Paul Trejo
-
Posts
6,451 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Paul Trejo
-
-
I'm taking time to go deeper into the many issues raised. Odviously I can't just take the word no matter how emphatic of some one on such often important issues. I was actually looking at page 161. There are words there that were later changed. Is it, in your opinion, in any way dealing with distribution.
Interesting. Hegelian Dialectics which allows for the supernatural apparently was/is the preferred way of dealing with dialectical materialism in the higher echelons of so inclined US miltary staff I wonder if Walker in any way considered himself a hegelian? As a sideline I perhaps understand why Oswald when he did refer to himself as a marxist-leninist which the foreword to these publications I got is by the 'institute of marxism-leninism. Anway: a curio.
edit typos
It's good to go deeper, John. Thanks for the conversation. As for page 161, I don't see any concentration on the business of Distribution; the main concentration is on Production and its alleged surplus value. However, in dealing with the sale of any manufactured product, one should consider the transportation costs, the warehouseing costs, the costs to support the family of the salesperson, and any overhead that salespeople have; and that was neglected in Marxism. I knew a man in Finland who was on the run from the USSR border police because he sold garments on the underground market. His so-called Crime was 'making a profit'. Actually, he was only trying to eke out a living, and his prices for these garments were roughly what others were charging. But the USSR system did not have the concept of the necessity of Distriubtion Costs, because Marx was obsessed with Production. Why was Marx obsessed with Production? I believe it was so that he could justify the State takeover of all Productive Machinery. Marx's idea of cost accounting was sophomoric.
It is also telling that the USSR collapsed largely upon its internal Economic failure which was based on its Economic, internal contradictions. In street terms, housewives were turning to the underground market by the millions, so that the Underworld Economy became richer than the legitimate Economy. That was firmly based on Marx's failure to define a workable Economic System.
As for Hegeian Dialectics allowing for the supernatural, that is an overstatement. Hegel was one of the leaders of the rationalist movement in theology in the early 1800's, along with Paulus and Herder. These theologians attempted to find a rational explanation for every alleged miracle in the Bible.
As for Dialectical Materialism, that is a self-contradiction. True dialectics calls for a balance of any two sides, but by choosing 'Materialism', Engels and Marx showed their one-sided orientation. So, their philosophy should really be called, 'two-sided one-sidedness,' because that's literally what Dialectical Materialism implies. (This was always clear to Hegelians - although the 20th century saw perhaps half a dozen true Hegelians until 1990 with the Fall of the USSR.)
As for the US Military staff, they, like Jean-Paul Sartre, would never have been allowed to study Hegel. It was a pathetic dogma in the West that Hegel always led to Marx. That's absurd, of course, since they are opposites. But that was the dogma, and just as the Paris Universities refused to teach Hegel to Sartre, so would West Point refuse to teach Hegel's dialectical system to their cadets.
It is impossible for Edwin Walker to have considered himself a Hegelian, since Edwin Walker was a Christian Fundamentalist -- and this typus rejected Hegel back in 1820, never looking back. Although Hegel considered himself a Lutheran, no traditional Lutheran ever considered himself a Hegelian.
As for Oswald, I maintain that he was always confused about these issues. He was a Marine. There has never been, in the entire history of the Marines, a truly Marxist Marine, because it is ideologically impossible. Oswald was not only a Marine, he was most likely an undercover operator in extreme rightist causes, and probably worked for the FBI (which is why Hoover refused to release all its records on Oswald, including tax records which probably would have shown FBI income).
Like any neophyte, Oswald probably read some namby-pamby British Socialist literature, and called himself a Marxist-Leninist on that basis. Oswald showed utterly zero grasp of Dialectics: two-sided or one-sided.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
I'm glad that this thread has settled into speculations about the ground-crew in Dallas who actually managed and accomlished the shooting. The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979, after criticizing the Warren Commission and re-opening then re-closing the JFK assassination proceedings, concluded that Oswald probably had accomplices. This was hard to squeeze out of the US government, which still insisted on keeping hundreds of documents on this topic top secret.
[...edit...]
As to the actual crew at Dealey Plaza, let me redraw attention to Harry D. Holmes.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16815
IMO one of the people there most clearly with foreknowledge and active participation -- not as a shooter, but watching it go down then actively taking part in the coverup pretty much before the bystanders in the plaza had time to catch their breath. If he was watching from the rooftop on the South side of the plaza as he said, he seems to have gotten down to the street quite quickly, pocketing physical evidence including a piece of Kennedy's skull which was then lost (!) and checking out what could be seen on Moorman's Polaroids before the newsmen got to them.
Might have had some interesting cross examination of him if the HSCA had been allowed to be a real investigation.
Daniel, I agree that this person, Harry D. Holmes, is interesting because his behavior at Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963 is suspicious.
What can we say about his social connections? Was he a rightist or a leftist? Did he have connections with the Texas Minutemen? With the John Birch Society?
Did he have any connection with General Edwin Walker? What research has already been completed for this person?
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
Here is a little more on what was happening behind the scenes on Edwin Walker's over the top problems with going against the president. It makes one wonder if the Kennedys wanted Walker to experience the ways of the old south with being accused of being mentally sick. Perhaps MLK taught JFK and RFK how the blacks were treated in the Southern US, and designed what was good for the Blacks in Slavery would be good for Walker to taste first hand.
=====
I summarized the evidence for my view that psychiatry is a threat to civil liberties, especially to the liberties of individuals stigmatized as “right-wingers,” illustrated by the famous case of Ezra Pound, who was locked up for 13 years while the government ostensibly waited for his “doctors” to restore his competence to stand trial. Now the Kennedys and their psychiatrists were in the process of doing the same thing to Walker.
Instead, I proposed that they “nominate” a prominent Dallas university psychiatrist as their defense expert – that is, a local, publicly employed physician who could ill afford to declare Walker insane on the basis of his “racist” views. (Before the Civil War, proslavery physicians in the South diagnosed black slaves who tried to escape to the North as mentally ill, “suffering from drapetomania.” In the Walker case, pro-integration psychiatrists in the North diagnosed white segregationists as mentally ill, “suffering from racism.”) Next morning I flew back to Syracuse.
=====
Jim, the article you shared by psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, who moved to free General Walker from psychiatric imprisonment imposed by the Kennedys, is outstanding.
In my current opinion, the main motive for General Walker's participation (or leadership) in a conspiracy to kill JFK in Dallas on 11/22/1963, begins with precisely this incident of the Kennedys unjustly detaining General Walker for psychiatric examination.
This was no random psychopath - this was a former US General, heavily decorated for service to the USA in World War Two and Korea.
Allow me to share some more facts about Walker's case from Chris Cravens' 1991 dissertation, "Edwin Walker and the Right Wing in Dallas, 1960-1966".
Here's how the trouble started. The Kennedys were taking strident jabs at the John Birch Society (JBS) starting in 1960, and it just so happened that General Walker was a member of the JBS since the year it started. As the Commander of the 24th Infantry Division in Munich, Germany, he saw fit to circulate JBS literature in his well-known Pro-Blue program. Walker reasoned that since soldiers were risking their lives to fight Communism, that they deserved to know what Communism really was.
In response, in April of 1961 [corrected], the Kennedys relieved General Walker of his command and moved him to an isolated desk job. Walker had crossed the line, they said, when he called Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry Truman 'pink' in his memoranda.
Yet General Walker had plenty of friends in Congress and of course in his home State of Texas. Thirty Senators of the Texas Senate in May, 1961, for example, demanded reinstatement of Walker's command over the 24th Infantry Division. But to no avail. On June 12, 1961, the Kennedys formally 'admonished' Walker.
Of course, this was opposed in the Congress. Senator Barry Goldwater along with John Tower and Strom Thurmond, Bob Dole and Dale Alford were outraged. Public support of Walker was very high. Goldwater called the admonishment, "Muzzling the Military."
In response, near then end of October, 1961, the Kennedys offered Walker a transfer to Hawaii, and a promotion. But as November, 1961 opened, General Walker resigned.
I would emphasize that Walker was the only US General to resign in the 20th century. By resigning instead of retiring, he gave up a $1,000 a month pension (which amounts to $10,000 monthly in 2011 dollars). He was 52 years old. He explained his resignation saying that Hawaii was just a stepping stone to Vietnam, and he'd vowed he'd never enter into another undeclared war after Korea.
At this point General Walker began a successful speaking career on right-wing speaking circuits. At the end of 1961, Walker appeared on ABC television, on "Issues and Answers", where he declared himself a non-aligned anti-communist, period. Days later he was on the front cover of Newsweek (12/4/1961) as the face of USA rightists.
Walker's speeches were very well attended and lucrative for him. Thousands attended. Governors and Mayors would introduce him. He would get multiple standing ovations as he slammed the White House for: (1) accepting a divided Germany; (2) recalling MacArthur from Korea; (3) letting Cuba go Red; (4) the Bay of Pigs; and (5) Muzzling the Military. (In his first speech, the crowd applauded 109 times in 90 minutes, and there were fifteen standing ovations.)
After a particularly rousing speech in Dallas, Mayor Earl Cabell gave Walker the key to Dallas and a Stetson hat; this event was filmed and can be found on Youtube (see below).
As 1962 began, Walker was on 100 radio stations and closed circuit TV. (He was on the fast track to become the 'Rush Limbaugh' of his day.) He advocated only two groups: the JBS, and the Texas-based 'National Indignation Committee'. Followers convinced Walker to run for the office of Governor of Texas, so he entered the race against John Connally in March, 1962.
In April, 1962, Walker testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and its Subcommittee on Cold War Education. Senator John Fulbright complained that some Army Officers were taking political stands. Senator Strom Thurmond retorted that Fulbright wished to muzzle the military and demanded a vote on Officer Censorship. The Kennedys, fearing Walker could become a martyr, banned TV and Radio coverage of these hearings. The Senate hearing room was packed.
Predictably, Walker pontificated like Joe McCarthy, and was arguably making some progress, when suddenly, Norman Rockwell of the USA Nazi Party entered the Senate hearing room wearing full Nazi regalia and praising Walker to high heaven. Rockwell was quickly ejected, but the damage was done.
This public embarrassment contributed to Walker's poor showing at the polls, and he failed to win the Democratic nomination for Governor of Texas. Nevertheless, he continued his successful speaking tour. He developed a closer relationship with right-wing radio commentator, Bill Ray Hargis, and so increased his prospects of national fame and wealth.
Walker set up 'Friends of Walker' clubs throughout Texas, based in Dallas. He started the American Eagle Publishing Company. He erected a billboard on his front lawn on Turtle Creek Road. He changed the message weekly, viz:
* The UN is Treason
* Impeach Earl Warren
* Dump Estes
* Sodom, Gomorrah or Wallace
However, everything changed on September 10, 1962, when Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black decided in favor of James Meredith, a Negro Air Force veteran, who sued to attend Oxford University in Mississippi. He had been rejected only on racial grounds
On 9/13/1962, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett announced he would fight the Supreme Court.
On 9/26/1962, Walker went on radio KWKH and exclaimed:
- "It is time to move!
- "We have talked, listened and been pushed around far too much by the Antichrist Supreme Court!
- "Rise to stand beside Governor Ross Barnett at Jackson Mississippi!
- "Now is the time to be heard!
- "Ten thousand strong from every State in the Union!
- "Rally to the cause of Freedom!
- "The Battle Cry of the Republic!
- "Barnett, yes, Castro, no!
- "Bring your flags, your tents and your skillets!
- "It is time!
- "Now or never!"
When the Associated Press asked Walker if he wanted his followers to bring guns, he said, "That's up to them!" Walker said he opposed forced integration. This was about States' Rights.
On 9/28/1962 Walker flew a private plane to Jackson, Mississippi. He called for a "national uprising against the conspiracy from within!" He warned that thousands were coming. He warned that "any violence would start with the Feds!"
On 9/29/1962 JFK told hundreds of Federal Marshalls to proceed to Mississippi. That evening a riot broke out on the Oxford campus. On the lawn outside the Lyceum building a hostile crowd of about 2,000 youths was chanting: "Go to hell, JFK! Go to hell, JFK!" They threw eggs, rocks and bricks at the Marshalls.
Kennedy came on national radio and defended his decision. He added that James Meredith had been in his dorm room for an hour, and still had Federal protection.
A newsman's car was trashed by the mob - and his camera was smashed and burned. Tear gas did not move this mob - one Marshall was wounded by a shotgun, but the Marshalls had orders not to return fire.
At 9pm Walker walked to the front of the mob, in silence, and surveyed the situation, and ultimately sent the mob home. The crowd booed and jeered and began to disperse...slowly.
But at midnight some stragglers were still trashing the campus. At 1:30am Walker went back to his Hotel. At 2am JFK sent in regular troops. Now the violence began; 106 Marshalls were wounded. One local citizen was killed. One French reporter was killed.
Despite all this, on 9/30/1962, at 8am, James Meredith was registered as a student. By 9am the crowd was finally gone.
The Associated Press reported that Walker led one of the charges of the rioting students. The United Press reported that Walker advised the mob to disperse. The Kennedys chose to believe the AP. That morning Walker was apprehended by Military Police, and arrested by the Feds. RFK charged Walker with insurrection and conspiracy, based only on the AP story.
Bond was set at $100K, and Walker's brother quickly began to raise the bail, but RFK suddenly ordered the Army to detain Walker at the US Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, which was a psychiatric hospital.
Walker was locked up under maximum security. Walker's lawyers claimed he was lucid, and Walker denied charges that he incited to riot.
Dr. Robert Morris reported that Walker was paranoid, because 'Walker thinks he's a political prisoner!' The JBS, under John Rousselot, considered expelling Walker from the JBS.
Ironically, the ACLU sued for Walker's release. Here was 'martyrdom' at the hands of RFK! This was the new 'psychiatric fascism'. Rightists fed the flames by charging that psychiatry makes people communists! Common sense agreed that if psychiatry were ever to become a political weapon, it would necessarily be an evil force.
On Wednesday 3, 1962, according to one report, Katzenbach tried to make a deal with Walker: freedom in exchange for silence. Walker replied: This is blackmail! Go to hell!
On Sunday, October 7, 1962, Walker was released. He returned to Dallas to a hero's welcome; 3,000 admirers and US flags flying. After a local doctor pronounced Walker to be 'very fit,' Walker immediately began giving speeches again. John Rousselot and the JBS changed their mind and fully reinstated Walker with all honors.
On January 21, 1963, the White House dropped all charges against Walker. Then Walker sued AP for libel. Ultimately he won and was awarded $3 million. But AP appealed to the Supreme Court, and ironically it was Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren who heard the case -- the very Judge for whom Walker had been demanding impeachment for years! Earl Warren threw Walker's case out of court, and Walker never saw a penny of that money.
Nevertheless, Walker returned to his lucrative speaking career, and continued to address thousands of people to standing ovations.
Everything changed once more for Edwin Walker when somebody (perhaps Lee Oswald, according to Marina) took a pot-shot at Walker at his Dallas home on 4/10/1963.
Later in 1963, former General Edwin Walker could be found in New Orleans, Louisiana, and according to the late Gerry Hemming (a former member of this Forum), was also seen at Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, the site of a Cuban Exile Training Camp led by David Ferrie and Guy Banister.
Be that as it may - less than 24 hours after the assassination of JFK (as shown by FBI records available on the Mary Ferrell web site) General Walker conversed with neo-Nazi news editor, Helmut Muench, and told him that 'the same assassin who killed JFK was the same person who shot at me on 4/10/1963.'
We know this because Muench's newspaper, the Deutsche NationalZeitung, assigned newsman Hasslo Thorsten to interview Walker at length, and published this long interview in its 11/29/1963 issue. This issue is also among the FBI records.
So - even though the US conspirators were the leaders and did not need international support, nevertheless, it appears that at some level they had international support, anyway.
Anyway - there's the background to Walker's psychiatric incarceration by the Kennedys, Jim. Thanks for the Szasz article on Walker.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo, MA
<edit typos>
P.S. Here's Walker getting an award from Dallas Mayor Earl Cabell:
-
It was more than just Prouty who identified Lansdale at Dallas. It was also Gen. Victor Krulak, too: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/USO/appD.html
I suggest reading up on Lansdale. Oliver North patterned himself on Lansdale. Lansdale motive for killing Kennedy would be that he wanted him dead. Lansdale was more CIA than he was Air Force. He was close to Allen Dulles, one of the architects of the Warren Commission farce. I think Dulles, along with Lansdale, was involved in the JFK assassination at the behest of LBJ and his Texas oilmen who instigated this thing.
Ed Lansdale was the CIA's expert on coups, assassinations and propaganda. He was involved in Vietnam and Cuba (Operation Mongoose) - 2 hotspots for the Kennedy brothers, areas where they conflicted with CIA/military in big ways.
I currently have NO PLACE for Edwin Walker in the JFK assassination, mostly because he contacted the HSCA about the bullet in evidence not being the one shot at him. One does not stir up the waters like that if you are guilty; being really quiet is a good strategy. Normally, I would suspect Walker because he was yet another one who was friends with the perp H.L. Hunt. But, currently, I do not think Walker was involved.
Robert, I will read up on Landsdale, however the motive of 'wanting JFK dead' is abstract. Lots of people wanted JFK dead, and some of them were in Dealey Plaza that day - but that is not enough evidence to stand up in court.
No doubt Alan Dulles, who was one of the architects of the CFR and the CIA, and so was one of the architects of the post-War USA, would not have been especially impressed by JFK, and even less by RFK, and might have had a motive of revenge for having been fired as head of the CIA - a super-agency he helped to create. But as tempting as that sounds, it is still not enough proof.
As for LBJ, although he surely gained a great deal from the untimely death of JFK, that in itself is still not enough proof that he was a primary instigator (as Craig Zirbel concisely proposed in 1991). I find only evidence that LBJ was an accessory-after-the-fact, as LBJ knew full well who all the main players and ground-crew were who killed JFK; at minimum after receiving the private your-eyes-only Warren Report. (The theorists who pin the blame first on LBJ have showed uniformly weak argumentation, IMHO, starting with Zirbel, who was the ablest of them all.)
As for the Warren Commission, Allen Dulles knew it was weak, but he told his aide that all the truth was in there - if we read between the lines. I think that's correct.
As for blaming 'Texas oilmen' as the main instigators along with LBJ, again I say that hatred in itself is never a proof of murder. As for General Landsdale's involvement in Vietnam, Cuba and Operation Mongoose, I respond as follows: (1) JFK was of two minds about Vietnam; he expressed both pro and con positions in the same interview with Walter Cronkite; (2) JFK and RFK spent millions trying to kill Castro. That has been amply documented by Lamar Waldron before a host of others; (3) Operation Mongoose was RFK's personal project. (I once read that RFK was the one who came up with the name, Operation Mongoose.)
While it is important that Lansdale was the CIA's expert on coups, assassinations and propaganda (and I fully intend to look deeper into his biography) this in itself proves nothing at all. (I also intend to research other US Generals of that period, particularly any with neo-Nazi leanings, like General Walker.)
You currently have "no place" for Edwin Walker in the JFK assassination, but you say "that is mostly because he contacted the HSCA about the bullet in evidence not being the one shot at him." Yet you ignore the fact that Edwin Walker continually claimed that Oswald was actually one of his two shooters on 4/10/1963.
Also, you insist that people do not "stir up the waters" if they are guilty, and that a guilty Walker would have kept quiet, yet you ignore too many factors about Walker's state of mind. First, he was nearly discovered by Liebeler in his Warren Commission testimony when he was asked point blank if he new Helmut Muenchen, and Walker said no, when the FBI had material evidence that he spoke at length with Muenchen on 11/23/1963 at 7am, less than 24-hours after the JFK assassination. The topic was the JFK assassination, and Oswald's participation in the Walker shooting of 4/10/1963.
But nobody knew about the Oswald participation until Marina told the FBI in early December. So, how did General Walker find out? Why would he celebrate with the neo-Nazi Helmut Muenchen so soon after JFK's murder? This is too suspicious to omit.
Here is hard evidence that Walker was involved, IMHO, and Liebeler came within inches of the main discovery. Having been 'almost found out,' Walker spread his "Oswald was my second shooter" theory from that moment on - until his last year on earth. That is a guilty conscience speaking.
Also, you ignore the fact that the right-wing considered the Kennedys to have persecuted Walker for teaching John Birch Society ideals to his troops in Munich, Germany, and publicly "admonishing" him, and moving him out of his command to some isolated desk job.
Also, you ignore the fact that the right-wing considered the Kennedys to have persecuted Walker for advocating racial segregation at Ole Miss college in 1962, by arresting him and detaining him for psychiatric evaluation. (In my opinion, this is a credible material motive for revenge. Further, it would not have affected only General Walker, but also any extreme rightist US General who sypathized with Walker. If Landsdale were involved, I would want to investigate General Landsdale's relationship with General Walker first and foremost.
You currently don't suspect General Walker, but here are some people who did or do suspect General Walker: (1) Jack Ruby; (2) Dick Russell; (3) Richard Cordon; (4) Jerry P. Shinley; (5) Rick Stelnick; (6) Harry J. Dean.
There is plenty of evidence to bring Walker in for questioning. And his close relationship with H.L. Hunt is not even included in that evidence.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
(edit typos)
-
I've started looking at Engels and Marxs "The holy Family or Critique of critical Critique", 1844 as republished by the F.L.P.H., Moscow '56. It seems to promise to cover their position on Hegel as it was then. Interesting.
Well, John, even though we're talking about the left-wing and the right-wing in the context of the JFK assassination, this topic is a bit far afield. I'll very briefly summarize my view. The year is 1844 and Engels and Marx are attacking those so-called Left Hegelians that refused to join the Communist movement; mainly Bruno Bauer and Max Stirner. Bruno Bauer was the leader of the so-called Left-Hegelians, although he himself refused to be called a Left-Hegelian.
Bauer, who was the oldest of the group, and the only one to directly study under Hegel (and won a prize from Hegel) was trying to teach the young Engels, Marx, Stirner and others how to understand Hegel. They failed in his opinion (and in mine) because they were really only interested in their political agendas, which they already held before joining this club.
Max Stirner is interesting; he was like the Ayn Rand of his day -- he believed that people are basically Egoistic and should mind their own business and take care of themselves, and then society would be perfect. His was the exact opposite of the Socialist mentality. Bruno Bauer was not an Egoist, but he rejected Socialism and Communism entirely. He was a true Hegelian, and he could see that Engels and Marx were trying to exploit people's ignorance of Hegelian dialectics to mislead them into thinking that Hegel (who died in 1831) would have approved of this new Communism. Bruno Bauer knew better - Hegel based his theory of Law (PHILOSOPHY OF RIGHT, 1818) on the principle of Private Property. Also, Hegel was a devoted Lutheran. So Engels and Marx were liars back in 1844. They were worried that Bruno Bauer would block their growing readership, so they worked for a solid year to defame him.
Poor Bruno Bauer - he was thrown out of the University by the radical rightists, by the Prussian Monarchy and its fundamentalist reactionaries who mocked Bauer's theories of the Historical Jesus, the Markan Hypothesis, and the Messianic Secret. He was banned by right-wing extremists. Now, with Engels and Marx, he was being banned by the left-wing extremists as well. Bruno Bauer was once a well-respected academic authority, but his reputation did not survive this double-attack.
I know this because I specialize in the history of Bruno Bauer. Amazon.com still sells one of my books on this topic (mainly to libraries).
So - the lies that Engels and Marx tell about Hegel in all their works were never worth two bits. In those books you are currently perusing, John, you are reading the bizarre ideas of Engels and Marx, and nothing at all of Hegel's ideas. As a long-time member of the Hegel Society of America, John, I assure you that most Hegel scholars agree with my conclusion here.
Finally, Jean-Paul Sartre suspected something about this, without being able to articulate it; for example, in his SEARCH FOR A METHOD (p. 17) he admitted that even though Paris students in 1925 were allowed to study Marx (to refute him) they were not allowed to study Hegel (and if they had referenced Hegel they would have failed) - such was the irrational fear of Hegel in Paris in 1925. For that reason, he implies, students of his generation were wholly ignorant of dialectics; so I say they never fully understood these tricks by Marx.
Sartre's confusion reminds me of the confusion we find with Lee Harvey Oswald in his fake FPCC theatrics in New Orleans in 1963.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
...I hope we can find some commonalities in all this, John. I enjoy the conversation.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
Hey, me too, Paul. Tho it's really in risk of drifting way off topic. However I think, deluded or not, (I say not) understanding these things is essential in understanding the forces at work.
Back on the maybe off topic points, OK Sartre was intellectually dishonest and deluded in various ways (not). Maybe he was having a nervous breakdown or something. He wasn't the only one though;. Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, MLK, Cassius X, maybe the entire SDS membership too and numerable others living in the real world (Not just in the US). So deluded or not there's a commonality I think. What I'm getting at whatever it was/is it was/is a significant force.
_
on another matter. This has revived old interests. I got a copy of Foreign Language Publishing House, Moscow in English (pub '57) of Capital (unfortunately without Vol 1) Got 2 and 3 (plus a bonus of marx and engels ''THE HOLY FAMILY or CRITIQUE OF CRITICAL CRITIQUE'' (say that quickly).. I wonder what you make of page 161 of Vol 2. I'm serious. I'm looking for answers to some fundamental points you have made.
Best to you too.
John, I don't think we're too off-topic, since when speaking of the book, GUNS OF THE REGRESSIVE RIGHT, we are speaking of the clash between left-wing and right-wing in the interpretation of the assassination of JFK. Morris Beale was on the left-wing, accusing the right-wing, while the Warren Commission was on the right-wing, accusing the left-wing.
As for Sartre, I don't think he was dishonest -- he was honestly dissatisfied with his own theory of existentialism, and instead of finding a valid solution, he simply turned to Marxism as a solution. I think it was lazy, but not dishonest.
Then you name the leaders of the US Black Liberation movement: "Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, MLK, Cassius X and the entire SDS membership too and numerable others". I respond as follows:
1. Medgar Evers was in no way a Communist. He struggled to enforce USA Rights according to USA laws, for Black Americans as well as White. That's not Communist; it's American. The ACLU has always been a truly patriotic organization, despite what its reactionary opponents have claimed.
2. Malcom X was in no way a Communist. He was a Muslim, and as such was always protected by the Freedom of Religion in the USA - free to say anything he wanted, as long as he did not lift guns. Also, Muslims are traditionally extreme rightists; e.g. some advocate the severest penalties against theft (protecting private property). Some Muslims also deny women's rights, so they belong to the extreme right at the level of the reactionary. There is nothing Communist about this; on the contrary. (I place Cassius X in this same category.)
3. MLK was in no way a Communist. The Communists had a very distinct ideology and vocabulary. They demanded the abolition of Religion; the abolition of Marriage; the abolition of Nationalism; and the abolition of private property. MLK's speeches lack that ideology and lack that vocabularly. So any non-racist person could have seen easily that MLK was not a Communist. Now, J. Edgar Hoover believed MLK was a Communist, and he made the FBI spy on MLK more than on any other US citizen in Hoover's career. Hoover was obsessed with MLK from a racist angle, in my opinion. He never found proof of Communism - rather, this obsession was largely a proof of Hoover's increasing senility.
4. Having witnessed the SDS in Chicago in 1969 first-hand, I found most SDS members to be simply anti-Vietnam war activists. Their violent objection was that Vietnam was an Undeclared War. This is not necessarily Communism or even leftist. My evidence is that the extreme rightist, General Edwin Walker, was also against the Vietnam war, on the same grounds! (Walker served loyally in WW2 and in Korea, but at the end of the an Undeclared War in Korea, he vowed publicly never again to join an Undeclared War. Walker resigned -- he did not retire with a pension -- after he perceived that he was going to be assigned to Vietnam. So, the SDS position was arguably American as apple pie.) My further evidence is that when Nixon ended the Vietnam war, the SDS simply faded away.
My point is that yes, left-wing struggles to represent minorities and others who are under-represented, is a significant force - but it is also often a misunderstood force. The three greatest American left-wing victories, IMHO, were (1) liberation from monarchal tyranny in 1776; and (2) liberation from legal Slavery in 1860 (and I mean here only real Slavery, where Slaves and their children are bought and sold like chattel, all under the Law); and (3) the Social Security and Unemployment Compensation Acts of 1940. Since that time the left wing has mainly been trying to hold #3 intact - more or less successfully.
As for your final point, you got an English version of DAS KAPTAL (which is easily available online now). You want my opinion about Volume 2, page 161. This identifies Chapter 8, entitled, FIXED CAPITAL AND CIRCULATING CAPlTAL, and section 1. DISTINCTIONS OF FORM. Is that correct? If so, here are my comments:
a. Marx begins with the bromide that in a Factory, some of the capital is invested in Machines. As Machines are used to make products, the wear-and-tear on the machines must be accounted using cost-accounting, so that a tiny portion the 'fixed cost' of the Machine (and its wear-and-tear) must be added to the cost of each product that comes from that Machine.
b. Today we would call this simple cost-accounting. Until the machine is completely worn-out, it retains some capital value. As it is used, its wear-and-tear must be compensated for in the price of each product sold. Some might call this a part of 'overhead' today.
c. It is merely a bromide to notice that the longer a Machine lasts, the more productive it is for the company.
d. The capital value (we say, Fixed Asset cost today) of a Machine that is half-worn out is still in circulation to that extent. Is that profound? I don't think so.
e. The Machine while still useful is an Asset of the Company - and of the Economy in general. Is that profound? Marx seems to think it is, but it is simply an extant value.
f. The part of the Machine's value that circulates is merely the part that has transferred (via wear and tear) to each individual product produced by that Machine.
g. All this does nothing else than define 'Fixed Asset' or as Marx said, 'Fixed Capital'. I see nothing profound in any of this.
h. Aside from this, there are other costs, overhead costs. But Marx only hints at them on page 191.
Well, there's the summary of page 191 of DAS KAPITAL Volume 2, John. And I must say that there is nothing exciting, profound or even very important about it. It is something that a beginning student of Accounting learns in his first few months of class. But then - I believe that true of the bulk of DAS KAPITAL.
Was that the page you had in mind? Maybe our versions are different, and you had a specific point in mind. Please let me know.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
I suspect Sartre's essay answers many of these concerns.
I'm looking for commonalities here. Naturally, generally, the militant right behaves predictably.
"As weak as the Rightist worldview was, the Marxist worldview was even weaker;" in being weaker ( and destructive ), did the right do the right thing in the final analysis?
John, as for Sartre's SEARCH FOR A METHOD (1957) mainly he was looking for a justification for his 180 degree turn from BEING AND NOTHINGNESS (1950) to his DIALECTICAL REASON (1960).
Regarding what the right-wing hoped for, they mostly got the opposite. They wanted a USA without Black Liberation, and instead the USA celebrates Martin Luther King day annually. They wanted the USA to return to Isolationism, instead, the USA is the Global Superpower which replaced the British Empire. (Some of the right wing wanted the world of Dr. Strangelove, instead they have a world where thirty nations have some nuclear capability.) These are the issues that ultimately killed JFK.
The right-wing won one prize: the fall of the USSR. But the USSR was going to fall, anyway, because its model was defective. So, in my opinion, the only thing that the right-wing actually accomplished through its excesses was a counteraction of the excesses of the left-wing, which were perhaps more monstrous. Actually, the right wing and its old-world excesses made the pipe dream of extreme socialism look better by comparison - and so arguably delayed the fall of Communism.
In the same way, the moderate left-wing could have made huge advances for the working class in the 20th century, except for the extremists, the Marxists, who also insisted on anti-religion, anti-nationalism, anti-marriage, and the radical abolition of all private property as 'rider' bills. This made the right-wing look more sane by comparison, and arguably delayed any resolution.
For me, the right-wing in America is a joke. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh - here is biased journalism unashamed of its bias. They resemble quasi-Christian fanatics who stand on street-corners with placards reading, "The End is Coming Soon." It's embarrassing to see them.
The left-wing in America is even worse off, in my opinion, because it shriveled like a burnt turkey wing. Its original ideals died due to its century long contagion with the Marxist infection.
If there is still hope for our fevered planet, it rests in the fact that the USSR and Marxism became past history. China turned away from Mao and toward Deng Xiaoping who shifted China's economy toward America's economy, and so saved the current USA generation from an all-out Great Depression. (The top employer in the USA today is Wal-Mart, which mainly sells Chinese goods.)
The fact that Europe is still struggling with the Euro and the European Union shows good faith that their extreme left and right wingers have been silenced; hopefully forever.
On the global front, the USA now faces a world more familiar to the British of 1899, viz. the struggle between Hinduism and Islam that would ultimately lead to the partition of India and the birth of Pakistan and the meteoric resurgence of Islam. (It makes sense that after WW1, WW2, the Cold War and the fall of Communism that the world would only settle back to its previous problems.)
To summarize: tempted by the British Middle East crisis, the German/Japanese Axis powers tried to return the world to its original, primitive mission of Slavery under a super-race. That scrambled the 20th century time track until the dust finally settled in 1975, when Nixon ended the Vietnam war, made an economic pact with China, and resigned over his many sins, including Watergate, the Bay of Pigs, and what not. Nixon was the last great quasi-monarchal President. The more predictable Bush regimes have been Parliamentary from the start -- demonstrated by our adventures in Kuwait, Iraq and the Middle East generally, which are still ongoing.
I hope we can find some commonalities in all this, John. I enjoy the conversation.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
Ok. Taking his essay of '57, (which developed into the intro to Critique of Reason, 60), which was actually an attempt to reconcile existentialism and marxism. :
<snip wiki on Sartre's SEARCH FOR A METHOD>
Naturally a hypothesis must be built on solid foundations in order to be considered a viable theory. There's a lot I agree with and some I don't but until there (to me) appears a shaky foundation to proceed without a serious look I'm happy to run with it afa it goes...
<photo of Sartre, de Beauvoir and Guevara>
Thanks for the response, John. That's a great photo of Jean-Paul Sartre in conversation with Simone de Beauvoir and Che Guevara. This photo harks back to the days when Gerry Hemming, David Ferrie, Jack Ruby and our own Harry Dean were supporting Castro in an idealistic bid to eliminate all Latin American dictators. It didn't work - Castro's guys started lining up Americans in front of firing squads - but the idealism of American youth is immortal. Though a rightist, Gerry Hemming, even while a member of this Forum, bemoaned the day Che Guevara was killed.
