Speaker 1: Good morning, everybody. Corey used blood history. So today we're
Speaker 1: going to take a break from the David Ferry file,
Speaker 1: which we're not done yet. We're gonna be on David
Speaker 1: Ferry for a while now, but today we're gonna take
Speaker 1: a break and we're gonna go through a book written
Speaker 1: by Kerry Thornley called Oswald. This is a second book,
Speaker 1: if I'm not mistaken, or maybe third. This was written
Speaker 1: after the assassination, whereas The Idle Warriors, which we'll read
Speaker 1: at some point, that was written before the assassination by
Speaker 1: a long time, at like nineteen sixty. So I'm not
Speaker 1: sure what to expect in this book, but it's gonna
Speaker 1: be packed full of lies, I'll tell you that much,
Speaker 1: because carry Thornley is a professional liar. So here we go.
Speaker 1: I'm just going to read all the text on all
Speaker 1: the pages. This exclusive New Classics House original is not
Speaker 1: available in any other form, including the Warren Commissions, one
Speaker 1: hundred and six page deposition of the author, a support
Speaker 1: of psychological analysis by Albert Ellis, PhD. A biographical verification
Speaker 1: by B. A. Simcoe, a fellow marine of Oswalden Thornley,
Speaker 1: and an eight page pictorial documentation section and a unique
Speaker 1: eulogy to John F. Kennedy by Paul G. Nimark. Just
Speaker 1: to point out here be a Simcoe is the guy
Speaker 1: who was named years later as his own handler in
Speaker 1: the Marines. And Simco worked for a Lieutenant Ballantine, so
Speaker 1: that would have been like Marine G two, naval intelligence,
Speaker 1: that kind of thing. Buddy Simco is an interesting character.
Speaker 1: So Simco gets suck in intelligence when he's in the Marines,
Speaker 1: like real early and he worked in intelligence, which Bade
Speaker 1: he said, is just being in a room and he's
Speaker 1: doing a lot of filing stuff, a lot of filing
Speaker 1: paperwork and stuff. I mean, sure there's more to it
Speaker 1: than that. He's not going to tell us the truth.
Speaker 1: But I remember Simco in his own book said that
Speaker 1: he had been in there, in this room and working
Speaker 1: in this room, and he went to his boss, who
Speaker 1: was Lieutenant Valentine, and he said, look, man, this is
Speaker 1: kind of boring. I want to do something else. And
Speaker 1: Valentine basically told him that, like this is as high
Speaker 1: as it gets. There's no there is no promotion from here.
Speaker 1: There is nothing bigger, better that you're going to get.
Speaker 1: This is this is the top. This is the upper
Speaker 1: echelon of what we do here out of this marine
Speaker 1: base out at Santa Anna, And so Simko just stayed
Speaker 1: with it. And then he stays in contact with Kerry Thornley.
Speaker 1: After Thornley gets out of the Marines. They stay in
Speaker 1: touch obviously after the assassination. So Thornley is Thornley, Simcoe
Speaker 1: and Balentine, Martin mccauliffe, Kent Courtney brother in law. All
Speaker 1: these characters that we've been made aware of by Carry
Speaker 1: Thornley are obviously his intelligence handling circle, right, because well,
Speaker 1: help all CIA guys only hang with CIA guys, right.
Speaker 1: And from the time that Carry Thornley gets to New
Speaker 1: Orleans allegedly February sixty one, I don't buy that he
Speaker 1: starts hanging out with intelligence people right from the jump,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. And the fact that he
Speaker 1: stays in touch with Buddy Simcoe who was in the
Speaker 1: Marines with him, who was an intelligence guy in the Marines,
Speaker 1: that tells me that there's some other connection there, probably
Speaker 1: between Simcoe and maybe Martin mccauliffe. But I don't know
Speaker 1: if we can ever figure these things out. I just
Speaker 1: don't know that there's enough data to be able to
Speaker 1: to make these connections and make them stick. So let
Speaker 1: me continue on an illuminating personal analysis of Wylie Harvey
Speaker 1: Oswald chose to assassinate President John F. Kennedy, as well
Speaker 1: as an iconoclastic critique of how America helped Oswald to
Speaker 1: become what he did. The author, twenty seven year old
Speaker 1: Kerry Thornley, began writing at the age of fourteen. He
Speaker 1: sold his first piece of work to a local newspaper
Speaker 1: when he was nineteen, and has since had poems, short stories,
Speaker 1: and articles published in the little magazines, including Innovator, a
Speaker 1: libertarian newsletter of which he is the editor in chief.
