The Gantt Guy Reviews Perigo’s Interview of Muriel Newman

Without Gantt Guy’s permission, I’ve used his excellent comment on General Debate section as a post. I hope he doesn’t mind.

——————————————————-

So, I just watched Episode 3 of Perigo here. The only reason I did is because his guest is the brilliant Muriel Newman.

Having seen the interview, I can say one good thing about it: at least it wasn’t your typical leftist stitch-up.

That said, I have to ask myself: are Perigo and ‘Pete George’ the same person? A series of questions either inane in nature, or specifically designed to ‘trap’ the interlocutee.

Within the first 5 minutes he was on the Libertarianz favourite sacred cow of sodomites. He neatly followed that up with a dog-whistle about democracy (the Nazis were brought to power on a popular vote). He then moved on to asking a series of Pete George style questions about the Coastal Coalition and the opposition to the Marine & Coastal Area Act in which he basically repeated Tinkerbell’s lies and half-truths.

The propaganda continued when he moved on to implying the NZCPR is an ACT outreach, despite Newman saying she isn’t involved with, or even a member of ACT any longer. Not satisfied with that he tried to get her into a corner asking her to rule in or out her involvement with a new ‘right wing’ party, and the interrogation closed with a discussion of the constitutional review and Perigo shamelessly stating the right constitution for NZ is the Constitution for New Freeland that he himself wrote!

The NZ political discourse is an inherently better place with Newman and the NZCPR in it. Perigo is a condescending and shamelessly agenda-driven partisan interviewer, but remains among the best New Zealand has to offer, so despite my rant above, I’m glad I saw the show. I’d rather watch Perigo interview someone than pretty much any other media ‘talent’. Someone like Campbell, for example, is undeserving of sharing a stage with someone like Newman.

19 thoughts on “The Gantt Guy Reviews Perigo’s Interview of Muriel Newman

  1. Actually, I don’t think Hitler came to power by a straight democratic vote. I believe he machinated his way through the political system to get there.

    Like

  2. Campbell is undeserving of sharing a stage with Perigo too. I agree there is a hackneyed tone to Perigo’s style and input but as you say who in NZ could do it better? It is interesting to compare the style of Perigo with some of the US interviewers… I confess to rating Stossel ahead of all others.

    Like

  3. I have watched the preamble to the Perigo programme again. The preamble, I agree, smacks of smugness if not pomposity. The interview was fine in the main although a trifle tired/hackneyed.

    Like

  4. “You know, I never knew that until recently.”

    That is one of my main objections to the NZ Libertarians. As a political force, it has been perverted by those who control it into a vehicle for the homosexual political front at the expense of a focus on universal liberty.

    Like

  5. My friend, I simply appreciate that I can engage in the discussion. I commented to KG the other day I’ve been really surprised there are others who think like me – in terms of the comments and discussion my thoughts on Crusader Rabbit have generated.

    I enjoy the opportunity to rant & rave, and apprecate the vehicle for doing so. I consider it a great compliment that you would think one of my rants worthy of further attention.

    Like

  6. I’d go along with Cadwallader’s comments.
    I’ve no idea whether Libertarianz have been taken over by homosexuals, but their manifesto is not heavily weighted in that direction. I’m straight but have no issue with “gay” issues. Where I’m not impressed with Libz people is frequent reliance on Ayn Rand’s scattered writings[Objectivism], that actually are not logical and amount to “nonsense on stilts” (per Michael Shermer , Skeptic).

    Like

  7. “Where I’m not impressed with Libz people is frequent reliance on Ayn Rand’s scattered writings[Objectivism], that actually are not logical and amount to “nonsense on stilts” (per Michael Shermer , Skeptic).”

    Yes. I agree. If the Libertarian Party could be prised from the white knuckled grasp of the homosexuals and the Objectivists it could be converted into a movement with much greater electoral appeal without compromising its declared objectives.

    BTW, the manifesto is one thing. Engaging with them in any argument on liberty only rarely proceeds without degenerating into a virulent lecture (from your “Libertarian” opponent) on the “correct way to think” about homosexual marriage and/ or drug taking.

    Like

  8. Redbaiter,

    My main objection to them is that they live in la-la land. I finally realised this when PC (who I used to think was a married man with children, given all his posts on Montesori education) published his list of what they would abolish if they ever got into power. I though to myself, these people don’t care about who gets hurt as a consequence of their actions, they only care about themselves. I went right off them then. That was a number of years ago now.

    Like

  9. Well, I watched it too. Perigo pointed to the correct principles in his (unfortunately nauseatingly pompous) “Peritorial”. Newman has a clear and correct vision on the matters discussed, but appears to lack the organisation/wherewithal to do something with it. In respect of constitutional reform they both are woefully incorrect/ignorant about the proper approach to such a thing and its objectives, or rather the conditions required to establish useful and potent constitutions.
    As other readers commented, it is a pity that Perigo can’t express four sentences without either referring to homosexualism or thumping on his own chest.
    In my view there is no lack of ideas or good intentions, what is sadly missing is strong leadership to whack the noses in the same direction and to bury the many trivial issues that keep those on the right (and those striving for freedom first and foremost) separated.

    Like

  10. Red (viz. your 18:49) what a cowardly attack. So much for their high & mighty ideals. One of the advantages of moral relativism I guess is that no matter the stuation, and your reaction to it, you’re always right.

    Like

  11. Yes, that they are happy to stand behind that kind of dishonest cowardice tells you all you need to know about the personal integrity of the Libertarianz leadership cadre.

    Like

  12. “He certainly keeps that side of himself mostly hidden on his main blog!”

    Yeah well, makes it all the worse really doesn’t it? Two faced.

    Like

Comments are closed.