Jump to content
The Education Forum

Oswald Speech


Recommended Posts

Hello all.

I understand that separate from the television coverage of the leafletting and the radio interview which followed the incident, Lee Oswald gave a speech to a religious order.

Does anyone have more details on this event? Apparently, as a transcript exists, this speech may have been recorded. Has anyone seen footage taken from this event and know where a copy may be obtained? Were photos taken?

Was this the speech?

Warren Commission Exhibit 25 Vol 16 pg. 106-122

    I have often wondered why it is that the communist, capitalist, and even the fascist and anarchist elements in America, always profess patriotism toward the land and the people, if not the government; although their movements must surely lead to the bitter destruction of all and everything.

    I am quite sure these people must hate not only the government but the culture, heritage and very people itself, and yet they stand up and piously pronounce themselves patriots, displaying their war medals that they gained in conflicts between themselves.

    I wonder what would happen if somebody was to stand up and say he was utterly opposed not only to the governments, but to the people, to the entire land, and complete foundations of his society.

    I have heard and read of the resurgent Americanism in the U.S., not the ultra-right type, but rather the polite, seemingly pointless Americanism expressed by such as the "American fore group" and the freedom foundation.

    And yet even in these veiled, formless, patriotic gestures, there is the obvious "axe being ground" by the invested interests of the sponsors of their expensive undertaking.

    To where can I turn? To factional mutants of both systems, to odd ball Hegelian idealists out of touch with reality, religious groups, to revisionist, or too absurd anarchism. No!

    To a person knowing both systems and their factional accessories, there can be no mediation between the systems as they exist today and that person.

    He must be opposed to their basic foundations and representatives.

    And yet it is immature to take the sort of attitude which says "a curse on both your houses!"

    There are two great representatives of power in the world, simply expressed, the left and right, and their factions and concerns.

    Any practical attempt at one alternative must have as its nucleus the traditional ideological best of both systems, and yet be utterly opposed to both systems.

    For no system can be entirely new, that is where most revolutions industrial or political, go astray. And yet the new system must be opposed unequivocally to the old; that also is where revolutions go astray.

    At the turn of the century in America, in the emerging industrial revolution, private enterprise triumphed because it offered a new, efficient, and promising future while still observing the idealistically democratic Ideals of its overthrown predecessor, i.e. rural small enterprise.

    And at about the same time in tsarist Russia the aristocracy was overthrown by the peasants and workers and the road laid open for the gaining of power by the bolsheviks because they too, offered a bright new future without violating historical tradition of Russian working class life.

    In history there are many such examples of the nucleus of the new order rooted in the idealistical tradition of the old.

    The Industrial revolution honored the present atomic age and yet it has developed as an intricate part of its system its own shortcomings, automation for instant.

    Automation may be compared to the runaway robot who displays so many faculties that it is obvious it is runaway. Rather it is the much more subtle aspects of Industrialization and mechanization which brings the greatest hardships upon the people, a general decay of classes into shapeless societies without real cultural foundations, regimentation, not so much of people since industrialization actively provides for more free movement of classes around each other, but rather of ideals, although those regimented ideals have more freedom of expression throughout all the classes.

    The biggest and key fault development of our era is of course the fight for markets between the imperialist powers themselves, which lead to the wars, crises, and oppressive friction which you have all come to regard as part of your lives.

    And it is this prominent factor of the capitalist system which will undoubtedly eventually lead to the common destruction of all the imperialistic powers, already many lesser imperialist countries have become dependent upon other factors than domination of colonies through force; they have been divested of their former colonies by the great imperialist countries or in some cases even given up their colonies themselves as unprofitable and many cases the oppressed peoples rose up and physically threw the colonists out, and this process is continuing even today as we all can see. But what is important to remember?

    Is that the old system of capitalism, even within itself is revising and what is most evident, forming imperialist economic coalitions, such as the common market?

    In the communist experiment, several factions and unavoidable developments have emerge which Marx and Engels could not possibly have foreseen. There emerges with increasing clarity, two monumental mistakes which Marx and Engels made, not to mention the very keystone of Marx's economic theory, "the doctrine of surplus value," which has always been unshakey and controversial.

    The first mistake is fairly well known even at this state in the communist development, the "withering away of the state," as it was called Marx envisualized that the aboliation of classes would lead to the gradual reduction of state apparatus. However, this is not the case and is better observed than contemplated. The state rather becomes more extensive in that while the powers of central ministries or delegated they are not reduced in the dividing of an organ of state power into smaller units at lower levels so although the some ministers have actually disappeared to Moscow they have become more entrenched than ever at lower levels, thus in dividing power, you multiply units and in everyday life you become more and more dependent on those organs of state power. Wherever you turn, you meet them and they touch the lives of the people more and more, and a new bureaucracy, rather than a withering away of the state. In Russia in the last two years there has been a shift of power from the capital of Moscow to the so-called "Republics," but state apparatus, simply grows into a greater maze throughout these republics, thus in Minsk the capital of Belorussia, the ministry of Interia became responsible in 1960 for determining the eligibility of applicants for hard to get exit visas too leave the USSR, formally the official prerogative of Moscow alone, but now that this state ministry to Moscow has "withered away," it becomes all the more difficult to get an exit visa since now one has to go to the area, city and republican state capital committees of bureaucrats and on top of all that a last final O.K. has to come from incredibly the Moscow ministry of foreign affairs!! The withering away of the state as Marx envisualized was an unforeseeable mistake pointed out by many criticizers of Marx.

    The second mistake Engels and Marx made is much more obscure but fundamentally just as important.

    In the late 1800's, Engels wrote Vanti Duhring, which rightly criticized Eugen Duhrings, a German idealist who was supposedly not consistent enough in his materialism for the dialectical materialist Marx. In his critical analysis of Duhring, Engels said with much heavy sarcasm that Duhring only changed a word in his putting forward of his social revolutionary ideas; that a changed word "was the word community from the word state whereas Duhring wanted Social Democracy at a local or community level, Marx and Engels advocated a centralized state which would later "wither away!"

    But in this Engels was mistaken again.

    As history has shown time again, the state remains and grows, whereas true democracy can be practiced only at the local level, while the centralized state, administrative, political, or superficial remains there can be no real democracy; a loose confederation of communities at a national level without any centralized state whatsoever.

    In equal division, with safeguards against coalition of communities there can be democracy, not in the centralized state delegating authority but in numerous equal communities practicing and developing democracy at the local level.

    There have already been a few organizations who have disclosed that they shall become effective only after conflict between the two world systems leaves the country without defense or foundation of government, organizations such as the minute men for instance, however they are preparing to simply defend the present system and reinstate its influence after the mutual defeat of both systems militarily, which is more or less taken for granted.

    Their armed groups will represent the remaining hard core of fanatical American capitalist supporters.

    There will undoubtedly be similar representation of this kind by communist groups in communist countries.

    There will also be many decided religious segments putting forward their own alternatives and through larger memberships than the minute man, etc.

    There will also be anarchist, pacifist, and quite possibly fascist splinter groups, however, all these, unlike the minute men and communist partisan groups, will be unarmed.

    The mass of survivors however will not belong to any of these groups; they will not be fanatical enough to join extremist, and will be too disillusioned to support either the communist or capitalist parties in their respective countries, after the atomic catostraph.

    They shall seek an alternative to those systems which have brought them misery.

    But their thinking and education will be steeped in the traditions of those systems. They would never accept a "new order" any more than they would accept the extremist, etc. Complete beyond their understanding, logically they would deem it necessary to oppose the old systems but support at the same time their cherished traditions.

    I intend to put forward just such an alternative.

    In making such a declaration I must say that in order to make this alternative effective supporters must prepare now in the event the situation presents itself for the practical application of this alternative.

    In this way the militarist minute men and their narrow support of capitalism have been most far-sighted, however, they present only a suicide force, whereas what is needed is a constructive and practical groups of persons desiring peace but steadfastly opposed to the revival of forces who have led millions of people to death and destruction in a dozen wars and have now at this moment led the world into unsurpassed danger.

    We have lived into a dark generation of tension and fear.

    But how many of you have tried to find out the truth behind the cold-war cliches!!

    I have lived under both systems; I have sought the answers and although it would be very easy to dupe myself into believing one system is better than the other, I know they are not.

    I despise the representatives of both systems whether they be socialist or Christian democracies, whether they be labor or conservative, they are all products of the two systems.

    When I first went to Russian in the winter of 1959, my funds were very limited, so after a certain time, after the Russian had assured themselves that I was really the naive American who believed in communism, they arranged for me to receive a certain amount of money every month. OK, it came technically through the Red-Cross as financial help to a Roos political immigrant, but it was arranged by the M.V.D. I told myself it was simply because I was broke and everybody knew it. I accepted the money because I was hungry and there was several inches of snow on the ground in Moscow at the time, but what it really was was payment for my denunciation of the U.S. in Moscow in November 1956 and a clear promise that for as long as I lived in the USSR, life would be very good. I didn't realize all this, of course for almost two years.

    As soon as I became completely disgusted with the Soviet Union and started negotiations with the American Embassy in Moscow for my return to the U.S., my "Red Cross" allotment was cut off.

    This was not difficult to understand since all correspondence in and out of the Embassy is censored as is common knowledge in the Embassy itself.

    I have never mentioned the fact of these monthly payments to anyone.

    I do so in order to state that I shall never sell myself intentionally, or unintentionally to anyone again.

    As for the fee of $_____________ I was suppose to receive for this __________ I refuse it. I made pretense to accept it because otherwise I would have been considered a crackpot and not allowed to appear to express my views. After all who would refuse money?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee,

Two things...one...this is material written by a higher level intellect than the generally perceived notion of the lone nut gunman.

Two...this is also supportive of the theory of coaching, steering, or indoctrination frm some source onto Oswald. This material reminds me of the Symbionese Liberation Army or Jim Jones, I find it difficult to believe this individual was self motivated and autodidactic when coming up with these political theories, more likely this is material learned in his programming, as part of his role as a false defector and counter-defector... this is a classic "neutralist" false political ideology, like Symbionese Liberation, it means nothing and is self defeating, so is useful as a template for behavioural conditioning..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed Shanet.

Most peculiar.

Found a bit more on it on Weberman's Nodules.

I would very much like to know if this speech was recorded, and whether anyone is aware of whether or not it had been broadcast. Is Eugene Murret still alive? Was Lee the only one on the agenda to speak?

- lee

http://www.ajweberman.com/nodules/nodule12.htm#jes

OSWALD'S SPEECH TO THE JESUITS

During OSWALD'S period of intense activity on behalf of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, OSWALD lectured at the Jesuit House of Studies in Mobile, Alabama on July 27, 1963, at the request of his cousin, Eugene Murret, who was studying there. From 1969 to 1971 Eugene Murret was Executive Counsel to Louisiana Governor McKeithen. By 1977 he was Chief Administrator of the Louisiana Judicial System. [WR p728; tel. con. with E. Murret 1.77] He was contacted in 1993 but declined comment. OSWALD's speech:

"The Commumist Party of the United States has betrayed itself! It has turned itself into the traditional lever of a foreign power to overthrow the Government of the United States; not in the name of freedom of high ideals, but in the servile conformity to the wishes of the Soviet Union and in anticipation of Soviet Russia's complete domination of the American Continent."

"The Forster's and the Flynn's of the subsidized communist party of the United States have shown themselves to be willing, gullible messengers of the Kremlin's International-List Propaganda.

"There can be no international solidarity with the arch-betrayers of that most sublime ideal.

"There can be no sympathy for those who have turned the idea of communism into a vill curse for western man.

"The Soviets have committed crimes unsurpassed by their early day capitalist counterparts. The imprisonment of their own peoples, with the mass extermination so typical of Stalin

"The individual suppression and regimentation under Khrushchev.

"The deportations, the purposefull curtailment of diet in the consumer slighted population of russia, the murder of history, the prostitution of art and culture.

"The communist movement in the U.S., personalized by the Communist Party U.S.A. has turned itself into a 'valuble gold coin' of the Kremlin. It has failed to denounce any actions of the Soviet Government when similar actions on the part of the U.S. Government bring pious protest.

Denounced Not Denounced

United States Russia

Atom. Bomb Test Atom Bomb Test

Cuba Hungry

NATO Manuvers Warsaw Pact Manuvers

U-2 Sobel

Congo Eastern Germany

Negro Lynching Genocide

"Through the refusal of the Communist Party U.S.A. to give a clear cut condemnation of Soviet piratical acts, progressives have been weakened into a stale class of fifth columnist of the Russians.

"In order to free the hesitating and justifiably uncertain future activist for the work ahead we must remove that obstacle which has so efficently retarded him, namely the devotion of Communist Party, U.S.A. to the Soviet Union, Soviet Government, and Soviet Communist International Movement.

"It is readily foreseeable that a coming economic, political and military crisis, internal or external, will bring about the final destrution of the Capitalist system, assuming this, we can see how preparation in a special party could safeguard an independent course of action after the debacle, an American course steadfastly opposed to intervention by outside, relatively stable foreign powers, no matter from where they come, but in particular, and if necessary, violently opposed to Soviet intervention.

"No Party of this type can attract into its ranks more than a nominal number of Fundemental radicals.

"It is not the nature of such an organization to attract such a membership, as lets say, the Republicans or even the Socialist Party, but it is possible to enlist the aid of disenchanted members of the Socialist Party and even some from more "respected" (from a capitalist viewpoint) parties.

"But whereas our political enemies talk loudly now, they have no concept of what total crisis means.

"The faction which has the greater basis in spirit and the most far-sighted and ready membership of the radical futurist, will be the decisive factor.

"We have no interest in violently opposing the United States Government, why should we manifest opposition when there are far greater forces at work, to bring about the fall of the United States Government, than we could ever possibly muster.

"We do not have any interest in directly assuming the head of government in the event of such an all-finishing crisis. As dissentent Americans we are merely interested in opposing foreign intervention which is a easily drawn conclusion if one believes in the theory of crisis.

"The emplacement of a separate, democratic pure Communist sociaty is our goal, but one with Union-communes, democratic socializing of production and without regard to the apart of Marxist Communism by other powers.

"The right of the private personal property, religious tolerance and Freedom of Travel (which have all been violated under Russian "Communist" rule) must be strictly observed.

"Resoufuyllniss and patient working towards the aforesaid goal's are preferred rather than loud and useless manifestations of protest. Silent observance of our priciples is of primary importance.

"But these preferred tactics now, may prove to be too limited in the near future, they should not be confussed with slowness, indesision or fear, only the intellectually fearless could even be remotely attracted too our doctrine and yet this doctrine requires the utmost restraint, a state of being in itself majustic in power.

"This is stoicism and yet stoicism has not been effected for many years, and never for such a purpose.

"There are organization already formed in the United States who have declared they shall become effective only after the military debacle of the United States. Organizations such as Minutemen or the opposite of a stoical organization but these performers are simply preparing to redefend in their own back yards a system which they take for granted will be defeated militarily elsewhere, a strange thing to hear from "Patriots."

"These armed groups represent the hard core of American capitalist supporters. There will also be a small armed Communist and probably Fascist groups. There will also be anarchist and religious groups at work.

"However, the bulk of the population will not adhere to any of these groups because they will not be inclined to join any of the old factions with which we are all so familiar.

"But the people will never except a new order presented by presented by politicians or opportunist. Logically they will deem it necessary to oppose those system of government against whom they have been educated, but they will be against anything resembling their former Capitalist master also.

"Steadfastly opposed to the reviveal of the old forces, the will seek a new fore. This will be the sentiment of the masses.

"But any organization clearly manipulating words may sway the masses.

"This is where a safeguard is necessary. And not only a safe guard but a safetly valve, to shut off opportunist forces from within, and foreign powers from without. There can be no subsitute for organization and procurement work towards the aforestated ideals and goals. Work is the key to the future door, but failure to apply that key because of possible armed opposition in our hypothetical, but very probable crisis, is as useless as trying to use force now to knock down the door.

"Armed defense of our ideals must be accepted doctrine after the crisis just as refraining from any demonstration of force must be our doctrine in the meantime.

"No man, having known, having lived, under the Russian Communist and American Capitalist system, could possibly make a choice between them, there is no choice. One offers oppression, the other poverty. Both offer imperialistic injustice, tinted with two brands of slavery.

"But no rational man can take the attitude of "a curse on both your houses". There are two world systems, one twisted beyond recognition by its misuse, the other decadent and dying in tis final evolution.

"A truely democratic system would combine the better qualities of the two upon an American Foundation opposed to both world systems as they are now. This than is our ideal.

"Membership in this organization implies adherence to the principle of simple distribution of information about this movement to others and acceptance of the idea of stoical readiness in regards to practical measures once instituted in the crisis.

"In another version of this speech OSWALD stated: "a symbol of the American way, our liberal concisons, is the existence in our midst of a minority group whose influence and membership is very limited and whose dangerous tendencies are sufficently controlled by special government agencies. The Communist Party, U.S.A., bears little resemblance to their Russian counterparts, but by allowing them to operate and even supporting their right to speak, we maintain a tremendous sign of our strength and liberalism. Harasment of their party newspapers, their leaders, and advocates, is treachery to our basic principles of freedom of speech and press. Their views, no matter how misguided, no matter how much the Russians take advantage of them, must be allowed to be aired. after all communist [Party] U.S.A. have existed for 40 years and they are still a pitiful group of radicals.

"Our two conoutries have too much too offer to each other to be tearing at each other's throats in an endless cold war. Both are conoutries have major short comings and advantages. But only in ours is the voice of dissent all allowed opportunity of expression, in returning to the U.S., I hope I have awoken a few who were sleeping, and other who are indifferent. I have done a lot of critizing of our system I hope you will take it in the spirit it was given. In going to Russia I followed the old priciple "Thou shalt seek the truth, and the Truth shall make you free." In returning to the U.S. I have done nothing more or less than select the lesser of two evils."

THE JESUITS IMPRESSION OF THE SPEECH

Eugene Murret testified before the HSCA. He recalled that OSWALD'S speech dealt with his "Marxist philosophy, the communist philosophy, since he, I think, was sympathetic to that viewpoint." A student at the Seminary reported that OSWALD said that the Russian peasants "were very poor, often close to starvation...in each hut there was a radio speaker, even in huts where there was no running water or electricity. The speaker was attached to a cord that ran back to a common receiver. Thus, the inhabitants of the hut could never change stations or turn off the radio. They had to listen to everything that came through it, day or night."

ANALYSIS

OSWALD denounced the Communist Party in his speech to the Jesuits as a tool of Soviet imperialism, yet he subscribed to The Worker, the organ of the Communist Party of the United States, and two months later, he offered his services to the Communist Party. He attacked Soviet Communism at the same time he applied for a Soviet visa. OSWALD wrote that he hated "the USSR and the socialist system." [WR 397-400, 712] He called the Communist Party of the United States "subsidized," "messenger of the Kremlin's Internationalist propaganda," "fifth columnist of the Russians," and "arch betrayers." He called the Soviets: "criminals" guilty of "mass extermination" "supression" "murderers of history." OSWALD'S ideal activist had to throw off the shackles of Soviet Communism.

OSWALD'S activist would emerge after a economic crisis, just as Hitler did in Nazi Germany, and become part of a "special party" of those "violently opposed to Soviet intervention." OSWALD was willing to enlist disenchanted members of the Socialist Party. The National Socialist Party in Germany attracted many former Socialists. OSWALD cited the Minutemen as a group that would be active after the "military debacle of the United States." OSWALD portrayed the Minutemen as "redefending their own backyards," a noble purpose. OSWALD wrote: "This is where a safeguard is necessary. And not only a safe guard but a safetly valve, to shut off opportunist forces from within, and foreign powers from without. There can be no subsitute for organization and procurement work towards the aforestated ideals and goals." Was OSWALD proposing to shut off the lives of members of the Communist Party after his revolution? Was that why it was necessary to penetrate the Communist Party and procure membership information? Essentially, OSWALD was proposing the formation of death squad, similar to OPERATION 40, to take out CP members during a time of crisis since they were agents of a foreign power. This group would remain underground - "stoic" - until the crisis came. The "practical measures" OSWALD made reference to was assassinations. This translated to "The only good Communist is a dead Communist." In another version of this speech, he said Americans should be tolerant of the views of American Communists.

OSWALD'S politics made little sense. OSWALD said he was alarmed about Soviet "domination of the American continent," yet he supported Fidel Castro's Cuba, which had been widely regarded as Moscow's "stepping stone" to the American continent since 1961. OSWALD was aware of the close relationship between Russia and Cuba and, in an anti-Communist essay, had described Cuba as a "fellow traveler" of the Soviet Union. OSWALD wrote: "The third part is filled with foreign news items. Often covered and credited to A.P. or Reuters news agencies, they usually concern strikes and clashes with police, crime and race incidents in capitalist countries as well as other "News" slanted to give a bad (illegible) about all countries except those who are members of the Socialist camp or their fellow travelers such as Cuba who are painted as properous democracies fighting against imperialism from without and and capitalist says and agents from within." [HSCA V8 p362; WCE 92] OSWALD attempted to explain this contradiction when he appeared on radio in New Orleans in August 1963: "Castro is an independent leader of an independent country. He has ties with the Soviet Union, with the eastern bloc...you cannot point at Castro and say he is a Russian puppet."

OSWALD mentioned Cuba only once in his speech. This made no sense in light of his intensive Fair Play for Cuba activity at the time. In one version of this speech OSWALD wrote "In returning to the U.S. I have done nothing more or less than select the lesser of two evils." In another version of the same speech he wrote, "No man, having known, having lived, under the Russian Communist and American Capitalist system, could possibly make a choice between them, there is no choice. One offers oppression, the other poverty. Both offer imperialistic injustice, tinted with two brands of slavery." OSWALD wrote: "But no rational man can take the attitude of "a curse on both your houses". There are two world systems, one twisted beyond recognition by its misuse, the other decadent and dying in tis final evolution." Earlier he wrote: "...it is imature to take the sort of attitude which says "a curse on both your houses!" their are two great represative of power in the world, simply expressed, the left and the right, and their offspring factions and concers."

On July 30, 1963, OSWALD borrowed The Hittite by Noel Gerson. Other books by Gerson included Kit Carson, The Folk Hero and the Man. Gerson wrote was reprinted in Reader's Digest. OSWALD borrowed the science fiction book Mind Partner edited by H.L. Gould. He returned these on August 13, 1963. On July 31, 1963, he borrowed Everyday Life in Ancient Rome by F.R. Cowell, who was a very serious scholar. He returned this book on August 14, 1963.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee,

Hello all.

I understand that separate from the television coverage of the leafletting and the  radio interview which followed the incident, Lee Oswald gave a speech to a religious order.

Does anyone have more details on this event?

Lee gave a talk to a Jesuit Seminary in Mobile, AL at the invitation of his cousin Eugene Murret. Eugene was studying there.

You can find a little about it in the WC testimony of John Murret here:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/murret_j.htm

The Warren Commission exhibit you reference were notes LHO wrote to himself on Holland-American Lines stationary. That was the shipping line the Oswalds used on their way back from Russia in 1962.

I think the speech he gave to the Jesuits is either CE 97 or CE 102 also in that volume 16.

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...