An Analysis of proportionate pay plans has determined that more errors on the whole are being made by most staffs on it, than when straight pay prevailed. I take this then as an indicator that enough staff members in Scientology central orgs have money difficulties that they are influencing general income. Some of the errors made are enormously costly.

I have been studying this for many months and have made some conclusions.

First, that the errors and comm breaks are an unknowingly intentional effort on the part of some to deny themselves income. This is demonstrated by the fact that staff does not quit because of low units as often as staff members have quit in periods of high units.

I think proportionate pay gives an ample opportunity to a very self-invalidating staff member to deny himself and hence everyone money.

Some of the errors made in the past year surpass belief. The most serious of them have been aimed at grossly lowering income.

Recently I have been studying life sources and reactions in plants. I have gained data now which, on preliminary look, indicates that a plant becomes ill only pursuant to a series of shocks which make “it decide” it cannot survive. Only after that does it “cooperate” with disease. Up to that time it cannot seem to get ill. But when it does decide to die it takes itself and tries to take everything else around it into illness.

This bears itself out in human beings more obviously than in plants. Illness follows postulates to die.

Any channel toward non-survival is then taken. Proportionate income affords such a channel.

I first began this particular study when it was obvious that as large a staff as we had in DC and London it would not produce higher income of its own initiative.

I further noted that my own work and dispatch volume was heavier out of proportion to central org income of years ago. An analysis of my dispatches indicated that they were, from certain quarters, designed to stop us by presenting endless problems.

DC, left to its own devices, in 60 days went from solvent to $19,000 in the red. The biggest bills were errors made by people who apparently punish themselves in their own personal lives with insolvency and who seem to be trying hardest not to survive.

Now all these factors could stem from many causes, the tone scale, etc. But there seems to be reason to believe that staffs as a whole are accepting the gross blunders of a few to such an extent that if myself and the members of the International Council as org officers were not continually alert, central orgs would vanish. This is happening when times are good. The errors being made are too obvious and too stupid to stem from carelessness. Low units do not happen. They are made.

I have now gone a little further and have found a process which knocks out the contra-survival postulates. The pity of it is, a person who now wants to live is being victimized by times he didn’t want to. So my actions here are not accusative. They are, I hope, classifiable as “being effective”. It eradicates the urge to be killed and proofs one against people who have that urge.

The process is “From where could you communicate to a victim”. The process number is Process S2.

As by earlier cable this is to be run on every member of staff until flat. It may not take too long on most.

There are other benefits. Comm is restrained by a person who fears he will hurt something. And we can stand an "upward grading of comm.

In the future, admit no person to staff until this process is flat. Exception, casual hirings for clerical or materiel posts but these may not be maintained on staff without being processed on above.

Once this process is flat, we will take the attitude that staff members do not have cases.

I could easily write a book of data on all this. The process itself is quite a triumph and can be used broadly.

But right now Pm concerned with the forward thrust of Scientology. It requires about two good staff members today to handle the errors of one indifferent one developing problems and traffic. The volume of work of our staffs could be done, therefore, by one third the people. If we salvage them all we could put out three times as much dissemination and have many times the income.

It’s worth getting serious about. So let’s get that process flat on everybody from me on down.

NOTE: The process is best run, by auditors on whom it is not flat, fully muzzled with the question phrased: “Think of a place from which you could communicate to a victim”.

[Note: The above 7 July '59 issue is the same basic Policy Letter as the 2 July '59 issue published in the First Edition, with some minor corrections and the addition of the Note at the end by LRH.]