Speaker 1: Thornley's interest in philosophy and politics also began early. While
Speaker 1: attending high school in Whittier, California, he won a number
Speaker 1: of public speaking competitions, including the Voice of Democracy contests,
Speaker 1: which I'm telling you that's where he got recruited the
Speaker 1: Voice of Democracy contest. After attending the University of Southern
Speaker 1: California for one year as a journalism student, he decided
Speaker 1: to fulfill a two year active duty obligation assumed earlier
Speaker 1: upon joining the Marine Corps Reserve. He was assigned to
Speaker 1: El Toro Marine air Station in Santa Anna, California, where
Speaker 1: he was to meet Lee Harvey Oswald. Later, Thornley served
Speaker 1: in the Far East in the first Marine Aircraft Wing
Speaker 1: and distinguished himself again as a public speaker on political
Speaker 1: philosophical issues by winning first place in the Wing Technique
Speaker 1: of Instruction competition. He was therefore he was therefore sent
Speaker 1: to Washington to appear in the finals. Mm hm, I
Speaker 1: bet he was. It was shortly after his return to
Speaker 1: overseas duty that Thornley read in a newspaper of Oswald's
Speaker 1: defection to Russia, and as a result of that, began
Speaker 1: work on his first novel, The Idol Warriors, featuring a
Speaker 1: protagonist much modeled after this unusual Oswald personality. Goddamn, that's
Speaker 1: a long sentence. It shouldn't have been so long. It
Speaker 1: could have broken that up. All right, let me just
Speaker 1: cover something real here, real quick here, because something has
Speaker 1: caught my attention. So he's over in that Japan and yeah,
Speaker 1: they're actually this is this is correct, by winning first
Speaker 1: place in the Wing Technique of Instruction competition. Yes, it
Speaker 1: was an instructor techniques competition exactly. Let's see. I can't
Speaker 1: believe this is actually corroborating the data in the marine
Speaker 1: files because that's been so skewed. He was therefore sent
Speaker 1: to Washington to appear in the finals. So okay. So
Speaker 1: he's in fucking Japan, and um he allegedly wins this competition, right,
Speaker 1: and gets sent back to Washington. And when you know
Speaker 1: what caught me about the data this? You know, I
Speaker 1: don't have it in front of me. Let me see
Speaker 1: if I can recall when this was, because it struck
Speaker 1: me as very odd. I think it was. Well, let
Speaker 1: me see. He is out of the Marines by October
Speaker 1: of nineteen sixty. This had to been early on, so
Speaker 1: it had to have been yes, yes, yes, yes, okay.
Speaker 1: So he goes over to Atsugi. He gets into Oswald's
Speaker 1: MCS one unit. He starts asking questions about Oswald. He's
Speaker 1: taking pictures of people in the unit and things that
Speaker 1: are associated with Oswald. And when he's questioned by a
Speaker 1: guy named Ronald Schwinghammer, he gives shwing Hammer the name
Speaker 1: Rick Thornley. And so he's using an alias for some reason,
Speaker 1: and he's gathering information on Oswald. Then Oswald does the defection.
Speaker 1: Oswald defects. He goes to the Soviet Union. It is
Speaker 1: almost immediately after this defection of the Soviet Union, maybe
Speaker 1: within a couple of weeks, that Carrie Thornley will be
Speaker 1: sent back from at Sugi, Japan to Washington, where he'll
Speaker 1: be for I think three weeks, two or three weeks,
Speaker 1: and then he's sent back to Atsugi. That's a really
Speaker 1: long way to fly some guy just because he won
Speaker 1: a competition. What kind of competition is this? This is
Speaker 1: some bullshit. This is some covert ops bullshit. Is what's
Speaker 1: going on here? Okay? I want to see the fucking
Speaker 1: list of everyone else who entered this contest. Motherfucker winning
Speaker 1: contests his whole goddamn life. Give me a break. So yes,
Speaker 1: I think that him coming back to Washington has something
Speaker 1: to do with Oswald's defection. Maybe it was after he
Speaker 1: got back that he starts doing the investigation into Oswald.
Speaker 1: That would make a lot more sense. That would make
Speaker 1: a lot more sense. Carrie Thornly goes to Atsugi. At
Speaker 1: some point, he'll take place in Operation strong Back, which
Speaker 1: was an amphibious assault drill that Oswald had taken part
Speaker 1: in Operation strong Back, but earlier on it was like
Speaker 1: a four month exercise or something along like that. It
Speaker 1: was really it was a big exercise that they did.
Speaker 1: But Oswald is listed amongst having participated, and so was
Speaker 1: Carrie Thornley when he is finally there in nineteen sixty.
Speaker 1: So yeah, very interesting stuff. Let me continue on. Though
Speaker 1: he was therefore sent to Washington appear in the finals.
Speaker 1: It was shortly after his return to overseas duty Thornly
Speaker 1: read in the newspaper of Oswald's defection to Russia, and
Speaker 1: as a result of that, began work on his first novel,
Speaker 1: The Idle Warriors, featuring a protagonist much modeled after unusual
Speaker 1: Oswald personality. After leaving the Marine Corps, Thornley moved to
Speaker 1: New Orleans, French Quarter, to finish The Idle Warriors and
Speaker 1: to gain background material for future writings. Oh really, background
Speaker 1: material on what on Oswald? Because that's not that's not
Speaker 1: the story. We don't really know why he went to
Speaker 1: New Orleans. He was told to go there, obviously by
Speaker 1: his handlers. But another thing about Thornley getting to New
Speaker 1: Orleans is that the bolton Ford incident occurred in January
Speaker 1: of sixty one, and he claims that he got to
Speaker 1: New Orleans in February of sixty one. I think he's lying.
Speaker 1: I think he was at bolton Ford. At first, I
Speaker 1: suspected it was Seymour, because it's always Lawrence had Howard
Speaker 1: and William Symore paired up together. But I realized after
Speaker 1: Carry Thornley wrote about his association with Leopaldo, who was
Speaker 1: definitely Lawrence Howard from the Soviet audio incident. Since he
Speaker 1: mentioned being associated with Leopoldo, it broke. It totally made
Speaker 1: me realize that, yes, Carry Thornley was probably associating with
Speaker 1: Lawrence Howard all the way way back then, which means
Speaker 1: he was associating with other people in New Orleans all
Speaker 1: the way way back then, whereas his official timeline on
Speaker 1: meeting this people is like years later, years later, two years,
Speaker 1: a year and a half later. So God, it's so
Speaker 1: hard to find truth when everyone's full of shit, you know.
Speaker 1: It really is like picking that shit out of Peppa
Speaker 1: all right. After leaving the Marine Corps moved, Carry Thornley
Speaker 1: moved to New Orleans, French Quarter to he see. He
Speaker 1: never really clarifies why he went to New Orleans. I
Speaker 1: think maybe he mentioned he had a friend there. I
Speaker 1: don't recall I don't recall at some point he's gonna
Speaker 1: meet and hook up with Raymond brough Shears. So yeah,
Speaker 1: it's very it's cloudy over why he went to New
Speaker 1: Orleans in the first place. Obviously he was dispatched there
Speaker 1: to participate in this operation at President He lives in
Speaker 1: Los Angeles and is working on a second novel plus
Speaker 1: a series of philosophical papers for private publication. So that's
Speaker 1: the biography of Kerry Thornley got I spent way more
Speaker 1: time on that than I wanted to. The fourth New
Speaker 1: Classics House original, And this is funny. It's dedicate dedicated
Speaker 1: to Clinton Bolton, who first said to me go home
Speaker 1: and write you bum Clinton Bolton was one of those
Speaker 1: guys in New Orleans, clearly a CIA guy pops up
Speaker 1: in a bunch of different circles. But he dedicated this
Speaker 1: book to a guy who's clearly a CIA operator or
Speaker 1: an intelligence operator, I'll put it that way. Copyright nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty five by New Classics House. So he didn't waste
Speaker 1: any time in writing this book. His books are tiny,
Speaker 1: like two of my chapters, all right, so world renowned.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna read everything. We're going to get every single
Speaker 1: word in this book. This is like a kind of
Speaker 1: introduction here, says world renowned doctor Albert Ellis received a
Speaker 1: MA and PhD degrees in clinical psychology from Columbia University.
Speaker 1: They went on to teach at Rutgers University and New
Speaker 1: York University. He became chief psychologist of the New Jersey
Speaker 1: State Diagnostics Center, a fellow of five associations and societies,
Speaker 1: including the American Psychological Association and the American Association for
Speaker 1: the Advancement of Science, a Diplomat of the American Board
Speaker 1: of Examiners and Professional Psychology, and Vice President of the
Speaker 1: American Academy of Psychotherapists. For the past twenty years, doctor
Speaker 1: Ellis has maintained a private psychotherapy practice, marriage counseling, and
Speaker 1: a family counseling in New York City, and is currently
Speaker 1: the executive director of the Institute for Rational Living, Inc.
Speaker 1: In New York. Along with the publication of over two
Speaker 1: hundred of his scientific papers, he's authored or edited more
Speaker 1: than twenty books and monographs, including The Art and Science
Speaker 1: of Love, Sex Without Guilt, Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy,
Speaker 1: WHAT and The Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior, The Art and
Speaker 1: Science of Love, Sex without sex, without guilt, reason and
Speaker 1: emotion in Psychotherapy and the Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior. M
Speaker 1: I'm always weirded out by these like PhD sweater Vest
Speaker 1: guys who write about sexual behavior. It's like, are you sure, dude,
Speaker 1: been with like three people in your fucking life and
Speaker 1: your writing books? Fuck right off seriously. Introduction to Psychology
Speaker 1: of Assassination by Albert Ellis, pH D. Carry Thornley's first
Speaker 1: hand portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald's the most valuable document
Speaker 1: because it gives an illuminate view of the man who
Speaker 1: almost certainly murdered President John F. Kennedy and presents him
Speaker 1: as the author saw and lived with him several years
Speaker 1: before the assassination occurred. Oh he did. When they live
Speaker 1: with him, He wasn't in his quantcet hut. Naturally, Mister
Speaker 1: Thornley had his own subjective reactions to Oswald, and, as
Speaker 1: he frankly states in this book, he had his personal
Speaker 1: politico social philosophy which hardly dovetailed with Oswald's. But as
Speaker 1: abudding a novelist and one who was perspicacious enough to
Speaker 1: some words you just don't need to use. Okay, nobody
Speaker 1: needs to flex their intellect by using words like perspicacious,
Speaker 1: fuck you, perspicacious enough to see in potential assassin to
Speaker 1: a unique individual who could well serve as a protagonist
Speaker 1: for the great American novel which he then hoped to write.
Speaker 1: Thornley was beautifully equipped to study and delineate Oswald's character,
Speaker 1: and is doubtful whether we shall ever have a more
Speaker 1: faithful picture of this complex and aberated human being than
Speaker 1: is presented in some of the vignettes of him in
Speaker 1: this book. I am fortunately in something of the same accurate, predictive,
Speaker 1: predictive position as Thornley regarding my diagnostic impressions of Oswald.
Speaker 1: For immediately after President Kennedy's assassination, Lyle Stewart, who publishes
Speaker 1: many of my books and who was also the editor
Speaker 1: and publisher of the unusual monthly periodical The Independent, asked
Speaker 1: me to do a piece on the psychology of assassination.
Speaker 1: I quickly wrote such an article, which was then included
Speaker 1: in the November nineteen sixty three issue of The Independent.
Speaker 1: Although at that time I only had a pot pirie
Speaker 1: of newspaper reports to go by, it was apparent to
Speaker 1: me Lee Harvey Oswald was an exceptionally disturbed individual, and
Speaker 1: I had said so in no uncertain terms. Later published material,
Speaker 1: including that in the report of the Warren Commission, and
Speaker 1: now the present book by Kerry Thornley, has much more
Speaker 1: fully documented my original impressions of Oswald and the motives
Speaker 1: for his crime. So if O were interest in crowing,
Speaker 1: I could well throw out my chest and say I
Speaker 1: told you so. More to the point, however, I am
Speaker 1: interested in augmenting and substantiating my original thesis on Oswald
Speaker 1: and the psychology of assassination. So let me now attempt
Speaker 1: to do this by using some of Thornley's first hand
Speaker 1: impressions of President Kennedy's presumed assassin, as well as material
Speaker 1: from other reputable sources. Let me say at the start
Speaker 1: what I said in my original article that although on
Speaker 1: the surface assassination may seem to be a cold blooded
Speaker 1: result of political choice, it actually rarely is. Contemporary assassins
Speaker 1: are almost always exceptionally deranged individuals, many of them, in fact,
Speaker 1: such as Jack Ruby, the murderer of the Oswald, seem
Speaker 1: to have no political motive whatever, And even the most
Speaker 1: notorious killer of all time, Adolf Hitler, was obviously not
Speaker 1: merely fighting for German or even Aryan interests. When he
Speaker 1: sent out his trained gunman to exterminate his political foes,
Speaker 1: he was clearly and unusually just disturbed, terribly anxious and
Speaker 1: hostile individual who was personally motivated to kill, quite apart
Speaker 1: from the socioeconomic views which he may have quite sincerely,
Speaker 1: if benightedly held. You know, this is why I hate
Speaker 1: these PhD motherfuckers. Dude, for real, they have no idea
Speaker 1: what the fuck they're talking about. You want experience to understand,
Speaker 1: you want to understand the human mind, Go out and
Speaker 1: deal with people. I don't think I could have gotten
Speaker 1: a better experience in human psychology than being a cop
Speaker 1: for the eight years that I was on the road.
Speaker 1: Oh my god. You see the same patterns over and
Speaker 1: over and over and over and over and over again.
Speaker 1: People lying right to your face every fucking day, all day,
Speaker 1: which is what everyone does when they deal with the cops.
Speaker 1: Maybe inadvertently, I don't care if it's witness, suspect, whatever, bystander,
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. Everyone inserts their own agenda into their observations.
Speaker 1: It's inevitable, it always happens, and so day after day
Speaker 1: you really get a hold for the different types of
Speaker 1: people that are out there, what different bullshit they're going
Speaker 1: to say to try to cover up for their bullshit.
Speaker 1: I mean, like, you really get a firm grasp on
Speaker 1: the human condition, you know, after interviewing ten thousand fucking
Speaker 1: witnesses in relation to crime? Right? So yeah, So I
Speaker 1: read these fucking PhDs and I'm like, dude, you've never
Speaker 1: interacted with a fucking human being in your life. You're
Speaker 1: fucking idiot. You can't learn about people from fucking books.
Speaker 1: You can only learn about people from people. That's why
Speaker 1: having life experiences so goddamn important to being just a
Speaker 1: half decent investigator. All right, let me continue on. So too,
Speaker 1: is there good reason to believe that most members of
Speaker 1: revolutionary groups such as the anarchists of the nineteenth century Russia,
Speaker 1: which openly advocate political assassination, adhere to their creeds of
Speaker 1: violence because they want to kill, and not merely because
Speaker 1: they have dispassionately figured out that this is really an
Speaker 1: effective method of backing up the ideologies in which they believe.
Speaker 1: What are some of the main psychological factors that drive
Speaker 1: people to assassinate political figures. These impotence and self hatred.
Speaker 1: Assassins such as Lee Harvey Oswald are often individuals who,
Speaker 1: although they are not basically stupid, have been so seriously
Speaker 1: emotionally disturbed all their lives that they have been highly
Speaker 1: inept in getting what they want out of life. They
Speaker 1: usually have poor interpersonal relations, They are unable to work
Speaker 1: steadily on interesting or well paying jobs, and they characteristically
Speaker 1: get rejected by friends, acquaintances, members of the other sex,
Speaker 1: and even political groups are countries to which they would
Speaker 1: like to swear allegiance. Because of their inherent low estimations
Speaker 1: of themselves, they keep failing at one task after another,
Speaker 1: and then they use their failures as evidence that they
Speaker 1: are really worthless and must necessarily keep failing, rather than
Speaker 1: consciously admit to themselves, however, that they are wo fully inadequate,
Speaker 1: and that they therefore better do something drastic to change
Speaker 1: their ways. They frequently build up defensive hostility against others
Speaker 1: and insist that they are being persecuted by these others. Consequently,
Speaker 1: they hate bosses, official statesmen, and other authority figures and
Speaker 1: insist that is these bastards who are keeping them down.
Speaker 1: They cannot, of course, acknowledge the hard work and refusal
Speaker 1: to be downed by physical and other handicaps that are
Speaker 1: characteristic of statesmen such as Kennedy, since such an acknowledgment
Speaker 1: would spotlight their own tendencies to goof in the face
Speaker 1: of even minor difficulties, So they often become insanely jealous
Speaker 1: of outstanding achievers, insists that they do not truly deserve
Speaker 1: their places of eminence, and bitterly resolve that something must
Speaker 1: be done to annihilate them and drag them from the
Speaker 1: positions they have unfairly won. Typical of the impotence and
Speaker 1: self hatred that Lee Harvey Oswald felt for himself is
Speaker 1: that in his case, as Thornleigh Cleary clearly points out,
Speaker 1: despair it would appear existed, but it was not despair
Speaker 1: with resignation. Rather, Oswald exhibited something quite prevalent in our
Speaker 1: culture today, frantic despair. Like so many despairing and self
Speaker 1: deprecating people, Oswald apparently had to believe that there were
Speaker 1: special reasons for his not succeeding in life, so he
Speaker 1: became defensively paranoid and wishful. Thinkingly got himself to discern
Speaker 1: that others were deliberately picking on him and blocking his way. Okay,
Speaker 1: let me comment on this real quick. So we got
Speaker 1: to remember Oswald died at the age of twenty four.
