Featured Post

The Four Chief Causes of Writer's Block

  Too often have I heard this or that writer complain of writer’s block on Canada’s socialist broadcasting corporation, the CBC. How often i...

Monday, February 3, 2025

Remembrance Day Hatred at the CBC

 


I turned on the radio on November 11th, 2020 in order to hear something about Remembrance Day. Within a minute or two I heard the host, a male, say this: “On this day we pause to remember the women and men….” I don’t know exactly how that sentence ended because those few words were so belittling to the men who fought and died in the wars that the rest of the sentence was obscured by the fog of anger running through my mind.

Putting women before men as soldiers to be remembered is not a matter of a CBC host being polite and chivalrous. It is the CBC putting women before men because at the CBC men are systemically hated. That the CBC host was free to mention the men first in that sentence—this is doubtful. The CBC is so authoritarian that that was probably not an option. If he spoke like this without being told to do so, it is almost enough to make us believe that he is of a third gender— call it ‘sissy-man,’ ‘girlie-man,’ or ‘fifi-man’ or some other moniker that would make you imagine some unmanly form of manhood. 

Did women die in battle in WW1? They did not. Did women die in battle in WW2? They did not. Did women die in battle in Korea? They did not. Did women die in battle in Afghanistan? At least one Canadian woman did. But even if many women had died in battle in that war, there would be no justification for saying that we pause on Remembrance Day to remember ‘the women and men.’ The right thing to do would be to say, not that ‘we pause to remember the women and men,’ not even that ‘we pause to remember the men and women,’ but simply that ‘we pause to remember the men.’ The word ‘men’ implies ‘women’ if there were any. That is the generic rule. If there is one woman alderman among many men aldermen, that is a council of aldermen. If there is one woman postman among many men postmen, that is a company of postmen. If there is one woman soldier among many men soldiers, that is a section, or platoon, or company of men. That is what soldiers are called. When a section commander calls his soldiers together, he says, “Okay, gather around men.” At least that’s what he used to say: before effeminate orders came down from feminist Ottawa. 

You might think that this is a small thing to be angry over. If this is what you think, you do not realize that the military is being taken down incrementally by a thousand belittling steps just like this one. Soon it will be too ‘toxically’ masculine to have any Remembrance Day celebrations at all. We’re almost there already. 

Before I turned the radio off—which did not take more than a few minutes—I took note of these other belittling steps. The CBC had to interview someone about war. So what was done? They found a ‘woman expert’ from a university who said this: “We’re not a militaristic people, but we have been engaged in wars around the world.” So a people engaged in ‘wars around the world’ are not militaristic? This is like saying that the people of Sodom were not sodomites (see Genesis), that the Cretans were never liars (see Titus), and that the Galatians were never foolish (see Galatians.) This female ‘expert’ doesn’t want Canadians to have been militaristic; that is why she spoke contradictorily. Meanwhile beyond the studio over at the war memorial, the CBC’s masters in Ottawa had chosen two men to read some words on war. At least the readers were men; but what they read was trashed nonetheless. How was the reading messed up? They had an English-speaking man read French; and they had a French-speaking man read English. That way English-speaking Canadians could be humiliated by hardly understanding war memories in broken English; and French-speaking Canadians could be humiliated by hardly understanding war memories in broken French. For example, the Frenchman spoke, not of ‘hope,’ but of ‘ope’; and of the ‘vilnerable’ instead of the ‘vulnerable.’ It wasn’t his fault; English is just not his native tongue. 

I have no doubt that Remembrance Day and its traditional poppy will soon be as controversial as a Trump presidency and a MAGA hat. There are at least three other poppies vying to replace the traditional one. There is the anti-remembrance white poppy; there is the black poppy for persons of darker skin than white; and there is the LGBT rainbow poppy, as if so many queers and fake gender persons have died in trenches. ‘We pause to remember the women and men’ may lead to ‘we pause to remember the black lives’ and ‘we pause to remember the non-binary persons.’ To pause to remember the actual soldiers who died in war will be regarded as a racist-sexist remembrance because almost all of them were white men; therefore this remembrance—the only factually based remembrance there is—will be disallowed. 

How did it come to pass that the word ‘woman’ was derived from the word ‘man’ and that the word ‘man’ was used to denote both genders when appropriate for use generically ? It came to pass through acts of creation by God. Man’s body was created from dust; woman was created from the man’s rib. “She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Genesis 2.23.) Not only this, but she was created for man, not the other way around. “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Corinthians 11.9.) It is improper, being unbiblical, to exalt woman at the expense of man, as the CBC did when one of its pawns uttered, “On this day we pause to remember the women and men….” On Remembrance Day, therefore, we pause to remember the men.


Friday, January 31, 2025

Brief Analysis of 'Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup'


 

In 2015 I wrote an extensive analysis of the ‘9/11 Truth Documentary—Grave Implications.’ In November of 2021, knowing that ‘health measures’ like the wearing of masks, the lock-downs, and the Covid-19 vaccines were unnecessary, harmful, and rooted in the love of power and money, I heard a well-spoken man argue the old saw that ‘9/11 was an inside job.’ The response to Covid-19 being an ‘inside job,’ as it were, made me consider what this man was saying about 9/11 being an ‘inside job.’ This man articulated his view so well and so convincingly that I decided to watch the 9/11 documentary that he recommended, called ‘Loose Change 9/11: an American Coup.’ I did not subject ‘Loose Change’ to the scrutiny that I had subjected ‘Grave Implications’ to. But I took a few notes as I watched the film.  

I do not object to the allegation that the US government was at least negligent enough in its duties that 9/11 could have, and should have, been foiled. But this is far from agreeing that the 9/11 acts of terrorism were evil deeds concocted and brought to pass from the ‘inside.’ I am relieved to see, in light of what I have already written about 9/11, that few points are needed to cast doubt on the ‘Loose Change’ thesis that ‘9/11 was an inside job.’ 

Point number one: When President Bush ‘claimed, more than once,’ that ‘he saw the first strike live on television.’ I don’t get what this is supposed to prove—something about timing, maybe that he saw the strike as an eyewitness while everyone else saw it on television later, which would mean, I guess, that he somehow colluded to make 9/11 happen. What President Bush meant by this ‘claim’ was that he saw the first strike on the first tower ‘live’ in the sense in which we all saw it: in replays on television of it happening in real time.   

Point number two: On the presence of neo-thermite in or on the tiny piece of debris that was examined. The detection of neo-thermite is supposed to prove that explosives were used to take the towers down. I don’t know if neo-thermite has to have come from explosives. But suppose that this is the rule. And suppose that neo-thermite was found. What would this prove? If the apartment of a soldier that I visited in 1990 or so had been destroyed by a plane crashing into it, neo-thermite would probably have been found in the debris. How come? Because this soldier, which is common to do among soldiers, had collected used ordnance memorabilia. How many articles of used ordnance memorabilia must have been contained in twin towers that were among the largest buildings ever to have stood on the earth since the beginning of the world—twin towers that hundreds of military aficionados worked in? 

