he's carrying through two hats simultaneously, he's hatting himself on all the hats of the division, the divisional hat, and he's hatting himself on his Esto hat and so forth, and there is a lot to know. And therefore he should be in the middle of it all with plenty of mass to overcome all that significance. So I think you find that's quite optimum.

... musical chairs, but it may be desperate but it won't be anywhere near as desperate if you musical chair this thing to get it done. And now it will get desperate. "Oh yes, we met the target today, yes, we did today," but tomorrow the cost of making that target was disestablishment left, right, upside and down. So you have to hold the form of the org in spite of it.

Now, there are a few little bits and pieces which I would like to call to your attention. One of the benefits of an Esto system is that an SP, and they do exist, cannot work happily in a division with an Esto. Why? Well, the Esto's sort of missing a withhold on him all the time, and just the fact that the Esto is there operates as a curb on his activities. Why? Well, he starts caving in this one and caving in that one and caving in another one the way he was doing previously, it shows up on the Esto's lines. And Gertrude is crying and Bessie Ann is sick and George all of a sudden is howling 1.1 resentful, and the division wasn't quite that bad yesterday and we start straightening it out and we get it running somehow. It was the Org Officer who handled all the personnel, by the way, and that was far beyond the Org Officer's ability, calling on personnel all the time. That's an Esto's job. And so here you are, calling on, trying to hat them, trying to get them producing, trying to get them lined up, trying to make sure that everything is OK, and you find out the place is upset. And you check it up for dev-t and so forth and you can't find any real signs of it and so on, and the next day why it's a little bit tougher. And a day or two goes along and an Esto in any event would then about that time get suspicious that there was something going on here he didn't know what it was. And to save his own life, he would have to run it down. Now, that's why an Esto has to know SP tech, not because he has got lots of SPs but he will get one now and then.

Now, one of the sorriest things that you'll run into will be personnel; where to get personnel from, that is always the toughest one because when HCO was not getting new personnel, the org could only expand by musical chairs. So you will find then that the deputy Product Officer, the deputy C/O, the deputy Treasury Sec, the deputy Tech Sec, so forth, he will only be able to expand by musical chairing unless there is a personnel pool. You say, "Well yes, it's very costly to keep that many personnel hanging around and so forth and so forth." Oh, it may costly and finance may point it out to you as costly, but let me assure you it costs a hundred times as much not to have them. They didn't train auditors in the PAC area and didn't train auditors in the PAC area and didn't train auditors in the PAC area, and you put auditors on for training in the PAC area and they were ripped off for a personnel pool, and they didn't train auditors and they didn't train auditors. And then what do you hear? People talking about, well, they haven't got enough people and that costs too much and that sort of thing. But now what do you hear?

I just found out a guy, I'll give you a real practical; you know I'm not giving you anything I haven't done. I can speak with considerable certainty on this subject. But I've been trying to hat a guy and trying to hat a guy and trying to hat a guy and trying to hat a guy, somewhat in, not intensively, I've been trying to hat him, I'm hatting him and he unhats, and I hat him and he sort of unhats, and because I'm not concentrated on this point, it took me a little while, quite a little while to become aware of the fact that something was wrong. Believe it or not, I might only spend five minutes a day on this subject, but there was somebody else spending three and four hours of post time a day, busy hatting him as a chiropractor. The other person was going to leave, wanted to blow, and wanted to study chiropractry to handle his own spine, and was the kind of a guy that would never make a doctor anyway because he hates people. And I didn't wake up to this for quite a while, until all of a sudden it started to hit me as rather strange that I couldn't hat this fellow. As a matter of fact, my little efforts to hat this fellow were starting to meet resentment and it was increasing over a period of time. And yet, there had been some ethics actions so I could of course say, "Well, he was upset about these ethics actions," there were ways to explain it. Well, I wasn't in there pitching with this fellow all the time, really trying, and yet it showed up. He had a fellow on the other side that was hatting him much harder.

The cost of non-Sea Org auditors is so prohibitive as to have doubled the FP of the existing PAC SO orgs, and is destroying them. Now exactly how, in the name of god, did they get into that? That was just never putting out enough personnel on recruiting, and giving recruiting trained staff member or trained Sea Org member enough attention as a product. So the Product Officer has always got a target of trained staff members, trained Sea Org members. And when you see their orders you will see that that is one of their product targets. You say well that's naturally establishment. No, it isn't; no, it is a legitimate product, it's a valuable product.

We had a whole organization one time that was being hatted as models, and the guy that was doing this eventually blew the organization up. It was Johannesburg. He kept talking to them about this was the way to earn some extra money; it was actually just peanuts, the extra money, don't you see; and they were all being hatted as models. It was most remarkable how the organization just went down further and further and further. There was nobody there hatting them as anything at all, except one guy hatting them as models.

Now, you could shift around a little bit and purify it and so on and say it isn't quite pure; well when it isn't, why, you're in trouble. So the Establishment Officer will mainly get in trouble over the subject of personnel. Now, there's a population explosion going on and I wish to Christ somebody would inform me how men are far scarcer in l972 than I ever found them in 325 B.C. How could they expend them back then? I remember around the turn of the millennia and so on, there were just mobs unemployed. Well, right now they keep them all that way with relief and dough and this and that and the other thing, and they've got some workable scheme or another. One of the silly ones which you hear, we did a survey, we did a survey on people, what they liked and so on, just a general survey in the Scandinavian area, and we found what they liked best was welfare and what they hated most was taxes. Oh, brother. Outpoint to end all outpoints. But that was the result of surveys in three countries, conducted by different people and repeated and confirmed.

One franchise was being hatted to run the brassiere business. Oh, you know that one. Alright. And they just never seemed, could seem to turn out a product and their people were very unhappy and their people had to go several hundred miles to another, to an org to get their cases handled, but by that time they didn't have any money. It was a very weird situation.

