Lindsay Perigo
Lindsay Perigo

The Politically Incorrect Show - 24/01/2001

[Music - Die Fledermaus]

Good afternoon, Kaya Oraaa & welcome to the Politically Incorrect Show onthe free speech network, Radio Pacific, for Wednesday January 24, proudlysponsored by Neanderton Nicotine Ltd., the show that says bugger thepoliticians & bureaucrats & all the other bossyboot busybodies who try torun our lives with our money; that stands tall for free enterprise,achievement, profit, & excellence, against the state-worshippers in ourmidst; that stands above all for the most sacred thing in the universe, theliberty of the human individual.

[Music up, music down!]

The simplest things, it seems, are the hardest to get across. Yesterday Imade a tongue-in-cheek suggestion that only Internet users with computers should be allowed to vote, since they're much more likely to elect a party that won't take money from citizens by force for the ostensible benefit of other citizens. I then mocked the position of those who called to protest by pretending to agree with them. I said my ambition was indeed to see a few rich, powerful tycoons become even more rich & powerful while everyone else was left to starve in the gutters. The mickey-taking was lost on some callers. Others rang to go off on tangents about referenda, ballot papers, postal voting, making voting compulsory & the like. If evidence were needed that some people shouldn't be allowed NEAR a voting paper, yesterday's calls provided ample.

How many were prepared to confront my basic, serious point - that NO ONE'S vote should empower politicians to steal from, or otherwise violate the rights of, a country's citizens; that such rights must be placed BEYOND the vote, no matter how big a majority wants to trample on them? Certainly not the listener I received this e-mail from:

"I often listen to your show, you are certainly an entertainer. You also make many good points about the feminazis, dpb and dole scammers, etc. After a look at your libertarian site, one can see, with a philosophy and ethics of self interest and egotism, why you appear so arrogant. Your lot are a bunch of unashamed fascists. This was epitomised by your now wanting to select who gets to vote. You even admitted it to a couple of callers with your comments about the poor in the gutter and the privileged voting. History has shown that democracy leads to a preoccupation with freedom and this leads onto tyranny. So your wealthy mates would like to engineer this change to keep their exclusive privilege, currently enjoyed, intact. There are many faults in the democratic and jury systems but they are the best we have. I would have thought the freedom to have the right to vote is at the heart of your call. Or are you a hypocrite who says one thing while doing the opposite, like the rest of those you spend your time criticising (much of which is justified). If you have bothered reading this far, thank you for your time.  Yours sincerely, Jimmy."

Some quick points. I don't have any wealthy mates, though I would be proud to have any mate who had become wealthy by honest effort. The knee-jerk equation of wealth with evil is itself evil.

And I don't honestly care WHO has the vote, as long as it doesn't empower politicians to violate my, or anyone else's, rights. How on earth does this make me a fascist? It's my protection AGAINST fascism. My e-mailer would do
well to remember that Hitler's Nazis were voted into office & no such
protection was in place. Look at the results.

If democracy is my e-mailer's concern, why does he hate the rich - i.e., why does he oppose the democracy of the marketplace, where every purchase is a vote & one becomes rich by producing something a lot of voters elect to purchase?

Politically speaking, though, democracy does NOT lead to "a preoccupation with freedom"; it provides the wherewithal to destroy freedom. It is a plague - the idea that whatever a majority approves of should automatically be carried out BECAUSE it has majority approval. The right to vote is NOT at the heart of my call. The right to be sovereign over your own life  -
regardless of who or how many vote for what - IS.

What, Jimmy, is so hard about that?

If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe?