Stephen Roney's Blog, page 44

On My Noble Ancestry

 

My father always claimed to be descended from United Empire Loyalists. It was a family tradition, passed through his paternal grandmother, whose name was Van Luven. The Van Luvens were supposed to have been early settlers in the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam, and to have owned land in what is now Brooklyn. 

The United Empire Loyalists were Americans who dissented from the Revolution, and relocated  to Canada to preserve their ties to Britain and the crown. It is a thing in Canada, like those in America who claim to have been descended from passengers on the Mayflower.

A nephew recently got his DNA examined, one of those heredity kits. The test turned up no Dutch or Flemish blood. Mostly Irish, then Welsh, then Scottish, a smattering of Scandinavian.

I was delighted.

I have always had a visceral distaste for the UE Loyalists.

We Canadians think of them as admirably loyal to Britain, the crown, and to settled authority. 

After all, other than independence, the American Revolution accomplished nothing. We in Canada also have freedom, democracy, and human equality. 

If you read through the history, though, it is dead sure that Canada would not have these things, if not for the American Revolution. Very likely the UK would not either. The UK extended responsible government to Canada only when they feared that, if they did not, they would lose these provinces just as they lost the lower 13. There were reasons for the Rebellions of 1837.

In this, I have to stand against the UE Loyalists. They were the baddies.

They fought against equality and representative government in Canada, as they fought against it below the border. They saw themselves as the aristocracy. This classism has been a poisonous presence in Canadian history, through the Family Compact and Chateau Clique of the 19th century, up to the current concerns in the West of a “Laurentian elite.” Canada is inclined to be cliquish, in every sphere; and the Loyalists started this. They birthed and represent classism in Canada.

Do I need to elaborate on why privilege by birth is immoral? In the brotherhood of man, people must be judged on their merits and the content of their character, not who their parents were. That is never just; worse still in a nation of immigrants. Racism springs from the same font.

Here in Saint John, the newly-arrived UE Loyalists let only fellow Loyalists own property or operate a business inside city limits. When the Irish came, they had to settle, with the Indians, blacks, Congregationalists, and Acadians, north of the city line. That old line is still visible— on the north side of Union Street, the buildings are all wooden, but for the Catholic Cathedral. On the south side, they are solid brick. Loyalists and their descendants were buried in the city centre. The “Old Loyalist  Burying Ground” is still well-preserved. Others were interred north of the city line, and their graves are built over and no longer marked.

Towns and cities tend to take their character from their original inhabitants, barring some truly overwhelming wave of new immigration. Saint John has been rescued from this classism by Irish immigration in the 19th century, which swamped the original population. 

It gives the place an odd ambience. Everyone does still think in classist terms, but then everyone thinks of themselves as working class. There is no sense that anyone left today is a Loyalist descendant; the Loyalists seem only a mythical presence. Their modern successors are the Laurentian elite, or away in Europe. And we by and large don’t like ‘em. 

Kingston Ontario, another original Loyalist hotbed, did not get a large enough wave of later immigration to wipe out the local class distinctions. There is still a “north of Princess Street” stigma. In Saint John, “north of Union Street” no longer has such stigma. People are proud of coming from the North End. Wanna make something out of it? The Irish who got wealthy did not move out and try to pass; they built their new houses in the North End. Now it has nice neighbourhoods, like my own.

In Kingston, by contrast, it matters. There is also the vague sense among locals that Kingston is the rightful capital of English Canada. Toronto? Ottawa? Upstarts! Montreal? French!

Local people used to be ashamed of being seen at S & R, the local bargain emporium. In Saint John, everyone is proud of a bargain. 

And that is why locals are so determined, like the Van Luvens, to claim Loyalist ancestry. Or the Greenwoods, a local family that gained social prominence after they changed their name from Boisvert. Or former Mayor George Speale, whose real name, whatever it was, would have been Greek. In most places in Canada, a Greek or a Quebecois would not feel called to change their name. 

Now where did the Van Luvens really come from?

The family tradition was that it meant “from Louvain,” a city in modern-day Belgium. But hunting it down online, the web site Igenea says “It's important to note that the exact place called Luven doesn't seem to exist in contemporary maps of the Netherlands or Belgium.” Seeming to suggest the derivation from Louvain is also dubious. 

Even crazier, they write “Van Luven is thought to be a French-Canadian surname, and is found primarily in Quebec and the Maritime provinces.” 

And there is only one family of that name in the Netherlands; suggesting it is not a Dutch surname at all. Just Dutch-sounding.

Igenea gives several possible explanations for the “Van Luven” name other than as a place reference. “Van” in Dutch can also mean “son of.” Luven might be a personal name, although such a name is not known in Dutch. It could be a corruption of the Dutch for “lion,” the national symbol of Belgium. Or for the Dutch word for “love” or “beloved.” Like the English "loving."

That is, “love child.”

Why would a French family have a Dutch-sounding name?

Perhaps for the same reason indelicate body parts are commonly spoken of in Latin: as a euphemism. In the same way we refer to a toilet as a “washroom” or “rest room.” People rarely go there just to wash, or rest. 

Even better if it sounds like a noble title.

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

Don't Let the Pendulum Hit You on the Way Back

 

It is clear the world is descending into chaos. No truth, no morality, no beauty. Nevertheless, I remain optimistic. 

Not because of any faith in God. Why would God save us from our folly, any more than he saved Sodom and Gomorrah? How can we assume we’re the good guys?

Because of faith in history. 

We have seen cultures go mad in the past, and things did straighten out. They might not if there were some near outsider culture to take over; but I don’t see one on the horizon. The whole world is going mad together. 

The Romantic period, paired with the French Revolution, similarly threw out morality, any sense of abiding reality, and just about any tradition they could get by the throat. Yet it stabilized into the long optimistic peace of the Victorian Era. 

Then there was another time of tumult in the Edwardian period, aka the Jazz age, with art nouveau, then dada, women trying to look like men, Josephine Baker dancing nude, an “eat, drink, and be merry” doomed gaiety. But that settled down into the grim and culturally conservative thirties, forties, and fifties—except for the weird tumorous growth of Nazism and Fascism in parts of Europe, at once a violation of all cultural norms, of notions of truth and morality, and yet imposing social conformity and a rigid code of conduct. But Nazism too was self-limiting.

Back further, the Elizabethan Age in England was riotous; with the ancient verities of Catholicism challenged. Then the Puritans descended and shut things down. 

Then the Restoration was riotous again.

The pendulum swings. 

We can see it swinging already, and some people, like Bud Light, are getting caught out. More will.

My fear now is that it may swing too far the other way. We may get another hybrid tumor like the Nazis; or the Puritans; in reaction and revulsion. 

How safe is it that so much money and power and trust is becoming concentrated in the hands of one man, Elon Musk? He has the money to defy everyone. He has his hands on all the latest technology and technology trends. He may soon be in total control of the public square, if everyone migrates to X. He seems to be a good man; but he is a man. It is well to remember Lord Acton’s axiom. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Or can we really trust Donald Trump? He says good things, and we naturally want to support him in the face of obvious persecution. But how deep is his commitment to anything but power? What is he in this for?

It is dangerous to put so much of our hopes and our trust on one man.

Let’s keep our heads, if we can. 

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

Eid Mubarak

 

Today is Eid al Fitr. As I always do, I posted a greeting on Facebook for my Muslim friends.

But this year, for the first time, I got some pushback. The following comment appeared almost immediately:

“No. Release the innocent Israeli hostages first. You ‘muslims’ have no right to celebrate when such crimes and so many others are committed in the name of that ‘religion’. It’s not a religion but a scheme to destroy the world.”

Muslim authorities worldwide should condemn the actions of Hamas on October 7 and disassociate themselves from them. Individual Muslims should keep away from any pro-Hamas demonstrations.

Otherwise, what are the rest of us to think? Raping, killing children and holding hostages is objectively evil, not permissible even in a declared state of war., let alone in a surprise attack If Islam can defend and even support this, Islam is objectively evil.

It saddens me deeply to say it.

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

On Writing Poems that Rhyme

 

At a recent poetry reading, I read a poem that rhymed. The moderator, a local cultural arbiter, reacted  when I finished by saying rhyming a poem was rather controversial. This certainly sounded like public disapproval.

She got immediate polite pushback, however, from one attendedd: “then which side are you on?”

“I like all styles of poetry,” she demurred, “but it’s hard to get a rhyming poem published.”

I had nothing to say. She was undoubtedly correct, after all.

Other listeners, however, seemed to make a point of congratulating me on the poem, insisting they liked rhyme. 

“It’s easier to recite rhymed poetry properly,” one noted.

“It’s easier to remember too,” I added.

Why did the coordinator want to call it out?

Coleridge defined poetry well back at the end of the 18th century: “the best words in the best order.” Each word must come across as the only possible word in that place. This can be for the rhyme, the rhythm, for assonance, for alliteration, for onomatopoeia, or for any other conceivable sound effect; or to evoke a vivid image, to extend a metaphoric conceit, to express an emotion with an apt objective correlative, to make a punch line by reversing expectations, or to make a profound philosophical or psychological (in the true sense) point. Ideally, you want every word to do at least two of these things. Three or more is better.

Rhyme, it is true, has never been a requirement for poetry. Some of the greatest poems do not rhyme. Consider Donne’s sermon, “No Man Is an Island”:

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

To be fair, there is some rhyme, but irregular. There is rhythm, alliteration, an extended metaphor.

But one justification for a word is that it forms a rhyme. In principle, a rhymed poem is superior to an unrhymed poem, because it gives the words one more purpose, one more element of symmetry and beauty.

It is also true that readers and audiences prefer rhyme. Robert W. Service is the most successful poet of all time, in terms of sales generated; his best-remembered poems have not just end rhymes, but internal rhymes. 

In a buckskin shirt that was glazed with dirt he sat, and I saw him sway;
Then he clutched the keys with his talon hands — my God! but that man could play.

Of course, the cultural moderators scorn Service for this very reason: because he rhymed, and because he is popular.

Probably the most popular and successful living Canadian poet also rhymes: Dennis Lee. He gets away with it, presumably, because he writes for children:

Alligator pie! Alligator pie!
If I don’t get some, I think I’m gonna die!

According to Michael Posner’s detailed compilation of anecdotes, Leonard Cohen left poetry for songwriting because he was condemned by Louis Dudek for writing in rhyme. He saw there was no future for his passion for words in the poetry community. The joy of songwriting is that rhyme is permitted.

It may be no coincidence that songs, unlike poetry, are still popular.

Why then are the cultural arbiters openly hostile to rhyme?  

Because it takes great skill to write a good rhyme; and not just great skill. It takes a certain amount of inspiration. You rhyme badly, and it sounds inane: doggerel. This happens when the only reason for a word is to achieve a rhyme.

And so there is a natural pressure among professional or wannabe poets, to make their lives easier and their ambitions more attainable, to claim that rhyme is undesirable. Because inspiration can’t be taught, there is pressure on the Fine Arts departments to discount it, in favour of things they can teach the merely average student to do. 

Let these products of the academy or professional poets select for the publishers, as they do, and you get unpopular and mediocre art. Which is why poetry is now moribund.

Here’s a random current poem appearing in my Facebook Feed; selected as unusually good by the League of Canadian Poets:

 

It is more than decent prose; it has good images. But what makes it a poem, as distinct from a passage that might be found in a well-written novel?

There is no rhyme; there is no rhythm, no alliteration, no assonance. The images, while vivid, are not objective correlatives, serve no further purpose, and make no philosophical point. The topic seems trivial: these are not words that need to be said. “Catching the spins like commas” has some alliteration, but does not seem to mean anything. A spin does not really look like a comma. And the alliteration could have easily been better: “catching the curves like commas.” “These blasted rocks are laughing. Their jagged grins zipper shut as you drive by” is verbose. “Blasted” and “jagged” add nothing. “These rocks are laughing. Their grins zipper shut as you drive by” would be stronger.

While there are, I’d say unusually for most modern poetry, no cliches, except arguably for effect (“’A weekend escape,’ you tell yourselves.”) the entire format of interior monologue is itself an almost inescapable modern cliché.

Having nothing else to offer, there is among modern poets a temptation to grab attention by mere lurid detail. Here, the vulture eating the carcass of a raccoon. 

But this is an easy trick, a cheap thrill. Word porn. It gets boring fast.

We need somehow to get around the gatekeepers. My own idea is to create a poetry web page on which readers could vote for the poems they actually like best. With annual publication of the winners.

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

A White Pill

 

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

Eighteen Manchurian Candidates

 

Sheila Gunn Reid on X: "WHOA 🚨🚨!!!! No wonder the Liberal gov withheld these CSIS docs until 1 am this morning. "We know that the PRC clandestinely and deceptively interfered in both the 2019 and 2021 general elections." "At least 18 candidates and 13 staff members were implicated in PRC foreign… https://t.co/IpLFPUJ5Wk" / X (twitter.com)

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

Eyes Wide Shut

 

All the usual sources of authority that we have always relied upon seem to have gone wrong. We can no longer trust cardinals or even the Vatican and the pope to be seeking and speaking truth without fear or favour. We cannot trust governments and ministers to be acting in the public interest. We cannot trust the press to hold them to account. We cannot trust the universities to be dispassionately concerned with the pursuit of knowledge. We certainly cannot trust the secular schools. We cannot any longer hold the fond delusion that scientists are objective and never fudge data, that “science” is an unimpeachable authority. We cannot trust the professions to behave ethically. Who can we trust?

