The Politically Incorrect Show - 12/07/2000
[Music - Die Fledermaus]
Good afternoon, KAYA ORAAAA & welcome to the Politically Incorrect Show on the free speech network, Radio Pacific, for Wednesday July 12, proudly sponsored by Neanderton Nicotine Ltd, the show that says bugger the politicians & bureaucrats & all the other bossyboot busybodies who try to run our lives with our money; that stands tall for free enterprise, achievement, profit & excellence against the state-worshippers in our midst; that stands above all for the most sacred thing in the universe, the liberty of the human individual.
[Music up, music down]
It would appear that our already-stressed psychiatric services are about to be placed under further huge strain - politicians, bureaucrats & a third of the population are about to be sent for psychiatric tests. I quote from a front-page story in yesterday's Herald:
"When Robin Hood stole from the rich & gave to the poor he became a hero. But when an alleged bank robber tried the same ploy in Palmerston North yesterday he was sent for a psychiatric assessment. The unarmed man walked into a WestpacTrust branch on Broadway Ave, demanded money &, once outside, started giving out $500 to passersby. Some of those on the busy street thought it was a promotion & happily pocketed the money. Some have since handed the cash to the police - others have not. ... a 28-year-old sickness beneficiary was remanded to Porirua Hospital for a psychiatric assessment when he appeared later in the Palmerston North District Court."
Now this made me very curious. Why would such actions render their perpetrator's sanity suspect? If he indeed did what is alleged, he was acting no differently from the politicians. They too help themselves to money which isn't theirs, and, aside from that which they keep for themselves, give it to others whose money it also is not, hoping in this case that its recipients will vote for them. Why are they allowed to live off their spoils with impunity? Why are they not sent off to the shrinks? Ditto the bureaucrats who operate the scams on the politicians' behalf? And why is the finger pointed at the people who haven't returned the cash this gentleman dispensed to them while the fact that a third of our entire population is on a benefit of some sort is heralded as normal, laudable, compassionate & caring? What this gentleman was practising was simply, in Richard Heinlein's words, "freelance socialism." Why is the freelance version unacceptable but the institutionalised version admirable?
Helen Clark recently took $200,000 of our money & gave it to a bunch of poseurs to prepare a report on the state of the arts in this country. Before the report was even completed, she took much more of our money - $80 million - & gave it to artists. If our freelance socialist had given the money he took from WestpacTrust to artists residing in Palmerston North, would he be off the hook? If not, why not?
Ladies & gentlemen, under our current system, politicians live off the proceeds of theft, & lure voters by enabling them to live off the proceeds of theft also. It is not the sanity of all these people which needs to be assessed - it is their ethics. As long as theft is euphemised & legitimised as the "redistribution of wealth" - and the question of whose wealth it is to begin with overlooked - we shouldn't be too surprised to see the occasional independent operator emulating the politicians on the street.
At least this one, unlike the politicians, was unarmed.
Politically Incorrect Show, opposing ALL theft ... 309 3099.
If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe?