Alright. The value of an Establishment Officer is measured by the increase in quality and quantity of production, and the absence of dev-t. And if anybody were to ask you what good are you, your answer to it would be on the increased quality and quantity of production and the absence of dev-t in the org or activity. Now it is very easy, because we teach auditing and because many people are auditors and because we audit people, to forget that we are dealing in establishment with third dynamic technology, we are not dealing with first dynamic technology except as it will influence or affect the third dynamic. Auditing is from the viewpoint of the first dynamic. Establishment is from the viewpoint of the third dynamic and in our case, also the fourth dynamic.

Now, those dynamics as you can easily see, subdivide. A body is called the first dynamic, but in actual fact is a species, and could as easily be categorized as a fifth dynamic. A thetan is a thetan and where he thinks of himself as everybody, he could be classified as the seventh dynamic. The first dynamic, self; the second dynamic, sex, family; and that by the way is posterity, that's reaching posterity through a genetic line, the "Herring principle." Herrings don't care how many are eaten, how often they get killed or anything, they have no concern about this, they have no protective mechanisms of any kind whatsoever, they just breed. And their whole idea is, "If we just got enough herring and we just lay enough herring eggs and just enough herrings grow up why, we will make it." One hundred percent second dynamic. All herrings think in terms of herrings, but they don't even think in terms of herrings now, they think in terms of herrings future.

So the third dynamic is the dynamic of group and you can see immediately that when we say group, well, what magnitude of group? There is the small group and we could even say there's the group of the family, which is really sort of the first group as it merges, you see; and then we have group of two or three people who are friends and then we have the group of a social club, and we have the group of business or activity, and we have the group of a specific public like the commercial public, as we have in PR, and we have a larger group of the city and state and the political groups. And as soon as you get into PR, you know at once that the third dynamic has more categories than you can count easily. And the downfall of many a PR officer is is he does not recognize the variety of the third dynamic, tremendous variety; and if he gets them wrong he will spend more money with less result than anybody you've ever seen.

You go into a division six that is unhatted and say, "What publics do you have?" and they look at you blankly and they say, "The public, of course." Oh boy. Now, that meant overwork like mad in HCO, in mailings, in bulk mail, and there's stuff going out and it's pouring out, and other actions, and the department four's promotion is oh my god, and the cash money for promotion is just staggering and postage is huge, and there's nobody walks in the door. Wrong publics in all directions because there's "the public." You can easily spend ten thousand dollars sending out a promotion to raw public to get them to redo their OT 3. See, wrong public. So there's tremendous variety to this third dynamic, and therefore there is a variety of ways and means of handling it. Now the; I'll come back to that later.

Just to go on with the rest of the dynamics, the fourth dynamic we say mankind, which is simply a species, we say the, then there's brown men and black men and white men and green men; and I'm sure there are green men on some planets; and all of these vari-colored statures and breadths and depths and physiological oddities. For instance, the Chinese, you leave him adrift, adrift in an open boat for eighty days and you pick him up and he's fat as a butterball. And you take a Scandinavian and you leave him adrift in an open boat for three days and he's dead as a mackerel. So there are slight physiological differences because the Chinese is taught to endure and the Scandinavian gets as far as he can hit a hard blow first, that is the way they're built.

Women can't throw a ball worth a nickel because their shoulders are hinged wrong, so we even have a subdivision when we talk of mankind, we're liable to forget womankind. And they have a fantastic array themselves of things they can do and so on. There wouldn't be any men if it weren't for women and you've heard this for years, I mean, it's gone on and on and on. There's the woman's liberation movement and so on. They finally did, by the way, get a law passed to get women paid as much as men; I thought they always were, but they got a law passed now so that I think some company has been hauled up here recently for not paying the women as much as they did the men, I don't know. But they can even get a rivalry with inside this dynamic, so you get a subdivision of that.

As far as your fifth dynamic is concerned, that is again the matter of species, insects, all that. You go up into the sixth dynamic, you get MEST, and matter, energy, space and time. And the seventh dynamic, the whole world of the thetan and that probably would include all thetans everywhere. And the eighth dynamic, well that is an infinity dynamic, and people believe it is there so it probably is.

Now, the oddity of beings, and now let's get right off to where it fits in here, you knew all that, but let's get right off where it fits, where you live in your present post right now, what you're doing. People get stuck on one or another of these dynamics, and their whole viewpoint is through one of these dynamics. Now, the dynamics had to exist in order to breadth, give breadth to life in order to give a span of view, so that one could then understand, and that is why they're released and why you suddenly will see somebody out in the public, something like that, somebody's old grandmother or something say, "What do you think Dianetics, think they are into, Roger? I think it's something nasty, I wouldn't like to smoke Dianetics myself." And you, you show her, you show her the dynamics and she reads this over and if she reads this over and doesn't misunderstand any of the words, but if she reads this over she will say, "You know, that is a pretty good thing," And what has she been told? She's just been told there's life has a span, a breadth of view, that there is more to this universe than the dynamic you just unstuck her from.

Now, just as we had to have eight dynamics in order to get a wider view so that life could be studied, so do you encounter this problem as an Establishment Officer consistently and continuously, because you are dealing with staff who are likely, if you're having any trouble whatsoever, are stuck on a wrong dynamic. Now, it doesn't much matter that it's a wrong dynamic, that is not the emphasis, but that they are stuck. That's what's important.

Now the staff member, let's just take a horrible example of this now, the staff member who is absolutely, utterly and completely stuck on the first dynamic. Everything he sees in life and all that he sees in life is the first dynamic. That is all. He never sees another dynamic or any corner of one. "Oh," we say, "Well, that's reprehensible, that's socially unacceptable and that's this and that's that. Well, that's in this dog eat dog world, what can one expect?" A lot of reasonability, but who cares about those? It's just this one fact; he is stuck on the first dynamic, and you as an Establishment Officer can view this. It becomes obvious. There's a lot of conceit, egotistical, selfish, greedy, thoughtless of others, hard to get along with, leaves his lunch on my typewriter, you know? These are manifestations. But they don't mean necessarily that this fellow is, should be labeled in the usual social terms. "What do you mean being so selfish and onery?" and you're not going to get anyplace as an Establishment Officer. See, you've been saying that to him for years and he just ignored it and that's probably what put him on the first dynamic, he's begun to dramatize what they've accused him of.

So what, what in essence here, what in essence is this? It's just that everything is viewed through and only the first dynamic, and that becomes important to you as an Establishment Officer. He doesn't, now get this, this is not one of these toss off words, he doesn't see anything that has anything to do with any other dynamic. He doesn't see, that doesn't mean mentally conceive of, visually with the eyeball he literally will not see anything that does not have to do with the first dynamic. There even is a psychosis of this, it's called Narcissusism, because the nymph Narcissus, that was her name, used to gaze at her reflection in water and sigh longingly. But you will see people who can't walk by a mirror. Now, all of us will glance at our image in a mirror, but these people can't walk by a mirror. Oh, you didn't know that hooked up to selfishness and egotism and not see, but look. You could actually practically take an axe to this person to make him observe the fact that he's wrecking somebody's life on the second dynamic or that he's ruining the group, or he's just got through leaving all of the addresses piled all over the floor, and he thinks you're crazy. You would just be very interested from that point of view. He thinks you're crazy, he can't see them, eyeball can't see them.

Now, Mr. Freud must have had a rough time. He met quite a few guys, and they were all spin bin types or he wouldn't have been dealing with them. That's how they came to him. But in a Victorian age, for some reason or other, he collided with people who were stuck on the second dynamic. So he made a whole psychotherapy out of it. Well, that is fine, it's a psychotherapy for people who are stuck on the second dynamic, and fortunately not all of them are. Now this, yeah, if you want to know all about people who are stuck on the second dynamic, just read all about Freud. I mean, he's got the most remarkable rundowns. He even achieved, when he had one of these people and he applied that technology, why he even had results. Stuck on 2D.

Now, you're going to get somebody around who is just stuck on 2D. 2D 2D 2D 2D 2D 2D 2D, 2D 2D 2D 2D. And then they, they talk about, they, and children, "I want to go have a baby," and so on, and then my husband and then 2D and 2D and, "I want to have children," you see and, "Who's that nice-looking boy?" and, "Gee, look at these chicks," you know? And when you have an organization which has got too much out-2D at the top, it goes to hell. Not that there is anything much wrong with 2D, but they can't see anything else with the eyeball. The memo won't even be picked up out of the front basket unless it's got pornographic literature in it. Total stick. And that's why orgs, when they get into this condition of out-2D get very, very difficult to handle simply because they're blind on all other dynamics. And for some reason or other, they're totally blind on the third, and they just keep chewing up the third and knocking it around. You think it's intentional; no, it's blindness. And they just keep walking into walls and falling on the floor and so forth, and anything relating to it…

You get a letter registrar see, who's just got 2D 2D 2D you know, and she picks up central files and she gets this letter, and see, she's been told to, and you can't seem to teach her to read the folder and answer the letter in it and answer the folder. It's because there's no 2D in it. She literally cannot read or absorb that data because it doesn't have anything to do with her fixated interest.

