We have a moral problem in this country. Not to put too fine a point on it, it’s a cowardice problem.
One of the reasons the other side is winning the culture wars – and no one should be in any doubt that they are – is that too few conservatives and genuine liberals (as opposed to authoritarian neo-Marxists who have hijacked the term) have the guts to stand up and declare themselves.
Look at the comments on this blog and others such as Bassett, Brash and Hide or Muriel Newman’s Breaking Views.
The people who comment know what’s going on. They realise that liberal democracy and capitalism are under unprecedented attack. They are thoughtful and perceptive in identifying the threats posed by the cult of identity politics and they know what’s necessary to counter it.
They understand that we are in an ideological war to protect and preserve the values of the free, tolerant society we grew up in. So why do so few of them identify themselves?
The people driving the culture wars have no such qualms. Confident in the knowledge that their world view is shared by the institutions of power and influence – government, the bureaucracy, academia, schools, the media, the arts, even the corporate sector – they promulgate their divisive, corrosive messages without fear.
They are winning by default because too many people on the other side - that is to say, our side - keep their heads down and their identity secret. People whose political instincts are essentially conservative may not be outnumbered, but they are certainly outgunned.
It’s a given that conservatism often equates with passivity and apathy. The vast mass of people who are broadly happy with the status quo will never compete with the ideological zeal of the social justice warriors, and it would be idle to expect them to. But I’m not talking here about the masses who are primarily concerned with raising a family, paying the mortgage and watching rugby; I’m talking about those who are deeply worried about the radical re-invention of New Zealand society and who recognise the need to oppose it. They’re the people who need to raise their heads above the parapet.
They could take their cue from commentators like Chris Trotter and Martyn Bradbury – old-school lefties who have the courage to take on the identity politics cultists, even at the risk of alienating many of their former political allies (and who, perhaps even more uncomfortably from their point of view, now find themselves aligned with conservatives in defence of the core democratic value of free speech). Don Franks, an occasional commenter on this blog, is another Marxist free speech champion who finds himself vigorously at odds with the new generation of middle-class, university-educated social justice warriors.
In fact the Left in New Zealand has historically been far more fearless than conservatives about expressing unpopular, non-conformist opinions. When I was in charge of letters to the editor at The Evening Post during the 1990s, hardly a week would pass when we didn’t publish provocative missives from diehard socialists such as Rene (R.O.) Hare, Arthur (A.P.) Quinn and the Reverend Don Borrie. It didn’t worry them that they were out of step with the mainstream. We could learn from their conviction even if we didn’t agree with their ideology.
The anonymity issue was epitomised for me by someone who hides behind the pseudonym of Redbaiter, formerly an occasional commenter on this blog with whom I recently had an increasingly impolite email exchange (now terminated). His online nom-de-guerre suggests a fearless crusader for freedom, but he’s too timid even to identify himself in private emails.
He justified his anonymity to me by citing threats and abuse he supposedly received when he previously used his real name. (I don’t think I’m betraying any confidence in revealing this, since no one, to my knowledge, knows who Redbaiter is. I certainly don’t.)
Other anonymous commenters on this blog have used similar arguments. But threats and abuse, as unpleasant as they are, are surely a price worth paying for the free and open exercise of free speech. The neo-Marxists must derive great satisfaction from the fact that many of their opponents so lack the courage of their convictions that they keep their names secret, as if there's something shameful about their opinions. Perversely, it enables the other side to feel morally superior.
Another argument often heard in defence of anonymity is that jobs and careers can be jeopardised by the expression of politically incorrect opinions, which in itself indicates how seriously democratic values have been subverted in the prevailing climate of intolerance.
Some followers of this blog don’t hesitate to point out to me that I’m in the privileged position of not being dependent on income from a job, which is true. But I’m sure many people who comment on blogs like this have, like me, moved past the point where careers might be at risk. What’s stopping them from naming themselves?
It’s worth mentioning here that the Free Speech Union, which is officially registered as a trade union, has corresponding legal rights to protect freedom of speech against interference by employers, and has successfully done so. Speaking of which, the union will be having its first annual conference in Auckland next weekend and can look back on a remarkable year of achievements (mostly ignored by the mainstream media, which should be at the forefront of the free speech movement) in the fight against the insidious phenomenon known as cancel culture.
The emergence of the FSU is a heartening sign that resistance to authoritarian censorship is slowly gaining momentum, but there’s a long way to go. In the meantime, it would help if more people demonstrated their support for free speech by openly and unapologetically exercising it. The more who step forward, the more they give courage to others. It’s called critical mass.