In other words, the whole population is living in a gorgeous outpoint. They hate taxes and they love welfare. Craziest thing you ever heard of. How are you going to have welfare without taxes? You can't do it. Nobody's solved it today, not even the genius Keanes, and certainly not the lamebrains in charge of some of these areas, not necessarily Scandinavia. I'm sure somebody could figure it out, I could figure it out, I have figured it out.

So, an SP does various things and one of the things he does is cross-hatting. And it's a phenomenon I hadn't actually analyzed until fairly recently and looked back over the numbers of times it has happened. Cross-hatting. You're trying to hat this person as one thing and somebody has crossed your lines and is hatting him as something else. And I'd begun to realize that that is one of the favorite tricks of an SP. You really don't want to be here, what you really want to be doing is waffle-waffle-waffle-waffle-waffle."

I tackled it one day as a problem, found out the why just from that outpoint. It really wouldn't matter how much money a government issued, providing everyone it paid was producing facilities to produce. Now, if it's got to have a huge welfare area, it shouldn't have any welfare area at all, it ought to be not public works as formerly described, and back in the Italian Renaissance and so on they always described public works as "you mustn't produce anything productive." Franklin Delano Roosevelt had that idea too, "don't build anything that's productive." It's actually stated in his speeches and his orders and so forth. A sure way to accomplish inflation. The amount of money in the country exceeds the amount of things there is to buy, that's inflation. When the amount of products in the country exceed the amount of money there is to buy things, that's deflation. Upsets, both of them upset the economic field. There's policy letters on this if you have a further interest in it.

We used to have about three guys that used to meet up a long time ago, they're all long gone, in the radio shack. And they were being beautifully hatted on the glories of the wog world, and they just kept getting hatted on the subject. The fellow who was doing the hatting was finally sent out as a course supervisor, and he laid probably the only wild egg and made the most complete mess of anybody I ever heard of with a course. He was suppressive from the word go. But that was what he did, he just went around and hatted everybody as something else. "What you really want to be is, and what you really want to be doing as..." You get it? You don't quite see it.

But, what I'm talking about is they could give away money like confetti in a government, providing everybody they gave it to was providing production facilities, new production facilities. Supposing they were running around putting an atomic pile in at every thousand square miles in America; supposing they were putting express highways and rail and transport lines, harbor facilities; and supposing they were putting in raw material development areas where they could raw material in a hurry; supposing that was what the government money was spent on, spent on, spent on, spent on.... It can be solved because the country would be issuing money in double handfuls, but it would also be producing in same proportion, because somebody would have put in the basic production facilities. Do you follow?

Some guy, some guy for instance, some guy for instance, let's say you've got a taxi driver, being hatted as a taxi driver, only he's got a fellow taxi driver that hats him as a writer all the time. "What you really ought to do Joe is write up your experiences." He says, "You've driven, but I understand you once went to college, and you should write up this and all the things which you know and all the things that have happened and so on." He just talks to him about it consistently. Or maybe he's got a wife see, "Here Joe, what you really ought to be is a bank president," and she hats him as a bank president all the time, all the time. His taxi business goes completely to pieces, they start going broke, the wheels fall off the taxi, he gets sacked.

But the basic, basic production facilities, now all of that may be very upstairs and esoteric and political, but the main, the main thing that you've got to keep your eye on is that you don't invest in non-productive personnel. And that way all of your personnel problems will solve. Just don't do it. You are not a welfare state. Now, that sounds very hard-boiled but look, the welfare state punishes actively, I don't say penalizes, but punishes actively every producer. It fines him for producing. He's making money left and right so they take it away from him and give it to somebody who isn't working. Ooo, that's a weird system when you get right down to it. In other words, neglect the guy who is working and hand it all to the downstat. The cave in of any society begins with the reward of a downstat. It's just a way of life. If you keep on rewarding downstats, you'll get just exactly what you continuously reward, you'll get downstats and the stats will go down, and the producing members of the activity will disappear because they will be too heavily overloaded. So remember that when you award a downstat, you are penalizing an upstat inevitably and invariably.

I ran into, I've run into several very promising young men who have been cross-hatted, not any inside our organizations, but outside our organizations. There was a young fellow who had a very brilliant ability to organize and promote, and he could organize something and he could promote something, oh my god, and he was running a little chain of language schools in New York, and he was doing beautifully. And he was making more money than any young man of his age ever had any business making. So his wife and his mother hatted him consistently and continuously as a millionaire, and spat on him because he wasn't. And he eventually gave up and quit and went broke totally. The twenty or thirty thousand dollars a year that he was making was not their idea of what he should be doing. Now, they never told him how or what he should be doing, so it was kind of a de-hatting. Whatever he was doing was no good because it wasn't making enough money. He ought to be making a million, making a million, making a million, making a million. What was he doing playing around with this over here? He's making a million, making a million.

You go down the street and you give some coins to a beggar, fine, fine, it does something for your soul and so on, that's perfectly alright. But for godsakes leave it at that. Now, this sounds very uncharitable, but my experience with downstats is they're trying to be, they're trying to do themselves in. And that isn't my explanation for it or justification for it, because I found out that if a guy is down and down on his luck and you give him a leg up or something like that, why, he'll make it. But the professional downstat won't. I'm an expert at this, I'm an expert at this, I'm giving you advice which I violate all the time. I almost caused a riot once in Peking distributing coins to beggars. Damn near lost my life in the process, too. And I'll always give a guy three breaks and so forth. But recognize it for what it is, it's a frailty. But I never want to overlook the one guy who will make it, and never want to overlook the guy who's had a bad break because this universe can give a guy bad breaks. So there is no harsh, tough line asserted here, it's, you'll make the mistake yourself. Please don't continue to make it.

I knew a promoter one time, he finally died, I even paid the expenses of his funeral, but all he ever did was hat himself with the wrong hat. He was a promoter and he kept trying to hat himself as a millionaire. It was the most remarkable thing. So that he never really could promote anything because it didn't make enough money, so he never really could do anything because it didn't come up to his expectations of what hat he ought to be wearing. Get the idea? You see how this thing can go crosswise?

You know, if you're right more often than you are wrong, you will be a success, that's for sure. And don't think that you will ever run a perfect score in all directions, you won't. That's one of these impossible targets. Absolutes are unobtainable. Perfection, god almighty, it's like art, the formula for art. The fellow can go on and go on and go on trying to make a perfect picture and he's forgotten that art simply is an assistance to communication. The point where it communicates is the point where it's finished. Oh, you can fancy it up, you can go beyond that point.

So one of the things you want to look at very carefully is cross-hatting. How is this guy being hatted? Now it isn't that you are simply being jealous and want him to be hatted as you want him to be hatted, the truth of the matter is he's really not being hatted, he's being sort of de-hatted and re-hatted and mis-hatted and it's apparently some kind of an effort to get people to fail. You will find people who have been hatted as an artist when they were a very, very good bus driver; people who have been hatted as a bus driver when they would be a very good artist. Families are marvelous at this. In the nineteenth and twentieth century I'm sure that it has reached an all-time high. If little Willy wants to be woof, it's for sure the family want him to be waff. Or, he couldn't possibly be woof. In other words, there's a lot of randomity that you will run into on the subject of hats and it's mostly pulled off by suppressives. And it's one of the tricks of the trade. Not just speak in generalities and how bad the boss is and so forth, you can stand up to some of that. But you won't have much luck cross-hatting because the guy gets mis-purposed.

A lot of our promo falls far short of being able to communicate. I was just looking with horror at a little batch of promo from an org that is doing very well and I'm about to rap their knuckles 'til they're raw. The copy writing on it is ghastly. They have a message to deliver in each of these pieces of promotion which is obscured in the small print. There's everything on this to attract attention except the message. Interesting, huh? The thing is just absolutely swamped in all kinds of text which doesn't mean anything at all, and if the fellow read clear down to the end and looked in the middle of a long paragraph, he might find the message in there somewhere.

Now, you're in the right to this degree, to this degree you are in the right; a person who can't be hatted as what he is doing will never make it with any hat. One exception. A poll of recent blow offs, drop outs; this was not, this is not current, this is several years ago; of Harvard, Yale and Princeton students demonstrated that the student action was the mis-hatting. And they promptly went out and did what they thought they ought to be doing in the society and immediately shot up into the upper income brackets and were doing everything under god's green earth, directing movies and everything else. They were howling successes. So you can get a mis-hatting.

So you, in your turn, you're grooving up somebody, you're grooving up somebody, you're grooving up somebody, and you're striving for perfection. Alright. At what point does it become functional? That's what you've got to determine, not at what point does it become perfect. And that is something which you really should remember, and will save you a lot of heart breaks.

It doesn't do you too much to try to cross up somebody's hats, if he's got a straining ability to be a this and you try to hat him as a that, well, something's going to happen. There's going to be a conflict, he isn't going to be able to do as well as he's doing. Now, there isn't any such thing however, I hate to have to tell you, as native ability. There are things that certain guys are very good at, but that doesn't mean they can't be good at anything else, and it's the broadening of ability that brings one's own native ability, so called, into full view.

So, with downstats you've got to realize that at some point you have tried, and the try is over. And that is determined on whether or not there has been marked improvement. If there hasn't been improvement,...

You will find a fellow for instance who has a purpose to be a writer. They exist, I used to run into them, postmen. There was one of the things from the early days of writing that I really used to get, first I went sort of daaah and I'd ridge on this thing, but you know I hardly ever met anybody who didn't want to be a writer.

... that you see out here are the sharpest cats you ever wanted to see in this particular direction. They're trained on tone scale, they're trained on observation and they know every man, woman and child on the ship. And you ought to see one of them kick another one in the ankle when all of a sudden they don't know that there's been a post change someplace. In other words, they're right up with it. Why? Because they're always being asked to check up, to check up; that's when I'm handling personnel; check up, check up, check up. Personnel falls down by not having adequate records.

The postman and the garbage men, the doctor. I was in an area which was rather arty, southern California, but it just seemed like everybody and his brother were thwarted writers, and they all wanted to be writers and they were being something else. And one day a garage mechanic said to me, "Well, I always wanted to be a writer and I just didn't have the college education." I almost laughed in his face; the one thing you don't want if you want to be a writer is a college education, god help you. But all of these fellows had somehow or other gotten sold a pup, they were very unhappy on their posts and on their jobs, but they weren't happy with what they were doing, but the chances of their ever doing anything else was quite slight. It wasn't that they couldn't have been writers, it wasn't that this was a bad ambition.

The best record in the world is your skull. Paper will never substitute for a bear trap memory. "Oh yeah, I know the guys in l932... yeah," way back, see, bullpen data, bullpen data.

About the only thing wrong with being a writer at that particular time, there were ten thousand people in the United States who regularly wrote and got rejects, there were six hundred of them who occasionally sold something, and there were two hundred writing the entire fiction output of the United States. The room at the top was zero. Very, very poor, very poor indeed. Around the Los Angeles area you'll run into people who want to be actors, they want to be an actor, they want to be an actor, they want to be an actor. You run into this sort of thing. Well, what is this? This is some kind of a failed purpose, so that they're never going to... One of the sad things about it is, is the guy who once was a writer and who isn't now but who still thinks he ought to be only he doesn't. You've got a total, total failure sitting there. These people lead, and the whole point is, these people lead very unhappy lives. So there's some difference between a guy who has an ambition to be something or other, which is fine, and something where a guy has some kind of an ambition he never will be, which gets in the road of your hatting him as anything.

That's what it takes for personnel. You start going over personnel records and you say so-and-so and so-and-so and it's a so-and-so and it's a this and that, and this guy was so-and-so and now we've got this fellow so-and-so and we've got this fellow so-and-so. For instance, I've just made an appointment right now which is a risky appointment, I will remember that I have made a risky appointment, I'll be checking up on it within four or five days. I'll be checking up on it with the Establishment Officer in charge of that, also. How well does he hat, how well does he hat, how well does he hat? And he's going someplace else if he doesn't hat well because it's a risky appointment. Do you get it?

Post purpose clearing, as I mentioned to you on an earlier tape, is about the quickest brush off of a very broad subject you ever cared to see because it takes in hand purposes in life. And those purposes can go back to the Ark. And the more failed purposes a guy has stacked up, the tireder he will be. What is tiredness? Tiredness actually, factually... An auditor, a good C/S and a good auditor can find them, it isn't that all auditors can find them, and it isn't all that they will do their listing and nulling rules correctly so you're in rather dicey territory. But the fellow who has a tremendous ambition to be something or other, has got some fire to be it, and he's got some energy and he's got some action and he is driving forward toward being that thing, you will recognize this, if it has anything to do with any usefulness in the org, for god's sake foster it. But the guy who wants to be something else which he never will be, and he couldn't be in the first place and you're trying to hat, will just get kind of tired, he'll just get sort of exhausted, because you're keying in his failed purposes. As I say, a C/S and a good auditor can get at this thing. But tiredness is failed purpose, don't think it's anything else. It isn't. That's just straight tech.

Personnel actually requires voluminous files. A Personnel Officer who doesn't know all the posts of the org and doesn't know all there is to know about every person in that org, will fail just like that because he can't make sensible appointments. He doesn't know what he's appointing the person to and he doesn't know who he's appointing to it. Those are the two things you have to know; who are you appointing to it and to what is that person being appointed to. See? That's what you have to know and you have to keep yourself briefed, briefed, briefed, briefed, briefed. I read, for instance, I read mission debriefs. It's not always true, but you go through some of these debriefs, I haven't been doing it recently, I mean I'm in an overwhelm on it. We've just had tons of observation missions out and we have got about a half a foot stack of observation missions. I've got about a two or three foot stack of personnel missions and so forth of data, and I have not had time to go over that. It's not much of a backlog, it's just a few days.

But purpose also goes back to evil purpose, which is the cause of insanity and that's caused by an R/S. So the R/Sing personnel that you successfully hat on a post, will be counted on the hands of an armless wonder, because they're driven by quite a different purpose. And until that is handled, one, they won't be happy, two, they will be sick and three, you won't be able to hat them. So there are other ramifications to this. Now, this factor is handled as far as you are concerned with a fast flow of personnel. If you've got lots of personnel then you will get enough personnel who can be hatted and who will take their posts, and you don't have to worry too much about the rest of this. But there is a tech that goes with it and you should know that there is one.

I've got to go over all that, but the reason why I'm going over all of the observation of an area, because I've got to get some kind of an operating plan together. But I sent the mission out to get enough observation on so that an operating plan can be put together for. You see, that's data, observation, observation, observation. But along with this went personnel missions, ethics missions, that sort of thing. You get all kinds of records and so on, who exists in these areas, what are they all about, and out of that combined set of stuff, why, enough data will emerge that we will all of a sudden be able to put a plan together that is in keeping with the resources. What's the resources? It's the people we've got in the area. Alright. That'll be, we mesh that, we'll be able to mesh the people we got, see, the observation, we have to get a plan that meshes the people we've got with the observation of the area so as to make it come out right. I got a why for the area, I've also got to go over the observations of the area to check that why. It's not enough for people to keep telling me so-and-so's no good, you see, as the why. "So-and-so's no good is the why, so-and-so's no good is the why." Those are just reports.

The cause of insanity is not a germ that causes mental illness in somebody's brain, that is not the cause of insanity. It is not the second dynamic, it is not because someone was interfered with as a little child, it is not because one is fixated on panties. Those are all completely wrong and that is why psychiatry and the alienists and anybody else with him was a totally failed profession, they never were able to make anybody well. So that of course is the test. They made these guys, put these guys back out in the society full of tranquilizers so they can get back in again, but to make a person a well, happy human being out of a psycho who isn't then damaged by the treatment, was completely beyond their capabilities. The secret that they were looking for is purpose. Insanity, pure unadulterated insanity, is an evil purpose.

Now, I may get enough data coming in from enough sources which, when compared with the stats, might possibly compare to a so-and-so is no good. That might possibly come in on the cross hairs of the rifle, it may all come together alright. But at that mDoment it is a workable truth. But the CO of an org has just pulled a blooper the like of which I have never heard of and I would have thought he has been around long enough to know better, but there's been a person across my lines three times as a tiger, great big woolly striped tiger. Every time the stats went to hell or an org went to hell, this guy was in an executive position. Just by natural selection over two or three years, this name keeps dropping out every time the stats crash. The stats have just crashed and I find out he's put this person in as registrar. He must have rocks in his head, he must not know his business. That's what you suddenly say to yourself, "He must not know his business."

Now, anybody's got some nasty purposes, but the person who is really insane, really is riding that one, boy, and they're nutty as fruitcakes. And it doesn't matter how competent they are or how incompetent they are. The psychiatrist writing in the United Nations, what cheek, what a bunch of frauds. You know, if a guy can't do anything with the mind you'd think for chrissakes. Writing in the United Nations, they're writing a United Nations booklet on it, in that whole United Nations booklet, I've forgotten which number it is, is devoted to the definition of insanity and the training of people to be psychiatrists, by a semi-defunct organization, now no longer very prominent, called the World Federation of Mental Health. They seem to have dropped by the wayside. And they define it as incompetence, that's how the psychiatrist is defining it. And you know why he defines it that way? So he can get rid of the people in the society that he doesn't think are competent. So that if any guy is a little bit dumb or a little bit dull or a little bit half-witted or a little bit retarded or a little bit this or a little bit old or something like that, they can be driven down to the local crematorium and they don't have to worry about them any more.

Now, let's analyze exactly what he doesn't know. He doesn't know the stats and the person. We grant that he knows the form of the org, but he doesn't know the stats of the person, he doesn't have bullpen information, he doesn't keep himself informed. One bad report, one fall on the head, oh to hell with it, that, skip it. But by the time this sort of thing starts counting up, alright so this guy had a bad break, alright, you can get an outpoint on it. Well, the org stayed there, it didn't disappear. But this sort of thing keeps coming up, and another one comes up, same name, and another one comes up, same name. Oh, to hell with it. So somebody sends in a personnel proposal and says, "Let us put Glutz in as," some post that can have an influence on an org, a bad influence on an org. No, not off this desk. I won't do anything, just beyond, "No." And I will get ahold of the list and I will go over all of the personnel that are available for the area and so forth, and again out of the bullpen I will have matched up this guy and it was up, and this guy and it was up, and this guy and it was... "Yeah, we'll put him in there."

Incompetence has nothing to do with insanity and that you, as an Establishment Officer, must know. It has nothing to do with insanity. I know, by the way, what the exact mechanism of it is and I'm not going to sit here and give you lectures on OT30. I'm not either, also I'm not trying to say well there's a bunch of things that you don't know, it's just not germane to your area because you're not auditing people. Its best definition, I'll tell you as much of it as you could find useful, its best definition is, not definition but the factor in it in which you're interested is, is unconsciousness. The competence of a person is in direct ratio to their degree of consciousness and their awareness, now I'm talking about the eyeball, of their environment. And competence is directly proportional to those two things, so don't expect a half knocked out druggie to be very competent. He won't be. Now similarly, the insane are all degrees of competence. And there have been some of the most brilliant geniuses who are utterly, screamingly insane; and there have been some of the dumbest boobs who were utterly, screamingly insane. Has nothing to do with it, it is not on the same scale. We're dealing now with the scale of aberration as the scale of competence. The number of outpoints the guy is carrying around in his skull is how aberrated he is and it has very little to do with his competence, I mean it has very little to do with his sanity, excuse me, it has everything to do with his competence. But from your point of view, the amount of consciousness the person has, how conscious he is, and his width of awareness, can he see, is what demonstrates his competence.

Now, if you wanted to do a perfect job of this, you would have to watch stats continuously against personnel. And you have no business not watching stats, as an Establishment Officer, against the personnel for those stats, as an Establishment Officer. There were so many hours a week, I don't even know if it was so many hours a day, that the French Surret at a time when it was really an activity; it's nothing now, it's just a bunch of totalitarian bums, ever since the Nazis have been in there, the police force has stayed Nazi; but they, detectives of Paris, way back, nineteenth century, this was before they had all kinds of fingerprint systems and it was all done by computers and Interpol; those guys spent a certain amount of time every week going through all the criminals in Paris and any international criminals and anything known about them, and they were just simply walking encyclopedias. Now I'm not saying that you're a detective, I'm just, here is an analogous system, and you're not dealing with criminals, but it's an analogous thing.

Now, in the last couple of days, I've been cross-checking this just for your benefit and I've been very, very sharply observing, and I've found that the stuckedity on a dynamic leads to the damdest oversight you ever cared to see in your life. It's hard to believe. I have put some things around and I have laid a few little tests, they don't just see them, even though they're closely associated with their quote post. So fixedness on a dynamic line also compares to some degree to purposes, but the width of what they can see is limited totally by their fixedness. You have the tools with which you can spread this out, so you can make a guy bright to the degree that you can wake him up and spread his awareness, and that is very well worthwhile knowing. It is, there's a lot of tech there. You could actually look at some guy that is tending to fail and you can see exactly, if you look at him and look at what he's doing, you can really see exactly what dynamic he's fixed on. It's quite amazing.

You spend some time. Who is this guy? What has he been? What has he done? What is he doing? Who was mixed up with this flap? Why are we continuously patching it up, patching it up? Who is in that area? Now, who is in that area who's doing alright? Yeah, but you might be the Dissem Establishment Officer, it's none of your business. Oh yes it is, oh yes it is, because that person might be slid sideways right straight into your lap. Now, this savors of blacklisting, it savors of all kinds of nasty things. You're always willing to give the guy a break, but not to the point that he breaks your neck. Do you follow?

For your benefit and so that I could tell you about it and so forth, I looked into it to see if there wasn't some simpler method of approaching this situation. Now, you could do an assessment; first dynamic, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth; you could actually do an assessment of some kind, you'd get a read. It's open to auditing, it's open to rather simple auditing. It means that the guy has shut down on all other areas than this one, so that's how unconsciousness goes along with it. But actual unconsciousness, we're talking about unconsciousness meaning just unconsciousness, you hit a guy on the head and he's unconscious, not Freudian, you know, hit him in the head, he goes out. Well, to what degree is he free of that? Well, he may only have it left on one fixed dynamic area, and he may be unconscious on all the rest of them. And as you try to shift his attention off this, you get misunderstood word phenomena and all kinds of weird things will start coming off, because he's never noticed some words in that area. And various other weird things happen.

Now there is this, people change. You're in an operating perimeter now where people change and they change over the years; sometimes they don't, usually they do. And you would be, you would find it's quite remarkable, some of the changes; and you would be remarkable, it's remarkable how some of the tigers of yesteryear are big successes today. You'd be surprised, see? So changes occur, so you have to make an allowance for that, but when you make an allowance, look at the record. What's the current record? Do you see?

Now, you want to account for blow off and that sort of thing, this is it. He's been knocked out, knocked in the head, on every other dynamic than the one he is operating on, so he is a shut down to a limited operation. A person who can't type would then; by TR-0 on a typewriter, and a reach and withdraw from a typewriter, and hello and OK to the typewriter, something like this; would actually wake up on the subject of a typewriter. Do you follow? You could probably take a ship captain and make him go out and confront the ship and run reach and withdraw from the ship, and he would go through some odd ooooo, little boil offs and weird things and some strange ideas, and he would have some cognitions which are means, means really, recognitions. You got it? And all of a sudden he would come awake on that subject.

So, personnel, personnel, names; names, posts, stats; names, posts, stats; names, posts, stats. The Establishment Officer that doesn't go down and stand in front of the stat board once in a while and say, "Gee, look at this, nice set of stats. Who was that?" and, "Holy god, look at that. Who the hell is in that area?" And who doesn't, at an Establishment Officer conference, hear about the flap that is going on in Qual or Distribution or something and hear these names are associated with it. See? If he doesn't register this, if he hasn't got a running registry... Do you follow?

Now, you also with reach and withdraw, supposing you start to throw in the upper levels of TRs just as simple as hello and OK, right here in PT with the ship, you know, make the ship say hello to you and you say OK to that, and say hello to the ship and the ship says OK to you, so forth, you would find out that he'd brighten up considerably. Now, that is a great oddity. But unless you know the mechanism, it will look very strange. Competence on any given subject is what a person is not unconscious on, we merely mean knocked in the head on. And those things he can't see, he is unconscious on. And that determines his competence.

The amount of data which a thetan can record and remember is infinite. He doesn't even have to put it in pictures. And you don't have to be perfect at this, you can go along on a basis of just a general impression. But before you make a decision, confirm your impression, and then you will very seldom be wrong.

Now, the thing that gets in the road of this is crossed purposes or crossed hatting. Somebody that's crossing his hatting is also crossing purposes. Do you see? And then he can also be a type who R/Ses and is quite mad, and then all hell will break loose. So, what have you got here? If you can just visualize what I'm talking about, just visualize dynamics one to eight, recognize the person is stuck absolutely and totally, let us say some wild socialist, and he's stuck absolutely and totally on the fourth dynamic. Their nation doesn't mean anything, family doesn't mean anything, he doesn't mean anything, nothing is, he's got to get out there and when it comes to revolution, why, everybody's going to eat strawberries, you know, and he's totally stuck on this. You see? You'll find out he walks into trucks and buses and wears thick glasses and so on.

OK?

Now, part of it is overts, he's got overts on these other dynamics to a point of where he shut them down, that tends to wake him up. If you really want to get fancy with your tech, you could assess it like, "What, do you have any overts on the first dynamic? Do you have any overts the second dynamic?" and so on. And one would fall out and you'd be able to get that one and clean that one up. We're talking about the technical side of this picture, but you've got a PT, you've got a PT. I told you your business is here and now, what is. And you've got PT processes to wake him right up in PT. A most remarkable thing, and you won't believe this is as remarkable as this is.

Thank you.

By running reach and withdraw from airplanes on an aircraft squadron, a flight surgeon trained in Scientology, and not very well trained, kept a whole aircraft squadron at Anacostia for a whole year without a single accident. They didn't even tick a wing to a wing. Now, for that happening in an aircraft squadron in the United States Army, Air Forces or, pardon me, it's the Air Forces, United States Air Forces, is unheard of. Those guys make second-hand hardware out of more equipment than you can shake a stick at. So the U.S. Air Forces he was, now let me sort this out and give you an exact, correct action. It was a Naval aircraft squadron at Anacostia, yes, and he was a Navy flight surgeon, to give you the exact case history. And the time of this is many, many years ago, about l958. And that's all he did because that's all he knew how to do, that was all the tech he knew, he just ran reach and withdraw from airplanes and all the parts of the airplanes, and of course he woke those pilots up on the subject of those aircraft to a point where they were totally aware. They could control the things, they were at cause over those aircraft, that was all. So you see, it's really not very difficult.

(Thank you, sir.)

Now, I'll give you the two bugs that bug his purpose line. He's got some kind of a wild purpose sitting over here on one side, or he's got a completely insane purpose to destroy everything in sight, all these insane purposes are destructive. Now, you then have it in your hands to be able to raise the competence of an individual, and this brings us into the fact that you should follow this procedure, and this is standard operating procedure for a division. Hat them like mad as specialists, hat them as specialists, hat them as specialists, get them all hatted as specialists, and then hat them with everybody else's hat in that division. Why? Breadth of awareness.

If you want an org to fall apart, just hat everybody in that org as a specialist only, and don't hat him as anything else. And you will have an org that will individuate, it won't operate as a team, it will generate dev-t because nobody understands what anybody else is doing. They become unconscious of the remainder of the org to all intents and purposes. So this is your standard operating procedure is hat as a specialist and then generalize the hatting. Hat him as a specialist, then hat him as the other hats in the division.

Now, if you really want to go for broke, hat him with the rest of the hats in the org. The way you do that is an OEC, Org Exec Course. You will fail absolutely and dismally and forever lie if you only specialist hat. You will find that in the Tech Division then, that a supervisor who has never trained as an auditor, who was never hatted as a D of P, and who doesn't know anything at all about C/Sing, will not be progressing. And you won't find your Tech Division going up the line. This is actually, this is, this is right straight, this is real straight, because sooner or later somebody, an Establishment Officer, is just going to say, "But I've hatted everybody in the division and it just doesn't seem to operate." Well, he's gone up the, the point of hatting everybody in the division as specialists, they're specialized hats, the specialty of that post, they're just specialists, he specialized and he's actually now gone to a point where he's narrowed their vision.

Now, by generalized hatting you start to widen the vision. This is of vast importance whether you believe it or not, because I've traced the failures of two or three orgs to just this point. Understand, the failures of orgs to this point, whole org failed, had to be picked up and put back together again with sticky plaster, and yet there was a lot of hatting going on. They got to a point where they wouldn't even talk to each other as they were passing in the halls. They just were not aware of each other's jobs, they just fell apart. So, hatting; standard operating procedure, hat as individuals by all means, and then hat as the department, then hat as the division and go for broke and hat as the org. And if you don't follow that procedure, you'll never achieve a crack org or a crack division either. It gets limited, in other words it stunts its growth.

Now, if you skip the gradient and you try to hat them as the whole org and never hat them as an individual, you will also produce a chaos. So the guy's got to be hatted as something, and then you span it out and you will get greater and greater competence as a staff member, just as nice and neat as that. Same thing, you span his attention.

Now, an executive will be the person that you have the hardest trouble hatting, and I could probably give you a long, long lecture on the subject of hatting executives, because you will be most loath to approach them and they can have the most effect on the org, and the main thing wrong with an executive is that he doesn't know how to play the piano of the division so he issues cross-orders. He issues orders which cross policy, he tells wrong posts to do wrong things, and the next thing you know he's got the staff all tangled up. So you put it together and the untrained executive scrambles it all up for you. The letter registrar's all of a sudden doing promotion and the, and the registrar is running CF and, you know, woop. It's quite remarkable, they have to know how to play the piano. So of all people, they have to know posts and people; of all people, they have to know the posts and the people. If they start issuing orders into a division it'll cross that division up, zowww! And it's one of the primary maladies. Another thing is, and you just, you just hat him with all the hats of the division, that's the qualifications of an executive, make him hold some of those posts for a while. And the other one is, and this you won't believe and they won't believe and so forth, but this doesn't make it untrue, this is absolutely true. An executive should know how to run, better than anybody else, every machine that he has in his whole department or division. He should know every one of those machines and he should know how to run them and he should have been checked out on them. And that's a big order, that's a big order. You take an organization that's got half a hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment in it and all kinds of little, various typewriters and duplicators and xeroxes and, and he should not only know how to run them, he should know how to maintain them. Not necessarily repair them, but maintain them, know what maintenance they're supposed to receive, and if he's real hot he knows how to repair them. That sounds incredible. "What's this fellow doing up in this great big plush office and so forth knowing how to run, oh, I leave that to the staff, the mechanics, ha-ha-ha-ha."

We've got a fine engine room on this ship, we've got a very fine engine room on this ship, and that in no small part is in due to the very fine engineers we have on this ship. But it's also due in no small part that I know engines, and most of the basic tech they run on, I wrote up for them. Now, I didn't when I came aboard this ship because it had such an antagonistic bum of an engineer, he was a, he was a wog engineer. I didn't go down and check myself out on each one of those pieces of machinery and I should have. It usually takes about three days, or something like that, of floundering around and doing so. Over a longer period of time, after that guy got out of the road and we managed to make something out of the engine room, why, it was my glancing at it here and then, inspecting this and that here and there and so on. And our guys were good enough to pick up the ball in spite of this.

Now, the only reason this could happen, the only reason this could happen, I've been well trained as a diesel engineer. You say, "But me as a diesel engineer? What's that?" Well, I've never been trained, I've never been an engineering officer. I've been spoiled with boatswains, over the centuries and ages I have had some of the finest boatswains that anybody has ever heard of, and that included World War II and it included later ships. Very fine boatswains; they made a complete bum out of me. I know all the techniques of a deck sailor and so forth, but cargo handling and the things that a boatswain does particularly, I'm weak on. You don't find the cargo handling gear of this ship in very good shape. There's a coordination.

In other words I've, I've been made a bum out of on the subject of cargo handling gear and so on. Sail, oh, open and shut, your cards in spades and all that sort of thing, but derricks and slings and, I can talk the patter, I've read it in books, so on, but there is not that intimacy, so on; whereas I have rolled up my sleeves and repaired engines in the roaring sea. And busted down one time, rolling forty degrees and so forth, I had a camshaft out of a twenty-five hundred horsepower diesel and so forth, and back in and fixed up in a matter of about an hour after I don't know how many engineers quit. Why? It's just part of the organization. And an executive can be lied to, and he'll burn up all sorts of ridges and unknownesses and so forth. He can be lied to. People tell him, "Well, the machine down here, it only turns out twenty stencils a minute, twenty runs a minute, requires two operators to run the thing, and ptaaah." The executive says, "To hell with you, to hell with that, quit kidding around, turn the machine on."

Now, I had this interchange one time right here on this ship, you know, "What the hell is going on? Why can't you turn out mimeos, why? What do they look so funny for?" and so on, "What's going on?" "Well, it's the machine, it's this and that and the other thing, and the power is off and it doesn't get to it and we haven't repaired its electric motor, there's something wrong with the electric motor of the mimeograph machine." You won't believe this. It had a switch on the back of it, down low under the combing, which was the on/off switch and they'd never found it, so they were cranking all their mimeographs out by hand. It happened again, it didn't happen just once, it happened again. Many months passed by.

I just told somebody to run down there and throw that switch on the bottom of the machine, and it promptly started running. Everybody was horrified.

Now the machine, the Addressograph Company turns out a fake addressograph machine. It can be set up to run, it takes a little bit too long to set it up. The Bradma is a better addressing machine in any case. But that Addressograph, in spite of its horrible name, doesn't really address and I find all staffs wherever they have one, hand feeding them. They might as have a, might as well have rubber stamps. Silk screens are better than those things and so on. The Bradma's a metal plate machine and is a fine machine and is beautifully tabbed and you can do all kinds of things with it. It finally found what the trouble is with an Addressograph, a lot of whys. It scares a staff to death. When those envelopes start running through that machine, they run through at such a fantastic speed that you can hardly see the envelopes, they're just a blur. And I don't know how many the thing feeds, maybe ten thousand an hour or twenty thousand or something, but there's this huge chute, and they go off with such a horrible clatter and bang and crash and they're so noisy, and they look so dynamitey and dangerous and these plate boxes and so on are just pouring into this machine, and you yank that tray out and shove another tray in and wham, wham!

God, it scares them to death. It is simply too much machine for them and it takes too long to set up. That was an expensive lesson. We immediately started junking all of our Addressographs when I really found the why. I could run an Addressograph but nobody else could. So there's a limitation. Speed, crash, bang. But I hadn't actually been trained as an operator and actually to train an operator, and I'd never bothered to try to train an operator on the machine, and that's what you couldn't do. Now, there's really one for the book. But it scared them to death. It looked like Niagara Falls had suddenly taken place in the addressograph room, all in full motion, full horsepower, and they weren't about to take that machine. You couldn't slow it down, there wasn't any gradient of it. You got it? Machinery.

So you wonder what in the name of god is going on, this is a machine age, and you wonder what in the name of god is going on that nobody could ever get out the addresso plates and why can't anybody do this and why can't anybody do that and, "Well, why don't you tab these things? Why don't you tab these things?" The machine can't be tabbed. So therefore, an entirely different system has to be ordered, which is for every category you type up a plate for that category and that's a very cumbersome system because you can't change addresses easily. So he wonders why Addressograph gets so balled up. It's because the executive who is in charge of the whole organization does not know how to run one. Simple.

Also quality. If he knows the quality that can come out of one of those machines, that he himself can get out of one of those machines, he'll get very fine promotion from them. I guess that goes for you then, huh? I guess where you've got machines under you, you'd better learn them well enough to train people on them. And then you say, "Well, I don't want to really be transferred from Dissem over to HCO because they have an entirely different set of machines." Now, loosen up your, loosen up your skull on it. Learn the HCO machines. But it's part of the scene, it's something that is established and something you have to pay attention to.

If you don't know anything about cars, you'll find out that you just lose, lose your staff cars one right after the other. You never saw such a casualty in cars, there's something mystic about it, and if you who have the responsibility for the general area which operates cars, know cars, you will catch all of the false reports, the nonsenses and the carelessnesses, and you will be able to identify personnel. If you don't know anything about them, you won't catch any of these personnel factors. The guy's doing his job or he isn't doing his job, well, you won't know, you can be kidded. One of the things that used to happen on this ship is they used to get an expert around and he'd tell everybody, "Well, I'm an expert on this and you can't learn anything about it." We haven't had it for quite a while because I've stepped on it a few hundred times and it doesn't seem to have raised its ugly head. But it had people completely backed off and there were more things busted, there was stuff lying around broken and inoperational and so forth, because people had been backed off by being told only an expert can have something to do with it. See? In other words, people could be kidded about it. False reports pile up on the subject of machinery, production, "Oh well, we can't get out that many envelopes." "What do you mean? The rating of that machine is so-and-so." Well, maybe the rating of the machine is so-and-so in the literature, let's get this two ways, but it isn't in the rating of it as it sits down there on the floor. The fact is the machine, even though the people on it are grooved in and are trained to operate the thing, just isn't capable of that kind of an output.

I'll tell you one that completely messed up lines, a Xerox at USLO and somebody, by economy, bought a little tiny Xerox that could get out about thirty thousand copies a month, was its maximum limit, it said there. They bought a toy. It used to run from one to three days without breaking down, even in the hands of experts. And the reason for it was it was running forty-four thousand copies, it was running way above its capacity, it was over strained like mad. It should never have been there. One of the most expensive pieces of junk you ever heard of. I think it cost some huge sum of money, like a hundred and twenty-nine dollars to service it, and it would have had to've been serviced every week to have kept it in function, because it had to be serviced just so many copies. But USLO was trying to put that many copies through this Xerox machine in a week that the thing was trying to take in a month. And what did this do? It cut the data line to Flag, because they were pouring it all through this Xerox machine.

So therefore Flag couldn't be informed as to what was going on because everything had to be Xeroxed, so it was all backloaded, but the Xerox machine was busted and they must have had staff in that area in tears half the time just doing their nuts. People screaming at them, "Now look, get that Xeroxed up and get it off to Flag." Flag sending in telexes, "Where's our information?" The executive in charge of the organization did not go down and take one look at that Xerox, look at its book, look at the count that went through the thing and say, "We'll do two things, we will buy a Xerox and comm-ev the guy who bought this one." It was a toy made out of cheap tin. What the hell went on? Do you see how lines can get jammed up?

If you have any dependency on machinery and you don't know anything about the machinery, it becomes an area of unawareness, and every area of unawareness becomes an area of terrific error. The Prod/Org system failed because there were not enough people around making people aware enough of what was going on to be able to get the production with great reality. The data which I have been giving you in this talk is all data that was relatively unknown in this system and was not given sufficient weight. Nobody told a Product Officer you've got to know all the machinery in the organization. That's an establishment function, isn't it? So you had to have an Establishment Officer to hat him, didn't you?

Since we've been chasing FEBCs through the engine room to get the idea of what lines are, that's the excuse we give them, they by the way, I found out that some of them did not, you know, the old line/terminal thing, the DC lectures of some people are unaware of lines and some people are unaware of terminals, well I found out that that existed in some of these students, so we just started chasing them down there because that was the only place on the ship we had lines that started somewhere and ran somewhere and stopped. They go down there and they see all this machinery and that sort of thing and their awareness comes up and some of them flinch and some of them do that, but I get more darn DRs about, "Golly, I went through the engine room today and we traced all the lines," and they're just as uptone as hell about it. Somebody spanned their attention. The engineers of course all PR them, the engineers all PR them down there and tell them how good the engineer is, they all like him. But that's a very successful action. Sounds like a strange hatting action to take an individual and start hatting him on a ship engine that he isn't even going to be aboard a ship, he's going to be out in some org someplace. But it spans their attention, shows them what a line is, shows them what flow is, makes things real to them. Some of these people didn't know that things started someplace and went through something and arrived someplace else. And that was what we were curing. Alright. Now, I've given you an extraordinarily long talk here on the subject, but I wanted you to see more...