Contents 03



v 2.0.9


Dear Jennifer,

I posted this comment at this morning:

Americans need to examine what they think is the mission of the United States in the world. If they look, they will find embedded in the culture since 1776 the notion that America's historic mission is to liberate people from tyrannies — by force of arms. Their sacrifice has made the world less peaceful, not more peaceful and themselves less safe, not more safe, less free, not more free. The sacrifice Americans have made has provided warmongers and profiteers with a blank cheque to indulge Napoleonic megalomania. The sacrifice in blood and treasure that Americans have made — however great — is puny compared to what this has cost and is still costing everyone else. The time is long past due for this to stop. Empire is no way to improve the world. Criminal war is beneath Americans and what America means.

I wonder what the "patriots" will say?

- Morley, December 2, 2005

P.S.: The British Empire today.




RE: Buck Up, You Lefties!

Mr. Raimondo,

There is even more reason to be optimistic. Let's not forget the Iraqis. They are on the front line against the Empire and are currently suffering under its lash. Throughout the War in Viet Nam, the Empire had to worry about the army of North Viet Nam, which was a mighty force, the Soviet Union which was a superpower and supported the Hanoi regime, the Chinese who might enter the war as they did in Korea, dense jungle and mountains to hide the enemy and thwart heavy armour and air power, a commie-pinko fifth column at home stabbing the Empire in the back, and the propaganda machine which had turned against the Empire. The Empire lost. It cut and ran. But today none of those things is true. The Iraqis have no army, no mountains, no jungle, no superpower backing, no fifth column. The Empire has total control of the propaganda machine. Yet the Empire is losing now and it will lose in the end. Even if imperial storm troopers kill every Iraqi, the Empire will lose. They will lose especially badly if they kill every Iraqi. So the chimp Emperor can swagger and gloat today over his "mandate" (which he probably stole) but he can't change a thing. He is a loser, and he always was a loser. And a wimp and a chimp.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

•George W. Bush, August 5, 2004

- Morley Evans, November 4, 2004

P.S.: Bush and chimp




Mr. Nowicki,

Today, November 2, 2004, Americans go to the polls to fight yet another Civil War — a major battle is fought every four years. They won't use bullets and bombs. (They use those on other people, these days.) Americans will use ballots. But Americans are engaged in a war, nevertheless. It is a war fought 365 days a year, twenty-four-seven. And now, election day itself is expanding beyond the day designated for the battle royale, with people lined up for hours to vote in advance polls, days before. The war now spills over the borders of the United States itself, as absentee voters cast their ballots. Tens of thousands will be involved today to "get out the vote" and to see that votes are cast according to the rules. But amazingly enough, and despite all this effort, few Americans are aware that, whoever wins, the President and Congress are unlikely to represent them. Unless they have Paid to Play , like Lockheed Martin, Haliburton, and the all-powerful Zionist lobby. At best, any ordinary American will receive for his vote only a facsimile, a cartoon, that represents his or her interests. This is worse than a waste of time and treasure. War is futile. War is a tragedy. Only those whose business is War, profit from War. These are not mere slogans. These are Truth. Let's call the whole thing off. Please let's do secede. Let us withdraw. Let them go their way, we'll go ours. I'm glad I am not an American on this day of their democracy. God help them. God help us.

- Morley Evans, 2 November 2004




Dear Jennifer,

Though you may not be a baseball fan, I'm sure you have heard that the Boston Red Sox broke the "Curse of the Bambino" last night in St. Louis. You may have watched the series live on Fox TV. For my money the United States is well represented by baseball. Although bench clearing brawls do break out periodically, these are generally speaking mere ritualistic affairs. Importantly, the fans by and large are distinguished by not being angry. Baseball fans are happy people: even when old curses are being broken and new ones are being cast. Take a look around next time you go to a football game, or a hockey game. You will see anger, sometimes you will see hate. I was genuinely happy the Red Sox won — not that I have anything against the St. Louis Cardinals, or the New York Yankees. They are fine people too. The movie makers got it right in "Field of Dreams". Baseball is America. The stuff we see going on today is not. Americans should stick to what they do best and leave evil-doing to someone else. Don't go shopping. Go to a ball game.

Love to you,
- Morley 27, October 2004




Can we agree on something, you ask? You bet we can.

I agree that 1,000 U.S. servicemen and women have died in vain, so far, along with tens of thousands of Iraqis — plus countless more who have been maimed for life. They died to destroy Iraq. They died to make the world far less safe that it was before. They died to turn me — one of the biggest cheerleaders the United States had — into one of its strident critics. They died to confirm the opinion of six billion people that the United States is a menace to be feared. They died to restart the arms race as the weak seek nukes as their only defence against this monster. They did not die for any good purpose. They died in vain and the people responsible should pay with their heads.

Why did the United States invade Iraq? To secure the Zionist state and advance its hegemony in the region? To secure oil supplies for the U.S.? To further advance the American Empire? To provide a raison d'être for the military-industrial complex? To further plunder the U.S. taxpayer? To secure the re-election of George W. Bush by securing the support of Christian Zionists, warmongers like Zell Miller, and frightened sheeples who vote for someone who promises to protect them? To increase the domestic power, scope, and reach of the U.S. government? For Haliburton and Big Oil? For all of the above? AND MORE?

My only disagreement with Ivan Eland is that he seems to think that if a reason to go to war doesn't make any sense, then it could not have been the reason. Oh? Is that because the neo-cons, like Wolfowitz, are as smart as advertised? Let's try a different assumption: they are not as smart as advertised. In fact, we should assume they are stupid and that they have no business messing around with the devices of power. Their toys should be taken away from them and they should be sent to their room without supper. They should start sleeping on the cold, hard, wet, ground in the open air cages they built for others at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo. There, as convicts, they could contemplate the chopping block, while it rains on their brainless little heads. Nighty, night, Donald. Stop whining, Dick ...

Furthermore, I agree that the outrage in Iraq (and Palestine) provides the best chance libertarians have ever had to SMASH THE STATE!

- Morley - 15 September 2004





Here is a table showing the medal standings of each country in the Olympics just ended:

Athens 2004 Olympic Medal Standings

I watched the coverage provided by Bob Costas on NBC as well as the coverage on the CBC. Bias? Well sure, NBC highlighted the American athletes, and the CBC highlighted the Canadian athletes. That’s not surprising. Both networks HEADLINED the Chinese and Australians doing extremely well, over and over. All week, the leader boards showed the U.S.A., China, Australia, at the top. And where were those Russians? I suppose that now that they are no longer evil (and can’t cheat) they have slinked away into ignominy. In one of the few times I saw any Russians (Did they not even send a team, I wondered?), I remember a long close-up of a Russian girl with tears running down her face after her volleyball team lost to China. Those poor Russians. It was heart wrenching. But wait! What's this? Oh, it's the media. Those -deleted expletives- !! The Russians only disappeared on TV! Here is what really happened: the Russians came in second (91 medals); they didn’t disappear at all. And if you add in Belarus and Ukraine, which were part of the Evil Empire, they got 129 medals. If you were to include Kazakhstan, you could add another 5 medals. The U.S.A. didn't win everything (103) after all. But “journalists” — part of the real Evil Empire — made it look as if they did!! What about Gold? That’s what really matters, isn’t it? Russia 27; Former Evil Empire 40; U.S.A. 35; China 32; Australia 17... The lying whores!

- Morley Evans: 29 August 2004


P.S.: NBC managed to insert an hour between the last event and the closing ceremony to remind viewers that the Nazis were the worst people in history and that the United States had saved Greece from them. NBC also featured a Russian athlete who has moved to the United States. She told viewers, in Russian with a voice-over, that she was glad to be free.




Mr. Strakon,

NORAD? Ah, yes, NORAD. As far as I know, the radar bases located in the far north were staffed by Canadians, but I would have to look into that. In any case, they were all shut down years ago, and replaced, I suppose, with spy satellites: “In your face, from outer space!” The Canadian armed forces have been dwindling away since the World War II extravaganza. They were “starved by socialists” who spent the cash to subvert the country with welfare and similar nefarious schemes. One rarely sees any evidence of any military of any sort in Canada. The media rarely report on Canadian “peace keepers” who have been stationed hither and yon for fifty years by those same socialists who refused to buy bullets for Canadian soldiers to load into their 1914 Mk I Lee-Enfield rifles. But surely things were the same south of the border, were they not?

We know from history and From Here to Eternity that the United States disarmed after World War I. After all, those battleships of the Pacific fleet that were destroyed at Pearl Harbour were obsolete. And we know from history and from Sergeant York that the United States had only reluctantly entered The Great War. (If you can’t trust Burt Lancaster and Gary Cooper, then, who can you trust?) We know from history and from all those obsolete airplanes in the California desert that the United States disarmed after WW II. We can see disarmament in the federal budgets of the United States: I’ve looked at them myself. General Douglas MacArthur had a tough time in Korea until his forces were rearmed to meet the new Communist threat which was packing heat from the Soviet Union. And we know the United States was in the process of disarming after the Cold War. Mike Wallace and others told us so on 60 Minutes. We know it was true because the United States was defenceless on September 11, 2001. George W. Bush had just finished telling us, “I’m a lover, not a fighter.” It was on TV.

NORAD, which had kept Canada and the United States safe throughout the Cold War, had failed to detect the highjackings of four airliners by the heretofore undetected Al Qaeda. The U.S.A.F. had no way to respond. We know how short-handed the United States was when pilots from Germany and Britain had to be seconded during the crisis to help the short-handed folks at NORAD continue patrolling the skys to keep us safe. Deep in the bowels of Cheyenne Mountain, the nerve centre of NORAD and the Strategic Air Command (SAC), they could but wring their hands and watch the Big Board — helpless today, but steeled to fight another day. The perennial underdog, goodness, would prevail nevertheless.

Did I believe that crap? Was it not true?

- Morley Evans: 27 August 2004

P.S.: With all that disarmament, from where did this come?




Dear Suzanne,

I would like to confess that Rip van Winkle had nothing on me. Maybe I'll win an award, or something. A few weeks ago, I jotted down a few thoughts about my favourite uncle, Sam. Meanwhile, others have been waking up to the "emerging" American empire. Emerging? Emerging??

Returning to me, some Canadians must in fact be the stupidest people on the planet, actually leading their American cousins by a wide margin. And beating out the Americans at the Olympic Games of Stupidity is no small achievement. But as someone with “accurate solutions to complex problems” I do have an explanation: Canada is the only place on the planet that does not have even one U.S. military base! Americans know they have a military; they have lots of bases all over the place. Canada doesn't have one U.S. base, at least I don't know of one. Maybe I'm about to be surprised again! Compared to this, it looks as if the U.S.S.R. was the underdog all along:

Embarrassed again,
- Morley Evans: August 26, 2004

P.S.: “It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.”

- General Douglas MacArthur




Mr. Rockwell,

I, for one, agree with you whole-heartedly. It is time to rethink the United State, as some are fond of calling it. Here are thoughts I sent to them this morning, slightly edited after further thought this afternoon:

Reagan Funeral?

Now, I liked the Gipper and I bought into his Presidency, at the time. Today, I have acquired a higher opinion than I once held of the peanut man who preceded the great communicator. Here in the land up north, cable TV and CNN means one cannot escape the spectacle of the American Empire (and its non-stop electioneering). When family members are caught up in parades, sombre music, snappy uniforms and the rituals of death, one gets more than enough. The funeral of Ronald Reagan may have actually surpassed the extravaganza put together by enthusiasts for the British Empire who commemorated with their own parade and celebration Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in 1897. (It was more for their benefit than hers, you know, just as this was more for the benefit of the current President than for the one who passed away.)

People do need something to believe in: Women wept when Uncle Joe died; thousands lined up for decades every morning to see the figure — whatever it is — lying in Lenin's tomb. (I did that myself one chilly October morning in 1970 to see for myself what it was all about). People immediately turned Diana, the Princess of Wales, after she died into something she never was when she lived. Some Americans yearn for royalty and some Americans yearn to give it to them. I like Queen Elizabeth, myself: she has good manners; she seems genuinely concerned about the wellbeing of her subjects; she doesn't pester anyone; she passes no laws; and she levies no taxes. She makes no war. The Queen is worth every penny Canadians don't have to pay for her keep. Zero! What a bargain! It's those other people, those power grubbing politicians in parliaments everywhere, who actually do those hateful things. I have a great deal of trouble with them.

The Queen is good to the extent that she has no power. God save the Queen. The Queen has no power because the rabble has it, that's us!(Actually, it's a few plutocrats who claim they represent the rabble. So nothing has changed in thousands of years.) They abuse the power they have seized every bit as much as any despot. Yertle the Turtle sums up the problem and the solution: the ruled must withdraw their consent. The people fighting for freedom today — our freedom — are the Iraqis. We should thank them for their sacrifice.

- Morley Evans: Sunday 13 June 2004


Mr. Solomon,

The 50th Anniversary Edition of Alfred M. Lilienthal's ground-breaking What Price Israel? is now available. This is my review:

Plunged once more into dangerous waters are we. The ominous warning — What Price Israel? — penned fifty years ago by Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal rings clearer and louder with each passing day. Read the news. The insanity that gripped mankind throughout the twentieth century haunts us still: It is as if the Nazis had won.

Hitler didn't win, but his partners in race relations, the Zionists, have, today, come very close! Will they win? It's up to you.

Identifying Zionism as a doomsday cult of racist paranoiacs, it is no wonder What Price Israel? was — along with Lilienthal himself — quietly buried alive with the truth all these years. Fifty years ago the signs were clear enough, but nobody was listening and Zionists adroitly connived their way past "world opinion" and around people who then had real power, Jew and Gentile alike. They could not be stopped. Opponents were silenced, intimidated, and assassinated! As today.

I was unaware of these issues until very recently. I had easily accepted the standard Zionist line we have all been fed for fifty years. "Why won't those stupid A-rabs make peace?" I wondered when I watched the TV News. Yet in spite of all, eventually the truth began to leak out through cracks in our propaganda wall. One night in October 2000, I watched Ariel Sharon swagger through Al-Harim Al-Sharif (the "Temple Mount") accompanied by 1500 armed Israeli bullyboys, er, policemen. Sharon was spoiling for a fight, that was clear. I began to watch the news from then on with a different eye. Not long after that, I watched Sharon's army invade The West Bank. I was stunned. I gasped, "These people don't want peace; they want war!" I researched the Middle East at the library and on the Internet. After deciding who the good guys really are (overcoming fifty years of brain washing was not easy), I believed the new U.S. President, George W. Bush, would surely bring some justice to the Middle East after all these years. I would have voted for Bush myself. He was a compassionate conservative, he had told everyone, who "would leave no child behind." Remember? Alas, Bush and his crew had lied themselves into office in November 2000. Then one evening, I watched in horror as Sharon and Bush climbed into bed with each other, right there on the TV News! Talk about pornography, and during prime time when children were watching! I was disgusted! I stopped watching TV News that night.

Brrr . . .

I discovered Dr. Lilienthal in an obsure place, not in a palace of learning. "Who is this guy and what could be wrong with him that he should be here?" I wondered. I began to read his books and the materials on his website. Dr. Lilienthal was either not in the libraries I checked, or his works were categorized as "controversial literature" where he could be found. On the Internet, booksellers listed him as being "out of print". I never saw Dr. Lilienthal on "Larry King Live" or on "60 Minutes" either.

I read what I could find.

Israel? I wonder now what other things we know nothing about. Do you realize people outside Anglo North America think we are terribly ignorant here? They may be right. Happily, the 50th Anniversary Edition of What Price Israel? is now available. It came almost in time for Dr. Lilienthal's 90th birthday, which was Christmas Day! With this wonderful book he has given us all a present. Buy a copy and open your eyes, and your heart! You can save the world. Do it.

Please invite your viewers to take a look at Dr. Lilienthal's book. You can save the world.

- Morley Evans, 20 April 2004

What Price Israel?


Rev. Blair,

In these troubled times some of us remember how things used to be in Mayberry, NC. Below is something I wrote to a friend this morning and I thought of you:

Yes we do have the sheriff in Canada, although he plays a much smaller role in our criminal justice system than, say, Sherman Block did for decades as the Sheriff of The County of Los Angeles. You would need to ask a lawyer what a sheriff does in Canada. Is your sister not a lawyer? Ask her when you see her next week. You are correct: Mayberry didn't have much prostitution, crack cocaine addiction, assault and battery, murder, or many lawsuits. And Andy Griffith was the sheriff. He wasn't involved in too many "fire fights" as I recall. Does violence create violence? The police force of London (by far the world's largest city at the time) was reorganized by Sir Robert Peel in 1829. "Peelers" also known as "Bobbies" were famous for being unarmed. Today's paramilitary police are modelled on the S.W.A.T. squads (Special Weapons and Tactics) of Darrel Gates who was the City of Los Angeles Chief of Police. We must ask, how useful is violence in creating a civil society? Not very: Take a look at Iraq. In Mayberry only deputy Barney Fife ever took his pistol from its holster, and I don't think he ever shot anyone. Was Mayberry peaceful because the police were peaceful, or were the police peaceful because Mayberry was peaceful? This question was answered two thousand years ago by the man whose crucifixion and resurrection Christians celebrate at Easter. It was His central point, it seems to me. Happy Easter!

- Morley, 9 April 2004 Good Friday


Mr. Strakon

As a privileged member of the Democratic Party now, I get all their daily propaganda. This is amazing since I'm not even a U.S. citizen and don't even live there. That's democracy and why they are the Democratic Party! Of course the Republican Party is just as democratic. If I were to send a nice letter to little George, they would also send me their propaganda. They would even propagandize Mullah Omar if he were to drop them a line. Ah, democracy . . . And freedom isn't free, as they are fond of reminding us. We have to pay them to make us free. Below you will see just how free people want to be. Just imagine, over 50 million U.S. greenback dollars [raised by the Democratic Party]! Of course I couldn't help them out, having already sent my 25 bucks to you. Don't forget to use my cash for good purposes. Hit 'em where it hurts!!

Keep up the good work. Freedom isn't free! Just ask 'em in Iraq.

- Morley Evans, April 1, 2004


RE: The Question We Should Be Asking

Mr. Raspberry,

Yep, you got it: the United States and its "coalition" should just leave Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, and Europe, and Britain, and Japan, and central Asia, and South America, and all the other places where it has stationed its military. JUST GO HOME. Thank you. Goodbye.

Remember that wonderful time honoured phrase from the fifties? "Yankee Go Home!"

The Question We Should Be Asking is why this isn't going to happen if little George is re-elected, or if John Kerry is elected. Why? Because the military industrial complex (greatly enlarged since the 1950s) would simply have to find something else to do. The so-called religious right would have to give up its heresy. The so-called state of "Israel" would have to get along without its multi-billion dollar subsidies. Zionists would have to give up their own heresy and join the human race.

Oh, but you say they like things just they way they are? Well, I guess that answers the question. We have war because these guys like war. It's their business. Forget about Osama and murky plots. They are not the reason for any of this. They are the excuse for it.

I'd vote for Al Sharpton, or Oprah, myself.

In liberty and peace,
- Morley Evans, 30 March 2004


RE: Pentagon event, 11 September 2001

Why not place a shaped charge on the inside of the outer wall? The blast could be aimed toward the interior of the building in any direction desired. A very small amount of the blast would blow a hole in the outer wall. This would be supposed to have been the point of entry of a projectile. Since the area where the explosion occured was being renovated, workmen would come and go without raising any suspicion in ordinary Pentagon staff and security. Items could have been scattered about that would imply an aircraft strike had caused the explosion. The charge could have been detonated remotely by the Honourable Donald Rumsfeld himself. No fancy flying, no high tech gizmos, no rush, no problem. Initially a truck bomb was reported, then it became a Boeing 757 of which the name of the suicide pilot was released. How could anyone know that? We are under attack. By whom?

- Morley Evans, 21 March 2004


RE: The Meaning of Madrid

Mr. Raimondo,

The meaning of Madrid is quite clear: When something blows up, all parties can blame their favourite bogeyman. No evidence is actually required although something can be "discovered" — or made up — later. Minutes after the explosions in Madrid we were told it was Basque separatists; then the Spanish conservatives blamed the Spanish socialists after the conservatives lost the election they were sure to win before the explosions. The other day my own favourite bogeyman, Dick Cheney (what a dick!), emerged from his undisclosed secure location (Is that like a "spider hole," Dick?) to tell us all that Al Qaeda did it to punish Spain for its participation in the "U.S. led coalition" which is bringing democracy and freedom to the suffering Iraqi people. So you see, everyone can make up his own reality. Bin Laudin could have taken credit, if there actually was such a person. You say he did take credit? Really? It's an easy game. Anyone can play. Is this a movement spreading democracy? All you have to do is plant a few bombs, blow up some people, and blame it on anyone you like. The explosion is the only reality. Everything else can be made up out of whole cloth. And of course "the people" need the "protection" of people like Dick. That is the whole point and the real meaning of Madrid. It has no other meaning.

Have a nice day.

- Morley Evans, March 18, 2004


Solomon, please take another look:

"Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."

It doesn't say anything about buffoons, yokels, fear-mongers, racist paranoiacs, arms manufacturers and dealers or the booboise inheriting the earth.

While you are at it, carefully read this:

Have a nice day.

Posted by: Morley Evans at March 9, 2004 05:59 PM


We have a right to expect elected people to be accomplished liars, at least. Don't we? Is that asking too much? Are my expectations too high? How stupid do they think we are?

- Morley Evans, February 19, 2004


Stop and think:

Does anyone still believe there is a bin Laden? Maybe there never was a bin Laden. Could it have all been a pack of lies right from the start? We could go back farther than 1991 -- we could go back, waay back -- but 1991 will do for current purposes. Who has benefitted from the events known today as "9/11"? Bin Laden? Saddam? Mullah Omar? Arafat? Who was out of business when the USSR evaporated? Who is being grotesquely enriched by the war on terror? Should we fear the flying wing stealth bomber from Northrop Grumman, or the shoe bomber? Who spies on everyone? Who forces innocent people to pay for their adventures through their "voluntary" tax system? The Saudis? Quadaffi? Who is the puffed up snot nose who lives in the imperial palace? It can't be Saddam, he doesn't live in a palace anymore.

One could get upset . . .

- Morley Evans, December 18, 2003


Captured? Saddam?

Well, I know I'll be sleeping better this Christmas, safe and sound in my own warm bed. Sure, it took over two years and billions of dollars with lots of death and destruction -- including 9/11 -- but Marshal Dubya and the posse have now made the world safe for democracy. I bet you folks in the ditch will be sleeping better too, now that the Iraqis can enjoy their freedom and start up their own Rotary clubs, instead of attacking America. But, do you think they really have Saddam? Could it be one of Saddam's many doubles? Dubya could be faced with a situation just like "Diamonds are Forever" when 007 couldn't tell one Blofeld from the other Blofeld. But maybe it doesn't matter, as long as voters think they have Saddam in the hoosegow, they will think their money was well spent and that they are safe . . . That is what really matters, isn't it? As long as voters keep sleeping, things will be okay, right?

Whew, sure glad that's over,

- Morley Evans, December 15, 2003