Really, he was the worst speechmaker I had ever heard. I often wished the invisible White House staff who formed his compatriots would rise up, select one of their number who could talk, and delegate him to finish Fremont’s prepared speech. Given the right pinstriped suit and loud tie, few people would notice.
These synthetic chats were carried by all networks in prime time, and it was a good idea to listen. You were supposed to do so with your front door open, so that roving bands of FAPers could make spot checks. They passed out little cards on which various simple-minded questions about the current speech were asked; you were to check the right answers and then drop the card in a mailbox. The enormous White House staff scrutinized your answers to make sure you understood what you were hearing. It was mandatory to put your social security number on the card; the authorities had taken to organizing all their files on the basis of social security numbers. Your mail-in cards went into your permanent file, for what reason no one knew. We calculated that these cards must be making the files very large. Maybe there were subtle trick questions, such as the K scale in the Minnesota MultiPhasic, the so-called “lying” scale.
Sometimes the questions did seem devious, with the high possibility of making an accidental incriminating answer. One went:
Russia is becoming (1) weaker; (2) stronger; (3) about the same in relationship to the Free World.
Naturally, Rachel and Nicholas and I, doing our cards in unison, marked (2). The ideology of the authorities always stressed Russia’s increasing strength, and the need for the Free World to continually double its arms budget in order just to keep up.
However, a later question rendered this one suspect.
Russian technology is (1) very good; (2) adequate; (3) typically inept.
Well, if you marked (1) you seemed to be paying the Communists a compliment; (2) was probably the best bet, since it probably was true, but the way (3) was worded seemed to suggest that the right-thinking citizen would reflexively mark it. After all, what could one expect from captive Slavic minds? Certainly, typical ineptness. We were very good, not them.
But if their technology was typically inept, then how could (2) be the correct answer on the previous question? How did a nation with typically inept technology become stronger than ourselves? Nicholas and Rachel and I returned to the previous question and changed our answers to (1). That way it dovetailed with typically inept. The weekly questionnaire had many pitfalls. The U.S.S.R., like a Japanese wrestler, was both dumb and clever at the same time, strong and weak, likely to win and a sure bet to lose. All we in the Free World had to do was never falter. We managed this by turning in our cards regularly. It was the least we could do.
The answer to the above dilemma was imparted to us by Ferris Fremont the next week. How did a nation with typically inept technology become stronger than ourselves? Through subversion here at home, a sapping of the will of Americans through the guile of defeatism. There was a question on the next card about that:
The greatest enemy America faces is (1) Russia; (2) our high standard of living, highest the world has ever known; (3) secret infiltrators in our midst.
We knew to put (3). However, Nicholas that night was in a crazy mood; he wanted to check (2).
“It’s our standard of living, Phil,” he told me with a wink. “That’s what’s going to doom us. Let’s all three of us check (2).”
“What’s going to doom us is screwing around with these answer cards,” I told him. “They take these answers seriously.”
“They never read them,” Rachel said. “It’s just to make sure you listen to Fremont’s weekly speech. How could they read all these cards? Two hundred million of them every week.”
“Computer read,” I said.
“I vote we mark (2) on that question,” Nicholas said, and did so.
We filled out our cards, and then on Nicholas’s suggestion he and I walked to the mailbox together, the three cards in the pre-franked envelope which the government provided.
“I want to talk to you,” Nicholas said to me, as soon as we were outside.
“Okay,” I said. I thought he meant about the cards. But it was not the cards he had on his mind. As soon as he began to talk I understood why he had behaved so erratically.
“I received the most compelling reception of Valis so far,” he said in a low, very serious voice. “It completely shook me up. Nothing so far has—well, I’ll tell you. What I saw visually was the woman again. She was seated in a modern living room, on the floor near a coffee table. A bunch of men were around on all sides of her, all wearing expensive Eastern-style suits, establishment suits. The men were young. They were deep in discussion. The woman suddenly, when they were aware of her, she—” He paused. “She turned on her third eye, the one with the lens instead of the pupil; she turned it on them, and, Phil—she read into their hearts. What they had done and weren’t admitting, what they intended to do: everything about them. And she kept on smiling. They never guessed she had that eye with that all-seeing lens and was reading deep into them. There were no secrets left, nothing she didn’t know. You know what she learned about them?”
“Tell me,” I said.
“They were conspirators,” Nicholas said. “They had plotted the murders of everyone who’s been assassinated: Dr. King, the two Kennedys, Jim Pike, Malcolm X, George Lincoln Rockwell the Nazi Party leader . . . all of them. Phil, I tell you as God is my witness, she saw that. And as I looked at her I was made to understand what she was: the sibyl. The Roman sibyl who guards the republic. Our republic.”
We had reached the mailbox. Nicholas stopped there, turned