Point number three: On the puffs of smoke that may be observed, on slow motion video, just below the levels at which the buildings are collapsing. These puffs of smoke are supposed to prove that explosives were planted in the buildings and that the charges are going off as the buildings are coming down. What’s really happening? These puffs of smoke are natural explosions caused by pressure. This can be demonstrated by crushing a cardboard cup or an empty box of tissue with your foot. Air is forced outward as these items are crushed from the top. You can actually feel the air rush out as you do this. 

Point number four: About what happened at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. It is accepted by almost all of us that on 9/11, Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon and Flight 93 crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. In ‘Loose Change’ we are told that no airliners were involved in either of these events. What ‘truthers’ never address—and what is not addressed in ‘Loose Change’—are the locations of the airliners, the passengers, and the crews of these two flights. Where are they? Are these airliners parked somewhere? Have the people that were on them been abducted by aliens? We are not told. We are not told because every answer that could be proffered would sound insane. 

9/11 ‘truther’ videos are good for nothing except for use in teaching principles of critical thought. They are useful only in this negative sense. They take things out of context. They are scientific up to a point; that is, they break down analytically. And they have no good answers—sometimes no answers at all—to the hardest questions. 

The hardcore conspiracy theorist—the kind that refuses to receive reasonable answers to good questions—likes to leave the event that he theorizes about, unresolved in some aspects. He likes to leave some aspects of the event hanging because this makes his dull life at least sort of mysterious; and it gives him an excuse to revisit the event an indefinite number of times. It is his hobby to talk about it; and if he can make the hobby his bread and butter also, so much the better in his estimation, and so much the happier is he because of it. But 9/11 is more than just his hobby. It is as difficult to get a hardcore 9/11 conspiracy theorist to give up his hobby as it is to drag the heroin addict away from his drug; 9/11 ‘truthing’ is the radical conspiracy theorist’s favorite drug—a drug more addictive by far than speculating about other mysterious events, like the assassination of JFK, for example. JFK speculation is just a gateway drug to 9/11 ‘truthing.’ JFK speculating is just low grade marijuana; 9/11 ‘truthing’ is the nastiest heroin. It’s the dirtiest, most addictive gutter-drug that a conspiracy devotee can get into his mind. What do we have in the JFK assassination? We have a president, his first lady, a motorcade, a grassy knoll, a hidden shooter, and brains blown out: BORING. That’s boring compared to what has happened since. No event is more exciting to the hardcore conspiracy enthusiast than the event known as 9/11 because 9/11 has more bells and whistles than you can blow a party horn at: skyscrapers, airliners, hijackers, jet fuel, fire trucks, infernos, implosions, blood, smoke, fear, screams, begging, pleading, panic suicides, and utter pandemonium. You’d think this would be enough, but NO. Correction, maybe to the conspiracy zealot this many bells and whistles amounts to an overdose; this is why he takes a couple of airliners out. This omission, like Narcan, brings him back to life; and he is so glad to be back among the living. But now, because of the sobering effect of Narcan, he needs to be re-inebriated. So he watches a couple of 9/11 videos, being careful, this time, to come short of an overdose by pretending that Flight 77 and Flight 93 never crashed. Then he lies back on his easy chair once again, relieved to be back under the heady influence of his favorite drug; and with his inebriated conspiratorial pals, he begins, for the thousandth time, to carelessly discuss what pathetic mourners only cry about. Don’t disturb the 9/11 ‘truther’ by asking him hard questions that he needs to leave unanswered for the continued, ongoing, never-ending enjoyment of his preeminent drug. 

What should the 9/11 ‘truther’ be doing instead of getting high on 9/11 conspiracy theories? He should be doing what we all should be doing: “redeeming the time, because the days are evil” (Ephesians 5.16.) Why treat time as precious? It should be treated as precious because it is a limited resource. After it is gone, there is no more time to turn to God and place faith in Christ for salvation. If faith is not obtained and repentance is not undertaken, sin, instead of being forgiven, will be judged. And being judged for sin will be worse than 9/11 because punishment for sin will be everlasting.


Thursday, January 30, 2025

Christian Elitism

 


For two or three years I listened to a broadcast called, the Whitehorse Inn, a Reformed-minded discussion among four Christian men who occupied positions of leadership in God’s Church. The ‘usual cast of characters’ on this program were: Michael Horton, Rod Rosenbladt, Kim Riddlebarger, and Ken Jones. I enjoyed their work, and benefited from it. I especially liked the following three series that they collaborated on: Recovering Scripture, Christ-less Christianity, and Post-Christian Culture. Their views were solid; their delivery was proficient; their banter was tolerable; their elitism was under the current. 

One day their elitism broke the surface of the current, and its ugliness was exposed to view. It came into view by the mouth, I think, of Michael Horton. It happened during a question and answer period before a live audience. A young lady asked what manual the men turned to for their theological terms or etymological definitions, something like that. The Whitehorse Inn panelist—Michael Horton, I think—answered by giving a political non-answer. It was clear that he didn’t want her—or the rest of us—to know what manual he made such good use of. After he gave his non-answer, she put the question to him in a pointed way that left him no way out. She said something like: “But what is the actual manual that you use because I want one for my own studies.” He would either tell her, or be embarrassed in front of everyone and possibly off the stage. Grudgingly, then, he told her what the manual was. 

I tried to listen to the Whitehorse Inn after that shameful moment of elitism. But I could never get the elitism out of my mind as I listened; after trying a few episodes more, I quit listening completely. 

A leader in God’s Church is supposed to be a teacher, never an elitist, never a cabalist, never mason-like. He should not want to lord it over his listeners as if threatened that someone among them might, by listening or by turning to his own enlightened sources, become as knowledgeable as he is. He should be like Moses, who said, “Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD’s people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11.29.) Not to argue for women holding positions of leadership in God’s Church by quoting this verse to support my protest, but to apply its principle. The sin that Moses reproves Joshua for tempting him with, this he calls ‘envy.’ It was Joshua who envied; but Moses was tempted by Joshua to envy too. The word ‘envy’ means to be zealous in a bad sense. It is bad to be zealous concerning a high station in life, which inevitably involves looking down on others who are not so highly occupied. It is one thing to envy someone for having what you want but do not have, as in Rachel envying her sister for having children (Genesis 30.1.) It surely must be worse to envy someone for his or her potential to have what you have. It must be worse because in this case you want, not merely to equal the status of another, but to deny someone the status that you have. Wanting to keep someone down must be worse than wanting to rise up to where someone is. And where knowledge is concerned, as in the issue between the lady and Michael Horton, the sin of envy is great indeed. The lady was not envious. She wanted the knowledge, understanding, and instruction that Solomon commands us to get. And this is what God commands the leaders in God’s Church to communicate to those who ask for it. These facts are so obvious to any persons who have read the Bible that they are unnecessary to prove by verses or even citations. 

Envy is an ugly thing; it is what love does not do. “Charity envieth not” (1 Corinthians 13.4.) One time I invited an old buddy from Ontario to Alberta and into my apartment so that he could find employment in my city. Once there, he gathered information on a line of work that I also was desirous of looking into. But he refused to share what information he had found. I, like he did, simply wanted a job; he was envious concerning knowledge. Withholding knowledge about work is almost not worth mentioning beside the suppression of a manual that knowledge about sacred things might be gleaned from. 

To support the Whitehorse Inn, listeners were solicited to sign up as Innkeepers, Architects, or Reformers. The Whitehorse Inn’s ‘usual cast of characters’ could not come up with a scheme by which all signers would be accorded a ‘Reformer’ title? The temptation in this pitch was that a listener would be called a ‘Reformer’ if only enough money were given. Anyone with only ‘two mites’ to give would have to be called something less, even though this kind of giver is the kind praised by the Lord (Mark 12.41-44.) And what does exclusive name-calling do but tempt persons to envy? 

It is interesting and revealing that only the term Innkeeper evokes the blue-collar worker, which is the one that is given the lowest station in the scheme. Sixteenth century Reformers did not look down on low stations in life, but wanted the plowboy to know as much as the man in Oxford or Cambridge knew. The best of them, at least, were not elitists. “I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness” (Psalm 84.10.) I do not say that the Whitehorse panelists dwell in the tents of wickedness; but the verse lacks sense if quoted in part. It is more than okay, says the Bible, to be an innkeeper, even though at the Whitehorse Inn it is the lowest place.     

The Whitehorse Inn is not necessary in the age of digital abundance. Puritan sermons and Puritan books may be accessed by anyone who desires the virtues that Solomon advises everyone to obtain. Given the meticulousness of Puritan material, it is evident that these holy giants did not begrudge anyone the acquisition of knowledge. They were not envious. They were not Christian elitists. The Whitehorse Inn table-talkers could confess their elitism, turn away from it, and what Christian would not believe in God blessing them for it? If it has not happened yet, I hope that it will. Their show, if they still do it, could do a lot more good than they realize because sound theology, which is what they broadcast, is not popular, but perennially necessary. Their show is not necessary; but sound theology is; and it might as well come through them as through anyone.


Wednesday, January 29, 2025

Grass Roots Quiz

 


Can You Sympathize with the Common Man?


Or,


Are You Disconnected from these Grass Roots Taxpayers?



Have you ever washed your clothes in a laundromat? 


Have you ever lived in a basement suite or a bachelor suite? 


Have you ever had a roommate for financial reasons? 


Have you ever picked berries for a pie to be made? 


Have you ever worked on a construction site or washed pots and pans for a living? 


Have you ever milked a cow?  


Have you ever had blisters on your palms or feet from working?


Do you have a close relative or good friend who’s in the military or who drives a tractor-trailer for a living? 


For men: have you ever changed a tire? For women, have you ever knitted socks or mittens?  


For men: have you ever killed an animal while hunting? For women: have you ever caught a fish while fishing? 


8-10: You get an A. You are a blade of grass. No matter how rich you get, remember what you are, where you come from, and act like it. 


5-7: You get a B. You may be a blade of grass. Do not lose the connections that you have. How about taking your clothes to the laundromat this weekend to kindle your green sensibilities? 


2-4: You get a C. If you are a blade of grass, you are barely one. It may be that you have lived, or are living, in ivory tower society. If you have some relatives or friends who are greener than you are, how about showing more interest in their lives? If you don’t have green relatives or friends, you are in danger of looking down on the grass roots. 


0-1: You get an F. I don’t see how you can possibly be a grass roots member of society. I hope you never call yourself one. It may be that like a certain billionaire, you connect and sympathize with grassy citizens. I hope so. In that case, you get an A for being a humble aristocrat. If, however, you are in an ivory tower looking down on the grass with contempt, climb down, get with some grass, and get some dirt under your skin. You will be encouraged by the connections that you make, and you will be on your way to achieving a greener grade.

 

We are not saved from guilt and hell by how low or high our station in life is. But how high in life is most consistent with acknowledging the LORD and obeying his commandments? “Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain” (Proverbs 30.8, 9.) Congruent with this, churches have been populated, more often than not, by persons of the middle class, persons who like both law and order and modest lifestyles. We are not reconciled to God through middle class living; but this is where we are most apt to find ourselves humble enough and civil enough to reach out to ‘the God of the whole earth’ (Isaiah 54.5.) And the middle class is the best and happiest place to be after we have got, by repentance and faith, Jesus Christ for our Redeemer.


Tuesday, January 28, 2025

Judging Prime Minister Trudeau

 



What is our judgment of Prime Minister Trudeau? We judge by fact-based opinion and voting. God judges based on the attribute of omniscience; his verdict hinges on his attribute of righteousness. Because he has made the national debt to double all on his own, because of his childish antics on the world stage, because of the dangerous ‘refugees’ that he has imported, because of the abortions that he is funding at home and abroad, because of the vandalism and violence that he is facilitating, because of the multitudes of Covid mandate deaths, Prime Minister Trudeau is making himself so ripe for judgment that it is a wonder that he hasn’t fallen from the tree yet. God’s patience is wonderful. It would be unchristian not to admit that God’s longsuffering is wonderful beyond words toward all of us. Not one of us deserves a drop of God’s wonderful patience. A Christian may, though, and must, as bashfully and boldly as he can, expose the works of darkness that sinners are guilty of; especially must this be done when the sins are great and are being committed by the man whose business it is, from the political standpoint, to work the hardest for the welfare, not the wreckage, of the nation.

Justin Trudeau is a nominal Roman Catholic. He has never renounced the religion. Therefore it may be that he thinks he is a Christian. Besides all the other fires, as it were, that this man is guilty of starting and fanning, he has been guilty of kindling literal fires and of keeping them going. He could stop the hysteria over unmarked gravesites. He could stop the arson attacks against churches. He could deport immigrants and illegal migrants who are calling for the death of Jews. He knows that it would be good for Canada and Canadians to do these things. “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4.17.) The sense here, says Matthew Poole, is that to him it is sin ‘indeed’ and that consequently he will be punished with greater severity because of it. Mr. Trudeau has a lot of plans. He must have many plans to spend the money that kickback-schemers have deposited into his ‘Foundation.’ Why does the ‘Foundation’ exist except for these plans? What does the Bible say to such plans? “Go to now, ye that say, today or tomorrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, if the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that” (James 4.13-15.) We ought to fear God in proportion to how large our plans are and how few years we have left on earth to put these plans into effect. Our fear would be great then; it would be so great that we would burn our bucket lists and then crush the bucket that they were contained in. Or, if we have a bucket for lists, the only list in it should be a list of what we plan to do for God, and even then only ‘if the Lord will.’ A PM who is doing to Canada what Trudeau is doing to it should take notice of how surprisingly God has taken wicked rulers out of the world. King Ahab had big plans. He would have liked to continue enjoying ‘the ivory house which he made’ (1 Kings 22.39) and the vineyard he stole from the man that he and his wife killed to get (1 Kings 21.) He had a clever plan to go on living, robbing, tyrannizing, and merry-making. But God out-clevered him by a ‘random’ incident (1 Kings 22.34), ending his days before Ahab could get back to his ivory house or vineyard even one more time. Wicked rulers do not often repent. Many of us hope they will. We hope to see it happen in our lifetime even in Canada. That it will occur is one of my favorite, frequent prayers. 

Trudeau’s biggest enemy is God; his next biggest enemy is himself. He seems like a pretty safe man with his secret service goons always nearby. And he is pretty safe from his most frustrated citizens because all they want is to be left alone by the government. But pride goes before a fall; few Canadians are more proud than Trudeau is; and God especially hates ‘a proud look’ (Proverbs 6.17.) Watch clips of Question Period and see for yourself if anyone in Ottawa can compete with Trudeau’s proud look. This passage in Proverbs includes a list of seven sins that are ‘abominations’ to the LORD. Trudeau may be easily shown to be guilty of them all, even of having ‘hands that shed innocent blood’ because he incites the hatred that leads to attempted murder, he mandated poisonous vaccines to be taken, and he winks at terrorism. Indeed, thirteen year old Marrisa Shen would not have been murdered by Ibrahim Ali in 2017 if Trudeau had not let the murderer into our country as a ‘refugee’ from Syria. Trudeau can be seen on video laughing or scoffing at questions about this murder. He believes that he’s unaccountable. He believes that he can open the way to arson, attempted murder, and even murder, and still not be held accountable. He will not be held to account in this life; the most corrupt politicians these days are above the law. But no one is fully held to account until Judgment Day anyway. That day is coming; it will come; nothing can stop its arrival. The way world leaders act and get away with what they do, we are tempted to doubt, in our weakest moments, if they can ever be made to listen to even one word of reproof. They sin; they refuse to answer questions; and off they strut to sin more at large. Year after year after year they do this. When they do take notice of a question, they talk around it or make fun of it. What can we do? They have the power; we are the peons. To wink and scoff at capital crimes is easy for a wicked person to do until he is restrained by God to answer for his wickedness. But those who are untouchable now will be as easy for God to judge as it is easy for a man to squash a beetle on the sidewalk. Their future is like this: “The sinner in his day, knew no moderation of sin, the Judge now in his day, will know no mitigation of judgment; there will be a sea of wrath, without a drop of mercy” (Thomas Case, Mount Pisgah, p. 117.) 

With some effort, I can imagine Justin Trudeau as a man convinced of his sins and converted to live for God. I can imagine it; but my faith in the prospect is not great. A good argument can be made that King Nebuchadnezzar—King of ancient Babylon—was finally converted. His evil deeds were great and many. In comparison with him, Justin Trudeau is a little man in every way, even in regard to sin. God can humiliate a king; he can humble a king; he can make a king meet for the kingdom of heaven. He can save a leader of a nation today. While it is true that Canadians—sinners that we are—deserve no better leadership than what we get from Trudeau, it is also true that Trudeau deserves no better than to be allowed, by the lengthening of his tenure, to make his hell as hot as Nebuchadnezzar made his furnace. We should pray for the better leadership that we don’t deserve. And we should pray for Trudeau as if we were him because any sinner, if given power, can have that power go to his head. If we do not realize this fact, how far from the kingdom are we? 

The only way to pay off the debt that Trudeau has plunged us into is to discover and mine diamonds from another planet or an accessible meteor. By giving billions upon billions of dollars away to his friends and our enemies, year after year after year, he has managed to make the debt exceed a trillion dollars. A playboy in charge of a country is how a nation’s massive debt load doubles in just five years. When I think of how world leaders throw billions of dollars around; that is, with as much discretion as members of a wedding party toss confetti in the air—I instinctively imagine these world leaders trying, through penal suffering, to pay every penny of their debt in hell, the interest on that debt increasing by degrees and adjusting for inflation for an infinity of time to make a full payment of that debt always out of reach. The only way that we can judge a leader like Prime Minister Trudeau is to criticize him and expose his wickedness in the hope and prayer that he will step off the stage in shame as soon as possible. That he will repent, either before or after his official role as PM, has got to be our wish and prayer, even if it is impossible for him to make restitution for all that he has cost us. His wrongs cannot be righted; they can only be regretted and repented of. What thanks do we owe God, whoever we are, for his mercy in not elevating us to such heights on earth that we could be tempted to run a whole nation down for the sake of covetousness or conceit! Our sins, no matter who we are, are already numerous enough to warrant unending wrath. If we truly desire mercy to triumph over judgment in our case, which can only happen through faith in Jesus Christ, we want the same for anyone at all, even the chief politicians among us. It is not easy to pray for a minister like Trudeau; it is not easy to wish him well; it is not easy to hope anything for him but that he’ll reap the worst. One man, concerning the healing that he desired for his son, said to Jesus, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief” (Mark 9.24.) Concerning my wish to see Prime Minister Trudeau saved, the most that I can honestly say is, “Lord, I can voice the wish that I should have in abundance. Forgive me if this voiced wish is little more than a lie. Help both my wish and my unbelief. ”     

Because hell is everlasting, and since heaven will not be permitted to be defiled no matter who makes it in, would it not be refreshing to witness piety in the place where it is least likely to be seen: in the highest office of our land? Canada’s official designation is not Democracy, Democratic Socialism, or Communism, but Dominion. Canada is supposed to be a Dominion ‘under the crown of the United Kingdom and Ireland’ (British North America Act.) But what forbids it to be under the greater Dominion of God? Have we ever had a prime minister under the dominion of God in a saving sense? I doubt that we have. It is something to pray for. It may be more likely that this will happen than it won’t happen because we can imagine it happening at least once. Stranger things than this have happened in history. Instead of being overthrown for its wickedness, as prophesied, the great city of Nineveh ‘believed God’ and was spared. If God can cause an Old Testament king to exchange his robe for sackcloth, he can cause Trudeau to dress down instead of up. And then we might have reason at least to ask this concerning Canada: “Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?” (Jonah 3.9.)


Wednesday, July 24, 2024

Divine Intervention of Biblical Proportion for President Trump



Why do I say ‘President Trump’ instead of ‘former President Trump’? I say ‘President Trump’ because he was actually elected by the American people in 2020 for a second term. The fact that the Democrats cheated him out of his second mandate means that he legitimately had it. Now he might earn a third mandate. There could be many reasons why Trump, by the grace of God, dodged that bullet on July 13th. Patriots hope that it was because God is clearing the path for Trump’s victory in 2024. At the very least, God will make it clear, I think, whether by Trump’s third mandate going forward, by his mandate being stolen from him for the second time, or by his assassination, that Trump is the people’s choice. No one believes that Trump will legitimately lose in 2024: except for the politically ignorant or the thoroughly brainwashed.  


How did Trump evade assassination on July 13th? God can cause a carefully aimed bullet to penetrate an ear instead of a brain by having the targeted head turn just in time. We know this because he took the life of a king by making an arrow shot at random to strike between the joints of his harness (1 Kings 22; 2 Chronicles 18.) This incident is recorded twice for us to drive home the lesson. The contrasting parallel between what happened to King Ahab and President Trump (the former singled out by God for death and the latter singled out by God for life) makes it particularly wicked and risky to be wishing that Trump had been assassinated and hoping that he yet will be. Lusting for the blood of a man that God so obviously saved from assassination is to stand, not with God, but with lying spirits, false prophets, and Satan himself. God spared the life of Donald Trump by a moment of grace. Will he do the same for you? Will your next call be a close call or your last call?


Thursday, August 24, 2023

MY NOTES ON 'OLD-TIME MAKERS OF MEDICINE' BY JAMES JOSEPH WALSH, 1911

 


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-james-joseph-walsh/

As these are my notes on an audio version of a thorough history of medicine, I did not labor to get the spelling of all the names or words right, but guessed at many of them. Sometimes I thought it necessary to put my own thoughts in parentheses. The reader of said audio is LivelyHive. Thanks to him, this interesting book may be absorbed with ease.  


NOTES ON 'OLD-TIME MAKERS OF MEDICINE' BY JAMES JOSEPH WALSH, 1911.

Preface and Chapter 1: This book covers the period of the Middle Ages, from the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 A. D. to the discovery of America. He gives the earlier context though as well. Our Forefathers in Medicine is his other book, which covers the period after the discovery of America down to his own time. He posits that medical ignorance was not what we think it was during the Middle Ages and that Christians made the progress that was made, possible. That is his thesis; he is a Roman Catholic. Some knowledge that they had in the Middle Ages was forgotten about; then it was rediscovered, either through ancient books or otherwise; this knowledge includes anesthesia, sepsis, and antisepsis. It is interesting that the author mentions the fall of the Roman Empire as being caused, in part, by invasion and infertility (choosing not to have children.) I have heard this opinion many times; it suits our case today. Much of the medicine in the ‘dark ages’ was recovered in the 19th century from old books. Barbarians coming into Rome was what began its intellectual decadence. This suits our case to a point as well. Basil Valentine is the father of pharmacy. This first chapter is excellent. Listened to it twice in a row; and I plan to do so again. The author is a clear writer. The reader is flat; but he reads slowly, which makes the material easy to follow; his pauses are in the right place; I can get used to him. 


Chapter 2, Part 1: This is on early Christian caring for the sick, and their hospitals, which date as far back as Basil in the fourth century. Before this, Christians were hindered more; but they did what they could.


Chapter 2, Part 2: Men do not regularly consent to surgery on the testes to cure varicose veins. Gynecology and cancer were known in the Middle Ages. Asheus (phonetic) was one of the first whose work was published by the printing press, though he lived many centuries earlier. There follows a summary of four brother physicians. 


Chapter 2, Part 3: This is on Alexander. Saltwater is for curing dandruff. (This probably works; too bad I didn’t know this as a kid and young man.) Headache is inflammation of the brain. (Alexander is full of common sense.) He observed a tapeworm that was 16 feet long. Other doctors are now summarized. Ecclesiastical control is the reason for the preservation of old works on medicine until the printing press was invented and could be used. Christians and Arabs translated many Greek works of medicine and other subjects into their languages. This knowledge they built on in their own studies, experiments, and treatments.


Chapter 3, Part 1: This is on great Jewish physicians. They labored greatly against prejudice. They drew on the Old Testament and the Talmud. The Old Testament is the foundation of rules of sanitation. (The Talmud has much in it that is correct.) Good description of canine rabies at 9 minutes: “His [the dog’s] mouth is open. The saliva opens from his mouth. His ears drop. His tail hangs between his legs. He runs sideways. And the dogs bark at him. Others say that he barks himself, and that his voice is very weak. No man has appeared who could say that he has seen a man live who was bitten by a mad dog.” The author says that this description is accurate up until his day. C-section is mentioned in the Talmud. The Talmud is a kind of encyclopedia on all kinds of knowledge. At 12 minutes a quote from the Talmud which the author calls ‘a famous summing up of the possibilities of life and happiness’: “Life is compatible with any disease, provided the bowels remain open; any kind of pain, provided the heart remain unaffected; any kind of uneasiness, provided the head is not attacked; all manner of evils, except it be a bad woman.” Author calls this quote ‘possible [sic?] wanting in gallantry, being set down to the times in which it was written.’      


Chapter 3, Part 2: This concerns the ninth century. It begins with the contemporary Jewish doctor of Charlemagne. Muslims studied Aristotle and Plato at Baghdad at this time. Jewish physicians influenced Arab leaders. At this time the Arabs too became successful physicians. Disraeli is called by one of his translators into Latin: ‘the monarch of physicians.’ Some of his maxims at 7:30 minutes to 8:30: “The most important duty of the physician is to prevent illness. Most patients get better without much help from the physician, by the power of nature.” He distrusted the use of many medicines at the same time. “Employ only one medicine at a time in all your cases, and note its effects carefully.” He was ‘as wise with regard to medical ethics as therapeutics.’ He wrote on fevers, urine, melancholy, diet, et cetera. He lived to over 100 years. There were decrees against the Jews by the Roman Church and the pope himself, the author admits; but the Jews overcame this. He says that they nevertheless became physicians to kings, bishops, and even popes. He does not blame the persecution of them on Christianity, but ‘defective human nature.’ He’s right, but only technically. Pope Innocent III he calls the greatest pope of the Middle Ages. This pope: “Let no Christian, by violence, compel them to come, dissenting or unwilling, to baptism. Further, let no Christian venture maliciously to harm their persons without a judgment of the civil power or to carry off their property or change their good customs, which they have hitherto in that district, which they inhabit.” Some later popes were of the same mind. Author generalizes that the popes of the Middle Ages were protectors, not persecutors, of Jews. His bias is showing, I think. He says it’s because of the popes that the Jews were not exterminated. He quotes a few Protestants to try to prove this. He blames their persecution on ‘local’ instances of ecclesiastical regulations, especially in France. A lot of it was to guard against ‘quackery.’ He ends with praise of Maimonides, a man greatly esteemed by later physicians. 


Chapter 4: Maimonides was the royal physician to Saladin. He was Jewish, and born in 1135 or 1139. Arabs introduced a system of irrigation not equaled by the Spaniards. Rural people leaned more on the intellectual side than people in the cities, for these latter pursued money more. The Jews were so happy in Spain that they wrote poems about it. The basis of education in Spain among Jews in Maimonides’ day: the Bible, the Talmud, math, astronomy, literature, law, and physical science. He was not precocious. His family had to flee Spain because of persecution. They settled in Cairo. Maimonides was one who cared for people, not diseases. His letters include rules on dietetics. This is summed up at 22-34 minutes. These rules are for staying healthy. (Most of them I agree with.) Salt and oil he recommends for constipation. This is important because this ailment makes one liable to disease, he maintains. Most diseases, he says, are caused by poor eating habits. Maimonides: “Every change in a life habit is the beginning of an ailment.” He was wise enough to reject astrology. His rules for believing, or not, things like astrology: Rational proof, as in math, perception of the senses, or traditions from prophets or learned men. In his day, men tended to believe whatever was written in a book, especially an ancient one. He read every astrological book he knew about, and could find no reason to believe in it. His proverb, borrowed from a Rabbi: “Teach thy tongue to say, ‘I don’t know.’” This is an acknowledgement that you may not have the answer to your query yet. He died in 1204. Even Aquinas quoted him.        


Chapter 5, Part 1: Great Arabian physicians. Before the time of Mahomet, right after the time of Christ, Arabs were ‘hireling soldiers’, generally uneducated, and nomadic. Nestorian Christians began to teach them. The Muslims burned ten centuries of books at Alexandria because: if they agreed with the Koran, they were useless; and if they disagreed with it, they were pernicious. Exceptions were made for books of science, including medicine. Knowledge contained in Greek books eventually allured them into becoming pupils. Aphorisms that follow in this chapter are by Razis (phonetic): “At the beginning of a disease, choose such remedies as will not lessen the patient’s strength. When you can heal by diet, prescribe no other remedy; and, where simple remedies suffice, do not take complicated ones.” Another, because of his belief in the influence of mind over body: “Physicians ought to console their patients even if the signs of impending death seem to be present, for the bodies of men are dependent on their spirits.” The most important thing for the physician to do, he believed, was to increase the patient’s natural vitality. “In treating a patient, let your first thought be to strengthen his natural vitality; if you strengthen that, you will remove ever so many ills without more ado. If you weaken it, however, by the remedies that you use, you always work harm.” The simpler means, the better, he believed. He insisted more on diet than on artificial remedies. “It is good for the physician that he should be able to cure disease by means of diet if possible rather than by means of medicine.” Another: “A patient who consults a great many physicians is likely to have a very confused state of mind.” A huge translation of his work was burned by the translator to avoid controversy. 


Chapter 5, Part 2: Ali Abus, a prestigious successor to Razis. His book on medicine was used as a standard for two centuries. Arab physicians flourished in Spain. An Arab produced the first illustrated medical book. There is an ingenious cure for a fracture in the pelvis of a woman at 14 minutes, not quoting. One of these Arab physicians had commentaries written on his work up to five centuries after he practiced. One of his books replaced the one by Abus, and was used for a long time. Nutrition per rectum was known at this time (11th century, I think.) On this rectum treatment, it was thought that the nutrients could be sucked up that way. One philosopher-physician did more harm than good because he practiced speculation more than observation. Arabs reared medical institutions in Baghdad and Cordova. Some medical terms still in use in the author’s day come from Greek and Latin sources, but through Arab translations. This testifies of Arab influence in medicine. Arabs did plagiarize a bit the ancient authors. They lack originality, theorize too much, and observe too little. Freind wrote A History of Medicine. (He must be the doctor whom I quoted in my Covid book.) 


Chapter 6: The medical school at Salerno, 10th century, in the south of Italy. Much training was required there to be licensed, about ten years, which included an undergraduate degree in assorted areas of knowledge. Man is interested in his health, then his prosperity, then his relationships to God and man, says the author. (He’s probably right about that.) William the Conqueror went to Salerno for treatment when still a duke. Salerno set the standard for credentials. King Roger of the two Sicilys, 1140, promulgated the law: “Whoever from this time forth desires to practice medicine must present himself before our officials and judges and be subject to their decision. Anyone audacious enough to neglect this shall be punished by imprisonment and confiscation of goods. This decree has for its object the protection of the subjects of our kingdom from the dangers arising from the ignorance of practitioners.” So this, says the author, was so that unfit, unworthy physicians might not practice to their benefit and to the detriment of the patients, which had been happening due to the popularity of Salerno as the hub of good medical practice. A physician’s visit was worth the salary of a patient’s day’s work. Their lack at Salerno of training in dissection was not due to Roman Catholic objection, says the author, but to people not wanting their dead relatives dissected. (This might be his bias speaking.) Arabs didn’t look to nature for healing as much as what was done at Salerno: diet, water, and so on. Salerno has a poem written about it, 3,500 lines long. At 38:30 there is information on bedside manner, not quoting. At 41:30: physicians used a bit of deception for the good of the patient, not quoting. 


Chapter 7: Constantine Africanus in Salerno. He is the link between Arab and Western medicine. (Many of these physicians lived long lives, as did this one, some to over a hundred years.) Other physicians were jealous of him because of his renown and innovations; they gave him much trouble. He became a friend to the future pope: Desiderius (phonetic): a Pope Victor. Hard to say which works are Africanus’ because some writers used his name in order to have their works read. In that day, ten centuries ago and even during the renaissance, it was common for a writer to sign a known writer’s name to his work, and not care if he himself became forgotten, as long as his thoughts would be read. There was no question of money. Author: “Literature that has deeply influenced mankind has never paid.” Money-making publications, he adds, have been insignificant works that have affected people superficially. This is the best chapter so far except for the first one. 


Chapter 8: Medieval women physicians: the education of women at Salerno for the treatment of women’s diseases. Plato believed that women should be educated. So the idea is an old one. The author gives a brief history lesson on the education of women. There were Greek and Roman physicians, for example; they were not rare. Some early Christian women were not only physicians, but surgeons. He gives some information on some of the medieval women physicians and their manuscripts. They learned all branches of medicine, but practiced mainly one: that which concerns women diseases. This level of education spread into the whole of Italy, but not the West, at least not for licensing. Benedictines were the driving influence in Salerno for producing women physicians. ‘Sister infirmians’ were in monasteries and convents. Whether this means physicians or nurses, the author does not say. Hildegard (1098-1179) was a woman physician who corresponded with great men of the age and wrote much on medicine and natural subjects like trees and minerals. She anticipated many instances of modern ideas in medicine. For example, she asserted the circulation of blood centuries before William Harvey (1578-1657) discovered it. She said this about stars in the firmament: “Just as the blood moves in the veins, which causes them to vibrate and pulsate, so the stars move in the firmament, and send out sparks, as it were of light, like the vibrations of the veins.” In 1311 in France, women were allowed to practice medicine. By the 16th century, women physicians were almost a thing of the past. And the fact that women have practiced the profession has been all but forgotten (in the author’s day.) (My suspicion is that most of the ‘women physicians,’ since they majored in ‘women’s diseases,’ might have been no more than ‘midwives,’ though the author does not use that word. And this would sometimes necessitate a kind of surgery, which is simply cutting; and therefore midwives could have been called surgeons because of that.) He recommends a couple of his other books for proving the point that we often have to rediscover things that we already knew. ‘Escape the tooth of time’ is a good turn of phrase by the author. ‘Quack-salver’ is an ancient epithet, their name for a snake-oil salesman, or carpetbagger.         


Chapter 9, Part 1: Mondino (b. 1275) and the Medical School at Bologna. This school is a legacy of Salerno. It advanced in the department of anatomy. Mondino wrote a manual on the subject. He reintroduced the practice of dissection, which was an advance on the dissection of pigs. His public dissection of bodies was probably the first of these regularly made. Advances in medicine came mainly from education in Italy; it was this way for centuries. Here the author objects to the idea that the Roman Church was opposed to science in the Middle Ages. We need to acquaint ourselves with firsthand sources in order to learn this, he says. Dante was advancing literature. Giotto was beginning modern art. Why should it be hard to believe that medicine, too, was making strides? He gives some notes on Tadio, a great physician. The university (which included, I think, the medical school) at Bologna had, by the end of the 13th century, no less than 15,000-20,000 students. It was the custom, then, to learn both medicine and philosophy. 


Chapter 9, Part 2: Mondino was not the first to do human dissection, as is commonly supposed. The author gives recent anecdotes from his own time on body snatching. This he gives to prove that it is easy to suppose that body snatching occurred in Mondino’s day for dissection. The author wrote a book, The Popes and Science. Some professors in Italy were women from at least the 1200s to the author’s day. He shows how it must be inferred from Mondino’s writings that he did many human dissections. (I think his proofs from inferences are legit.) Mondino’s manual ruled for two centuries. 


Chapter 10, Part 1: Great surgeons of medieval universities. Historians generally contend that surgeries were not performed in the Middle Ages and that the Roman Church was the cause. The author, of course, is not of this mind. Medical historians know better. Surgery developed wonderfully in the 13th and 14th centuries. Surgeons of that day knew that a fractured skull did not necessarily exhibit a visible wound, a fact not always recognized in prisons of the author’s day. Most of this chapter is about a commentary by ‘the four masters.’ At 22 minutes they have a note on how the surgeon must have clean hands, have eaten no foods that may corrupt the air through exhalation, and have had no recent contact with menstruating (‘and other’) women. (Maybe this is a reason for the segregation of menstruating women for longer periods of time than for other reasons in the Old Testament: not concerning ceremonial purity merely, but literal cleanliness! What he means by ‘other women’: maybe sexual contact?) The medical institution at Salerno was likely founded in the 10th century; the one at Bologna in the 12th century. At 26 minutes a quote to prove anesthesia was not discovered in the middle of the 19th century in America, but was a practice in olden times; so this, from Tom Middleton in the 16th century: “…the mercies of old surgeons, who put their patients to sleep before they cut them.” Anesthetics were experimented with as early as the 13th century.


Chapter 10, Part 2: Bruno de Longo Burgo. He recommends surgery only after diet and potions have failed. Physicians had now become more eclectic in their gathering of knowledge. Wine was the best known antiseptic; wounds were washed with wine. Better food, they believed, produced better blood. Notes on Burgo’s work follows from this, which I am not summarizing. One surgeon removed (which resulted in a cure) a tumor the size of a hen’s egg from the mouth of a woman. He did it by heated instruments; thereby, (I suppose) removing the tumor and cauterizing the wound at the same time. Her cure was made more lasting and certain by the removal of loose teeth from the affected area. At 27 minutes occurs a passage on the qualifications of surgeons. It’s too long for quoting; but it’s good to know where it is just in case. Surgeon named Lon Frank (phonetic) at 28 minutes: “The surgeon should not love difficult cases, and should not allow himself to be tempted to undertake those that are desperate. He should help the poor as far as he can. But he should not hesitate to ask for good fees from the rich.” 


Chapter 10, Part 3: Mondeville. His work was not published until 1892, though he did his work in the 13th century. He accompanied the king (with other physicians) on his campaigns. He had not much time to write. He was a learned man who happened to become a physician. Confidence in the surgeon is often more important than the surgeon’s work in producing a cure. The patient’s relatives must not be told too much in case they drop some bad news on the patient. (This rule must still be in effect, based on my observations.) The surgeon’s assistants must be cheery in order to keep up the humor of the patient. (This is definitely still in effect, for I have experienced this before the doctor went for a biopsy of my stomach via my throat, and in dentistry.) Mondeville on problems arising from women nursing their husbands: at 17:45 minutes: “In our days, in this Gallican part of the world, wives rule their husbands; and the men, for the most part, permit themselves to be ruled. Whatever a surgeon may order for the cure of a husband will then often seem to the wives to be a waste of good material, though the men seem to be quite willing to get anything that may be ordered for the cure of their wives. The whole cause of this seems to be that every woman seems to think that her husband is not as good as those of other women whom she sees around her.” At 19:15 on categories: just as Gallan divides the famous physicians of the world into three sects: the Methodists, the empirics, and the rationalists; Mondeville divides modern surgery into three sects (naming certain names of physicians into three groups.) The methods of these sects divided by Mondeville: the first sect: they limited patients’ diet, used no stimulants, dilated all wounds, and got union only after puss formation; the second sect: they allowed a liberal diet to weak patients, though not to the strong, but generally interfered with wounds too much; the third sect believed in a liberal diet, never dilated wounds, never inserted tents (probably stents), and its members were extremely careful not to complicate wounds of the head by unwise interference. At 21:15 minutes on the kinds of traveling charlatans in Mondeville’s day, as quoted from Mondeville’s work: “barbers, soothsayers, loan agents, falsifiers, alchemists, mitch-heresies (?), midwives, old women, converted Jews, Saracens, and indeed most of those who, having wasted their substance foolishly, now proceed to make physicians or surgeons of themselves in order to make their living under the cloak of healing.” The author mentions an English physician at that time, a surgeon. (Usually he sticks with Italy or France.) There was a condition that caused fecal vomiting. Other areas of science, not only the medical field, he says, were more advanced than is thought. (Many of these physicians were Roman Catholic clergymen and/or bishops and/or Dominicans.) 


Chapter 11 Part 1: Guy de Chauliac. The surgery of that day was, in fact, says the author, ‘applied science.’ (He says this because that was disputed in his day.) Chauliac was the father of modern surgery. He lived in the 14th century. He was another physician-cleric. Going to Italy from France in that day was more costly and took more time, says the author, than taking a voyage to America from Europe in the author’s day. Chauliac’s book was the most read book on medicine for centuries. The RC Church was the patron of many physicians, including Chauliac. A Scot taught medicine in France in his day; Chauliac had no respect for his book. At 13:45 minutes there is a description of dissection, not quoting. There were body snatchings in his day in Bologna. Chauliac was a physician to three popes. He wrote one of his books ‘for solace in old age.’ (Maybe a good idea.) Fear and love are obstacles, says Chauliac, to discovery. What he means is that people, because of love or fear, commonly accept, without discrimination, what authorities have decided is true. (He has a point.) Few men think for themselves, says the author. (These thoughts are pretty good at around 23 minutes.) He quotes John Ruskin: “Nothing is harder than to see something and tell it simply as you saw it.” Men of Chauliac’s day lacked the critical faculty; this was not a fault in Chauliac.


