We could talk about the recent revelations that the United Nations Special Commission's weapons inspection teams in Iraq were, in fact, being used for espionage purposes and were funneling information to Israel and the United States which had nothing to do with the search for weapons of mass destruction and everything to do with the attempt by Clinton and his controllers in Israel to undermine Saddam Hussein's government. When Saddam Hussein complained that the weapons inspectors were engaged in spying before he threw them out of Iraq last year, all of the controlled media laughed at him and dismissed his charges. After weapons inspector Scott Ritter, a former member of the United Nations team in Iraq, admitted recently that, yes, his weapons inspection team had been secretly passing information gathered in Iraq to the government of Israel, the plot began coming unraveled. But it looks like all that'll change as a result of this exposure of the corruption of the United Nations by Israel and the United States is that the very oily head of the Special Commission, Richard Butler, will lose his job, and it will go to some other oily crook in the pay of Israel and the United States. But you know, just like the case of bribing the International Olympic Committee, I can't get very excited about any revelation of hypocrisy or crookedness in the United Nations. It's what I have come to expect of that crew.

Unfortunately, it's what I've come to expect of everyone in public office these days. I am especially conscious of that expectation as I watch the U.S. Senate proceeding with the trial of Bill Clinton. What a bunch of nervous nellies these senators are, all scared half to death by Clinton's popularity polls! Some of them clearly are hoping to grab a few minutes of the spotlight during this historic process and then to capitalize on the exposure in the next election, but they're still afraid to stick their necks out very far, because of those polls. Others are wheeling and dealing behind the scenes, trading their agreement on various details of the conduct of the trial for promises of future advantages: advantages for themselves, that is, not for America -- no, certainly not for America, judging from the evident satisfaction in the Clinton camp with the way things are going.

Perhaps that sounds a little cynical, but I believe that it is only realistic these days. Corruption, lying, and hypocrisy are the fundaments of public life in America. The way to the top is not through personal integrity and patriotism and the ability to serve effectively; it is through a candidate's skill in charming voters and in lying without getting caught. And although Bill Clinton's extraordinary recklessness in lying has resulted in his present problems, he cannot be blamed for the general lack of integrity in public life today.

Bill Clinton is only one turd floating in the moral cesspool which our society has become. The fault is ours for bathing in this cesspool, for not minding the stink, for tolerating every sort of corruption so long as we can still charge whatever we want on our credit cards.

I was a guest on a syndicated radio talk show last week, and I was reminded once again of the extent to which morality in America has been changed, has been subverted, over the past 50 years or so. I was discussing multiculturalism with the host, a man named Mike Gallagher, and I pointed out that multiculturalism inevitably leads to alienation, to the loss of a sense of community responsibility, and eventually to the destruction of the society. The host, of course, resisted coming to this Politically Incorrect conclusion.

Then we began receiving calls from listeners. One of them was a man who gave a prissy, little lecture about how race isn't the problem today -- that is, multiculturalism isn't the problem -- it's bad behavior by some people in all races. Weed out the bad-behaving people in all races, and then we can all live together as happy consumers in a multicultural society, he said.

Gosh, I've heard that argument a lot from people who are scared to death of being called "racists," and so they resist thinking about any explanation for the breakdown of our society which involves race. Of course, we always had some bad-behaving people among us even when we had a White society. But at least we had a society, a community, a nation, with a commonly accepted system of values and standards. In the sort of multicultural chaos which the media and the government are promoting today, almost nothing is commonly accepted.

Another caller, a woman, inadvertently brought this out. She expressed the opinion that the best way to avoid conflict and violence in our society is for everyone to be "less judgmental." This is a code phrase for the moral relativists. The essence of moral relativism is that everybody's ideas, everybody's life-style, everybody's sexual orientation, is just as good as everyone else's. There are no absolute standards, no fixed values. Therefore, we should not judge other people whose standards or values at the moment are different from ours. We should not judge Bill Clinton. We should not judge homosexuals. And so on. And this relativistic way of looking at the world applies not only to behavior: it also applies to art, to music, to literature, and to everything else.

This do-your-own-thing ethic has been pushed hard by the controlled media since the 1960s, and it has had a profoundly destructive effect on our society. It's a soft, fuzzy, feminine sort of ethic which is easy to push to absurdity, but logic isn't a strong point for the moral relativists, and they don't let that discourage them. They just drift morally with it and feel quite comfortable. It's an ethic which relieves them and everyone else of responsibility. No guilt, no tension. It's like a drug. And it fits in perfectly with the push by the media and the government toward multiculturalism, toward more diversity.

For the non-judgmental crowd the society that exists in Haiti, for example, is not inherently inferior to our society. The Haitians, to be sure, have a different life-style, a different way of behaving, but that doesn't mean that our way is better, the non-judgmentalists will tell you. Oh, my goodness, no! Therefore, there's no moral or cultural or social reason why we should object to the presence of the growing number of Haitians in the United States -- or Jamaicans or Vietnamese or what have you.

You know, the moral relativists are right about one thing. Everything is judged relative to a set of standards. And in the bad, old days before multiculturalism became Politically Correct, the standards by which we judged everything were our standards: which is to say, they were White standards, they were European standards, they were the standards which evolved with our people over thousands of years, standards which developed and changed and adapted themselves to make us a more fit race and allowed us to survive and prosper and to become the masters of the whole world.

But, hey, that's racist, isn't it? I mean, how dare we assume that our values and our standards of behavior are superior to those of the Haitians or the Vietnamese? That's the message the multiculturalists, the diversity-mongers, the egalitarians, the non-judgmentalists, threw at us after the Second World War. It's an easy enough message to refute, of course. Our values and our standards are better -- for us. Fifty years ago we didn't care what values and standards the Haitians and Vietnamese had -- at least, most of us didn't care. The Christian missionaries and a few others felt that they had to meddle in the affairs of the Haitians and Vietnamese and get them to exchange their values, their politics, their religion, their life-style for ours. Which just goes to show that our values and standards aren't perfect; otherwise none of us would have felt the need to try to persuade the Haitians and the Vietnamese to change their ways. We would simply have kept them off our turf, out of our society, and not worried about their behavior or their art or their music or whatever.

But, as I said, that's a racist attitude. And so while the Christian missionaries were meddling with the morals of the Haitians and the Vietnamese, the media bosses in America -- which is to say, the Jewish missionaries -- were meddling with our morals, using television to persuade us that racism is wrong and that, therefore, it is wrong for us to assume that our traditional, European values and standards are the best values and standards -- even for us. They used soap operas and comedy shows to persuade us not to be judgmental, to persuade us that our homogeneous, White society ought to be replaced by a multicultural society, to persuade us that we needed more racial and cultural diversity, to persuade us that everyone's values and ideas and life-style and behavior and sexual orientation were as good as everyone else's. And they also persuaded us that our standards in art and literature were no better than anyone else's, and so the trash-art and trash-literature they and their hangers-on were producing were as good as anything we ever had produced. With music they went further and persuaded us that other races' styles in music were better than our own.

And it's not that the Jewish media bosses were trying to do the same thing with us that the Christian missionaries were trying to do with the Vietnamese and the Haitians. The Jews weren't teaching us their values and their standards. They were just teaching us to abandon ours. The aim was to confuse us, to disconnect us from our roots, to leave us morally disarmed. If we protested their program of persuasion, they began wailing about the so-called "Holocaust." "Oi, veh," they cried. "See where your European morality led: to the gas ovens; to soap and lampshades made from the corpses of murdered Jews. Aren't you ashamed of yourselves for wanting to keep such a morality?" And you know, many Americans were ashamed. They were ignorant of what had really happened in Europe and why it had happened, and so they didn't know how to respond to the Jewish version of events. The Jews, with their control of the media, had a monopoly on information. And many Americans already were so confused, so disconnected from their own traditions and values, that they let themselves be buffaloed by the Jews. They let themselves be persuaded that it was better to be non-judgmental.

And so here we are, and what a mess it is! The majority of Americans believe that Bill Clinton is an OK guy. They believe that everybody's culture is as good as everyone else's, and that a multicultural society "enriches" our lives by exposing us to Haitian and Vietnamese values and life-styles. They think that the Blade Runner environment which is developing in many of our larger cities is normal and healthy. They believe that there's nothing really wrong with homosexuality. And they're not bothered by the political corruption all around them: that's just lawyers and politicians and businessmen "doing their thing."