Speaker 1: He's in Russia at the age of like twenty or
Speaker 1: was it even twenty. Yeah, he's about twenty. So what
Speaker 1: are we talking about, thinking that you're a failure in life.
Speaker 1: He was a child, he was just getting started. He
Speaker 1: goes to Russia, doesn't work out, He's like, okay, great,
Speaker 1: let me come back. He comes back, He's already got
Speaker 1: a wife and a child. He's already got a wife
Speaker 1: and a child, and I don't buy for a split second.
Speaker 1: He ever lived at any of the boarding houses period,
Speaker 1: so they were always together. So that's a win in
Speaker 1: his book. All he needed to do was find steady employment,
Speaker 1: you know, and a possible career paths. Right, And so
Speaker 1: when they say he was a failure in life, what
Speaker 1: are you talking about? What are you talking about? By
Speaker 1: the age of twenty four, the guy had done a
Speaker 1: ton of shit, went into the Marines, went over to Japan,
Speaker 1: he goes and lives in the Soviet Union. I mean,
Speaker 1: he did a lot of things by the age of
Speaker 1: twenty four. So when you hear people say things like
Speaker 1: he was frustrated because he was a failure. What the
Speaker 1: fuck are you talking about? What are you talking about?
Speaker 1: Zero evidence for any of this stuff? Jesus all right,
Speaker 1: where was I? As Thornleigh succinctly notes, I don't think
Speaker 1: he was consciously perhaps aware of the fact that he
Speaker 1: went out of his way to get in trouble. I
Speaker 1: think it was kind of necess to him to believe
Speaker 1: that he was being picked on. It wasn't anything extreme.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't go so far as to call him a paranoid,
Speaker 1: but there was a definite tendency in that direction. And again,
Speaker 1: I think perhaps the feeling of being persecuted was necessary
Speaker 1: to his self esteem. This is, I understand, a common thing,
Speaker 1: and it certainly fits in with everything else I know
Speaker 1: about him. The more Important Commission, in its official summary
Speaker 1: of Oswald's condition, concurs he used his Marxist and associated
Speaker 1: activities as excuses for his difficulties in getting along in
Speaker 1: the world, which were usually caused by entirely different factors. However,
Speaker 1: arrogant and superior then Oswald appeared on the surface to be.
Speaker 1: It is evident that he always had deep seated feelings
Speaker 1: of self deprecation and that much of his external swagger
Speaker 1: and violence was an unconscious attempt to deny or cover
Speaker 1: up these feelings lack of frustration tolerance. Political change of
Speaker 1: a profound nature. Invariably it takes a considerable period of
Speaker 1: time to achieve. Even long after significant revolution such as
Speaker 1: the American Revolution and the Russian Revolution have occurred, numerous
Speaker 1: vestiges of the old regimes survive, and it is only
Speaker 1: as a result of constant vigilance and action on the
Speaker 1: part of the revolutionists that many of their aims are
Speaker 1: finally achieved. Political assassins, however, usually are individuals with low frustration,
Speaker 1: tolerance and lack of prolonged discipline, who want, or rather
Speaker 1: demand what they want when they want it, which means
Speaker 1: immediate promto right now. However worthy their causes may be
Speaker 1: or may seem to them to be, they're not willing
Speaker 1: to keep working to achieve these goals, and they impatiently
Speaker 1: and to a large extent mystically, believe that they will
Speaker 1: be able to attain them one fell dramatic swoop, sudden
Speaker 1: ass sudden assassination of their foes is therefore their frequent
Speaker 1: and usually quite unrealistic messa of choice in Oswald's case,
Speaker 1: it is fairly clear that he was a short range
Speaker 1: hedonist who rarely saw difficult projects through, even when he
Speaker 1: theoretically believed in them. Although he was intelligent and believed
Speaker 1: in reading and an education, he shirked his school work
Speaker 1: and as a child never quite finished high school. He
Speaker 1: never held on to jobs in a steady fashion, and
Speaker 1: he didn't even stick things out very well when he
Speaker 1: went to the Soviet Union and tried to become a
Speaker 1: citizen there. Thornley significantly notes that Oswald, though a seeker
Speaker 1: after a better philosophy of world order, heerred in that
Speaker 1: respect too. He'd been willing to exert the effort. Oswald
Speaker 1: could have worked out for himself a rational view of
Speaker 1: the world. At times, according to his notes, he attempted
Speaker 1: to formulate what he called a third alternative. That he
Speaker 1: did not continue this effort, and that he spent his
Speaker 1: time instead in conspiring to do violence to those with
Speaker 1: whom he disagreed is the fault of Noah person than
Speaker 1: Lee Harvey Oswald. Even though Oswald's vaunted political views, Thornley
Speaker 1: again dictates indicates that were partly realizations for his taking
Speaker 1: the easy way out and making a great name for
Speaker 1: himself without his making any persistent effort. He was concerned
Speaker 1: with his image in history, and I do that why
Speaker 1: he chose the particular method he chose, and did it
Speaker 1: identified with the communist cause in the way he did.
Speaker 1: It got him in the newspapers, it did broadcast his
Speaker 1: name out. I think he probably expected the Russians to
Speaker 1: accept him into much higher capacity than they did. Like
Speaker 1: so many individuals with low frustration tolerance, Oswald was a
Speaker 1: classical injustice collector. To quote Thornley, he was always speaking
Speaker 1: of the injustices which had been perpetrated against him. And
Speaker 1: it was the fact that he had lost the clearance
Speaker 1: and gone out of his way to get into some
Speaker 1: degree of trouble, and went on to support this. For example,
Speaker 1: we would stand at Muster in the morning and Sergeants
Speaker 1: Sparr would call the role and he would say Oswald,
Speaker 1: and Oswald would step bat of the ranks and spar
Speaker 1: would send him off to mow the lawn or something.
Speaker 1: Oswald did get special treatment, as I say, he had
Speaker 1: brought it on himself, but he made the most of
Speaker 1: it too, as far as using it as a means
Speaker 1: of getting or attempting to get sympathy. Here, then we
Speaker 1: have a picture, which I frequently find in my most
Speaker 1: serious disturbed patients, of an individual who builds up false
Speaker 1: expectations of how the world should treat him, who goes
Speaker 1: out of his way to get the world to deal
Speaker 1: with him unkindly, and who thereby proves, at least to
Speaker 1: his own satisfaction, that reality is definitely the way it should,
Speaker 1: by his own unrealistic definition, be naturally the only way
Speaker 1: in which such a frustration intolerant person is going to
Speaker 1: be able to right the wrongs which have been done
Speaker 1: with him. Is equally trigger happy on realism to harm
Speaker 1: or to kill those who are more favor than he,
Speaker 1: and who usually have worked their heads off, as Kennedy
Speaker 1: did to earn his favor to earn this favor. Magical thinking.
Speaker 1: Almost every person who vigorously opposes a pronounced politico economic
Speaker 1: way of thinking, whether that be extremely right wing, left wing,
Speaker 1: or even centrist at times, has the distinct inclination to
Speaker 1: murder that outstanding spokesman for the view he despises. But
Speaker 1: since most political oppositionists are reasonably sane and thinking individuals,
Speaker 1: they quickly calculate that it would be utterly foolish for
Speaker 1: them to give in to their murderous inclinations, for obviously
Speaker 1: they would not kill the party they oppose by quickly
Speaker 1: silencing one or more of its spokesman. In fact, they
Speaker 1: might well publicize and aid its cause by thereby creating
Speaker 1: public martyrs. By resorting to assassination, they easily are able
Speaker 1: to see, they would only bring down the wrath of
Speaker 1: officialdom and very likely of the shocked populace itself, on
Speaker 1: themselves and their own supporters, would do their own cause
Speaker 1: more harm than good, and would very likely end up
Speaker 1: just as dead as their murdered opponents. Consequently, same proponents
Speaker 1: of even extremist politico economic views frequently think of how
Speaker 1: nice it would be if they could eradicate their opponents
Speaker 1: in one huge blood bath, but they practically never take
Speaker 1: any overt steps to execute such a wishful notion. Political assassins,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, are not equally sane, and almost
Speaker 1: always seem to believe that they and their supporters can
Speaker 1: get away with the bloody deed they at first fantasize
Speaker 1: and then actually carry out. John Wilkes Booths of the
Speaker 1: world seem to be genuinely diluted at the moment they
Speaker 1: commit their misdeeds, and there will be a massive public
Speaker 1: uprising in their favor, that the individuals they assassinate with
Speaker 1: will be universally condemned rather than raised to martyrdom, and
Speaker 1: that they, the murderers, won't be caught and punished. These
Speaker 1: assassins usually seem to make their wishes farther farther to
Speaker 1: utterly magical kinds of thought, and those among them who
Speaker 1: do not expect to escape earthly retribution seem to believe
Speaker 1: that they will be rewarded in some later celestial existence
Speaker 1: in a heaven, of course, that is somehow ruled by
Speaker 1: their own cohorts. This magical thinking on their part, which
Speaker 1: usually leaves them with enough per spiccaps Oh my god,
Speaker 1: here's that fucking word again, perspicacity to carry out their
Speaker 1: death dealing blows effectively, but to fail to make any
Speaker 1: reasonable plans for escape, is probably the reason why such
Speaker 1: a high percentage of political assassins are caught so quickly.
Speaker 1: Oswald's extreme degree of magical thinking was shown in several ways.
Speaker 1: He was a Marxist, largely because he believed that communism
Speaker 1: was the wave of the future, and that he personally
Speaker 1: would be exalted in stature by his picking this kind
Speaker 1: of right horse. As thoroughly notes, he looked upon history
Speaker 1: as God. He looked upon the eyes of future people
Speaker 1: as some kind of tribunal and he wanted to be
Speaker 1: on the winning side, so that ten thousand years from
Speaker 1: now people would look in the history books and say, well,
Speaker 1: this man was ahead of his time. He wanted to
Speaker 1: be looked back upon with honor by future generations. It was,
Speaker 1: I think a substitute in his case for traditional religion.
Speaker 1: This is such fucking nonsense. I hope you people all
Speaker 1: can recognize that. Moreover, quote in his eyes, in his
Speaker 1: own eyes, he was two conflicting things. On one hand,
Speaker 1: and perhaps most deeply, while certainly not most obviously, he
Speaker 1: was Oswald the Oppressed. On the other hand, he was
Speaker 1: Oswald the Great, the future liberator of the entire human race.
Speaker 1: Considering how atheistic Oswald was, by his own statements supposed
Speaker 1: to be, this high degree of religiosity and grandiosity that
Speaker 1: he actually felt in practice is indeed remarkable. It should
Speaker 1: come as no surprise, therefore, when we discover that on
Speaker 1: the day of Kennedy's assassination, Oswald took with him only
Speaker 1: thirteen dollars and eighty seven cents and left behind one
Speaker 1: hundred and seventy which might have well helped them escape
Speaker 1: to Cuba or elsewhere. Like so many other assassins, as
Speaker 1: plans for escape were either magically non existent or totally unrealistic.
Speaker 1: Like that's completely irrelevant. All this is irrelevant. Remember if
Speaker 1: the guy's not there at the book depository and a
Speaker 1: guy didn't do it, everything they say about him being
Speaker 1: there and his motives are all fucking junk. Extreme moralism
Speaker 1: and hostility. Although assassins are palpably immoral since they commit
Speaker 1: the one act murder, which is almost universally condemned among
Speaker 1: the various peoples of the world, they invariably seem to
Speaker 1: be unusually moralistic or blaming. They not only condemned the
Speaker 1: basic ideologies of their politico economic opponents, but they severely
Speaker 1: castigate these opponents themselves for having such ideas. This excoriation
Speaker 1: of an individual for espousing certain creeds is, of course
Speaker 1: an act of extreme bigotry, and has little connection with
Speaker 1: our normal opposition to philosophies, which we think are mistaken
Speaker 1: for granting that a man, such as the head of
Speaker 1: a political party, is wrong about holding certain views, as
Speaker 1: of course his opponents always think he is. He has
Speaker 1: inalienable right to be wrong. To be human is to
Speaker 1: err and unless each of us is given the inaliable
Speaker 1: right to be errant and not only personally denigrated or
Speaker 1: cruelly punished for so being, the freedom to think for
Speaker 1: one's self becomes a mockery and errant Bigotry and obscurantism
Speaker 1: quickly becomes quickly begins to prevail. The political assassin is
Speaker 1: essentially unable to see this to distinguish clearly between a
Speaker 1: person's being wrong and is being blamed, punished, and devalued
Speaker 1: as a human for his mistakes. The assassin dogmatically and
Speaker 1: authoritatively wants to blame, demand that his own views be
Speaker 1: considered absolutely right and everyone else is utterly fallacious. Insists
Speaker 1: on making himself the final arbiter of human destiny, while
Speaker 1: placing all those who dissent from him on an infinitely
Speaker 1: lower to humanized and preferably non existent level. That Oswald
Speaker 1: was from his childhood to his death an unusually moralistic
Speaker 1: and hostile individual, seems to be well attested by the
Speaker 1: facts of his existence. Several times during his early years,
Speaker 1: he got into trouble with school and other authorities in
Speaker 1: full decade before he was accused of murdering Kennedy, who
Speaker 1: was suspected of being psychopathic, and a psychiatrist by who
Speaker 1: examined him. Thornley himself doubts that Oswald was truly potentially
Speaker 1: dangerous in his youth and at the time he knew
Speaker 1: him in the Marine Corps, but he also gives several
Speaker 1: indications of Oswald's hostility at the time. Thus, in response
Speaker 1: to Albert Jenners questioning him when he appeared before the
Speaker 1: Warrant Commission, Thornly admits that Oswald had gotten into difficulty
Speaker 1: with a staff sergeant and had poured beer on the
Speaker 1: person on the person of a staff sergeant and gotten
Speaker 1: into some kind of altercation. As a result of that,
Speaker 1: he was court martialed and had been subjected to the
Speaker 1: loss of clearance. Again. According to Thornley, he seemed to
Speaker 1: be a person who would go out of his way
Speaker 1: to get into trouble, get some officer or staff sergeant
Speaker 1: mad at him. He would make wise remarks. He had
Speaker 1: a general bitter attitude towards the corps. He used to
Speaker 1: pull his hat down over his eyes so he wouldn't
Speaker 1: have to look at anything around him and go walking
Speaker 1: around the very very beatled Bailey style. In regards to
Speaker 1: Oswald's relationships camaraderie with others in his Marine Corps unit,
Speaker 1: Thornley tells us that these were almost nil. He got
Speaker 1: along with very few people. As an example of Oswald's bellicosity,
Speaker 1: Thornley noted that on one occasion, when he finally remarked
Speaker 1: to Oswald that he when it comes to revolution, you'll
Speaker 1: change all that, meaning that Oswald's views of military organizations
Speaker 1: would be revolutionists, screamed at him and he never said
Speaker 1: anything to me. Again. That's not how the that's not
Speaker 1: how the conversation went down at all, not even remotely close.
Speaker 1: I got three or four witnesses who were witnessed, including Delgado.
Speaker 1: Uh I think Richard call maybe, and then they're all
Speaker 1: like no, it was because Thornley made a joke about
Speaker 1: Oswald being a communist, and then Oswald said you too, Thornley,
Speaker 1: and then that was it. That's the statements from everyone,
Speaker 1: but here he says some other bullshit. It God, professional liars, Jesus,
Speaker 1: they drive me grays a quite typically then Oswald exhibited
Speaker 1: lifetime patterns of surliness and unfriendliness, and it is perhaps
Speaker 1: noteworthy that at the time Kennedy was shot, he was
Speaker 1: also at serious oz with his wife and appeared to
Speaker 1: have no close friends. This does not mean, of course,
Speaker 1: that every negative hostile person is likely to become a murderer.
Speaker 1: Potentially yes, but in all likelihood know of those individuals, however,
Speaker 1: who do kill, and who particularly kill in the senseless
Speaker 1: fashion that President Kennedy was assassinated. A long time history
Speaker 1: of extreme resentment against others will frequently be found severe
Speaker 1: anxiety because he absolutely cannot tolerate the dissenting views of others,
Speaker 1: and because he consciously or unconsciously feels himself to be
Speaker 1: impotent and unable to cope with a world of probability
Speaker 1: or chance, where it is inevitable that opposing views to
Speaker 1: his will be heard and will often prevail. The political
Speaker 1: assassin is fundamentally an exceptionally anxious person. His grandiosity therefore
Speaker 1: is to some degree the other side of the coin
Speaker 1: of his underlying feelings of weakness, and is partially a
Speaker 1: defense against these feelings. Because he is terribly afraid that
Speaker 1: others will spot his inadequacies and therefore take advantage of him.
Speaker 1: He paranoiically projects onto them his own poor picture of himself,
Speaker 1: begins to imagine that they are plotting and scheming against him,
Speaker 1: and feels impelled to kill them before they actually do
Speaker 1: him injury. From the picture just painted, it can be
Speaker 1: seen that the political assassin tends to be a paranoid schizophrenic,
Speaker 1: and when he is not precisely in that category, nonetheless
Speaker 1: is an exceptionally disturbed individual who has little capacity to
Speaker 1: think straight about himself and others, and who usually has
Speaker 1: led a highly disordered and like as not rebellious and
Speaker 1: antisocial life since early childhood. Typically, for example, we find
Speaker 1: that Lee Harvey Oswald was a loner, was resentful of discipline,
Speaker 1: was bored and restless in school, shirked his studies although
Speaker 1: he was well above average intelligence, felt that he and
Speaker 1: his family were persecuted by society. Was fanatically devoted to Communism,
Speaker 1: but still unable to be accepted by the Russians when
Speaker 1: he decided to give up his United States citizenship. Was
Speaker 1: quite distressed about losing his hair, which he typically attributed
Speaker 1: to the cold Russian winters. Was unable to hold some
Speaker 1: jobs because of incompetence in performing work that should have
Speaker 1: been easily grasped by him, acted so suspiciously that that
Speaker 1: causes that he wanted to work for, refuse to have
Speaker 1: any connection with him, and generally behaved in a withdrawn,
Speaker 1: rebellious in their responsible manner. More concretely, we have the
Speaker 1: first hand evidence of Thornley, who replies to mister Jenner's question,
Speaker 1: do you think he was emotionally unstable with an unequivocal
Speaker 1: I think so, that Jenner continues, is an opinion you
Speaker 1: gathered from your association with him in the Marines, and
Speaker 1: Thornley again without cavill, Yes, where the fuck uses the
Speaker 1: word cavill in that manner? Jesus Christ, I hate PhDs.
Speaker 1: When Jenner asked Thornley to what do you attribute this
Speaker 1: inability of is to maintain reasonably cordial or at least
Speaker 1: service family relations with his fellow Americans, the latter's reply
Speaker 1: as well. At the time, I just thought, well, the
Speaker 1: man's a nut. I just thought something's wrong with him.
Speaker 1: Maybe something is bugging him today, maybe he's crazy. I
Speaker 1: don't know what. Later I did reflect on it, and
Speaker 1: that combined with his general habits in relation to his
Speaker 1: superiors and to other men in the outfit, caused me
Speaker 1: to decide that he had a definite tendency toward irrationality
Speaker 1: at times and emotional instability. From all this data, we
Speaker 1: now have an Oswald, including the material in the Warren
Speaker 1: Commission's report that which was independently unearthed by various newspapers
Speaker 1: and magazine sources, and Thornley's detailed experiences with Oswald that
Speaker 1: are exposited in this book, it would appear that although
Speaker 1: he was never hospitalized for mental illness and might possibly
Speaker 1: never have had he never have been had he lived
Speaker 1: to a ripe old age, there is little question that
Speaker 1: he was at least a borderline schizophrank oh my god,
Speaker 1: and that he was seriously aberraated from his early childhood onward.
Speaker 1: If he was a borderline schizophrenic, they would have caught
Speaker 1: it when he was in the Marines. Jesus Christ. All right, Well,
Speaker 1: that was a long ass introduction, and so we're just
Speaker 1: now getting to chapter one. Let me see what page
Speaker 1: won on page thirteen. So well, guys, I know, we
Speaker 1: just read the introduction, but we're already forty minutes in,
Speaker 1: so I'm not gonna get started on the next chapter.
Speaker 1: What we'll do is I will pick up here tomorrow
Speaker 1: and we'll see how many of these chapters we can
Speaker 1: knock out. So that's gonna do it for me today, guys,
Speaker 1: Tomorrow we'll have another episode of Corey Hues, Bloody History,
Speaker 1: World War Two. We'll be continuing on with Lothrop Stoddards
Speaker 1: into the Darkness. If you're not a subscriber over at Substack,
Speaker 1: please subscribe over there. Got two hundred plus episodes all
Speaker 1: on World War Two in the Holocaust. You guys would
Speaker 1: love it. And anybody who buys a year for fifty
Speaker 1: bucks gets a free signed book. I mean, it's a
Speaker 1: great deal. So that's gonna do it for me. Guys.
Speaker 1: I will be back tomorrow and I'll see you then.