"Havel’s prescription is deceptively simple and genuinely demanding: live in truth. "
Living in truth requires a human character attribute that was once described as a virtue; namely courage. We don't teach virtues any more, we teach values. Values are arbitrary and subjective, virtues such as patience, self control, generosity, and forgiveness are not products of our emotions, whims or personal preferences, they stand apart from individual definition and are universally recognisable.
"Live Not by Lies" (Russian: Жить не по лжи!) is a famous 1974 essay written by Russian author and Nobel laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn on the very day he was arrested and subsequently exiled from the Soviet Union. It is a profound call for moral courage, urging citizens to stop participating in and endorsing the pervasive, systemic lies of a totalitarian regime.
It took years in a Soviet Gulag for Solzhenitsyn to arrive at this conclusion. Hopefully we can learn to embrace this virtue without having to endure the suffering.
Thanks for your response David. Carney's message was a good one, but his urging of "honesty" and "abandoning pretence" just grated considering the treatment of Canadians who challenge the dishonesty and pretence involved in promoting and supporting gender ideology.
Very happy to hear your Hipkins article has been so widely read. Also that the Herald and Listener haven't imposed any editing or censorship. Just curious, re your article going mainstream - what is "mainstream" in this case?
Mmmm…. I reckon this needs challenging Mr Hobbit. Methinks the State & its institutions are pretty clear & open on their cultural expectations. Differ from the narrative and you can expect consequences that are more than just social pressure. I would argue this racist Rubicon was crossed some time back.
And how about Police actions nowadays. In the UK Lucy was jailed for a tweet. Our Lucy (the lawyer) was arrested for holding a piece of paper that went against the accepted narrative.
Great piece, very timely. I did think that the scientist may well intend to publish something that goes against the consensus, ditto the journalist, but we'd never know because the editors would veto them. And re. Mark Carney, in the sphere of gender ideology, Canada has to be one of the worst of the Western countries for censorship and punishment of dissenting views.
I understand the situation with Carney and Canada. However I was more interested in his speech that he gave rather than his antecedents. His referencing of Havel was unusual but apt and timely.
For scientists the publication value comes in peer reviewed journals and I know editors can be snarky. However there are other outlets. I haven't published in a peer reviewed law journal in years but I manage to get the message across using other media.
The Herald publishes my stuff without rejection. The Listener queries from time to time but no rejection slips yet.
Yesterdays piece on Hipkins has received 2.373 hits - it would be one of the most read pieces I have written. Thanks for restacking. That piece is going mainstream later today
Thanks for this superbly argued and presented piece David.
Especially for providing a range of New Zealand equivalents, that are as stifling and authoritarian as any but without actual physical violence such as imposed by Iran's theocratic regime.
But the New Zealand equivalent is hugely damaging and I suspect a good part of why pragmatic folks prefer to leave New Zealand for somewhere else where they can voice the truth.
These extracts from your essay are among the many powerful arguments you provide so well:
"...New Zealand’s version of this operates through social rather than state coercion, which in some ways makes it harder to name and resist. The mechanisms include professional risk — academics, doctors, lawyers and journalists who dissent from consensus positions on certain topics face reputational damage, complaints processes, or exclusion from institutional spaces..."
And: "...Some of the most charged include the application of Treaty principles across virtually all public policy, certain framings within debates about Māori sovereignty and co-governance, consensus around specific approaches to climate and housing policy, and more recently, questions that surfaced sharply during the COVID period around public health mandates and institutional authority..."
Was the grocer taking a heterodox stance, or merely refusing to participate in an orthodox one? Either way, it's a cool story, thanks for sharing.
We need people to be able to express heterodox stances. NZ's largest professional groups- health and education- are often the least able to do this. Nurses and teachers in particular, but even under a single national employer, medical practitioners need to be extremely careful.
"Havel’s prescription is deceptively simple and genuinely demanding: live in truth. "
Living in truth requires a human character attribute that was once described as a virtue; namely courage. We don't teach virtues any more, we teach values. Values are arbitrary and subjective, virtues such as patience, self control, generosity, and forgiveness are not products of our emotions, whims or personal preferences, they stand apart from individual definition and are universally recognisable.
"Live Not by Lies" (Russian: Жить не по лжи!) is a famous 1974 essay written by Russian author and Nobel laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn on the very day he was arrested and subsequently exiled from the Soviet Union. It is a profound call for moral courage, urging citizens to stop participating in and endorsing the pervasive, systemic lies of a totalitarian regime.
It took years in a Soviet Gulag for Solzhenitsyn to arrive at this conclusion. Hopefully we can learn to embrace this virtue without having to endure the suffering.
Thanks for your response David. Carney's message was a good one, but his urging of "honesty" and "abandoning pretence" just grated considering the treatment of Canadians who challenge the dishonesty and pretence involved in promoting and supporting gender ideology.
Very happy to hear your Hipkins article has been so widely read. Also that the Herald and Listener haven't imposed any editing or censorship. Just curious, re your article going mainstream - what is "mainstream" in this case?
Hi Sheryl
It is in Law News.
Talk about putting the head above the parapet!
Good on you, and perhaps put on your metal helmet!
Rather than than a tinfoil hat😳
“In our society we lack open authoritarianism”.
Mmmm…. I reckon this needs challenging Mr Hobbit. Methinks the State & its institutions are pretty clear & open on their cultural expectations. Differ from the narrative and you can expect consequences that are more than just social pressure. I would argue this racist Rubicon was crossed some time back.
And how about Police actions nowadays. In the UK Lucy was jailed for a tweet. Our Lucy (the lawyer) was arrested for holding a piece of paper that went against the accepted narrative.
Otherwise another great write thank you.
Fair enough Boris.
Bravo!
Great piece, very timely. I did think that the scientist may well intend to publish something that goes against the consensus, ditto the journalist, but we'd never know because the editors would veto them. And re. Mark Carney, in the sphere of gender ideology, Canada has to be one of the worst of the Western countries for censorship and punishment of dissenting views.
Thanks Sheryl
I understand the situation with Carney and Canada. However I was more interested in his speech that he gave rather than his antecedents. His referencing of Havel was unusual but apt and timely.
For scientists the publication value comes in peer reviewed journals and I know editors can be snarky. However there are other outlets. I haven't published in a peer reviewed law journal in years but I manage to get the message across using other media.
The Herald publishes my stuff without rejection. The Listener queries from time to time but no rejection slips yet.
Yesterdays piece on Hipkins has received 2.373 hits - it would be one of the most read pieces I have written. Thanks for restacking. That piece is going mainstream later today
Thanks for this superbly argued and presented piece David.
Especially for providing a range of New Zealand equivalents, that are as stifling and authoritarian as any but without actual physical violence such as imposed by Iran's theocratic regime.
But the New Zealand equivalent is hugely damaging and I suspect a good part of why pragmatic folks prefer to leave New Zealand for somewhere else where they can voice the truth.
These extracts from your essay are among the many powerful arguments you provide so well:
"...New Zealand’s version of this operates through social rather than state coercion, which in some ways makes it harder to name and resist. The mechanisms include professional risk — academics, doctors, lawyers and journalists who dissent from consensus positions on certain topics face reputational damage, complaints processes, or exclusion from institutional spaces..."
And: "...Some of the most charged include the application of Treaty principles across virtually all public policy, certain framings within debates about Māori sovereignty and co-governance, consensus around specific approaches to climate and housing policy, and more recently, questions that surfaced sharply during the COVID period around public health mandates and institutional authority..."
Was the grocer taking a heterodox stance, or merely refusing to participate in an orthodox one? Either way, it's a cool story, thanks for sharing.
We need people to be able to express heterodox stances. NZ's largest professional groups- health and education- are often the least able to do this. Nurses and teachers in particular, but even under a single national employer, medical practitioners need to be extremely careful.
Very much related to your argument:
https://luca-dellanna.com/posts/mimetic-societies
Well stated.
Do what is right .
https://detective.nz/news/23-09-2025/truth-lives-forever-/