Stephen Roney's Blog, page 2

A Public Justification for Kirk's Murder

 

The venerable Guardian has weighed in on Charlie Kirk’s murder, under the odd headline:

The students who debated with Charlie Kirk: ‘His goal was to verbally defeat us’ | Charlie Kirk shooting | The Guardian

Apparently, the fact that Kirk debated with people was at least partial justification for his murder. The left now openly objects to debate itself.

The piece quotes Trent Webb, a professor of writing studies and rhetoric and director of the speech and debate team at Hofstra University, to say “In a good faith debate, the final goal is to reach consensus. If that doesn’t happen, then a lot of academics would consider it to be an exercise in futility.”

The intention of a good faith debate is not to reach consensus. It is to reach truth. Consensus is the opposite of debate. “Consent” is the opposite of “dissent.” “Consensus” generally means that all present are required to agree with whoever is in charge. No dissent is allowed.

Which perhaps indeed describes the typical current university or high school classroom.

“Dr Charles Woods, a professor of rhetoric and composition at East Texas A&M University, and the host of The Big Rhetorical Podcast, said Kirk distilled nuanced topics into stifling, good v bad arguments.”

“Charlie turned myriad opportunities for meaningful dialogic transactions rooted in civility and turned them into confrontational interactions by amplifying binaries in his argumentative structure,” Woods wrote in an email. “What we know is that there is a spectrum of ideologies and worldviews, not just two: Charlie’s and whoever is on the other side of the microphone.”

In other words, Kirk committed the crime of disagreeing with those who stepped up to the microphone. Who, of course, stepped up to the microphone because they disagreed with Kirk. Why is it he, and not they, who are being reductive, binary, and adversarial?

Debate is by it nature adversarial and binary. A proposition is advanced; one side argues pro, the other con. If either side simply agrees with the other, they are not debating. This is an important concept to grasp. Our parliamentary system is founded on it. Bills are debated in parliament.

As someone who teaches rhetoric, it is shocking to me that our educational system has deteriorated to the point that professors of rhetoric are opposed to debate. But then, professors of history are opposed to teaching history, professors of literature are opposed to the concept of literature, and ministers of religion are opposed to the Christian religion, so it is of a piece. 

However, if one side in the debate is refusing to accept the basic rules and premises of debate, they are a danger to civil society. As Kirk’s murder clearly demonstrates.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

How to Be Happy

A recent student exercise was on a study of happiness: what makes you happy? It is presumably central to human existence, since it is one of the three inalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence: “the pursuit of happiness.” The Alpha course introductory session I recently attended started with the same question. It seems the thing everyone is asking.

The academic study cites a “wide variety of factors.” “Income, job satisfaction, and possessions”; “wealth, jobs and relationships.” It notes that these are the factors used in the World Happiness Report.

Which is not really helpful, since it is tautological. It begins with the unproven assumption that these are the factors that lead to happiness. 

I think the factors cited are somewhat off the mark. It is pretty well established that wealth or possessions do not lead to happiness. Relationships do, but then relationships can also be the source of deep unhappiness as well.

The answer is so simple; yet the misdirected focus on the material is why so many people are unhappy currently. This is why the rates of depression are soaring year by year.

Three things bring happiness: art, religion, and relationship. 

Art: we feel happiness listening to some music we like, or watching an engrossing movie. Even if it is just “entertainment,” we are transported to some other, better place. There is a world we connect with then, and that is where joy comes from. It is the spiritual world, the world of the imagination.

Religion: one could substitute the more generic, “meaning.” If you have a sense of meaning or purpose in your life, happiness ensues. Materialism strips the world of meaning. 

Relationships: a materialist perspective will hear this as “sex.” Substituting sex for relationship is devastating to happiness. All that is left is constant betrayal—relationships become a source of unhappiness. 

Happiness is from the spirit. Unhappiness is being dispirited.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

On Not Being a Poet

"A poet is the most unpoetical thing in existence"--John Keats

I recently attended a public reading by a quite well-established Canadian poet.

It made me depressed. Which is not the effect one gets from art.

To my mind, there was nothing there. I heard only prose, and pedestrian reflections on one man’s daily life. No sound qualities, no vivid images, no deep thought.

It showed the derelict, debilitated state of poetry now. It was not poetry at all, and the somewhat celebrated poet was not a poet.

Reminds me of something Yeats said: “You can either live the life of a poet, or be a poet. You can’t do both.”

Like most contemporary poets, this man was a self-promoter, a marketer, not a poet. Good at dropping names. And that seems pretty much what “poetry” has become. The marketers have driven out the poets.

Don’t misunderstand me. He seemed to be a nice personable guy, enjoyable to be around. Fun to have a beer with, no doubt helpful and encouraging to others. Like any good salesman. It is a legitimate skill, and admirable in its own way. But it is incompatible with poetry.

People are driven to poetry because they have, in some way, been silenced. Because they cannot otherwise say what they need to say. The thing that must be said then develops force and power, like steam in a boiler, and comes out as verse. 

Anyone who is garrulous and talkative is already habitually saying whatever is on their minds. There is no force left over for poetry. What they present as poetry is just more of their usual pedestrian thoughts, without art.

And it is all about them. The focus is on being a poet, not the poem. Which is killing the craft.

You reveal yourself as a poet because you speak little. Poets live with silence, and every poem is ripped out screaming.

A poet must also always tell the truth, painful as it may be, to themselves or others. Without truth there is no beauty. A poet is a prophet. A good salesman, by contrast, says whatever they think the audience wants to hear. 

The two approaches are incompatible from the womb.

What we commonly call poetry now is essentially the opposite of poetry.

In the end, what makes me most depressed about the evening is the thought that this man has wasted his life. He has invested his identity entirely in being a poet. And he was never a poet, and could never be a poet. What could be sadder than seeing someone who has lived his whole life as a lie? And, not having any sense of poetry, he probably has no idea.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

On Calling an Indian an Indian

 

Can you spot the racial slur?

Acorrespondent asserts that the term “Indian” is derogatory. This is indeed acommon view; but I hold it is arbitrary and nonsensical.

If, afterall, the term is derogatory, it should be offensive to use it to refer to the nativesof the Indian subcontinent. Which nobody holds it to be.  If you consider the same term offensive whenused on or by one group, but not offensive when used on or by another group, theproblem is not with the term. It is with you: you are treating peopledifferently on the basis of race. You are a racist.

The originalconcern with the term is that it is supposedly inaccurate—Columbus supposedlymistakenly thought he had reached India, and declared the land the “West Indies.”This does not make it derogatory, any more than mistakenly calling anAustralian an Austrian would cause offense.

But eventhis objection to the term is actually wrong. The very term “West Indies” showsColumbus did not think he was in the subcontinent—that was the East. The peopleof the Philippines were also referred to in Columbus’s time as “Indians.” Sowere Malaysians, and Indonesians, the Arabs in the Middle East, and the people of sub-Saharan Africa. “Indian”meant roughly what we currently mean by “native.” If “Indian” is offensive,then so is “native,” or “aboriginal,” or “indigenous.” Or “First Nations.”

Anotherobjection is that it presents the misleading impression that all Indiancultures were similar, when in fact they were widely diverse. One shouldinstead say “Innu,” or “Dogrib,” and so on. But if this objection is valid, itapplies equally to the terms “white,” “Caucasian,” “Asian,” “European,” or “African,”all of which are common and not considered derogatory.

Is itobjectionable because it is a term from English, and not from a native Indianlanguage? But this is the same for all other  groups, and all other languages. “Irish” isnot the term in Irish for the Irish: “Greek” is not the term in Greek for theGreeks; “English” is not the term in Korean for the English; and so on. English,like any language, has its own terms for various groups.

So what arewe to call this group of people?

As ithappens, “Indian” is, in both the US and Canada, the proper legal term. Unlikeany other term, it has a clear legal definition. It is therefore the correctand precise term; who or what counts as “First Nation,” or “aboriginal,” or thelike, is ambiguous and open to dispute. “Indian” is also commonly and historicallyused by Indians themselves, as in the “American Indian Movement.”

So why doesanyone object to the term “Indian”? It is only a bit of academic snobbery, ofcant or jargon, showing you are a member of an in-group who “knows better” thanto use the common and familiar term.

A goodwriter and a good editor should resist and discourage all such cant and jargon.Given that writing is communication, we should always prefer the common and themost accurate term.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

How We Know Christianity Is Truth

I recently attended the introductory session of the Alpha course. The Alpha course is making waves in the Christian sphere; it is a course of videos and discussions for those sniffing around on the fringes of faith. Developed by an Anglican pastor, but non-denominational in tone, on the “mere Christianity” model of C.S. Lewis. And this session was so well attended, the organizers were trying to turn people away, suggesting they come instead for the next session, expected some time this winter.

Bad advice, I suspect. I suspect that one will be even better attended. The change has begun.

However, I was troubled by the tone of the introductory video. It kept citing scientists to establish the credibility of Christianity. “I’m an established scientist, and when I looked at the evidence…” “Look at all the well-known scientists who were Christians.”

This might make some kind of evangelical sense, talking to people where they are now--materialists. But to my mind it concedes the game before the start of play. If you are using scientists to establish the credibility of Christianity, your religion is scientism, the worship of science as the font of all truth, not Christianity. This is upside down. There is a reason science emerged in Christian Europe, not elsewhere.

Science, for all its usefulness, cannot establish truth. Every claim it makes is provisional. Because its method is inductive, even its strongest claims might be disproven tomorrow by some “black swan event.” And they commonly are. I am old enough to know that much of what I was taught in high school science classes is now held by science itself to be wrong. We were told the world faced an overpopulation crisis. We were told a new ice age was imminent. We were told the world was about to run out of oil, and water, and food. We were told there was no such thing as continents moving, as continental drift. It was mere coincidence that the coastline of Africa seemed to match the coastline of South America like jigsaw pieces. We were told that the human embryo in the womb looked just like a lizard, and this proved evolution. We were told eggs were bad for our health. We were told to get as much sun as we could, and many of us got skin cancer as a result. My grandmother was told to take up smoking for her health. 

If it was all wrong then, and all wrong fifty years earlier, and all wrong fifty years before that, how can we assume it is all right at this point?

Moreover, science relies on prior assumptions: that our sense perceptions correspond in some consistent way to real objects external to us. That everything, including our memories, did not come into existence five minutes ago. That we are humans who dreamt last night we were butterflies, not butterflies dreaming right now we are humans. That the simplest explanation is most likely to be true.

Moreover, as arbiters of truth, scientists, as illusionists from Houdini to the Amazing Randi have often demonstrated, are naturally gullible and easy to mislead by appearances—because that is what they go by.

Science also depends on strict adherence to ethical standards by scientists—not faking their data, not logrolling their friends, not injecting their own interests or preferences. Yet science itself eschews moral education; it scoffs at moral concerns. How can we trust scientists?

My faith therefore does not rely on any scientific approach to “the evidence.” This includes the evidence for the resurrection, which Alpha seems to emphasize as critical, as does William Lane Craig. 

If I remember it correctly, I believe the video misstates that either the resurrection or the life of Jesus is the single best-corroborated event in history. There are certainly many more recent events for which there is more evidence. We obviously have more evidence, for example, that John Kennedy was assassinated, or that an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. It is, rather, the best-established event in ancient history. 

But that is still not enough on which to build a firm faith. That Is also, in principle, vulnerable to a “black swan” event. Suppose tomorrow someone excavated the corpse of Jesus? Such a faith is at best provisional.

My faith is based on the one hand on the dozen compelling logical arguments that God exists. Indeed, I would go further and assert that the existence of God is a self-evident truth. If many deny it, I hold that they are doing so on emotional, not rational, grounds. They are like Adam and Eve hiding in the bushes, imagining God could not find them there. People often do not WANT God to exist.

If one retreats from the world and meditates on this silently, the truth becomes obvious.

Given that God exists, by his nature, He would not hide himself from us. He would give us clear guidance. He would reveal himself to us in some way. Where?

Logically, in Christianity and in the Bible, on the grounds that that is the theological and cosmological system most directly available to the most people over the longest time. God would put the solution as much as possible in plain sight.

But in terms of my actual conversion to Catholicism, this was not the key. To be clear, I was raised Catholic. However, from about age 15 to 17, I considered myself an atheist. I was not prepared, nor should anyone in good conscience be, to simply accept something as truth without examination, because you were told so by your parents or your school or your culture or those around you.

What made me realize Christianity was truth was the Sermon on the Mount. I suddenly saw these words as both perfectly true, and not obvious, not mere truisms anyone could say. Indeed, they went directly against what I had been taught as “true.” Apart from any “evidence,” of this or that event or name, somebody said these words originally, and whoever did was unquestionably God incarnate, truth incarnate.

“He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice.” (John 10: 3-4)

I recognized the voice. And I suspect this is the way true conversion must happen. 

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Protest in Liberation Square

I have been invited by a musician friend to join a protest “against injustice, fossil fuels and the billionaires that fund them.”

“We refuse to stand by while the government and Canada's richest corporations hoard wealth, gut our public services, fuel climate collapse, attack migrants, exploit Indigenous lands, and prop up a genocide in Palestine.”

“Climate justice, migrant justice, economic justice, Indigenous rights, and anti-war movements are uniting to prove them wrong.”

Their list of demands follows: “fund our families and communities.” “Refuse ongoing colonialism. Uphold indigenous sovereignty.” “Stop blaming migrants. Demand full immigration status for all now.” “End the war machine.” “End the era of fossil fuels. Protect Mother Earth.”

It seems an oddly random set of concerns, and vague demands, with a lack of specifics. Which makes me think the main impetus here is tribalism: “virtue signalling.” Or rather, an abdication of responsibility for the problems of the world. It is all the fault of governments and big corporations, and it is up to the governments and the rich corporations, not me, to fix it.

I do not believe the government of Canada is hoarding wealth. Quite the reverse: they are running an annual deficit, and there is a large public debt. 

If a corporation is hoarding wealth rather than reinvesting or distributing it to shareholders, I think this is bad, but it is a matter for their shareholders to deal with. I don’t think they need me to step in and protect their interests. 

Presumably it is the government, and not rich corporations, that are gutting our public services. But money does not come from nowhere; that is a childish thought. If money is being taken out of some public service, is it going to some better use elsewhere? One needs to consider both ides of that equation.

I do not see either the government or rich corporations attacking migrants. The government is inviting them into the country in unprecedented numbers, and the corporations are accused of exploiting this for cheap labour.

I do not see either the government or rich corporations exploiting indigenous lands; although perhaps this hinges on what you consider to be indigenous lands. If you hold that all Canada is indigenous land, then of course any land use in Canada is “exploiting indigenous lands.” But economic development, exploitation of resources, is a good thing, if you are on the side of humanity.

Legally, and morally, “indigenous land” means land the title of which is held by some indigenous person, or on behalf of some tribe or band—the reserves. Are there examples of exploitation here without permission or compensation? If so, I am opposed. But I would need to hear specifics.

As to “propping up genocide in Palestine”—there are several issues here. To begin with, is there a genocide in Palestine? Is the IDF trying to wipe out the Gazan Arabs? Or is this a war against Hamas, or a suppression of a terrorist group? If it is a genocide, the obvious immediate solution would be to open the Egyptian border to Gazan refugees. If that is not the proposed solution, I must suspect some ulterior motive. And that the Gazan Arabs are considered expendable.

The next question is whether Canada is propping up the Israelis. We send no foreign aid. We sell them weapons; which actually means they are funding us. The Canadian government announced in March 2024 an embargo on arms shipments to Israel; although this seems not to have been honoured.

“Fund our families and communities”? But government funds come from our families and communities. The solution is to leave the funds with them in the first place. Again, there seems a childish assumption that money just comes from nowhere.

“Refuse ongoing colonialism. Uphold indigenous sovereignty.” It is an interesting idea: this would mean each reserve declaring independence, and running their own affairs. But if it was racist in South Africa with their bantustans, if it was racist in the US South with segregation, surely it is racist in Canada now. And I doubt any of these tiny countries would be economically viable without outside subsidy.

“Demand full immigration status for all now.” But this is an obvious injustice: why should this particular group of people be allowed free entry into Canada, above others who might want to come? 

Or is the proposal just to open the borders and let anyone in? This is incompatible with having a social safety net. The incentive to immigrate will be far greater for those wanting or needing public assistance. Other countries might outsource all their problems, all their antisocial or indigent residents, to Canada. And other countries might even try to take us over by simple force of demographics, as the US took Texas from Mexico, or Morocco seized the former Spanish Sahara.

“End the war machine.” Canada is conspicuous for how little it spends on defence; we are in trouble in our alliances because of it. And when was the last time Canada started a war? The military industrial complex is probably the least of our worries.

“End the era of fossil fuels. Protect Mother Earth.” Here I must recoil. “Mother Earth” is obvious idolatry. Nor does Earth need protecting from us. We could not destroy it if we wanted to. The worst we could do is destroy ourselves.

There is an argument that there is something wrong with fossil fuels, other than that they will run out. The idea is that burning anything produces carbon dioxide; carbon dioxide causes global warming; global warming is a bad thing on balance. This seems to me a slender thread; there are more pressing things to worry about. And what is your solution? Even if fossil fuels cause global warming, and global warming is bad, there is nothing any one government or rich corporation can do about it. If Canada were to ban the burning of fossil fuels altogether, manufacturing would simply move to China, or India, or whatever country allowed it. If any corporation stopped using them, they would just lose their competitiveness and go out of business to some rival. The only solution is improved technology that makes some other energy source more economical. 

I have perhaps gone into too much detail; I feel these things are obvious. But obviously not to everyone.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Both Sides?

 

Someone has done a bit of research.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

Everybody Knows...

 That the left is the party of violence.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

On Right-Wing "Cancel Culture"

"Dead Rabbits" riot in NYC.
The right inAmerica is currently undergoing some soul-searching, under accusations ofhypocrisy from the left. People are getting fired for their online reactions toCharlie Kirk’s assassination. Some are being doxxed to their employers. Isn’tthis the very cancel culture the right has been complaining about?

This is aconundrum always faced by a liberal democracy. It was pressing during the 1920sto 1950s. Can you allow a Nazi Party or a Communist Party to openly organizeand compete in elections? After all, they are rejecting the electoral systemitself. How do you handle a political movement that advocates politicalviolence? That commits it?

If politicalviolence is allowed, the electoral system itself disintegrates. The decisiondevolves to mobs in the streets.

Celebratingthe death of Charlie Kirk is endorsing political violence; and advocatingpolitical violence, implicitly or explicitly.

Incitingviolence in any context is criminal. Inciting or advocating political violencesteps that up to something like treason.

The right inAmerica is currently undergoing some soul-searching, under accusations ofhypocrisy from the left. People are getting fired for their online reactions toCharlie Kirk’s assassination. Some are being doxxed to their employers. Isn’tthis the very cancel culture the right has been complaining about?

This is aconundrum always faced by a liberal democracy. It was pressing during the 1920sto 1950s. Can you allow a Nazi Party or a Communist Party to openly organizeand compete in elections? After all, they are rejecting the electoral systemitself. How do you handle a political movement that advocates politicalviolence? That commits it?

If politicalviolence is allowed, the electoral system itself disintegrates. The decisiondevolves to mobs in the streets.

Celebratingthe death of Charlie Kirk is endorsing political violence; and advocatingpolitical violence, implicitly or explicitly.

Incitingviolence in any context is criminal. Inciting or advocating political violencesteps that up to something like treason.

The right in America is currently undergoing some soul-searching, under accusations of hypocrisy from the left. People are getting fired for their online reactions to Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Some are being doxxed to their employers. Isn’t this the very cancel culture the right has been complaining about? 

This is a conundrum always faced by a liberal democracy. It was pressing during the 1920s to 1950s. Can you allow a Nazi Party or a Communist Party to openly organize and compete in elections? After all, they are rejecting the electoral system itself. How do you handle a political movement that advocates political violence? That commits it? 

If political violence is allowed, the electoral system itself disintegrates. The decision devolves to mobs in the streets.

Celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk is endorsing political violence; and advocating political violence, implicitly or explicitly.

Inciting violence in any context is criminal. Inciting or advocating political violence steps that up to something like treason.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.

The Underlying Reality of the Current Moment

The murders of Charlie Kirk and Iryna Zarutska still physically sicken me. But this morning I have a new sense of calm. This was the last lunge of a dying beast. Charlie was killed because he won the debate. There may be further violence, we cannot let down our guard, but we are now in the mopping-up phase..

The trans movement is dead.

Materialism is dead.

Scientism is dead.

Islamism is dead.

Multiculturalism is dead.

Climate change is dead.

The powers and principalities of this world are in panic.

The materialist demons who inspired Iryna's murderer are in panic.

Christianity has won; or Judeo-Christianity.

The culture war is won. 

The evil is exposed, and the majority is repulsed by it. And we know who the ultimate baddies are now. There is moral clarity.

'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.