Third dynamic, third dynamic, third dynamic. Alright. Now, strangely enough you can have somebody obsessively fixed on the third dynamic to such a degree that they will not pay any attention to the first dynamic and they will go by the boards. You know, they're fixed on the third dynamic but they will not in any other, in any circumstances whatsoever, ever wash their face. Now that's a strange thing. Now, before you think you offend in this direction, let me amplify what I'm talking about. Sherman nationalism, "heil der Fourth Reich;" third dynamic. "England, only England," or France. Bull. Guys going out and laying down their lives in a muddy field, which seems a funny place to put a body, but it's where they all wind up anyhow but it seems a little premature to do it at twenty-one.

Now, down in Africa, down in Africa they have to be very careful in how they compartment streets in some of the towns, because the precision and preciseness of stuckedness on the third dynamic is such that the native of one branch of the tribe, if he is permitted to associate in any way, shape or form with a native of the other branch of the tribe, brrowww. Hammer, tongs, knives, that's it. One poor fellow they were trying down there, in south Southern Africa, could never understand why he was being tried for murder. He had murdered a fellow in cold blood, stabbed him in the back, premeditated, and he was being tried and he just took, he couldn't even see the trial. He didn't even answer the questions. They, they hung him in that state of just totally out of communication on the subject. The only thing he ever had to say about the whole thing, "But I did not kill anybody, it was a Shangon, a dog." He didn't, he wasn't guilty of murder. He'd killed a member of a slightly different tribe, and they of course were dogs and weren't alive, and didn't deserve to live anyhow. You see how crazy this can get?

Now, some of the psychiatrists are this crazy, they are. Medicos are this crazy. "We have the sole right to kill people," whatever it is, "If anybody is going to give wrong medicine, we are." Total exclusivity. The group which once ran Europe, the aristocracy, is no more, they're gone because they were so third dynamic and so stuck on it that nobody else was alive. That's how the French Revolution got started. The citizens got tired of being run down by them coach wheels because there was "nobody" in the road. You get it? Total stuckedness. Third dynamic. "We are the nobility, we can do no wrong, there is nobody else alive." They, they were crazy enough that they didn't even bother to properly cultivate things, and they had a bad habit, they had a bad habit. They kept going to war about things that any decent human being would have been able to settle with a five minute conversation. The arrogance of this group was what destroyed them, and it's the arrogance of the psychiatrist that will destroy him. You cannot communicate with him. Why can't you communicate there? Because there isn't anybody else alive. Eyeball don't see, you got it? A Scientologist can't be accused of that, he's looking at the whole world. Do you follow?

As far as the fifth dynamic is concerned, why, the animal world has many subdivisions and each one of those has a tendency to fall into some kind of a wolfkind or bearkind or salmonkind or pinetreekind, but the aggregate notion there is that something is built out of cells and itself does not have a spirit. It is built by thought out of MEST, that is the basic idea of it anyway.

And the sixth dynamic of matter, energy, space and time: I hope you have never had to associate as a human being with a dedicated scientist. "Man came from an accidental accident in a sea of ammonia and this spontaneous frogation," or whatever you call it, "of cells then arose to create a living being. And we can build one, too, if we put enough mud together." And that is why they are perfectly willing to kill off the fifth and the seventh without the slightest ocular observation that they are doing so. The net result of science may be a betterment of man, but it looks more obvious to me like it's an awful pollution of the sea and the air, because at no time was their breadth of view wide enough to see that they would affect other dynamics. And that is what they're being accused of right now except nobody is stating it that precisely. They're saying they didn't think of other things or some of the side effects of some of their activity, and their activities gave sufficient side effects that it is now destroying the environment and making it uninhabitable. These guys aren't even listening, except as it might influence other pieces of MEST.

For instance if, you'll find in Detroit that the scientists in metallurgy would be mostly concerned with smog because it corrodes the stainless steel or chromium parts of the car, not, not because somebody might die of tuberculosis because of the corruption in the air or something. Asthma, that wouldn't have much to do with it. These are sick cats, they never see their own bodies. When you get really a dedicated scientist, you've really got something, and that's why with what abandon they make Hotchkiss rapid-firing Naval guns and make this and make that and try to make war too horrible to be fought. But that was some PR thought that was after the fact, the guy never thought about it at all.

And atom bombs, imagine the, imagine the basic production and scientific minds of the country being devoted to enough radiation explosive to kill every man, woman and child on the planet, each one, one thousand times. That doesn't seem to me like that would be an activity sensible men would engage in. And yet, two nations have done it; Russia has done it and America has done it; both nations have done it. But I don't, what I can't get is just why they have to kill this person a thousand times, you see, I don't quite figure that. But it's always in their literature and I don't think they notice that after he's killed he won't be there. There's something missing. But this is a super-dedicatedness. It often shows up as prejudice or something.

Now, the seventh dynamic, you can get people who are interested in mysticism or interested in spiritualism or interested in this and that, to the total exclusion of everything else. Only spirits talk to them, people don't. They radically don't even really see people. Now, because you yourselves know something about spiritual beings and beingness and that sort of thing, you don't bother to categorize yourself in this direction. These people only function when the spirit moves them or tells them, there isn't anything else alive. Now, they also go into the future. You will see a lot of swamis, and so forth. It's very interesting being a swami, that's very interesting, and there's a lot, a lot to this. There's a lot of tech which right now is rather dim because of the noise being made by the scientist about his tech. You see? And then you have never seen people quite as rapacious, as stuck, and as thoroughly upset as you have on the subject of god. Even to the day that Constantinople fell, why, her citizens were standing around in the streets discussing how many angels could stand on the head of a pin, and up jumped the Turks and down went Constantinople. But that was all they ever discussed. Did they ever discuss defenses? No, no, no, that didn't have anything to do with it. Europe was similarly involved. You got nothing but total, total, total discussion the length and breadth of Europe. They said it was the father, the son and the holy ghost, or it was just the father or, "Was the son the holy ghost? We'll have to burn that man because he believes, you see, that the son was the father and that is heresy and we'll have to call in the, call in the Inquisition here, they'll pick him up." Oh boy. Cromwell, oh; Calvin. These guys were catastrophes and the reason they were catastrophes, they never saw anything else. Eyeball just didn't reflect anything.

And so you see you can get a terribly, weirdly balanced society, much less an individual. Now, if you add to that all sorts of fixated ideas, fixated ideas that people can have, you will see at once that you have a little bit of competition to the idea of putting together a third dynamic like a division or an org. Now, I just wanted to make it sound as horrible as it is. It's not that you can't do something about it, but the first thing about doing something about something is knowing what it is. You have to know something about the background and underpinnings and so on, to the problem which you are attempting to resolve. If you don't know something about the problem, you won't resolve it.

In C/Sing we say you have to know before you go. And C/Ses all over the place, whenever they make a mistake, you trace it up, they never bothered to find out. They went before they knew. Well, in another way we could say that the general approach to the problem or to the activity of handling a third dynamic is know something of its anatomy. And that would include knowing something about all the dynamics, because the people you are dealing with can be stuck on any one of them, plus a bunch of fixated ideas, plus present time problems.

Now, it all sounds absolutely grim, until you realize that grandma who was objecting to Roger smoking Dianetics, until she reads the eight dynamics, will think it is OK, the eight dynamics, see? Until she reads those over and understands them, why, she thinks it's horrible, but when she does that, she thinks it's OK. Why? It actually isn't much of a trick to span somebody's attention if you know what you are doing. You are trying to span somebody's attention, you're actually trying to unfixate his attention and free it up. You do not want people with fixated attentions. Now, a fellow's dedicated to his job and he wants to do his work and all that sort of thing, that isn't fixated attention. He knows what he's doing, these other guys don't. So what do we see here?

We see then that you have a considerable tool when you look at the fact the blindness of a person can stem from two sources. One of those is fixidity, he just never spans his attention; and the other one is overts.

An individual who has committed overts long enough and often enough on a certain area, will not be able to perceive it anymore. What I'm trying to bring home to you is is you are not dealing with willful refusals, you are dealing with "not able to." The punishment approach has been going on too long in the universe, and didn't probably work very well to begin with, and certainly doesn't work very well now. And it's all based on the idea that all actions are from malice and that a person must be restrained from his malicious, sinful actions. Most actions, some of course can be from malice, but most actions are from blindness. He just doesn't see, and now by that we mean ocular. And a person who commits overts often enough on another person, will have that person disappear right in the physical universe before them.

Now, that is so extreme I don't think you will ever experience it. You would think offhand that if Joe murdered Pete and then Pete walked back and met him, that he would say, "Oh my god, you know. Oh, oh!" and have a stroke or something. The probability isn't, he probably wouldn't see him walk in the door because he's gone, and he's committed a tremendous overt. It'd only be in the novels that he'd act in some peculiar fashion. They can commit overts on things to a point where the thing rematerializes with them all the time as something else, and that's delusion where they see something all the time. We are now dealing with spin bin types.

Let me tell you the great oddity, the great oddity. An individual who has bad eyesight; now immediately I can see anybody hearing this suddenly whip out his glasses and put them in his pocket surreptitiously, meaning hiddenly so as not to be observed; will sometime or another I trust, in his auditing career, hit the planet he blew up or whatever it was, and all of a sudden have his eyesight turn on. Now unless there's been physical damage, unless somebody's cut off the eyeballs or somebody's leaned into the optic nerve or something like that, this phenomenon of hysterical blindness can be such that when you hit the right overt and run it out, eyesight turns on. Well, there's a gradient of this, and a person whose eyesight has faults in it but he can't really account for the fact one way or the other; this happens by the way in running L-10 which is mostly consisted of whip sawing overts back and forth; he'll get a sudden perception change that, and sometimes it'll go, and then it'll go off again. Well, he didn't get the basic on the chain. Yeah, he struck the time he murdered the girl but he didn't get the basic time that he murdered all those girls, you know, I mean something like that.

But nevertheless, take it just from this, having nothing to do with personal personalities, that this visual perception phenomena is most closely associated with overts. And things people have overts on, vanish in their vicinity. They don't see them. So we have two things here, you say, "Why the hell don't you, when you come in, why don't you pick up the broom that is lying across the floor?" They didn't maliciously leave the broom there, it isn't really that it didn't have anything to do with him. They didn't see it. And you call it to their attention, they look sort of confused and ashamed and hedge, and then they get defensive and say, "Well, that really isn't my hat," or something of this sort. And they're going through some kind of a shame, blame, regret cycle that you should understand what the beginning of it is. They didn't see it. If their eyeballs landed on it, it did not register through the optic nerves and on the brain.

Now, I'm telling you something that's very revolutionary and is very, seems to be very wide and very ambitious, but what you actually will find, which you will find has some application. It is they don't see it and their attention is put on it but they still kind of don't see it because when you put their attention on it, then they sort of resent having their attention called to it because there still is an effort for them to see it. So I call to your attention that the last thing in the world you want to go around saying is, "Did you see this?" or, "Do you see these?" or, "It was right in front of your face," or, "I don't see how these people can leave all those things in the room," or, "How is it that the desks have remained piled up in the rain all day?" and go into this cycle of get ahold of somebody and say, "Why did you leave these desks out here?" you see, and so why the mystery? He didn't see them.

Now, you now know something, you now know something either because of a stuck dynamic or because the overts on the environment, this guy has a perception difficulty. The way to improve this perception difficulty whether it's stuck on the dynamics, stuck on fixated ideas or has overts on the environment, is confront. Just the simple little garden variety action of confrontation will cause more of these things to flip flop through than you've ever seen. Clarification of post purpose has a great deal more tech behind it than has been released because before to get a guy on a post, you have to get him off innumerable posts. But it is such an extensive action reaching back in and requires listing and so forth, that one really doesn't care to put it into the hands of department thirteen because it's a major case action. "What posts are you still holding? What dynamics are you still stuck on? What overts have you committed?" You get the idea.

Now, this would all be hopeless… The fixation of the individual is not desirable because it leaves him blind. To free up his attention gives you your best chance. Now, how do you do this? Yes, I say I can give you a whole bag of tricks, of little tricks and so forth and so on, a basic standard action is just sit here and confront your area for two hours. I can give you things like talking to somebody about things and see that he's always talking about this and to lead him gradually over into talking about something else, and you will have done this. You can give him the dynamics to study, that'll, that'd work. You can make him take a walk around the block. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see you to do this one day and so on. Somebody's sitting at their desk, they're in tears, they're all busted down, they've been jumped all over by somebody or other, and you tell them, "Take a walk around the block, or take a walk up and down the dock," or something of that sort. What'd it do? It just spans their attention.

I gave somebody the other day, he was going, he was having a rough time, he was having a rough time. And his evaluations were getting, had more and more omissions in them, more and more omissions. So I put him on five hours a day with the Deck Project Force and I told him why. I said, "You just get out there and work with those guys for five hours a day out in the open and extrovert, and get your attention off yourself and onto the world around you." And he, I saw him a couple of times, he was filthy dirty and he wrote me the other day, a day or two ago, and he wanted an OK now to go back on post. He felt great, it had really worked.

What in actual fact had happened? He was stuck on some dynamic or another and I at least shifted him over to the third, the group he was working with, that's why a Deck Project Force must always work as a group, and the sixth. At least that shifted over to the third and sixth, and he felt fine, he said he'd had a big win. I don't know, maybe he even went to the examiner, but I was very glad of it. I was very glad of it because the fellow is very bright, very bright normally, but he was just going down dimmer and dimmer and dimmer. Well, he was just dug in more and more and more, so he was stuck on something. He probably was not stuck on what he was working on, he was probably working on something which was not what he was stuck on, so he was getting more and more blind to what he was working on because somewhere over here he was getting harder and harder stuck into something else. Do you follow?

Walk around the block, same thing. Walk around the block, by the way, has enormous, has enormous variations, there's dozens of ways you can walk around the block. I'll give you an, one of the more effective ones is, "As you walk around the block, reach ahead of you and grab the buildings and pull yourself forward with them." There are lots of ways to walk around the block. You think that, that's a wild one, by the way. You'll all of a sudden find yourself almost knocking yourself flat on your face. At first you think you're kidding, you know, put a beam out there and pull the buildings toward you, pull the body along. Next thing you know, you really are pulling the body along. The funny part of it is, "You drive the car, let's you drive the car, you drive the car, don't have the car driving you, now you drive the car; now you turn those corners, you make the car turn those corners."

This is applicable on a guy running a drill press, see, "You run the drill press," not the drill press run you, see, "Alright, now you run that drill press, now you run that thing going down that, that incline screw, now you run it down there, that's right now, you get that chain of buckets going in there, now you do it." Next thing you know, the guy won't know which lever is what, he won't know where the steering wheel is or where the gearshift is, and he'll practically run the car around into a tree, he will get those buckets going backwards and upside down and he'll have to shut off the machine hurriedly because god knows what's going to happen. He's just shifted from being an effect to being cause and the room is just, and so forth, will start blowing, just thrown him into a terrific confusion. Well the thing to do at that point is make him turn it on again. Make him drive the car around the corner, make him move the thing, go down the environment, the chain buckets go into the furnace. All of a sudden this guy who has been a nervous wreck will turn around to you and say, "Cool, man." There's lots of ways to walk around the block, lots of ways to run machinery. "You walk around the block." "Me?"

One of the variations of you do it, putting a person at cause, is actually, they're not quite associated subjects. The most basic one is somebody's all upset and they don't know whether they're coming or going, "Flap your hands, flap your hands, flap your hands, that's right, flap your hands, flap your hands now, flap your hands, that's right, flap your hands. Who's doing that?" And the guy looks, "I am." And he'll snap right out of something, so there's the span of attention goes over into causation and the restoration of causation.

The trouble with the capitalist is or the capitalist society and so on, it thought people had to be an effect. Actually militaries are always telling you that the soldier has to be further indoctrinated and they always want the person to be at effect, be at effect, be at effect. That's what's wrong with the guy. And the funny part of it is, it doesn't win. He just goes into propitiation, he goes down and becomes witless. What you want him to do is to come to cause. It'd be very funny, teaching somebody to do a manual of arms as total effect or a manual of arms at total cause.

You say, "How would you do that?" I just gave you the answer. "Now, you take the rifle, and you put it in your hands like that. Now, let's do that again to make sure that you're doing it." Oomp-pow, oomp-pow. "Naaa." "Come on, do it again, do it again." Oomp… "Hey." He didn't tell you that it got solid that moment. Then oomp-pow. "Hey." Next thing you know, the clumsy dumbunny, you can teach him to do a prince's pat manual. Did you ever see a prince's pat manual? It's a twirling rifle, you twirl a rifle probably more intricately than any band master ever twirls, twirls a baton. You throw it up from order arms, you catch it in the palm of the hand somewhere up near the muzzle, and the whole rifle goes whi-ewww and describes a huge circle and comes to port arms. That rifle's quite heavy. And there's other ways you do it, you can do it from the left side to, you can slide the rifle off of your shoulder in such a way that it opens its own bolt, bring it around your elbow and bring it to inspection arms. See? That kind of thing. Oh, you can really do weird things with a rifle.

I totally disgraced a captain once, he saw me doing something like this with a rifle, I was showing some men, and he walked over and said, "What are you doing Hubbard?" I shouldn't have been doing it anyhow, and so on, he said, "How do you do that?" and he reached for the rifle. In the Marines by the way, it costs a month's pay I think or something, a deck court martial, to drop a rifle. So he tried this and the rifle went skidding along the ground horizontal about thirty feet, kicking up dust all the way, and he turned around very hurriedly and walked off, he said not another word. He hadn't been at cause over rifles.

But what a person can do is whether or not he's at cause over it. Now, we've got the second stage of this. First, he's got to be able to perceive, he can't be blind and stuck on something, and then he has to be cause over this thing. Now, all of your circus acrobats must be fantastic in the way they can be at cause over their bodies. And they do the damndest things with bodies, they're not possible. But a thetan can do the damndest things with bodies, but he has to believe that he can, and he has to work until he does.

You sometimes run a guy down the track and he doesn't tell you why he is puzzled and why he can't quite go through certain, a certain incident easily and why he's a little bit puzzled and he doesn't let on, and eventually rationalizes it or it erases and he sort of explains it away. He possibly found someplace where he did a total control, and he doesn't quite believe it. Anybody can run what you might call an incredible chain. It's the things that have happened on his track which are to him incredible, and because they're so incredible he doesn't believe them, and neither does anybody else. But it's mostly because nobody else believed them, and he doesn't believe them himself, so the chain itself remains hidden because it's incredible. The incredible chain. And he tends to block himself out from his highest level of capabilities, because he doesn't really believe he can do it. To do this to him is incredible. So, as long as he thinks this is incredible, he won't do it.

Now, the way to ruin a circus acrobat or anybody else is to walk up to him every time he does a performance and ask him, "How do you do that? It's absolutely incredible. You are so wonderful, you do the most incredible things." Bullets are kinder, unless the guy is such a high level of cause it's not affecting him. You'll run into an automobile accident or something like that that you were in and you didn't get hurt or something like that, and one moment the body was in the car and the next moment it was lying out on the grass. You somehow don't ever run this clean. Something like that, maybe. You picked the body out of the car and you put it over on the grass. Go on the back track, "What was this picture all about?" or something, "I don't really see it." Anyhow, you get so you can run into this sort of thing and it gets discarded. It'll run out and so forth, maybe.

But you fell off a cliff and then didn't fall off the cliff, fell back up on top of the edge of the cliff. "Oh well, that's just resistance to falling. Now we will practice falling here until we can run this falling and eventually run a falling," but the truth of the matter was the guy never did fall. He fell halfway off the cliff, got his body in free space, he grabbed ahold of the body and put it back up on top of the cliff. Only he didn't believe he could. One of the reasons some people are ill is they don't believe they're that tough as thetans. They don't think they've got that big a grip on their stomach. One of the reasons, one of the reasons for this is they like to be normal, whatever normal is.

So causation, causation, causation. Unfixate and bring to cause and you have able people when you do this. Now, you can go at it totally wrong and upside down and backwards and have an awful time if you try to put the person at effect and concentrate and fixate his attention. And that is the wrong direction to go to make an able staff member. And that is the wrong way to go to make a group. Span their attention, bring them to cause. Don't keep telling them, "I am the boss around here." Keep telling them, "You've got something to do with this place, too." That would be the mildest version of it. And the other is span their attention. Those are just two.

Now I will give you another one. You got the two, breadth of attention, bring them to cause. Alright, here's another one, a very, very important one and one that hardly anybody realizes and that mothers do wrong from infancy. "You are a bad boy. You are a naughty girl." So that's what they get, a bad boy and a naughty girl. Why? I can hear it now, the guy is all high on pot and somebody walks in and, "You are a hophead, you're just a lousy addict." Well, we know all about laying in phrases of this particular character in the engramic context, but I'm not speaking in that context now, I'm not talking about phrases in engrams. I'm talking about a thing called intention, and it carries through as intention. Oh yes the words carry through, oh yes they go into the engrams, oh yes the guy is high on hop and very susceptible and suggestible at that particular moment, he is susceptible to receiving a suggestion and hypnotic, and you can go into all of these ramifications. I'm not talking about any of those, those are the more extreme states. I needn't discuss them, you as a Scientologist know these things. No, I'm talking about something else.

This guy gets the idea that those around him have the intention, this is not theetie-weetie, he has the intention that he be a bad girl, a bad boy, a hophead, any of these things. Now, I have actually taken a person who was slightly homo and found out it was their mother bawling out their sister before the fellow was born. You know, "You are a naughty girl," made it an engramic phrase. But it probably wouldn't have ever registered and continued registered unless he had conceived that people had this intention about him in his environment. Now, we're talking now about intention. What is the intention toward this staff member?

Why do they go to pieces in military organizations? Why do military organizations get such a bad name? They're healthy, they're fed, they're exercised, they're taught, they're this, they're that, the other thing. Well actually they're being taught to commit overts, that's the wrong way, so they'll go blind, and that's what makes it so difficult to teach them.

And the other one is the one I'm talking about right now, is that there is an intention toward them, which is not good. They say it takes twenty-eight thousand casualties, I told you, to make a Major General. Seems to me a bit of a high price, seems to me they could have used demo kits. But all of the edge went off of my concern about the Vietnamese War when I recognized something that was very, very plain and had been plain on the whole track, but I myself had never been willing to believe. The intention of the political and general heads in that war were to get men killed. It didn't matter which side as long as men were killed. And that's why the brilliant young officers suddenly started leaving the army and various other things started to occur there, and in the Korean War.

The Korean War was not something to be won. The whole career of the only, one of the top flight generals of the United States was blasted, Douglas MacArthur, because he dared propose to the President that they win that war. Oh yes, they could say, "Well, they have other political goals and it has to be limited political objectives," but no, these things don't make sense. This is just the ravings of a psychotic. You never fight a war on the territory of an ally, never. And you just never, never, never fight it on your own territory. You always fight a war on the territory of the enemy. It says right here, in the Space Opera textbook where they really teach them. Wars are fought on the territory of the enemy. Undertake with greatest reluctance any war on the territory of an ally, and never, never, never fight it on your own territory. Space academy, way back, rule books, so forth, any sensible area that was ever making it has such a textbook, but not this civilization. They say, "Fight the war on the territory of an ally," by preference. So that's too bonkers.