So I guess that what I'm about to say will sound very old-fashioned to many people, but I'll say it anyway. The values and standards that we had back before the Second World War, our White values and standards, our European values and standards, were infinitely better for us than the absence of any common set of values today, infinitely better than today's do-your-own-thing ethic. There were many flaws and weaknesses in our old set of standards for judging things and in our old way of behaving; I've already mentioned the activities of the missionaries, our regrettable proclivity for trying to change other people's values to suit ours rather than simply keeping our distance from people who are fundamentally different. And there were many other flaws as well. We were far too tolerant of people in our midst whose values were wholly alien to ours, and I'm thinking especially of the people who were busy taking over all of our media of mass communications, all of our news and entertainment media. But the so-called "Holocaust," the effort on the part of some of our people in Europe to protect themselves from the Jews, was not the result of any flaw in our system; rather, it was the consequence of a basically healthy tendency in our system.

The real weakness of our value system is that it was not able to cope well with alien influences. It was too fragile, too susceptible to damage. What we needed was another thousand years or so by ourselves, without outside influence, to strengthen and fine-tune our system, to adapt it more nearly perfectly to our own nature and to our environment. The problem is that with our technology we changed our environment too quickly for our values and standards to adapt themselves in a healthy way. We made the world in which we lived shrink too rapidly. When our ancestors all lived in Europe, essentially by themselves, holding an eastern frontier against the Mongols and the Turks and keeping the Jews confined to ghettos, our values could cope.

When we developed new modes of travel and navigation and began exploring and conquering the non-White world, we left ourselves open to all sorts of problems, because we hadn't had to deal with so many alien influences before. And then we let the Jews out of their ghettos, which was a big mistake.

And so, once again, here we are, everyone doing his own thing and being non-judgmental. You know, the reason we used to have a common set of values, the reason we used to be judgmental, is that these things were necessary for our survival. Every time in our daily lives that a decision had to be made, we didn't have to spend all day thinking about it; we didn't have to keep reinventing the wheel over and over. We made judgments based on our common set of values and standards. These values and standards were developed through trial and error over thousands of years. They didn't work all the time -- they weren't perfect -- but they worked a lot more often than not. They gave us an enormous advantage over any group of people without common values or with values not so well suited to the environment, to the living conditions. They made it possible for us to survive.

If you think that we're surviving just fine now without values -- or with the utterly unnatural Politically Correct values which have replaced our natural values -- then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on your current credit card spending limit and failing to see many other things of much greater importance. While our values were giving way to Political Correctness and we were learning not to be judgmental, our people -- White people -- in the United States declined from more than 90 per cent of the population to just over 70 per cent today. And as Mr. Clinton is so fond of telling us, we'll become a minority within the next few decades. That is, we will if we remain non-judgmental and continue sitting on our hands.

And if you're one of those non-judgmental types who is not worried by that prospect because, really, the civilization the Haitians and Vietnamese will give us after they've finished wrecking ours will be just as good as ours ever was, then you're obviously a person who thinks Clinton is an OK guy, and you're tuned to the wrong station. I'm not talking to you.

I'm talking only to the people who are so Politically Incorrect that they still think that we ought to do everything we can to preserve our civilization, our values and standards, because they're better for us than anyone else's possibly could be. More than that I'm talking to the people who want us to survive as a people, as a race, because they understand that our civilization is superior for us because we built it; our ancestors built it, not someone else's ancestors. And I want to tell all of you Politically Incorrect listeners, all of you judgmental listeners, that we need to bring our judgmentalism out of the closet again. We need to stand up for the values and standards that served us in the past.

We understand that our system wasn't perfect. We understand that we need to improve it. We need to get rid of the weaknesses that allowed the promoters of Political Correctness to confuse us and morally disarm us. We need to understand that back in the 1960s, when the enemies of our civilization turned our moral world upside down and produced monsters like Bill Clinton, our toleration for these people was a mistake.

Toleration -- in moderation -- may be a virtue when we have our own civilization and our own world, because it permits our values to evolve and adapt to changes in our environment. It permits us to fine-tune our system. And it allows us to have both individual freedom and a society able to protect itself from its own sociopaths as well as its external enemies. But there must be no toleration for the things we permitted to happen in the 1960s. There must be no toleration for the likes of Bill Clinton. There must be no toleration for multiculturalism or its proponents.