Featured Post


  First, here is a link to the audio that I listened to, which is free to download: https://librivox.org/old-time-makers-of-medicine-by-jame...

Friday, September 18, 2015


I like to do two things at once whenever I can, for the Bible urges Christians to redeem the time. Not only do I shave while I cook, but I brush up on my French at the same time as I keep up with what radical feminists are up to. So to keep my French from getting too rusty and to stay informed on what leftist radicals are doing, I listen to a program on CBC Radio called, Plus on est de fous, plus on lit! This may be translated as, The more we play the fool, the more we read. I get that they are trying to be lighthearted and funny by a title like that, especially since it seems to be a spin on the proverb that says, ‘Plus on est de fous, plus on rit,’ which may be translated as, ‘The more we play the fool, the more we laugh.’ But my commentary on one of their episodes will show that their foolish play is not followed by much wisdom through the reading of many good books. If playing the fool leads these hosts and their guests to read, it must lead them to read foolish books indeed! Rather than play the fool before they read, they should pray to God for guidance on what to read. Rather than read on the basis of tomfoolery, they should read in order to become wise.

Sometimes an episode or other of Plus on est de fous, plus on lit! is so foolhardy that I am compelled to take notes while I listen. I did that on June 17th, 2015. On that day these silly radio talkers were discussing whether violence by women is still taboo or not. ‘Tabou’ is one of the frequent buzz words they use on CBC Radio French, second only to the filler word, ‘effectivement,’ which they throw into nearly every sentence for no reason at all. On the face of it, what they mean by violence by women being taboo or not is this: is violence by women still socially unacceptable? Asking the question is relevant enough in light of the fact that women are becoming less and less feminine and more and more brutish in our increasingly heathen society. Has it become socially acceptable for women to be violent? That’s a good question to discuss and to address. But the tone, insinuation, and broader context of this episode show that their view is that whatever is taboo should not be taboo—that whatever is unacceptable should be acceptable instead. Their question really is, not ‘is violence by women taboo?’—but ‘should violence by women be taboo?’ They seem to bewail the fact that ‘kamikaze’ women (‘kamikaze’ being the French expression for ‘suicide bomber’) are few in number! Should violence by women be taboo? They want violence by women to be more acceptable—more the norm, because they do not like stereotypes! They don’t want violence by women to be atypical or unusual or shocking. They seem to be genuinely relieved and elated even, that at least some of the suicide bombers have been women. Women can be anything but decent, feminine, and gentle these days, it seems. Today’s woman commits the ultimate sin by being, or staying, good.

Women who want the quiet, modest stereotype to disappear are feminists of the most radical stamp. For example, on this same episode one of the men made the big mistake of saying that a certain movement was waiting for ‘his man,’ which is just an expression that means the movement is waiting for its right leader to come on the scene. Expressions that have long been considered generic, however, better be expressed in the female gender, as this man was hotly reminded of as soon as the expression slipped out of his careless mouth. Feminists who are this radical—radical enough to crave it to be more acceptable for women to be violent, will not let any expression cross their path without it passing the dictatorial feminist test. “Always the man, always the man,” this woman cried, as soon as the one sitting beside her slipped up by speaking normally and traditionally.

So there you have an inside look at what goes on at Plus on est fous, plus on lit, a program steeped in the bowels of the most left wing French people in Canada who read and write the most base, radical, subversive books available for consumption. Should violence by women be taboo? All violence should be taboo, especially violence by the gender that is by nature the most nurturing. Far from being boisterous and violent, women should strive to adopt what the apostle Paul says is the ideal: virtues like modesty and subjection (1 Timothy 2.) Of course, women on this program and on CBC in general are not going to value what the Bible says. Even most women who claim to love the Bible would rush to defend these feminist radicals if they came across this obscure article of mine. It would be foolish for any woman who pretends to love the Bible, however, to say that virtues like modesty and subjection only pertain to a woman’s conduct in church twenty centuries ago. That would be the same as saying that God wants women to be vain and balky today, which is ridiculous and which the Bible nowhere endorses. The virtues that women are supposed to peculiarly exemplify are enforced by two historical facts: Eve was created second; and she, not Adam, was deceived by Satan (1 Timothy 2.13, 14.) The folks at The more we play the fool, the more we read, ought to burn their corrupting novels just as certain converts in Ephesus burned their books of ‘curious arts’ (Acts 19.19); and then they  should reach for their Bibles to renew their minds with. No doubt they have Bibles, though they must be the kind that people keep for show and that gather, instead of notes in their margins, inches of dust on their covers.

This has been a Puritanical opinion about CBC Radio’s opinion that violence by women should not be taboo, but more acceptable instead. 

No comments: