From the article....
In a 2013 essay he titled, ?My Experience with Lee Harvey Oswald,? [Michael] Paine recalled that Oswald once declared emphatically that ?change only comes through violence.?
Paine is interesting for me in that he's one of a handful of people - indeed, he might be the only person - who can give us some insight into what Oswald was thinking those last two months.
After his rejection by the Cubans in Mexico City, Oswald's outlook on life must have been extremely pessimistic, almost desperate. He didn't want to return to the USSR, Havana was apparently not an option anymore, and his life in the US was at a dead end. He's working a worthless job filling book orders for $1.25 an hour; what future is there in that? He was going to be, Marina says he told her, a famous figure. Filling books orders?
In Paine's testimony to the WC he said something similar about Oswald's political views. That is that Oswald rejected the idea of gradual or evolutionary change in the American economic system. Of course, if Oswald was indeed a Marxist (as he understood the term) then he'd have to believe in revolutionary change.
Senator COOPER: You said earlier in response to a question by counsel that he did not believe there was any possibility of any evolutionary progress in this country, at least upon this issue of economic change.
Mr. PAINE - This he never said that specifically. But I would ask him what policy should we take or I was trying to find if he didn't have some avenue of following a policy in this country.
Senator COOPER - Did you direct questions to him which showed some evolution in our own economic ideas and theories which he either refused to accept.
Mr. PAINE - Yes; I did. I mean I tried to show him how labor and management, first labor had a right, I was criticizing labor for the rigid position it is getting us into now.
Senator COOPER - He would not accept that idea of evolution?
Mr. PAINE -
I think he did not accept it; yes. He didn't have patience with it.I've gone back and forth as to whether his assassination of JFK was a political act intended to change history and redirect it (somehow) or a sort of nihilistic act, changing history just for the sake of it. The KGB officer Oleg Nechiporenko argued that Oswald was essentially killing himself when he killed JFK. Maybe.
Of course
the conspiracy crowd some among the CTers would say that all of this about Oswald's views is just disinformation by "they." He was really a US intelligence officer. What? So was Nechiporenko? And Abt?
Okay.