In any case, Sartre's brilliant, BEING AND NOTHINGNESS (1950) was praised by the bourgeoisie as an antidote to Marxism. His intense individualism, his insistence on the ominpotence of Choice, even to re-interpret the past and the present, continues to shine on in the intellectual culture of the West.
By contrast, Sartre's so-called DIALECTICAL REASON (1960) was booed by the bourgeoisie as a capitulation to Marxism. His amateur materialism, his glorification of working class values, and his compromise of the power of Choice, were disappointments both ideologically and literarily. The literary value of this work did not extend much beyond the title. It sort of rambles in a materialistic malaise.
The flaw in BEING AND NOTHINGNESS, in my opinion, was its dualism. Sartre never mastered Hegelian dialectics (and I say this as a long-time member of the Hegel Society of America). This is probably why Sartre completely abandoned his original theory of existentialism in his later works; he himself was unsatisfied with the lack of dialiectical reason in it.
The flaw in DIALECTICAL REASON, in my opinion, was also its dualism. This is because Sartre succumbed to Marxism, which is fatally dualist. He should have struggled to master Hegelian dialetics, because I believe that is what he truly hungered for. But his generation would never truly grasp the essentials of dialectics. I suppose Sartre felt obliged to produce at least one more major tome in his career - something to top BEING AND NOTHINGNESS. But I was disappointed in DIALECTICAL REASON in many ways. It was largely a rank-and-file Marxism, coupled with pretences toward being working class. The references to Roland Barthes' brilliant portraits of French popular culture, television, wrestling matches, and so on, were the only bright spots, but clearly unoriginal. His title was promising -- but rather than develop Hegelian dialectics, Sartre chose to meander within Marxist dialectics which are so one-sided.
For one thing, the inner contradictions of the USSR were ignored by all Marxists. What would Sartre have written if he had lived to see the USSR crumble in 1990? That was pure economic reality - Marxism was a dismal failure after three generations of sacrifice because Marxists truly didn't know what they were doing. USSR propaganda was full of lies. Marxism was bankrupt in the 19th century but it took another century for the material experiment to flop before the intelligensia would believe it.
Today Cuba stands as a political island as much as a natural island. Investors stand ready to react on the day that Castro and his brother keel over from old age. Just like Deng Xiaoping transformed China into a neo-capitalist super-mall after Mao Tze Tung died, I predict that the next leader of Cuba will also turn to the West with arms outstretched.
In 1950 Sartre was happy to do battle with Marxism. In 1960 it seemed to Sartre that Marxism had completely laid bare the truth of the world. He was mistaken. Marxism is an ideology that limps on its own, but once it acquired State power in the USSR and China, it used guns to demand the name, 'the Truth'. Distribution is every bit as important as Production, but Marx could not see that, and he was so persuasive to so many that the Great Experiment had to be done, at the sacrifice of countless millions of human lives in the 20th century.
It is because Marxism is riddled with errors and flaws that the boldness of the Rightist propaganda (pioneered by H.L. Hunt and his LIFELINE program, which gave Dan Smoot his start, and which gave the John Birch Society their main arguments) could be so effective, so that Sartre himself had to marvel at it. As weak as the Rightist worldview was, the Marxist worldview was even weaker.
But all of this is hindsight, and hindsight is 20/20. In 1963, the world of JFK was swimming in this sort of confusion.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
I don't know how much a member of the Marxist intelligensia would be swayed by Smoot. I find this part interesting :'' They didn't care about it a bit - but their ideology of making all these global left-wing movements into the puppets of Corporate Giants turned out to be brilliant -- said Jean-Paul Sartre -- because they actually distrated a significant portion of the intelligensia away from the Marxist paradigm'' I take Sartre seriously so I think this quote from him (if it is, or even if it's a particular persons 'interpretation') needs to be looked at in full context. Obviously the monroe doctrine needs to be considered as well.
Anyway, if we choose we could cover lots here that really might not have so much to do with that which we do have in common, namely Walker as pivotal. In this context the clarification about the Bealle fictions. And they certainly served a pupose of providing a palatable world view to people in a part of the world being ripped apart by systemic contradictions. Further on that particular matter. I find that most people react to circumstances most with pressure on the hip pocket nerve. That was not being applied by Cuba. That was being applied by the enormous nation wide economic shifts threatened by centuries old structures that would have to change as the world focused on the equal rights situation of the USofA at a time when TV developed dramatically during the Kennedy administration. How could the USofA possibly excert any moral force in the world when the world was finding out about the mess in the USoAs own back yard? No wonder that Kennedy himself sought to diminish the Oxford days ( The Ghosts Of Mississippi ) of late sep earl;y oct '62, still obfuscated today..
Thanks for the response, John. As for that citation from Sartre, that was from one of his final books, SEARCH FOR A METHOD (1960).
The Monroe Doctrine is sound from the viewpoint of self-centered security. It bears practical efficiency for self-preservation, so it's logical.
Someone might object that it steps on the toes of self-determinism of the foreign powers, but from the viewpoint of the 19th century, Catholic nations were never truly self-determined. The South American dictators of today are pathetic, but their dictators in the 19th century were equally pathetic. They just seemed to need more 'help'. As for economic forces as predominant - that is the case north or south, left or right. It's reality.
As for Cuba and Walker, we have a member here, Harry Dean, who was waist-deep in both. Harry was part of that generation that hated South American dictators so much that he and his college buddies devoted themselves to helping Castro. It was a Hemmingway thing. This was the 'hip' thing to do in the late 1950's. The late Gerry Hemming (formerly on this Forum) was also part of that generation. Also David Ferrie. But many of these folks (and all the ones I named here) were eventually turned off by Castro's movement when their own buddies were being given the firing squad for minor squabbles. They turned back to the right-wing to protect their idealistic best friends. Harry eventually went underground for the FBI to investigate the John Birch Society (another offshoot of Smoot) and found General Walker near the center of it, plotting the downfall of JFK.
Now, you speak of nationwide economic shifts in those days, and the force of equal rights. Very appropriate, because JFK was caught in just those cross-hairs. Walker represented the politics of Woodrow Wilson, nominated partly because Wilson defended the racial segregation of Princeton University, and lauded the KKK in public. JFK represented the politics of FDR, who realized that we could not win WW2 unless Hollywood portrayed the USA Military as fully integrated racially. It wasn't perfectly true, but Hollywood portrayed us that way anyway. It was a blazing success.
When the USA emerged from WW2 as the only Allied force that was not reduced to rubble, we were stunned to realize that although we'd defended the right of Great Britain to be the Global Superpower, as she had been accustomed for a few centuries, that instead we, the USA, were now the Global Superpower. This is what really changed everything - and we still haven't become entirely used to it.
We took over the Global duty of policing the globe from Great Britain - who stands behind us (like Tony Blair) cheering us on! London colleges and schools were integrated long before USA colleges and schools were integrated. We should have recognized that our historical duties would cause us to more and more resemble the Imperial powers we had always followed -- England and France.
Yes - the equal rights situation of the USA was developed from Hollywood and TV and JFK was very much in tune with that (since Joe Kennedy had once owned and operated RKO studios in Hollywood).
Yes - General Walker was his nemesis - the old guard, the Woodrow Wilson guard, the days of Princeton and Oxford, Mississippi. I agree with you that this political situation is still obfuscated today - and that is why the central role played by General Walker in the JFK assassination has taken so long to explore. We don't like to take a long, hard look at our racist right-wing, and its enduring legacy in our Global Society.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
Thank's Paul.
But they already had 'the market' and, taking Nicaragua as an example, trained funded and supported in all ways the fight against the Sandinistas. They lost Somoza and were in danger of losing much more.
The recent formation of the Latin American group of solidarity and the various other ways that this region seeks to throw off the yoke of US Imperialism seems to me a logical process going back to Jose Marti, Sandino, Zapata even and others. One could also look at Marx's disbanding the First International in order to form a second one free from the influence of the Swiss Guilds. IMO It's the actions by the wage or otherwise slaves that drive the Revolutions whether it be Cromwells Peasants or Fidels Guerillas. To expect any concessions from the inevitable counterrevolutions is silly and I think it doesn't need any input from Smoot to clarify it. I suppose some would like to disempower a united working class and it seems to me that Smoots notion creates a palatable world view for some if not many.
BTW I reckon you going after Walker is probably right on the money.
edit typos
You're right about Nicaragua, John. Yet Bealle would probably have asked 'who put the Sandinistas there in the first place?' He would have proposed that the Establishment put the Sandanistas in there to justify a larger military presence in order to expand business far beyond their tiny markets there.
Again - this is the fictional theory of Bealle based on the fictional fantasy of Dan Smoot and the later John Birch Society. The notion of grass-roots left-wing protests was entirely lost on the extreme right-wing. They didn't care about it a bit - but their ideology of making all these global left-wing movements into the puppets of Corporate Giants turned out to be brilliant -- said Jean-Paul Sartre -- because they actually distracted a significant portion of the intelligensia away from the Marxist paradigm.
That said, the Marxist paradigm was fatally flawed in many ways, from the start. Inspired by a Luddite mentality that wanted to freeze Industry at the level of the 1890's, not much traction could be obtained. Also, I was at the Iron Curtain in the late 70's, in Finland and Berlin, and I saw first hand the start of the Fall of the USSR. They outlawed common *distribution!*
The Marxists saw any profit, including the simple profit owed to individual transportation, as a Crime! They canonized Production, and criminalized Distribution! That was why people stood in long lines for hours for basic groceries. All to stop profits? Even in the late 1970's the impartial observer could predict that the Russian housewives would be forced to go to the Black Market just to keep their households afloat! At this rate the Black Market would be larger than the overground market by 1990. Well, that is exactly what happened! The Russian Mafia took over the USSR, and now they run Russia!
So, I agree with you that the Smoot version of the left-wing was completely upside-down. But that may have been deliberate. Yet I'm not sure that I agree with you about the nature and prospects of the left-wing.
Without a Labor Party in the USA (and in South American generally) there is no actual foothold that the majority of workers can obtain in politics. Most radical groups are more trouble than they're worth. People who pay low wages are not immediately life-threatening - but a revolution is. Also, if the industrialists move out of a nation, mass poverty moves in, not better conditions.
The problem with the underdeveloped regions is that they were drowning in poverty in the first place - and that was nobody's fault but their own.
When the Corporations arrive to exploit them, many if not most of the poverty-stricken think of the exploitation in a positive sense. As for the revolutionaries, they propose a potentially deadly "solution" to a problem that they (and their books) best understand. This best explains their century-long history of dismal failure.
The failure of the left-wing in the Americas is a historical novel in itself. The right-wing ideologies dominate not only the USA, but also South America. Only a bona-fide Labor Party in the Americas would change my mind. I don't see it on the horizon.
Also - I appreciate your vote of confidence in my Walker theory of the JFK conspiracy. Every little bit helps.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
yes, Aspergers types are often fascinated with process - and hence a little OCD - once they land on something they tend not to let go. Perseveration is very characteristic.
And yes, we came to this conclusion completely separately. One of the things that always really bothered me about characterizations of Oswald was the way in which the LN'ers tried to call him a loser and stupid - classic ways of insulting the learning disabled. There are some comments from his former fellow Marines that go this way, and I have seen such turncoats as Gus Russo call him a loser and worse. It always reminded me of the way these kids were treated when I was growing up - in those days, before anything was really diagnosed, people called them 'stupid' and 'crazy.' These disabilities make them into loners, isolate them and force them to do everything on their own.
To me the most interesting and charitable portrait of Oswald is in DeMohrenschildt's book, I Am A Patsy. Whatever DeMohrenschildt's role in all this (and I tend to think his was a very compartmentalized assignment and that there was a lot he did NOT know) he clearly understood what an intelligent and interesting guy Oswald was (he called Oswald, IIRC, 'the first hippy').
(btw, and off topic, I also tend to think that DeMorhenschildt was, like Oswald, somewhat to the Left politically, in spite of some of his history; I think it was Dick Russell who interviewed him when he was teaching at an all-black college).
Well, since the thread has evolved into this, Allen, I'll comment since it's interesting.
1. I agree with Jim Garrison who said it is impossible to call Oswald 'stupid' and have it stick, because Oswald learned Russian while still a teenager. Most people could not do that if they tried.
2. If Oswald had Asbergers, dyslexia, or some OCD, this might help explain his lack of advancement, but it can't explain the fact that the US Intelligence community took an interest in him from his early Marine days - when he was very young.
3. As for Oswald being a loner - Jim Garrison didn't find evidence for that. Oswald had friends and was surrounded by people wherever he went. We have plenty of photos to prove this.
4. However, Oswald's community - the Russian Exiles in Dallas - were somewhat predatory when it came to Marina and Lee. They backed Oswald into a corner, and for the first time he started beating Marina (according to her and some neighbors who heard the beatings and reported them to police).
5. Also, his final social group was underground and very secret -- so it probably *appeared* that Oswald was a loner, when actually he had lots of contacts; but they were underground.
6. As for DeMohrenschildt's booklet, "I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!", his guilty conscience shows through from beginning to end. DeMohrenschildt's role was predatory, as I read it. He was supposed to keep an eye on Oswald and report to the CIA, in exchange for help and information toward getting a lucrative oil contract in Haiti.
7. George DM's deal with the CIA would have worked, but George DM could not keep himself from meddling in Oswald's life. George DM and Volkmar Schmidt tried to influence Oswald to hate General Edwin Walker, and they succeeded all-too-well. As I read it, Oswald tried to kill Walker based on their goading. Here is where Oswald's OCD may come in. He got a fixed idea from them, and he could not let it go.
8. I agree that there was lot that George DeMohrenschildt did NOT know. But he what he DID know he refused to tell, because he was to blame for part of it - and his guilty conscience haunted him until the very end.
9. In my theory, what George DM knew was this:
9.1. George knew that Oswald was Walker's April shooter.
9.2. George knew that the CIA people he told about it told General Walker immediately.
9.3. George knew that Walker set up a paramilitary tribunal to get justice for the April Crime of Lee Harvey Oswald.
9.4. George knew that Walker (and his pals in NOLA, Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Jack Martin) planned something elaborate.
9.5. George knew that Walker (with wide-ranging support) and the NOLA conspirators, and the JBS, and the dangerous Minutemen organization, perhaps also the KKK, got revenge against JFK, RFK and Oswald, all in the same moment.
9.6. George knew that he played an unwilling role in making Oswald a patsy; and it tortured him for the rest of his life.
10. Yet it would be a mistake to try to clear George DM. He was originally a Nazi spy. He later became a CIA spy. His walk to South America really ended in a location that let him support a Cuban Exile training camp preparing for the Bay of Pigs invasion. George DM acted for money. That was his main motivation.
11. George DM stood to make more than $500K from the Haiti oil deal he was working on for years. (That's about $5 million in 2011 dollars). But because of the JFK shooting and the Warren Commission subpoena, George lost his Haiti deal!
12. In no way was George DM to the left, politically, although he probably tried to put on an act about it, to keep suspicion away from himself and his actual contacts. If he was ashamed of his Nazi past, it is because he was not ideological, but an opportunist. Now he was in the USA which was anti-Nazi, so he tried to hide it from the general public, but he still used his right-wing (wealthy) connections for everything.
13. Also, his big money would be made in Haiti, which was almost entirely Negro in population, so he had to fake being a non-racist, e.g. when he taught at an all-black college.
14. The tragedy of George DeMohrenschildt was that he lost his Haiti contract, and then he lost his marriage with Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, and he went from being a dapper playboy to being just another old, poor guy, increasingly paranoid and very much alone. Even Volkmar Schmidt didn't want him around anymore.
15. Under these circumstances, I'm not surprised to read that George DM committed suicide.
16. Did George DM know enough so that the cover-up squads killed him? Some people think so. Perhaps that is true, but I don't see the need for it. George wasn't connected with the Mafia.
17. I think George was depressed because he blamed himself for the Oswald episode (and his booklet suggests this, in my reading). George tried to hide this for decades, and he was broke, and his wife left him. And now he was old. And now the HSCA wanted to question him again.
18. It seems, rather, that George thought that he might make some money by writing a book about Oswald. But after he wrote it, and read it, he realized it would never be a best-seller. Possibly his friends told him, too. He was all washed up at the end.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
Just as a point of curiosity for me. Why does the conspiracy side use the testimony of Nelson Delgado, to lend weight to the theory that Oswald was a poor shot?
In my opinion, Mike, it doesn't matter if Oswald was a great shot or a poor shot, because the evidence that the US government found (House Select Committee on Assassinations, 1979) determined that shots came from two directions. More than one shooter was involved, they concluded - also they also concluded that we will probably never know who the other shooter(s) happened to be.
So in my opinion, the testimony of Nelson Delgado doesn't really matter anymore, anyway. The US government re-opened the Warren Commission case, and re-closed it with a new verdict -- although Oswald was involved, he didn't act alone.
That's really the official position of the US government, Mike. Why anybody would hope to turn back the hands of time to 1964 and subscribe to the politics that required Lee Oswald to be the "Lone Assassin" is the larger question here. The USA in general is beyond all that today.
Regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
A few years ago, I think in spring 2009, I interviewed Bobby Ray Inman, known as "Mr. Intelligence" and someone who has run the ONI, the DIA, as well as being deputy director of the CIA. Inman, who lives in Austin as I do - in fact he lives down the street from me - volunteered and told me that if a coup even comes to America that it will be just like the movie Seven Days in May.
Then I told Inman that Kennedy had the movie made and even filmed at the White House in order to send a message to his Joint Chiefs of Staff. Inman looked stunned when I told him that. Just stunned.
Inman also told me that he would go to his grave believing that Fidel Casto had killed JFK. Google George Joannides and you will see a picture of Adm. Bobby Ray Inman.
I don't think Inman was lying to me in the interview. I think some folks in a bureaucracy or organization become immune to learning the truth because it is politically and socially unacceptable. Inman also told me that he never met James Angleton. Inman also told me there was "no doubt" that the Republicans had made a deal with the Iranians to not release the hostages in 1980.
Robert, I'm personally amazed that somebody so highly placed in US Intelligence could still be in the dark about the evidence of the JFK assassination, so that he believes that Castro killed JFK.
If my theory is right that General Walker killed JFK, then the belief of your ONI contact that Castro did it speaks volumes of praise for General Walker's stealth and secrecy.
It also suggests that this was not an old fashioned coup d'etat in which the victor stands up and takes credit for the revolt, and clearly announces the new direction for the nation. On the contrary - General Walker wanted to keep his role super-secret.
It was underhanded, so to speak; sneaky and secret. The intent of the rogue CIA agents and the Cuban Exiles and the Russian Exiles and the racist Mafia bosses and the neo-Nazi elements of the extreme right wing in Dallas was always the same -- to blame the communists.
In their opinion, if the USA blamed the communists for the JFK assassination, they would eventually mobilize and overthrow Castro by force. That story was pushed hard by Frank Sturgis and Johnny Roselli many other mid-level conspirators.
But the USA did not buy it! Not only did the Washington DC Senate refuse to buy it, but the majority of the USA population refused to buy it. This was so clear by December, 1963, that Hoover himself refused to push it - rather, he opted for the "Lone Gunman" theory.
So - there still remained an underground of USA right-wingers who tried to spread the idea that the communists (i.e. Castro and Lee Harvey Oswald the FPCC 'official') were the culprits. And your contact from the ONI bought it!
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
Paul, on the whole I find your posts a breath of fresh air. I don't get this sentence : ''promoting communism in Latin America in order to produce chaos so that their Corporations can move in under the pretext of restoring order'' - Could you elaborate or clarify it, please?
Thanks for the response, John. I am continually impressed at how influential the extreme right-wing commentator, Dan Smoot, has become with left-wing theoreticians. This situation shows again the victory of the right over the left in the USA.
Anyway, as Dan Smoot wrote in his 1962 book, 'The Invisible Government,' World Communism was never a conspiracy of the working class, rather, it was always a conspiracy of the super-rich elite to solidify and concentrate their power in the world. In Latin America, for example, they would suppor communist radicals to take over a Latin American country, and when the revolution was completed, they would march in with USA forces and 'liberate' that country from communist dictatorship, and wipe out those same communist radicals they supported the year before. Then their Corporations would take over the markets of that area and impose their will.
Their plan was working well, said Smoot, until Castro's Cuba. Kennedy refused to let them complete their mission. Now, Dan Smoot is considered amongst the extremists in the right-wing, because he openly proclaimed that the USA Establishment in Washington DC were 'communist supporters' and therefore could be accused of Communism, so that Joe McCarthy would be vindicated.
So, when Morris A. Bealle writes in 1964 that this Establishment of 'Invisible Men' found the President to be getting in the way of their plans, he really had the model of Dan Smoot in mind!
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
My Walker connections were not in Mexico,
they were in Southern California. These
were part of the network operating between
here, Mexico, and across the U.S.
Thanks, Harry, for confirming what I told Greg earlier this morning about the JBS. As a further word of explanation for the readers of this thread, based on what you told me, Harry, I'll add the following:
Harry was working for the government by observing the John Birch Society (JBS) in 1963. This was in Southern California. Now, I grew up in Southern California in the 50's, 60's and 70's, and I can affirm that the John Birch Society was very influential down there. It was practically a household word among those who bothered with politics.
In 1963 Harry Dean learned a lot about the John Birch Society (much of which is shocking and that I will defer to Harry), including the fact that the resigned ex-General Edwin Walker and former Congressman John Rousselot were active members, and would attend the more radical meetings among the more violent-minded JBS. So Harry was observing these circles when he encountered, personally, in Southern California, those events in which General Walker and these JBS members actively plotted the JFK assassination to occur in Dallas in 1963, including who would be paid how much, and how Lee Harvey Oswald would be the patsy.
These activities involved some other well-known figures (whose names I will also defer to Harry) who were in Mexico at the time Lee Oswald was there, and who transferred cash to Oswald for his (possibly) minor role in the Dallas conspiracy.
In my theory - in my humble opinion - this Forum has a member who witnessed the key event of the JFK assassination cover-up, namely, drafting Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
Hi Paul
Pardon me for saying so but you seem to be placing a series of great expectations upon me to further prove that Marina Oswald spoke English. My actual point was that if she could speak English, and we have many witnesses that claim she could, then she carried on the pretense that she couldn't during her entire Warren Commission testimony - which would basically amount to her "lying."
The only reason I would have to prove that she learned English in the USSR would be to support Robert Webster's claim that she could speak it when he met her in Leningrad. You say there isn't enough proof to support the fact she met him so I assume you believe it is a coincidence that she just happened to visit Leningrad and that she just happened to have a "friend" in the same apartment block where Webster lived, in the massive expanse of the Soviet Union (all 22,402,200, square kilometers) she came this close to a second U.S. "defector", and she had this address in her notebook? Have I got this right? You believe this is simply a coincidence?
Now when I provided you the list of all of the people who said Marina could speak English you ask me for more. But when I ask you to intergrate Mexico City into your theory you give me the name of Harry Dean. Now I'm not disputing Harry's report but you seem to accept things that have less evidence available than I provided regarding Marina's ability to speak English. Seems like a double standard taking place.
Regards
Lee
Lee, I'm not demanding proof that Marina spoke English when she arrived in the USA. Your point is well taken -- if (and only if) she could speak fluent English, but put on an act while she was in the USA, then my theory that she is believable must crash.
I can see that. So, in order to defend my theory, I must naturally question the claim that Marina spoke fluent English when she came to the USA.
As for the claim that she knew another American defector in her town, I don't find that hard to believe at all. If the KGB wanted to keep track of American defectors, the easiest way would be to collect them in a compact geological location. That's not a coincidence, that's typical planning.
Now, Robert Webster made a claim that he met her in Leningrad. That is easy to believe. He made a further claim that she spoke English. But to what extent? That is very subjective. Is Webster an expert in ESL? Can he tell the difference between somebody who knows 10 common phrases and somebody with a 2,000 word vocabulary? I don't see the evidence.
Anybody can fake a foreign language for a few minutes. I don't see any hard evidence that she spoke FLUENT English - and a peson who is not trained in linguistics would not be a reliable judge. We need more.
As for the other people who said they heard Marina speak English - they were all in the USA. Marguerite Oswald did not impress me as a linguistics student, so her opinion of how well Marina spoke English when she arrived is also subjective. Marina could say, 'please' and 'thank you?' Marina could say, 'my baby' and 'food' and 'hungry'? That might be enough for Marguerite, who didn't seem to dote on her grandchildren.
As for the other witnesses you pointed out, they spoke about Marina's English after she had been in the USA for nearly two years! A person can learn a lot about a foreign language in two years if they are immersed in that culture. In only three more months Marina would be giving testimony to the Warren Commission in English - a tall order, actually. She did fairly well, but one can see the real flaws in her English even then.
If somebody says she was faking the flaws in her English - they would next have to prove that she was an expert in linguistics - because that's what it would take to fake flaws in a foreign language in a courtroom setting.
I don't see the evidence, Lee. There is hear-say, and there is also subjective opinion, and there is also a negligence about the time-frames involved - whether she just arrived in the USA or whether she was here for one or two years, and also there is no indication about the actual linguistic level at which Marina 'spoke English.'
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
Lee, I look forward to your responses. As for the CIA/Mexico connection, I find the memoirs of Harry Dean (a member of this Forum) to be most revealing. Dean says he personally saw General Walker in Mexico during this time-frame, speaking with radical, gun-toting members of the JBS, plotting the Dallas logisitics, and naming Oswald as their patsy. Mexico City was the 'smoke-filled room', according to Harry Dean.
All best,
--Paul
Paul,
I cannot locate the information Harry has posted regarding Walker in Mexico City. Am interested in that. If it's not too much trouble, could you please post the link? Thanks.
Greg,
Here's a solid link: http://www.spartacus...uk/JFKdeanH.htm
All best,
--Paul
Paul and Greg
I see in this more of the vindictive efforts and quotes of W.R. Morris reaching
out from his vengeful grave in the above misstatements, also in his mostly
erroneous book, 'Alias Oswald' among his many others writings.
If and when all records are released, you will see the debriefing report re;
"the Cuban people 'will not' aid in overthrowing that 'Castro' government when
it is invaded".
Harry
Harry, I'm sorry but your reply is a bit too cryptic for me. Paul said you wrote that you had seen Walker in Mexico City during a relevant time-frame.
I would just like to know if that is true, and if so, where I can read more details.
Greg, let's see if I can clarify. I need to apologize because I rushed the story, following William Morris' interpretation of Harry's account.
Harry's written report says that the JBS leadership met Oswald in Mexico, however, the planning of the JFK assassination occurred in Southern California - and it was there in Southern California that Harry met with JBS official John Rousselot and General Edwin Walker. So, I apologize, because I conflated the two events by relying on a secondary source instead of the primary source. But now I've set the record straight.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
...
(I posed these questions and Jim replied.)
1) What do you make of Jack Ruby's attempt to implicate Edwin A. Walker and the Dallas Birch Society in the JFK hit during
Ruby's WC testimony?
...
I think that perhaps even I have given short shrift to the role of Edwin A. Walker over the years, having temporarily overlooked what
Jack Ruby and Richard Condon had to say about him decades ago. My guess is that many of you would reach the same conclusion.
Ironic is it not, that despite the number of MacArthur's minions thick as thieves in the JFK plot, little attention has been focused
on these characters over the years...
...After all, [Edwin A. Walker] joined Willoughby, MacArthur, Wm Potter Gale and others like Wedemeyer, Stratemeyer, Fellers, etc. among the recently humiliated, debunked and deposed anti-USA insurrectionists and mutinous recalcitrants who seemed to favor Nazism over Democracy as their birthright. This characterization might just blow the doors off most alternative conspiracy theories being proposed, but in fact history shall record this theory and this pattern as being quite factual. I just wonder why it took so long for this concept to get even a small foothold in JFK conspiracy documentation...
John, this thread from 2.5 years ago is excellent and I wish it had gone further than it did. I'd like to see it revived.
Starting with your question to Jim Root, "What about Ruby's naming of Walker and the JBS", I find this to be extremely important, and possibly may turn out to be the full resolution to the JFK assassination.
For one thing, we have an eye-witness to this connection in Harry Dean (a member of this Forum), who says he was in Mexico in early September, 1963, sitting with General Edwin Walker and members of the John Birch Society as they carefully planned every detail of the JFK assassination, including schedules, payrolls, the cover-up, and how to pin it all on Lee Harvey Oswald (c.f. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdeanH.htm).
There is even more evidence. I have recently accessed the Edwin Walker archives at the Briscoe Center for American History at UT Austin, and the papers I found there raise my suspicions tenfold.
The fact that came out in the Warren Commission testimony was the biggest flaw in the cover-up, IMHO, namely, when General Walker thought that nobody would notice if he told a German Nazi newspaper on 11/23/1963 that Lee Oswald was also the man who shot at him on April 10, 1963. Liebeler asked Walker about this numerous times, but Walker wiggled out of it -- after all -- he was not on trial.
But the evidence is very clear. It not only appears in the Briscoe Center, it also appears on the Mary Ferrell website.
Ever since Liebeler almost found out Walker's secret, Walker could no longer keep it a secret, so he exploited it, and he sent the story to every newspaper he could -- for decades. This was the substance of most of his articles and speeches after that -- for the rest of his life.
I agree with Peter McGuire on this thread who said that Generals are in the best position to effect a coup. But General Walker was a special case. He had a personal vendetta against the Kennedys. The movie, "Seven Days in May," actually named Walker by name (near the end). Add this to the time that RFK had Walker arrested and detained in a psychiatric hospital. This was a political move, and Walker could never forgive RFK for the humiliation - after all, Walker was a decorated US General. It was disrespectful in the extreme.
Walker had a real grudge against the Kennedys. Also, I believe Walker wanted to be President. He quit the Army because Army personnel cannot engage in politics while in uniform. Well, he was promised political (and financial) support so he quit to start a speech-making career. I mean, he quit, he did not retire, he resigned without a pension (which would have been $100,000 a year in 2011 dollars). He was not independently wealthy. Who gives up that kind of money unless he has friends with deep pockets?
Walker had political ambitions. He ran for Governor of Texas (under the Democratic ticket) but he was smashed by Connally. The ill-fated race riots at Ole Miss were possibly the start of the plot to assassinate JFK. Most folks might call Walker a 'nut' today, but we should try to remember the generation in which Edwin Walker grew up. President Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat, had been nominated for President partly because he opposed racial integration of Princeton University. From that perspective, Edwin Walker was being true-blue American and truly conservative in his racist actions at Ole Miss. He wasn't a 'nut' he was simply old-fashioned and he believed that most Americans were old-fashioned like him. It is a legitimate political gamble, and not 'nutty' in the least.
Interesting thread. I hope it gets revived.
--Paul Trejo
-
P.S. I think a lot of the other stuff you have written about deMohrenschildt/Bouhe/Walker suffers from evidence omissions and glosses over certain things quite superficially. I'd like to respond to the rest tomorrow if I have a chance.
And I'd like to know how a Walker/Ferrie/Martin revenge plot factors in the CIA/Mexico City shenanigans, the removal of Oswald's FBI FLASH and the segregation of his 201 file.
Lee, I look forward to your responses. As for the CIA/Mexico connection, I find the memoirs of Harry Dean (a member of this Forum) to be most revealing. Dean says he personally saw General Walker in Mexico during this time-frame, speaking with radical, gun-toting members of the JBS, plotting the Dallas logisitics, and naming Oswald as their patsy. Mexico City was the 'smoke-filled room', according to Harry Dean.
All best,
--Paul
Paul,
I cannot locate the information Harry has posted regarding Walker in Mexico City. Am interested in that. If it's not too much trouble, could you please post the link? Thanks.
Greg,
Here's a solid link: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdeanH.htm
All best,
--Paul
-
On the issue of Webster - I'm still skeptical - let's not read into his claims more than he claims. Marina could speak English? Does that mean she could say, 'hello, thank you, please and excuse me?' Does it mean considerably more? What evidence do we have beyond Webster's claims? Did Marina take English courses while in college? We have those records. Marina was no dummy - she was a chemistry graduate. But even chemistry graduates do not automatically master English. This should not be difficult to disprove.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
Hi Paul
Marguerite Oswald really tried to impress upon the Commission that Marina could speak English and that she had many conversations with her in English.
James Martin (who was sleeping with her a few weeks after she buried her husband) stated she could understand everything he said in English.
Robert Oswald stated Marina had conversations with him in English - one about a James Martin business contract.
Robert Webster stated he met Marina and she could speak English (in a heavy accent - much like she still speaks to this very day)
She herself claimed that she called the Reily Coffee Company one day when she was looking for Lee - which would have been tough only being able to say "Hello, how are you?"
The buidling manager at the Elsbeth apartments, M. F. Tobias Snr., said that Marina's English was enough to understand and be understood ( Lost in Translation thread - http://educationforu...opic=17690&st=0 )
Minnie Williams (who lived with the Grays at the Neely Street property) claimed to have English conversations with Marina.
She could probably also write in English: http://www.aarclibra...WH16_CE_110.pdf
George Bouhe said he was "teaching" her English by sending her things through the post to "translate"
I think we can safely assume that Marina spoke good English, Paul - and that being the case, why do you think she continually lied about it? Sitting in front of the Warren Commission with a couple of interpreters when you can actually understand everything that is being asked of you is something of a major porky, don't you think?
The fact that she could speak English before she stepped foot on U.S. soil opens up a hornets nest.
Finally on Webster - skepticism is great, there are many members here who have been served well by it - however, it isn't just a case of Webster claiming he met her (according to Dick Russell who interviewed him) but the fact that the apartment complex in Leningrad where Webster lived was listed in Marina's address book. I know you believe in coincidences but you're going to need an extra-wide neck to swallow that one.
One of the other women who Webster was involved with in the USSR, Vera Ivchenko, was widely suspected as a KGB agent and the ramifications of this scared the HSCA so much that it decided not to name her. They instead called her "Robert Webster's girlfriend."
Regards
Lee
P.S. I think a lot of the other stuff you have written about deMohrenschildt/Bouhe/Walker suffers from evidence omissions and glosses over certain things quite superficially. I'd like to respond to the rest tomorrow if I have a chance.
And I'd like to know how a Walker/Ferrie/Martin revenge plot factors in the CIA/Mexico City shenanigans, the removal of Oswald's FBI FLASH and the segregation of his 201 file.
Lee,
From a post I made back in Oct 2004 when trying to figure out more about Lawrence Orlov... "...But when you add that the above-mentioned Alexander Orlov was working at the University of Michigan at the same time Marina took an eight week course at the English Language Institute at UM, the flag pole needs to be extended."
And the following year, Joan Mellen's book had this to say about it, "Garrison did not raise Marina's having attended the English Language Institute at the University of Michigan, a hotbed of Soviet defectors and CIA assets, although he was aware that she had. He did not ask her if she knew former KGB officer, Alexander Orlov, resident there, placed by the CIA to be debriefed on what he knew about Soviet espionage..."
Given Marina's very likely ability to speak and comprehend English far better than she ever let on, what do we make of the above?
I appreciate your questions, Gary. I will admit this much - if (and only if) Marina Porter spoke English fluently enough to carry on a complex business conversation, and yet pretended to the world that she didn't know English, then of course my theory about her testimony would break down significantly.
So, I'm not married to my theory - but I am married to the Truth, and the Truth requires hard evidence, and not just innuendo and hear-say.
After all - condemning Lee Oswald as the Lone Assassin proceeded with innuendo and hear-say.
Also, as for Margueurite Oswald's opinion about Marina - I detect some hostility and bias there. One must remember the tremendous emotional pain that Marguerite was suffering -- being certain in her mind that Lee Oswald was a covert Military hero, taking the fall for a Military Coup, and the vast majority of the world calling her insane. She had few friends, and Marina Oswald did not feel in a position to try to console her. Some of this came out in the WC testimony, too. So, Marguerite's opinion is somewhat compromised.
As for these other people who claim that Marina spoke fluent English, I must take their testimony one at a time. I happen to be a certified ESL instructor (UCSC-Extension, 2004), so I know something about ESL and accents and fluency.
I also know that Marina was bright - and that she'd lived in the USA for nearly 1.5 years before JFK was assassinated. She was, as we say, immersed in English, which is the very best way to learn a language. So, if she could speak English fairly well in 1964 (as she did before the Warren Commission) that is not a surprise, academically.
Also, when people learn a foreign language by immersion, they always learn to listen and comprehend far sooner than they learn to speak it. (And they learn to speak it far sooner than they learn to read it.) So, I find Marina believable. Even if she understood what English-speakers were saying in November, 1963, it would have been rude or even cruel to force her to speak English right then and there.
Of course, everything changes if she was taking English classes in RUSSIA. That's now very different. But the evidence does not show that. That's very important to your case, I believe. Your case needs to show that Marina Porter had formal English classes in Russia, either at a very young age, or in college. I think the evidence is against you in this.
To make the 'English-speaking Marina' theory work, one must then resort to KGB theories - but the FBI and CIA scoured that pot clean.
All best,
--Paul
-
P.S. I think a lot of the other stuff you have written about deMohrenschildt/Bouhe/Walker suffers from evidence omissions and glosses over certain things quite superficially. I'd like to respond to the rest tomorrow if I have a chance.
And I'd like to know how a Walker/Ferrie/Martin revenge plot factors in the CIA/Mexico City shenanigans, the removal of Oswald's FBI FLASH and the segregation of his 201 file.
Lee, I look forward to your responses. As for the CIA/Mexico connection, I find the memoirs of Harry Dean (a member of this Forum) to be most revealing. Dean says he personally saw General Walker in Mexico during this time-frame, speaking with radical, gun-toting members of the JBS, plotting the Dallas logisitics, and naming Oswald as their patsy. Mexico City was the 'smoke-filled room', according to Harry Dean.
All best,
--Paul
P.S. Correction: Dean says he saw Walker and the JBS in Southern California, at this time, as other members of the JBS were meeting with Oswald in Mexico.
-
Marina showed the rifle to Jeanne De Mohrenschildt in the "closet" so which is it, did Lee bury it or was it in the closet, the closet where Lee kept it in the open...?
<long segment of Marina's WC testimony>
Paul, I would take everything the "Russian's" said with a HUGE grain of salt.
As far as Marina speaking English, read the Neely Street thread where it has been demonstrated that she could understand and converse in English.
Ed
Thanks for the response, Ed. Your concern appears to be the apparent contradictions in Marina Oswald’s story. Was the rifle hidden or out in the open? Was it buried, or was it in her closet. The evidence suggests to me that, depending on the day, and on the circumstances, it could either be hidden, out in the open, or buried. Did the interrogator seek to clarify these circumstances, or was he rushing forward toward the conclusions that Hoover wanted to hear?
I appreciate that you supplied a large segment of Marina's testimony to the Warren Commission. So let’s take some of these apparent contradictions one at a time, please:
1.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the first time that you observed the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. That was on Neely Street. I think that was in February.
Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn about it? Did you see it some place in the apartment?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Lee had a small room where he spent a great deal of time, where he read---where he kept his things, and that is where the rifle was.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it out in the room at that time, as distinguished from in a closet in the room?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was open, out in the open...
>>> So, early in February, 1963, she saw a rifle in Lee’s private room, “out in the open”. I have no problem with Marina’s testimony so far.
2.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle later placed in a closet in the apartment at Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it was always either in a corner, standing up in a corner or on a shelf.
>>> Here the interrogator did not clarify the generic term, ‘later’. In the present context, he might easily have meant ‘in those weeks before the Walker trouble.’ I take it that Marina heard that sloppy question in the context of a pre-trouble weeks. So her answer was truthful: ‘before there was any trouble, Lee kept his rifle in his private room, out in the open.’
3.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever show that rifle to the De Mohrenschildts?
Mrs. OSWALD. I know that De Mohrenschildts had said that the rifle had been shown to him, but I don't remember that.
>>> Here the interrogator did not clarify the term, ‘show’. He probably meant, ‘did you ever ‘accidentally show’ the rifle to the De Mohrenschildts?’ But in the present context, he might easily have meant ‘deliberately show it off’. I take it that Marina heard that sloppy question in the context of ‘showing it off,’ so she truthfully denied it. (Her trouble wasn’t with the truth, it was with the English language – but Rankin was insensitive to that. Marina didn’t know if George and Jeanne had told the FBI that she showed it off or not – but she didn’t want to contradict them – and all this confusion in her mind was due to her poor grasp of colloquial English.)
4.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall your husband taking the rifle away from the apartment on Neely Street at any time?
Mrs. OSWALD. You must know that the rifle it isn't as if it was out in the open. He would hang a coat or something to mask its presence in the room. And sometimes when he walked out, when he went out in the evening I didn't know, because I didn't go into that room very often. I don't know whether he took it with him or not.
>>> Here the interrogator changes the topic, and Marina is still pondering the previous question. Her mind was often stuck on the Easter night visit of the De Mohrenschildts, so she said, ‘It isn’t as if the rifle was out in the open.’ Now she is speaking about the post-Walker-shooting, the trouble times. The rifle was buried on April 10th. At some point Lee dug it up and brought it home, said Marina. And now, at this point, it would be absurd to leave it out in the open. Now there was truly something to be ashamed about. So either Lee or Marina or both hid it in the closet. After getting that off her chest, she then answered Rankin’s question – truthfully. She didn’t keep tabs on Lee – presumably because he might beat her for that.
5.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see him clean the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I said before I had never seen it before. But I think you understand. I want to help you, and that is why there is no reason for concealing anything. I will not be charged with anything.
Mr. GOPADZE. She says she was not sworn in before. But now inasmuch as she is sworn in, she is going to tell the truth.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you see him clean the rifle a number of times?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
>>> Here the interrogator changes the topic, and Marina is still pondering whether Rankin is interested in everything she is trying to tell him. Marina knows that she contradicted her original statement to the FBI that she knew utterly nothing at all – because now she’s admitting that she knew a lot about the rifle, and about the Walker shooting. She is still worried that she will be charged with lying to the FBI immediately after the JFK assassination; but her attorney is with her and advises everybody concerned that she was not under oath at that time. Marina calms down and answers the original question.
6.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever observe your husband taking the rifle away from the apartment on Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. Now, I think that he probably did sometimes, but I never did see it. You must understand that sometimes I would be in the kitchen and he would be in his room downstairs and he would say bye-bye, I will be back soon, and he may have taken it. He probably did. Perhaps he purely waited for an occasion when he could take it away without my seeing it.
>>> This is believable to me. They lived upstairs and there was a tool shed downstairs, and sometimes Lee would go there for privacy. That came out in the WC testimony. Lee did not share all of his comings and goings with Marina. He was very possessive, jealous, patriarchal, and yet was not successful; he compensated with excessive bossiness, and in Dallas, even with violence toward Marina. It is believable to me that he would sneak his rifle downstairs and then out of the house without her noticing it.
7.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you learn at any time that he had been practicing with the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think that he went once or twice. I didn't actually see him take the rifle, but I knew that he was practicing.
Mr. RANKIN. Could you give us a little help on how you knew?
Mrs. OSWALD. He told me. And he would mention that in passing---it isn't as if he said, "Well, today I am going"---it wasn't as if he said, "Well, today I am going to take the rifle and go and practice." But he would say, "Well, today I will take the rifle along for practice."
>>> Here, again, the English language is Marina’s barrier. She’s trying to indicate a nuance of degree, but without expertise in English it falls flat. We see this many times with ESL speakers. This is clear because of the double starts in her response. She meant to say that Oswald didn’t give her explicit signals, but he gave her implicit signals. It is still believable testimony to me.
8.
Mrs. Oswald. Therefore, I don't know whether he took it from the house or whether perhaps he even kept the rifle somewhere outside. There was a little square, sort of a little courtyard where he might have kept it. When you asked me about the rifle, I said that Lee didn't have a rifle, but he also had a gun, a revolver.
>>> Again, it is the English language that compromises her sentence. She omitted the word, “only” as in, “Lee didn’t only have a rifle.” This is also common with ESL speakers.
9.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall when he first had the pistol that you remember?
Mrs. OSWALD. He had that on Neely Street, but I think that he acquired the rifle before he acquired the pistol. The pistol I saw twice, once in his room, and the second time when I took these photographs.
>>> I find this believable.
10.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you make any objection to having the rifle around?
Mrs. OSWALD. Of course.
Mr. RANKIN. What did he say to that?
Mrs. OSWALD. That for a man to have a rifle since I am a woman, I don't understand him, and I shouldn't bother him. A fine life.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that the same rifle that you are referring to that you took the picture of with your husband and when he had the pistol, too?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper. This was not my business--it was man's business.
>>> Marina answers the question, but then she adds more, apparently worried that she will be implicated in the Walker shooting. She knew about it, and she should have told the police, but didn’t, so to some degree she was guilty. (So were George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, for that matter.) Her rambling about how crazy Lee with this rifle, saying it was none of her business – this is believable testimony.
11.
Mr. RANKIN. You have examined that picture since, and noticed that the telescopic lens was on at the time the picture was taken, have you not?
Mrs. OSWALD. Now I paid attention to it. A specialist would see it immediately, of course. But at that time I did not pay any attention at all. I saw just Lee. These details are of great significance for everybody, but for me at that time it didn't mean anything. At the time that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses.
>>> Marina’s answer is plausible for somebody who is not used to taking photographs. But I find it believable for another reason. Photographic experts have proven scientifically that the two photographs we have of Oswald posing with those weapons were both modified by experts. First of all, the same head is superimposed on two separate bodies, but tilted slightly. So, it is actually likely that Marina took only one photograph as she thought. (It is also possible, even plausible to me, that Lee Oswald himself, while he was at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall actually made those fakes, so that he could later claim – and prove – that they were fakes in case they fell into the wrong hands. I think it is also plausible that Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall fired Oswald when they found out what he was doing, i.e. these photos and his fake ID for Alek Hidell.)
12.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he say any more than that about the shooting?
Mrs. OSWALD. Of course in the morning I told him that I was worried, and that we can have a lot of trouble, and I asked him, "Where is the rifle? What did you do with it?" He said, that he had left it somewhere, that he had buried it, it seems to me, somewhere far from that place, because he said dogs could find it by smell...
>>> I find Marina’s testimony here to be easily believable. Oswald said he buried his rifle rather than bring it home, just in case he was followed by police; simple to understand.
13.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ask him how long he had been planning to do this?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. He said he had been planning for two months. Yes--perhaps he had planned to do so even earlier, but according to his conduct I could tell he was planning--he had been planning this for two months or perhaps a little even earlier.
>>> This testimony sounds believable to me. He evidently bought his weapons in February, soon after various New Years parties with Dallas Russian Exiles (as I call them), in which Volkmar Schmidt attended and tried to convince Oswald that General Walker was pure evil.
14. Mr. RANKIN. Did he show you a picture of the Walker house then…after the shooting?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. He had a book – he had a notebook in which he noted down quite a few details. It was all in English, I didn't read it. But I noticed the photograph. Sometimes he would lock himself in his room and write in the book. I thought that he was writing some other kind of memoirs, as he had written about his life in the Soviet Union.
>>> This testimony sounds believable to me. Intent on impressing George De Mohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt – two of the few men Oswald actually admired – he would carefully plan each move – methodically and even scientifically. He would not share this with Marina for many reasons.
15. Mr. RANKIN. Did you ask him if that is what he meant by the note?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, because as soon as he came home I showed him the note and asked him "What is the meaning of this?"
Mr. RANKIN. And that is when he gave you the explanation about the Walker shooting?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I know that on a Sunday he took the rifle, but I don't think he fired on a Sunday. Perhaps this was on Friday. So Sunday he left and took the rifle.
>>> Marina is hiding something here, because she changed the subject, and she makes no sense. She was not asked about the day of the shooting, but that is the question she is answering - but at the same time trying to evade. Again - her memory flitters when thinking of this day because it is "three days later" that sticks more firmly in her mind - Easter Sunday - when the De Mohrenschildt's discover the rifle in the Oswald home - and so also discover the shame of Marina, that she was an accessory-after-the-fact in a shooting that is all over the Dallas newspapers, radio and television news. She is still not convinced that she will escape prosecution for this, because she condemns it herself. However, the interrogator does not care about this - he seems to notice it and quickly asks the question she is trying to answer so that they can move onward toward the conclusions that Hoover wants to hear.
16. Mr. RANKIN. If the Walker shooting was on Wednesday, does that refresh your memory as to the day of the week at all?
Mrs. OSWALD. Refresh my memory as to what?
Mr. RANKIN. As to the day of the shooting?
Mrs. OSWALD. It was in the middle of the week.
...By the way, several days after that, the De Mohrenschildts came to us, and as soon as he opened the door he said, "Lee, how is it possible that you missed?" I looked at Lee. I thought that he had told De Mohrenschildt about it. And Lee looked at me, and he apparently thought that I had told De Mohrenschildt about it. It was kind of dark. But I noticed---it was in the evening, but I noticed that his face changed, that he almost became speechless. You see, other people knew my husband better than I did. Not always--but in this case.
>>> Here Marina comes back down to earth and remembers the day: Wed10Apr63. As for the 'how did you miss' remark, I would note that later Marina modified her testimony to agree with George De Mohrenschildt’s testimony. I don’t see dishonesty here – I regard this as an English language barrier combined with emotional confusion. Marina continually sought to evade guilt for any role she might have played in the Walker shooting, e.g. accessory-after-the-fact. She kept bringing this up even when Rankin didn’t ask her about it. George De Mohrenschildt’s main objection was that it was not on the doorstep, but inside the house, after Jeanne had found the rifle and announced it, that he made a similar remark – entirely as a joke. Marina later admitted it was a joke – but it spooked her and Lee because his guess was 100% correct. So that was confusing to her.
>>> (BTW, I also believe George De Mohrenschildt’s testimony – aside from the fact that it was incomplete. For the HSCA he added important details, e.g. that he and Jeanne were worried that Lee was the shooter for days after the Walker shooting. They needed a pretext to go and search the Oswald house. This fear shows up clearly in Jeanne’s testimony, which is the clumsiest of the lot. She was either trying to hide the fact that she and George were accessories-after-the-fact because they didn’t tell the police, or that they were innocent because they actually told the CIA, but had to keep that top secret.)
17. Mr. RANKIN. What did you do with the note that he had left for you after you talked about it and said you were going to keep it?
Mrs. OSWALD. I had it among my things in a cookbook. But I have two--I don't remember in which.
>>> I find this believable. Such a note is not something that you put in a scrap-book. Nor was their life a settled affair, but Marina moved many, many times in 1963. She had this note and she had the note from Oswald to the Russian Embassy – both bargaining chips.
18. Mr. RANKIN. Will you describe to us the changes as you observed them?
Mrs. OSWALD. Soon after that, Lee lost his job---I don't know for what reason.
>>> This is important for my theory – Marina still believed that Oswald lost his job at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall after the Walker shooting, when in fact he lost that job ten days before the shooting. She was lied to continuously. In the USA she rarely knew where Lee Oswald was.
19. Mr. RANKIN. When he promised you that he would not do anything like that again, did you then believe him?
Mrs. OSWALD. I did not quite believe him inasmuch as the rifle remained in the house.
>>> Completely believable; I don’t see why anybody would doubt this.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
Thanks, Paul.
Can the opposite also be true? That she told the truth to begin with and with the pressure and threats against her and the children then her story began to mould itself to the official story?
If what you say is true - that she eventually came clean - then the picture she paints is one of a disturbed psychopath. And a disturbed psychopath can kill the President. And most of us here know he didn't kill the President.
If she told the truth during her Warren Commission appearnaces then I guess you also believe Oswald was going out with his revolver one day to shoot Richard Nixon? And she locked him in the bathroom until his moment of psychopathic lunacy subsided?
On the issue of Webster - let's pretend that a researcher (we'll call him Russell Dick) goes and interviews an elderly Robert Webster. Webster states that he met Marina Oswald while he was in the Soviet Union. He says she could speak English but with a heavy accent.
Where would that leave us?
And Marina constantly claimed that she couldn't speak English, even through her Warren Commission testimony, when we have plenty of witnesses that would suggest otherwise. Now, if this is true - and I'm convinced that it is - why would she want to continue to hide her more than likely fluency in English.
Finally, why were the White Russian community hell-bent on having one of their own near her right through all of the early translations right through to her Dallas Warren Commission testimony - especially if she did in fact have an excellent grasp on the English language?
Regards
Lee
Lee, of course anything is possible, yet we are all weighing the evidence here. Your concern seems to be that Marina finally 'molded herself to the official story.' However, I don't believe that she did.
I'm basing my theory on her Warren Commission testimony. She left large gaps in it, deliberately, because the interrogators would not let her speculate - they only wanted to drive to Hoover's conclusions. Marina repeatedly said that she did not have enough information to arrive at the conclusions they wanted to hear. Lee did not tell her very much, she claimed. Lee would keep her in the dark and lie to her. Lee would tell her he was working at his job (once in Dallas and once in New Orleans) when for many weeks he had been laid off!
Lee Oswald did not tell Marina where he went! He did not tell her how much money he had, or where he got his money. She had rent paid and food for the children and she was content, she says. She got gifts from Bouhe, and she admitted it. This probably made Lee jealous, but she didn't care -- she needed the dresses. She had no idea Lee Oswald had a Minolta camera.
So - as Marina told the Warren Commission, she had very little information to work with, and the FBI would not answer her questions, either. So, she said, based on the little evidence she had, it appeared that Lee shot Kennedy -- however, she repeated, if she had more evidence she might change her opinion!
So, she did not accept the official story.
Now, granting that Marina came clean, so that Lee Oswald was a disturbed man, this in no way (by itself) proves that Lee shot Kennedy. Yet we also find Lee Oswald consorting with Banister and Ferrie in NOLA. That is not innocent behavior. Also, General Walker was convinced that George DeMohrenschildt played a major role in the April shooting. DeMohrenschildt was no angel, either. Lee Oswald was probably violently jealous of George Bouhe, the rich Russian who made eyes at Marina. Yet none of this proves that Lee shot Kennedy.
Not only do I find the account of Lee threatening to shoot Nixon believable, I also believe Ron Lewis' account that Lee threatened to shoot Huey Long in New Orleans. As Volkmar Schmidt said, Lee gave him the impression that he was starved for attention and adulation - from anybody.
Did Lee Oswald shoot Kennedy? I say no. But I do believe that Lee Oswald knew who shot Kennedy, and could name ten of the central conspirators, if he had wanted to.
Here's what I believe Marina Porter did not know -- she did not know at the time that General Walker found out about the April shooting - way back in April - and started a plot with Guy Banister, David Ferrie and Jack Martin to punish Lee Oswald for that crime. The punishment would be to make him the patsy in this conspiracy. Marina did not know it -- and Oswald didn't know it, either.
On the issue of Webster - I'm still skeptical - let's not read into his claims more than he claims. Marina could speak English? Does that mean she could say, 'hello, thank you, please and excuse me?' Does it mean considerably more? What evidence do we have beyond Webster's claims? Did Marina take English courses while in college? We have those records. Marina was no dummy - she was a chemistry graduate. But even chemistry graduates do not automatically master English. This should not be difficult to disprove.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
-
Paul
Quick one. According to your theory - did Oswald/or CIA accomplice intentionally miss Walker because from the story that is told - that was one easy shot.
Cheers
Lee
In my opinion, Lee, the shot was meant to kill, and only Fate saved Walker when he moved suddenly, exactly at the right split second. In Marina's opinion (FWIW) that was, as she said, 'proof that he was meant to live.' (She really didn't want Oswald to try it again. It bothered her, because this was a new Oswald, a different Oswald, than the one she married.)
You're right - it should have been an easy shot, but Fate sometimes steps in with a 'coincidence'. I believe Marina's testimony on this point. (And yes, I allow her a little bit of leeway under the circumstances, whereas strictly speaking in our judicial system, none at all is allowed.)
Best regards...
Jack S. Martin Sr.
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Stephen, although your thread is over six years old, it remains intriguing.
Jack Martin was the main source of Jim Garrison's case against 544 Camp Street. Martin claimed that he saw Oswald there many times, consorting with Guy Banister, David Ferrie and several Cuban Exiles. He suspected that a plot to kill somebody was afoot and that Oswald was going to be the patsy.
On April 10, 1963 (according to Marina Oswald and also according to some local sources known to General Walker) Lee Harvey Oswald took a pot shot at General Walker. Only weeks later, Oswald was seen in New Orleans, and according to Jack Martin, Oswald was there working for Guy Banister as a covert operator to infiltrate the hated FPCC.
Now, I suspect that Oswald also going to be the patsy as punishment for trying to kill General Walker. I'm hoping you might direct my attention toward some information about the following:
1. There is a film called the Jack Martin Film (allegedly by a tourist) which has a suspicious content.
1.1. The content begins with a tour of General Walker's home in Dallas, with a focus on the bullet holes.
1.2. The content ends with footage of Oswald handing out FPCC fliers, fighting with Bringuier, and getting arrested.
1.3. Have you seen this film, Stephen?
2. If so, do you know where I might buy a copy of this film? (The Collectors Archive in Canada has folded.)
3. Also, have you seen any of Jack Martin's military records?
3.1. For example, did he ever serve under Major General Edwin A. Walker?
4. Also, do you know if Jack Martin was a member of the JBS, like Guy Banister and General Walker?
5. Also, do you know if Jack Martin was a member of the Minutemen, like Guy Banister and General Walker?
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo, MA