28 comments:
Take heart Karl - and others - we who express concern in comments about the growing and accelerating rise of leftist fascism are also known as .... the silent majority!
We will have our say at the polls - unless of course the power manipulators decide it's not in the best interests of the people of Niu Zild. The current lot will stop at almost nothing to retain power and exert oppressive control.
I don't know why the left is so much better than the right at getting their views into the public and why too many conservatives allow themselves to be put off by the fear of going public.
But if ever there's a time to speak up against the anti-democratic movement and the damage that will last generations if it is not stopped, it is now.
Government policies are fuelling racial disharmony, threatening free speech and undermining other democratic principles.
They are rewriting history and failing the future.
They tell us to follow the science on climate change but they are not following the science on mitigation. Their plan to impose a tax on animal emissions will have enormous economic and social costs for no environmental gain.
They tell us they care about people but what they are proposing will leave us all colder, hungrier and poorer.
Ele Ludemann
I agree.
Although I continue to use MT_Tinman (so sensible people will note the author and avoid having their time wasted) and make no apology for doing so I have started signing my name to posts on blogs such as yours.
Phil Blackwell
I use a pseudonym here for a bit of variety though I think it indicates that I am a warrior woman - don't mess with me. On Facebook I use my own name fearlessly - which means I get called a racist! Doesn't bother me as I stand by my views and am only seeking the truth
P.S. I was a traditional leftie (Social Democrat at least) and still believe that the government should work for all of its citizens and treat them according to need not race. That makes me a racist apparently
We do speak up Karl, however there are few platforms in New Zealand willing to host our opinions, and certainly none in the mainstream media.
The apathy you describe from conservatives arises at least in part from incorrectly crediting the Marxist left with the same standard of decency and respect for others that we ourselves aspire too, even if we don’t always achieve it. While we seek dialogue and debate, they seek our cancellation, marginalisation and destruction. I’m not sure we fully understand how serious they are about their mission, how committed they are to their goals. If more of us grasped this, then perhaps the push back would be greater.
There is a problem however. If we use the same weapons employed by the radical Marxist left, which is effectively a ‘will to power’ at all costs, then we are no different than they are and this is the heart of the matter. We cannot maintain a peaceful civil order in Western nations when a significant portion of our political, educational and media elites, along with their fellow travellers are committed to its destruction. If they are to be believed, they intend to replace our former Judeo/Christian civilisation with a race based dystopia where fossil fuels are eventually banned, agricultural production declines and the masses are reduced to poverty while the earth goddess Gaia is appeased.
As George Orwell aptly described, there will still be elites, the globalist at the UN, the WEF, the Davos crowd who will continue to live by a different standard. This would have sounded like a conspiracy theory a couple of years ago, but much less so today.
There is some hope, if hope is to be found in the political realm. Some quotes from the new Prime Minister of Italy Giorgia Meloni giving her maiden speech as PM source:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/giorgia-meloni-one-of-us/
“Italy is fully part of the West and its alliance system. Founding state of the European Union, the Eurozone and the Atlantic Alliance, member of the G7 and even before all this, cradle, together with Greece, of Western civilization and its system of values based on freedom, equality and democracy; precious fruits that spring from the classical and Judaic Christian roots of Europe. We are the heirs of St. Benedict, an Italian, the main patron of the whole of Europe.”
and
“We know that the protection of the natural environment is particularly important to young people. We will take care of it. Because, as Roger Scruton, one of the great masters of European conservative thought, wrote, "ecology is the most vivid example of the alliance between who is there, who has been there, and who will come after us. Protecting our natural heritage commits us just like protecting the heritage of culture, traditions and spirituality, which we inherited from our fathers so that we could pass it on to our children.
There is no more convinced ecologist than a conservative, but what distinguishes us from a certain ideological environmentalism is that we want to defend nature with man inside. Combining environmental, economic and social sustainability. Accompanying businesses and citizens towards the green transition without surrendering ourselves to new strategic dependencies and respecting the principle of technological neutrality. This will be our approach.”
Finally:
“On the day our Government swore an oath in the hands of the Head of State, the liturgical memorial of John Paul II took place. A Pontiff, a statesman, a saint, whom I had the privilege of knowing personally. He taught me a fundamental thing, which I have always treasured. "Freedom" he said "does not consist in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we must". I have always been a free person, so I intend to do what I have to.”
The neo-Marxists publicly assert that the culture wars are a figment of right wing paranoia. I think Chris Trotter wrote yesterday critics of the Soviet regime were put in mental hospitals. Incidentally I didn't see your article in the ODT this week Karl but certainly noticed that you riled up a reader in the letters section yesterday.
Karl, I have long believed that if we can't put our name to our words, they aren't worth expressing in public.
In the 1980's and living in the back country of Pahiatua, I learnt to read and write by contributing to the letters to the Editor page of the then Dominion newspaper. Reading the vast array of opinions offered by many of the contributors you mentioned was a learning curve and an entertainment all rolled into one.
Back then when I offered my thoughts for publication, I would receive by return mail a printed card from the newspaper either confirming or rejecting my offering. I would often have a big grin on my face when I saw my name under my words and knew that by the educational standards of the day, I was classed as illiterate.
As someone once said "I no longer care what people say about me, as long as they say something and spell my name correctly".
Thanks Karl on writing this piece. Speaking out on all manner of things needing change/improvement is rarely without some form of cost. I have appreciated your comments and support over time.
I use my full name on Twitter where I have become more active over the past year, serving mainly as a clearing-house for conservative opinion including your own columns from time to time Karl. There appears to be a lot of interest in this material and I now, to my surprise, have 800 "followers", many of whom are in turn very active themselves. Twitter's new proprietor, Mr Musk, says he wants to make Twitter the new "Town Square" where Left and Right can come to debate the issues. I wish him well, especially as today's Left don't seem much interested in debate; rather, they are intent on shutting people down. But it is a worthy vision which I support.
My main theme on Twitter and elsewhere is the defence of our traditional freedoms, especially free speech. I have been a member of the FSU since its inception and I donate to it every month. As you say, they have done some great work over the past year which the media studiously avoids covering.
Over the years (I am now 70) I have lived in many countries including two that had recently undergone or were in the throes of revolutions, Iran and Russia. There is sometimes a similar smell in the air here these days; the government's absolutism and incompetence; the increasingly bitter divisions among families and people who a short time before regarded each other as friends; the abject conformism; the hopelessness and withdrawal. I confess I have lost a number of "friends" over the last couple of years, particularly through supporting the right to question the vaccine mandates which I believe violated international human rights law, and which have now been shown to have had little if any scientific basis. Bodily autonomy is a cause celebre for the Left when the US Supreme Court hands abortion back to the States it seems, but not when the government forces you to take a medication by threatening to deprive you of your freedom of movement and your livelihood. As appears to be required on making such declarations, I hasten to add I am three times vaccinated although I regret the booster as I have been unwell since accepting it.
Whether people sign by their real name or by a nom de plume doesn't so much matter to me as the quality of their contributions. I understand their unwillingness to identify themselves, the pushback can be toxic. Devotion to the Leader and her goals is unquestioning and some people even seem to live vicariously through her activities. This is what we have come to.
Trevor Hughes (alias Trev1)
Ok so I am a coward now. Thanks Karl. I spent 20 years in the NZ public service where publicly expressing views contrary to the government of the day was frowned upon and maybe this reticence has become ingrained. Now very few people know me anyway so there is little point in providing my full name. I would probably be mistaken for one of several other people I know of who share it. I did use my name on your blog on an occasion when it was relevant. I write in kiwiblog and elsewhere because I enjoy exchanging ideas. I don’t like debating politics in person because the arguments quickly become personal. My family in particular. I tried once and I was actually frightened by the response. It’s a bit like religion – I work in several muslim countries, and I avoid discussing religion. I don’t know how otherwise intelligent people can believe such rubbish.
I was disappointed by your attack on Luxon. He may be a wet. He may be a good strategist (he may be both). The world is turning against Jacinda. Let it. So you want Luxon to put the boot in. But attack her now and the danger is you will rally uncritical support. My advice would be to let a wet Luxon woo the wet National voters who were seduced by Jacinda but vote for ACT to ensure the resulting coalition has some backbone. The last thing we need is respected people like you Karl telling those who are increasingly angry with Labour (but are too wet to vote ACT) that voting Luxon will make no difference.
Karl here is a good example of what you say on what I think is a NZRugby Union or Black Ferns Facebook page saying something like "see you there supporting us at Eden Park."
Christopher Luxon said - `well done Ladies.'
A Lady we know very well and consider a friend even though she leads the Green Party in Hastings said something like this in reply to him:
`Ladies is classist they are wahine or women.'
Above may not be the exact wording because now I cannot track down the original post and comments but, that attitude is what we are up against.
A very thought provoking article Karl but what is the answer? Is it to financially support the various organisations like the Free Speech Union, Taxpayers Union etc or is it to furiously write letters to every newspaper or website you can? Do you upset your lefty friends or family by letting then know just how wrong they are?
I despair at the stupid things being done in New Zealand that are stopping us all being richer and living in a better country. Our National Parks soak up 4 times the Co2 we produce but "don't count" because they are pre 1990 forests. Yet we still impose additional taxes, drive farmers from their land and so on for absolutely no other reason than to look good in the eyes of the Marxist media.
Do you just trust in democracy? I suspect that most here are successful enough that they are not significantly financially affected by these stupid policies to worry too much. But it is the shame of seeing the poorer amongst us adversely affected by stupid policies meant to help them. So do we just rely on this majority to eventually see things for what they are and vote accordingly? Anything else would be elitist really but the last election showed just how easily a population can be sucked in.
I wish I had the answers.
I think you're wrong Karl. Some of the best work in exposing the lies behind "co-governance" and 3 Waters, and the nepotism running riot in this government, has been done by the person who uses the pseudonym "Thomas Cranmer". Whatever their reason for using a pseudonym they have been very effective in researching and exposing serious matters to the point where questions have been raised in the House and a Public Service Commission enquiry is underway. The latter lacks the authority to deal with the Minister's involvement and is likely to prove an attempt at deflection. But Cranmer's work has given us a beach-head and put the Ardern circus on notice that despite their control over the media they cannot pay off everyone to turn a blind eye.
I can understand your frustrations over the matter of anonymous commenters. Has it ever occurred to you that some of the anonymousers or anonymousees (new words) are journalists who do not want to be identified? Not wanting to be identified as they might not be hewing to the lines set by their editorial masters. Newspaper editors have in days gone by boosted their letters page by supplying their own views under a false name. I am sure that would never have happened in Karl’s time as a letters editor. At the very least if they were supplying their own views it was advancing the freedom of speech cause.
Agree with David’s comments regarding Luxon being something of a wet – British slang. Not sure if Luxon has the political nous required for a Prime Minister. If I am not mistaken Luxon was pushed into politics by John Key, an image only merchant if ever there was one. Plus, Luxon gives me the impression that he is blundering about in the political world and really doesn’t want to be there.
It is difficult to get a contrary message across when Stuff is moving more extreme by the day on race (we seem to have a deluge of columns and opinionated so-called straight news on race right now especially here in Taranaki) and backing the govt programmes. The Herald is gradually drifting that way with a gradual decline in comment pieces that are not on board (mayoralty in Auckland is a problem for them however), TV in NZ is govt agenda. Editorials are all on board with the programmes. The only non Left cartoonist these days is ODT....the rest are globalist, pro race agenda, pro EU , pro UN control). I hear folk saying ZB is right wing for older white moaners. I disagree. The Morning has two centre right hosts from 5am but as the day goes on it drifts to centre left and very left with Lush and sometimes Davis, who has changed his tune in recent years. Lush will chop people in seconds. Davis little better these days. Readers and viewers get only what they are told and, as the contrary views are painted as fascist, old white settler etc without actually being allowed to be expressed, the public get a benign view of what's happening to the point of having critics portrayed as part of ''those anti-vax mad Trump racist, white supremacist people''. In my current work over the past two years I hear a lot as it is dealing with public and facility staff...and I keep my face shut as I am not there to discuss anything. There is almost an acceptance of what's happening out there as if there is nothing can be done. If the currrent govt get back parliamentary elections will eventually be changed to reflect co-governance and a specified interpretation of the treaty locked in law. Nothing right of Labour will ever govern again if everything has to be approved by a ''Maori '' actually mixed race special tribal senate before it can be law. Trying to reverse it will lead to protests, occupations and violence I think. Re Luxon I guess he is appearing soft as he knows darn well they are out to lump him and Nats in with ''those people''. If he can hold the swinging voters and get some back he could get Nats over the line with ACT picking up the votes from those who see Nats as too compliant. This next election is crucial. My politics started in my youth as Labour (closet pro Moscow SUP as well) for decade or so, then moved to centre slightly to the right on economy over the years. I have voted Labour mostly, Social Credit, NZ First and a couple of time for Nats as the only option in desperation.
Am becoming regular follower, Karl, and applaud your standard of journalism. Re today's piece, agree heartily with comment posted by Russell Parkinson, Amy Wedge
Well said Karl. I have more to lose than most, but I've been proud to put my name behind my work and stand up publicly for what I believe in. I hope to see more courage and conviction from other New Zealanders concerned about the direction our country is headed in. Wayne Wright, co founder of The Platform.
Doh! Rookie mistake. I don't do
much social media. After talking about identity I forget to include my name. Wayne
Odysseus,
I think a very strong case can be made for anonymity in the case of people such as the pseudonymous Thomas Cranmer, who has performed a valuable public service by disclosing important information that might not otherwise have emerged into the light. The Deep Throat precedent springs to mind.
I don’t know who Thomas Cranmer is, but it’s possible he/she is in employed a sensitive position and might suffer repercussions if his/her identity were revealed. Disclosure might also have the effect of choking off further access to information of public interest and importance.
I think that puts Thomas Cranmer in a very different category from ordinary private citizens who are simply exercising their right to express an opinion.
Wayne Wright,
Don't worry. As you can see, your identity was clear in your original comment.
Bill Moore said: "The people who comment know what’s going on." Some of them, at least. Many simply air their prejudices, often in a more pronounced way when hiding under the cloak of anonymity. However, it's heartening to see that of the 17 responses to this piece, only six have not been brave enough to include a name, although I cannot help being suspicious of "Mark Wahlberg".
Bill Moore your comment had me laughing so loud my wife rushed into the room to see if I was having a fit.
It happened yesterday as well (the hysterical laughter) when I was told I had a 6-8 week wait to see my GP at the local health clinic here in small town Pahiatua.
But Bill can put his mind at rest, I'm the real deal and in the phone book, but unlike the other bloke, I'm tall and good looking.
Thanks Mark, I gave you a laugh and now you've given me one. It's a win-win.
I have often wondered at the reason why the majority of commenters on this and other blogs are anonymous or use made-up names.
As I see - if it's good enough for Karl or Chris Trotter or Muriel Newman etc to have their correct name and identity - it's good enough for me and other commenters.
I have occasionally received nasty responses to my comments, but I just ignore them if they are totally irrational. If they contain an actual argument I will sometimes engage.
But - What's the big deal?
Why the need for 90%+ of writers to be hiding ?
"....threats and abuse, as unpleasant as they are, are surely a price worth paying for the free and open exercise of free speech."
I agree with this in principle. However. In my case, were it only threats and abuse (presumably online), I should get so lucky. When I was commenting under my own name, I was directly approached. Not online. It was an intimidating experience for me and my family. I have forthright opinions and had never been afraid to express them, but those incidents did give me pause. Our name is distinctive, and we're easily found.
In those days, the political environment wasn't as febrile as it now is. Nor was I commenting on such contentious issues as the indisputably racist Maori electoral system, the egregiously undemocratic co-governance, and that great theft-by-government proposal: Three Waters. Along with the other ones: housing densification and the benighted SNA policy.
We live in a small, no-exit street in Wellington. Willy nilly, I must also consider my neighbours, who could be affected by any direct action taken against me. None of us should think that it can't happen. There's this from a lot of years back:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/prof-wants-maori-apology-1
And this more recently:
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/3473891/Foul-play-accusations-after-Mexted-fire
In the current environment, anything is possible.
Politicians are paid to have and express unpopular opinions. They have a public profile. I'm just an ordinary citizen. I'm happy to support those politicians who share my views, but I'm wary in the extreme about any publicity attaching to my name. I know that blog authors and political commentators take an equal risk, but I must consider my own situation.
I have said before that I don't mind in the least if Karl knows my name: just so long as the crazies-at-large don't find it out!
I started using my name in Kiwiblog comments circa 2007 when his commenting system changed. I figured that it was as much a control on what I said as anything else; you have to take responsibility.
I was still working in those days (retired at an early age) but it was never a concern - although that may simply be because blogs like Kiwiblog were still in their infancy and having nowhere near the exposure of the MSM.
Funnily enough the only doxxing/attack problems I've had in all the years since then was when I joined the No Minister blog and encountered an absolute nutter who was convinced I was a Putin troll because of my support of Brexit, but that didn't last long as he got the boot.
I see several mentions of abuse from friends and family. Well if they're not your friends and if family I'm afraid that you're just going to have to gut it out because that sense of "Everybody's with us and you are the fringe" is exactly how we've come to this pass.
As a side note, the thing that I'm expecting National to do - and it sickens me - is that they'll go right on funding TVNZ/RNZ and NZ On Air, even as those people gleefully weaponise them against National. It's the Mitt Romney approach, or for that matter GW Bush, with a naive belief in "The Truth Will Out". I think we have to go through one more National/Labour election cycle before we get some Righty politicians who know how to get stuck into the bastards - in the nicest possible way.
You want lessons? Watch and learn: Kari Lake: This is how it's done
Post a Comment