Yet a few figures have emerged. We may not always agree with them; they may not always be right; but they at least seem to be seeking the truth and right. They at least do not seem to be lying and trying to trick us. Joe Rogan, Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr., J.K. Rowling, Elon Musk…

One reason the current feud between Candace Owens and the Daily Wire has become so newsworthy on the right is because it makes the Daily Wire folks look hypocritical—another trusted source of authority selling out to a special interest, Israel. I think this is the wrong take, but it is what is causing the current consternation.

I might add Pierre Poilievre or Nigel Farage to the list. I hesitate, because they are both primarily skilled rhetoricians, salesmen. There is nothing dishonourable in that, but there is room to wonder if they always mean what they say. It is not the place of the rhetorician to be an authority. There are attack dogs, and there are shepherd dogs. 

No doubt there is cause for suspicion of some on the list I do give. How can Donald Trump be taken seriously as a voice against the establishment? He is the establishment: from New York upper society, from an established family, went to the posh schools, a billionaire. Hobnobbing for years with the A-listers. How Can RFK? Who’s more establishment than a Kennedy? How can Elon Musk, the richest man in the world?

But that is exactly why they can speak out: being made, they are not on the make. Being established, they at least stand a chance of being too established to be destroyed for speaking out of turn—although it is obviously being tried, against Trump, against Kennedy, against Rowling, against Rogan. They are brave, but at least have a decent chance of surviving.

Tulsi Gabbard? How does she get away with it? She’s not rich. But she has the female form of riches. She’s too beautiful to be destroyed or silenced.

Many of these have begun speaking out against the establishment “narrative” only recently. Even Trump until 2011 or so was not visibly Republican or a dissenter or on the right. Something is changing. A tide is turning.

If only “establishment” figures are as yet speaking out, this tells us that a good many other people, less invested in the status quo, would also turn against it if they thought they could. A very large number of people, we can deduce, is being cowed into silence and compliance. A further large number of people have been flying monkeys. We begin to see it in the Bud Light and Disney buycotts. 

This may include many supposed authority figures. I think I begin to see signals from the pope himself that he feels trapped and does not necessarily want to be identified with his own recent actions. Benedict, after all, complained of having no real authority over the Vatican bureaucracy. “My authority ends at that door.” Biden certainly looks like a trapped and frightened old man with someone pulling his strings. 

This sounds like a house of cards. People are being silenced and pressganged into lynch mobs out of fear, and there may in the end be little behind the curtain; only a malicious but timid charlatan or two.

If and when the iron hand of cancel culture that is oppressing the many falters, if people like the Rogans, or Trumps, or Rowlings, escape destruction, there will be a revolutionary force released, like steam from a ruptured boiler. 

Let it be soon, O Lord.

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

Darkness at Noon

 

A leftist friend posts a link to a page from Rolling Stone magazine saying that the upcoming solar eclipse is breeding conspiracy theories on the “far right.” The article is behind a paywall. But the first “conspiracy theory” cited is the only one I’ve seen elsewhere: that the eclipse is a sign of the “end times.”

Why is it that I only ever hear these “far right” conspiracy theories from the left? They never show up on sites the left calls “far right”: The Daily Wire, Steven Crowder, Small Dead Animals, Rebel News, True North, Mark Steyn. Only on the left; yet labelled “far right.”

I suspect left-wing journalists trawl the internet for improbable claims, and when they find one, arbitrarily label it “far right.” Because, after all, anyone who disputes the familiar dogmas on anything is by their definition “far right.” 

The association of the political right with finding signs in the sky significant is surely dubious on any other terms. This is, in a word, astrology. The Age of Aquarius, the Axial Age, and all that bit. Is New Age on the far right now? Has anyone told Marianne Williamson?

It is also clearly not a conspiracy theory. People cannot conspire to move the stars and planets.

The fundamentalist Christian concept of the “End Times” is not a conspiracy theory, either. God is not a conspiracy, by definition; there is only one of him. “Conspiracy theory” is now simply used, just like “far right,” to tar and dismiss any claim or idea disliked by the left.

And speaking of End Times, what makes Protestant fundamentalism either political or specifically “far right”? Only that they dissent from the dominant opinions of folks on the left about life and the universe. Not political issues—except that, to the left, everything is political. The left is intrinsically totalitarian.

For what it is worth, I cannot see a solar eclipse as a special sign from God; except in the sense that all nature speaks of him to us. Although rare, it is as predictable as a celestial clock striking eleven. If God wants to send a warning, I expect some violation of the laws of nature to make the source and urgency clear. 

And as to the end of time, nobody knows the day or the hour. It will come like a thief in the night.

The solar eclipse may have some mass psychological effect. It may make people ready to believe improbable things.

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

The Genocide News

 

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

There Is a Counter-Culture Emerging

 

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