It was only at home where my Father's political feelings, and confusions about being suddenly lifted to what William Safire calls the geopolitical "stratosphere", could be expressed And at times, with my Mother's illnesses, I was the only, albeit childish, ear. These were the years in which the powers-that-be came to terms with the bomb..., terms which they kept from the public. Luce changed from journalist to king. At the onset of war his publications still had the telltale sign of journalism: dissent. For example: and most notably, were the Life editorials criticizing "Torch", Patton's march across North Africa as more of a move to protect British interests than making war on Germany. I mention this to compare it to the attitudes that followed the war. The few brief discussions of atomic power came to an abrupt end. It was the most serious topic. That reasoning on this issue was pushed to its logical conclusion is demonstrated by this quote from Luce: "We can no longer wage war demanding unconditional surrender." That simple statement shows much. First, that the world would not accept the holders of the bomb as a total bully, and secondly, that close cooperation would be necessary throughout wars of attrition. It follows from this that the holders of the bomb would benefit by l- -holding wars from time to time with regulated boundaries. (This would divert the public attention least they be rash enough to demand peace) 2- Keeping secret agreements not to use the bomb very private. With this they could stage public posturing that would keep the public in line. Secrecy around the nuclear issue kept the power and the money in a few hands. Just a little theatre. One of the first big staged "censorship" flaps was when Haggerty was Press Secretary and a line in Fortune had to be changed from "The President decided" to "It was decided". There could, of course, be no secret agreements with a real Commander and Chief. Should some over eager President accidentally intimate that he could use nuclear weapons, no wrist slapping would suffice to demonstrate enough control to insure these secret agreements. Only the most serious demonstration would do. It would be for these press-spies not just a benefit; but a necessity. This slippery slope of reasoning, keeping power in the hands of very few with illegal secrecy, lead down a blood slick slope to useless endeavors in places with such exotic names as Khe Sanh and Pork Chop Hill. We went for it because we believed and trusted our press! How often were we told that an atomic attack would come, not in the air across some Arctic DEW line, but under the Brooklyn Bridge, hidden in a barge? Something that any child could reason as being easier, cheaper, and more expedient! Never! We were never ever, as a group mind, to reason and draw the same logical conclusions that the nabobs reached with obvious and easy logic. Great effort was to be extended in giving the impression that the press was outside of government, charging at it like a gallant knight: the protector of our freedoms. So.... By decree of Henry Luce the subject of the bomb, in any sensible manner was verboten. Hersey left. Miller left Life to become the editor of the Harold Trib. (His daughter, Carolyn, an astrologer in Provencetown, revealed that her Father told the family that he was taking a step up!) God, how we bond! It does not take much to surmise that at this time secret agreements were cemented more tightly between Henry Luce and Joe Stalin. In fact, a log of Luce's movements come near to proof. A careful look at events following meetings between Luce and the communists show the real story. It was just 36 hours following one meeting in Tehran, Iran while Luce was still in the air returning home, playing acy-ducy and cutting his hand on a gin bottle, that the Chinese divisions crossed the Yalu. In other words, once the Chinese were assured that they would not face nuclear attack, they entered Korea. All serious scholars of the Korean conflict state that the Allied forces were lucky that the Chinese Navy did not deploy. I do not think this was luck. If I tire your mind, Dear Lady - Kind Sir, you might be so dense headed to ask what was so wrong with that. Too well orchestrated. A little earlier they conveniently walked out of the Security Council so war could be declared. Lots of luck! To keep this power you must from time to time war, if not the population will start to focus on the real issues. War takes a lot more planning and care and work than peace. Lots. Great show and effort is made of "working for peace". It was not long after those over-strength divisions crossed the Yalu with their quilted uniforms and disproportional large rifles that, during the preparations for the invasion of Inchon, my Father got his first real taste of f ruler perspective". Rockefeller Center was the seat of power. This was the command center from which William Stephenson worked; (The Man Called Intrepid ), who as "naval person" "brokered" between Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill. This was far more than "special operations". There are many indicators, such as the search for the Bismarck that bear this out. In other words, the war was run from Rockefeller Center, not from Washington or London. It was after the war that Luce seized the opportunity to be the speaker for this center. My Father prepared many "internal" maps that were not for publication, but to facilitate the thinking. The Admiralties were making their decisions in New York. He often described one meeting. Preparing for Inchon, as Jeremiah drew both the landings and the diversions, they were very concerned about the public's reaction to the brainwashing techniques of the Chinese.' At this meeting my Father entered the discussion and suggested that the GIs tell their captors whatever they wanted to because, "You are talking directly to the Chinese, why can't they?" And further, "You are telling them just where we are going to land. You give away the important secrets. Why shouldn't they, under threat of torture give away the unimportant ones?" He described the Admiralties turning to him, giving him a blank stare, and returning to their conversations. Perspectives! These invidious 'betters" at the top always talked directly with the enemy, a privilege they protected by swiftly punishing the "traitors" who had the cheek to do the exact same thing that they were doing. It was that conversation that changed his thinking forever. It was during that period that Hedley Donovan began teaching him to "read the billboards". I do not think that Hedley spent any great amount of time with my Father, just a few examples, shown at the right times, would do. Years of drawing history maps gave my Father a better "big picture " perspective than many of the editors on world desk. The map room was often a center during a crises. For example: John Hersey was in Hawaii and wanted to get a message past the censors. He simply cabled, "The maproom will know." My Father's predecessor immediately drew maps of the Soloman's and, sure enough, we hit Guadacanal. Or, to quote General George Patton, "The study of war is the study of the road map." Jeremiah concluded, but to a degree rarely spoken, that Luce made secret agreements about the bomb. As this was the McCarthy era, let me put that into perspective. My Father would have reason to believe that Senator McCarthy was correct: we were working with the enemy. McCarthy just had a sense that something was wrong, but couldn't put his greasy finger on it. He was not the only one who had this "feeling of the obvious". Counterspy James Jesus Angleton knew in his gut that something was going on. He thought it was in government! Angleton couldn't be fired. That would look too bad. The spymasters in the press had to put up with this loose cannon for many years. I mention this for perspective. On one hand, if you ask a number of intelligent people if they thought that the US and the Soviets had secret agreements about non-use of nuclear weapons, much more than a few' a good number would answer that we did. Makes sense. Not just a little sense: a snowballing preponderance of "plain as day" common sense. On the other hand, this is not only highly illegal, but would stir patriotic sensibilities into a frenzy. One would reason that these mutually exclusive points of view would be held by different people. No. Same people. If, Kind Sir - Dear Lady, you do not believe me, do a survey of your friends. For one brief dying moment this was a legitimate excuse for secret agreements. An excuse the lizard vintage evokes with that damning code-word expression: "We kept the peace." Yes, they kept it for themselves. The motive was illegitimate power and unbridled greed: the operant instrument: a media that for a full thirty years wrongly fanned patriotic flames in a dis-informing manner. Billions upon billions in atomic bombs while the entire infrastructures went downhill and the quality of life has so dwindled that two incomes do not bring anywhere near what one income brought just 30 years ago. There is no one to raise the children. We accept this as normal. Why? We accept this as normal because we are told that this is normal. "Kept the peace," indeed!!! Never before have so few stolen so much from so many. The biggest misconception, the most damaging misconception is the notion held dearly by the mass mind, fostered by the media, that there are "secrets" held by organizations such as the CIA with the "free Press" on the outside ready to reveal any piece of dirt they get their hands on. The reverse is true. Before anything can be classified the media must first digest it: it must be understood. This misconception has everyone barking up the wrong tree. For example, there is an organization called Citizens Against UFO Secrecy. They rail against government secrecy. It is not government secrecy. It is media secrecy. But we are back in the 1950s, and I will teach you, as I was taught, to read a newspaper. First off, and most important: don't read them. Look at them. When you start reading you passively absorb. endeavor that most closely resembles the proper approach to newspapers is boxing. It is very tiring. The moment you start to passively read, you are lost. Put the paper down in the same way a tired boxer ties up the opponents arms for a rest. The approach to the newspaper must be active. If it was almost daily, the next statement, the most important, was repeated to me by my Father at least 1000 times: "Look before you read." This starts, at the beginning, with how you hold a newspaper. The newspaper must be laid out so that you can see and sense the relationship of one article to another: why is one featured and another not. If you fold your newspaper in a cute, small commuter folio, you might as we not have it at all: you are just reading. Jeremiah had a number of cute gambits for opening the Times fully on a crowded train so that it extended onto other rider's laps. These were replaced over time with the simple expediency of using other's laps and growling at the first hint of objection. Spend ten units of time looking to one unit of time reading. Look, look, look. Why is the article there. Why is it placed the way it is? Most important: look, look, look for what is missing. The object is to feel in your gut 100% sure why this editor placed the article the, way he did. Ail example is in the appendix on page "D` "Who-or what- is mutilating the nation's cattle?" This clipping was given to me by a friend who read it. I saw it too, but looked. The article is void of news, you get nothing from reading it. It is not new. It is not news. It is old. The events happened some time in the past. The location is nowhere near Boston. Why is it there? My friend, who I do not want to insult, was pleased; "Look, they are starting to report the truth!" No. What is important is the date, 5-20-93. On that day the negotiations opened at the Parker House Hotel in Boston for the sale (price!) of the Boston Globe to the New York Times Co. So what is happening here is that the Taylor family (the Globe) is saying to Arthur Ochs Sulzberger (The New York Times Co.), in a cutsie way, 'Gee, we could start telling some truths here, tee hee, don't you think that offer is a tad low, tee hee?" When you realize what is happening you become angry. In fact anger is often a sign that you are looking at newspapers correctly. What cannot be hidden here is what both Mr. Taylor and Mr. Sulzberger feel about you. Because they are lying to you and misinforming you in a way that can and does daily hurt you, what they feel, what they must feel, goes way beyond disdain. It goes far beyond mere contempt. This carefully crafted hurtful insult bespeaks only one feeling toward you, Kind Sir - Dear Lady. And you must come to terms with this: Mr. Taylor and Mr. Sultzburger hate you. Does my friend who handed me the article really think that these papers with far more access to information than he has is not talking about certain subjects because they don't quite yet believe them? Yes, unfortunately that is what he believes. So do most of you. You must read with the same feeling and in the same way in which you bob and weave and block. No matter how emotionally hard to accept: an examination of the facts is clear: this hurtful insult is with malice: hatred pure and simple. Anger, more than being just proper, is a healthy sign that you are seeing the opponent swing at you and recognize impending harm. Boxing and looking at newspapers take the same effort. You should be very tired way before three minutes. If you are not tired you may either be taking severe hits, or might, unaware, be down for the count. At any rate, do not read; then you are down for the count before you even start. Look before you read. There were countless times that my Father would hand me a clipping or point to an article and snatch it back in anger if I began to read. The tendency to read instead of look is very strong. In the beginning, like boxing, the intervals spent should be no longer than five or ten seconds. Look hard at the pictures. They are often copy not art. Remember that the editors have thousands of pictures to chose from. They tend to pick those that have messages or are inside jokes. Or information; as there are even instances where the picture is the message and the article with it the decoration or illustration. Look, look, look. Before you read the caption, stop, look and consider. The caption may have nothing to do with the message in the picture. When we were deciding to let go of our bases in the Philippines there was a picture of Shultz looking down the mouth of a cannon at Corrigadore. Appropriate and funny and confirming. During the "sea change" of 1984 a picture was on the front of several newspapers. There were three Chinese soldiers standing and smiling on a railroad track. The caption stated that a few seconds later all three were killed by a train. The picture was most likely staged and used as a message, or conceivably true and used as a message, but most certainly a message: "back down or we all die." Many messages are in pictures.