So I began to be interested in this subject and I began to read the textbooks that they're taught from and the articles and so forth that are written currently for general staff officers, and they continuously use the term "acceptable casualties." They use it in the term that the casualty rate would be too high to be acceptable, but get the interesting combination of words; acceptable casualties, acceptable casualties. Now, I'm not condemning these fellows out of hand and saying they're a bunch of raw murderers, a lot of them are just stupid boobs. But when you've been a good general you just hate, it hurts. Like a mechanic if he were watching a monkey tear the guts out of a Rolls, a new Rolls Royce engine, he just stands there and it just hurts because he's doing it all wrong and he's going to wreck the engine. Acceptable casualties.

So how many guys are we going to kill in this battle and how many guys are we going to kill in that battle? And that's the think. "Now, let's see. Fourteen percent casualties not acceptable." Because it says in the Space Opera textbook that the proper way to conduct an army is maximum damage to the enemy with minimum damage to self, preferably none. Acceptable rate of casualties, zero for self, maximum for enemy. Always. He's a bad officer, he loses men. Different think. So there's an intention around these guys that they can be an acceptable casualty. So they must feel very, very strange and the European soldier long since quit, he long since quit. He even quit before World War I. They had mutinies in those armies left and right, they had to drive those people into ranks with whips. It went clear back to the Napoleonic Wars. Because the intention was different, the intention was not to make this guy a good soldier who would go out and defeat the enemy. That was not a clear cut intention.

Now, even with all of the other murder involved, if that had been a clear cut intention, they could have made it. Do you see? But telling some guy to go up and charge when you know he hasn't got a prayer, but such an order can exist. Telling a pilot to go over and bomb so-and-so in spite of the new surface to air missiles and so forth, nuts. So they live in a world of protest, they protest the intention. The basis of engrams is protest. So they just get keyed in like mad because they protest the intention with which they are surrounded. What is the intention?

Now, when we talk in terms of command intention, well, what is the intention? That actually must become clear to people. What is the intention? It is not a PR, it is a fact. If that is totally misunderstood and if what you are doing is totally misunderstood, you will surround your staff with some kind of a bad intention. And that is one of the reasons a dissident or quarrelsome with what you're trying to do staff member, who is trying to tell other people that, "Well, yap yap yap, natter natter natter natter," why this character is so out of line. Now, this is accepted in the United States Navy for instance, as a necessary condition of a crew. They say, "When they stop grumbling, watch out." That is what the officers say. I think you've probably heard something of that. "Men growl, men grumble, men protest." I'm sure that people have all heard this.

Now what this, what this grumbler is doing, he is coloring and putting around an incorrect attention, he's, attention, his intention is an alter-is of the intention that should be there. Now, if at any time you then go into a PR and try to bolster up people's idea of what the intention is or make it different than it is, you're liable to collide with some difficulty because you probably already have some dissident, "Natter natter natter, what they want, them upstairs, you know, those guys, you know, and what I really want," and so on.

For instance, I objected one day to a phrase that appeared in a policy letter somebody wrote and it said, "Well of course you realize that all Ron is interested in is production." That is not true. It's just not true. I'm interested in so many more things than production that you could, count them. Production is a means to an end and one of the reasons I got very, very interested in production, I found out that man was miserable if he didn't produce something. It's actually the why below morale. Production. Men who are not producing something, poof, forget them, they go to pieces. A means to an end. The production that is produced in this particular character, well, you could say it's a cleared planet. But it wouldn't be true to say, "Well, Ron is only interested in a cleared planet."

I am interested in these staff members, I've raised hell on certain lines. You should have heard the lightning going around up here when I found out that they were taking so much money from certain staffs that they couldn't be paid. And it's just happened again and more lightning is about to go, in fact it's going to go in two directions. One, "Why the hell aren't you putting out enough so that you can make enough to be paid," and the other one is, "When they make it, why let them have their pay." My intention possibly is the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics, it usually equates in that fashion and so on, and that's a very broad statement of intention, but it's quite true.

But I am not at all loathe to select out somebody like a psychiatrist because they're not for the greatest good of the greatest number of dynamics. Do you see? You could excuse it along that lines and you could excuse it along most any lines, but I don't want to see the psychiatrist dead, I just want to see him absolutely invisible, I want to see him gone, with my overts all run out on them, because they are very bad for people. Just because they don't understand the mind is no reason they have any right to butcher and kill people. There is the most flagrant example of no understanding and no technology resulting in murder. That's the most barbarous bunch of capers that anybody ever indulged in. These birds, they don't know what it's all about, they don't understand the patient, they don't know why he's acting this way, and their answer to it is violence. Electric shock, prefrontal lobotomy, or knock him out with tranquilizers so he can't move, you know, can't think. So that's bad for people so I'm liable to be agin' it. And on the other hand, why I'm liable to become disinterested in such a group as that. Right now, I'm getting less and less interested in them, the less and less influence they have on the society.

Thank you very much.