Chapter 11, Part 2: Some surgical procedures in the author’s day, as well as the architectural designs of hospitals, were learned from Chauliac’s time. The medieval hospitals had a more cheerful look; and they were more practically built. Hernia was Chauliac’s specialty. He said that a truss should be worn over the hernia and that no surgery should be attempted unless the hernia endangered the patient’s life. He invented a manipulation of the hernia that was still in use in the 19th century. Chauliac discusses six surgeries for it. Sepsis was starting to be disregarded (not by him) in Chauliac’s day. The author calls Freind ‘that great English physician.’ (I quoted a letter to Freind in my Covid book.) Freind called Chauliac ‘the prince of surgeons.’ Chauliac cared for the sick during a bubonic plague while so many other physicians fled. He also wrote about said plague. (At 23 minutes: The qualifications that he laid out for surgeons to measure up to reminds me of qualifications for ministers in the NT.) He has been often compared to Hippocrates. At 24:30 there is a list of the great men of his time: Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, Chaucer, Giotto. Foundations of modern art were being laid; great cathedrals were being finished; universities were in ‘the first flush of their success.’ Chauliac was the most admired surgeon for centuries after his death. His books were copied and translated into all the languages of Europe in his day or shortly after. The editions of his work are numerous across the centuries. Decadence in surgery, however, followed his death, until the Renaissance injected it with new life. 


Chapter 12, Part 1: Medieval dentistry: Giovanni of Arcoli. Dentistry achieved a high degree of excellence even in ancient history, among the Phoenicians, for example, in dental bridgework. Among the Etruscans, too, this was the case, circa 500 B. C. Most replacement teeth were removed for burial among ancient people for reuse and/or for religious reasons. Causes of tooth decay were written about by Chauliac, with a fair amount of knowledge. Tooth powder (what we call toothpaste) was recommended by him, and a recipe is given for the making of it. A false tooth may be fashioned from ox bone, says Chauliac. Arcoli is the first physician we know of to speak of filling teeth with gold. At 22:30 minutes a decalogue is recited about the preservation of teeth, not quoting. 


Chapter 12, Part 2: Medieval dentistry again. Anatomy of teeth not developed until a century after Arcoli, who was born near the end of the 1300s and who died either in 1460 or 1484, probably the former. His books were popular and literary. Something called ‘alcoholic insanity’ is mentioned from the olden time. (Probably this is the Delirium Tremens, which I have experienced.) Arcoli describes four kinds of angina. 


Chapter 13: Cusanus and the first suggestion of laboratory methods in medicine. Cardinal Cusanus suggested counting the pulse rate by the water clock in 1450 or so for diagnostic purposes. (Watches were not invented yet.) He was a not a physician, but a mathematician. A century before Copernicus, he asserted that the earth moved and was not the center of the universe. “His intuition outran by far the knowledge of his time.” (On the constitution of the sun, the author thinks Cusanus was a genius to figure it out; but his theory of its constitution has since been proven wrong, for it is made of hydrogen and helium.) His best known work is called, On Learned Ignorance. I looked for it; did not find. What he means by the title is that “men know many things that ain’t so,” as quoted by the author from some writer or other. Cusanus suggested weighing urine for diagnostic purposes, not only observing its color and tasting it. At 16:45 minutes is a quote from Nicholas of Cusa from the 15th century about seeking knowledge, not quoting. This quote is to show that not all men of his time merely accepted what they were told to believe. (This is the author’s bugbear, or one of them.) Nicholas received his doctorate at the age of twenty-three, was made a cardinal at the age of forty, and became one of the leaders in Europe. He did much of his thinking on his horse, and figured some things out by observing the conduct of flies. Back to Cusanus: at 24 minutes is the outline of the proper political system, according to him, not quoting. Usually it’s a young man early in his career who makes breakthroughs, says the author, before his mind is cumbered with the opinions of others. 


Chapter 14, Part 1: Basil Valentine, Last of the Alchemists, First of the Chemists. He was a Benedictine monk and the founder of pharmaceutical chemistry. (Isn’t it interesting that pharmacologists originate from alchemists?) Elements had been known as earth, air, fire, and water. But Valentine advanced this to sulfur, mercury, and salt. (I think he said ‘salt,’ not certain; his reasons are explained, starting at 11:30.) At 12:45 there is a passage that can be taken for the theme of the book, and so must be fully quoted: “It is a little bit hard in our time for most people to understand just how such a development of thoroughly scientific chemical notions, with investigations for their practical application, should have come before the end of the Middle Ages. This difficulty of understanding, however, we are coming to realize in recent years, is entirely due to our ignorance of the period. We have known little or nothing about the science of the Middle Ages because it was hidden away in rare old books, in rather difficult Latin, not easy to get at, and still less easy to understand always; and we have been prone to conclude that since we knew nothing about it, there must have been nothing. Just inasmuch as we have learned something definite about medieval scholars, our admiration has increased.” The author shows that foundations have been laid for even great men like Isaac Newton. The word ‘amalgam’ comes from Aquinas. Roger Bacon made astonishing predictions in the13th century on propulsion. See that at 16:00. At 19:45: on monks knowing more than we give them credit for: they often exercised genius to solve great problems. (The author seems to have believed in the renaissance of belief that was current in the early 20th century, of the transmutation of metals: which is nothing else than the failed magic of alchemy, unless he means the amalgam of metals to make new compounds. This is the most important chapter since the first one; there is a great sweep of information in it; must listen to it again and maybe take it and the best chapters and put them into my ‘favorites’ thumb drive. Chapter 14, part 1 is likely what his book on the thirteenth century is like. I’m looking forward to listening to it, even if he was a Roman Catholic.)              


Chapter 14, Part 2: He gives a list of influential scholars from the Germany of that time. Many legends were invented for the lives of characters like Valentine and Roger Bacon. The author narrates a few of them. Paracelsus and Van Helmont picked up pharmaceutics where Valentine left off. The chemical side of medicine then made gradual progress. Valentine developed hydrochloric acid and sulfate of copper. He anticipated the theory of respiration, even to the point of stating that fish need oxygen. Great harm was done by the use (abuse) of antimony (for it apparently worked well if not abused); it was eventually replaced by venesection, or blood-letting, though it was used well into the 19th century. At 19:45 there is a quote on what a classic is like, from a man called Russell Lowell: “To read a classic, no matter how antique, is like reading a commentary on the morning paper, so up to date does genius ever remain.” At 22:55 there is a quote from Valentine’s book, The Triumphal Chariot of Antimony, to show that his book on the science of chemistry is often sermonic: “Love leaves nothing entire or sound in man. It impedes his sleep. He cannot rest, either day or night. It takes off his appetite that he hath no disposition either to eat or drink by reason of the continual torments of his heart and mind. It deprives him of all providence. Hence he neglects his affairs, vocation, and business. He minds neither study, labor, nor prayer, casts away all thoughts of anything but the body beloved. This is his study, this, his most vain occupation. If two lovers the success be not answerable to their wish, or so soon and prosperously as they desire, how many melancholies henceforth arise, with griefs and sadness, with which they pine away and wax so lean as they have scarcely any flesh cleaving to the bones? Yea, at last they lose the life itself, as may be proved by many examples. For such men, which is a horrible thing to think of, slight and neglect all perils and detriments, both of the body and life, and of the soul and eternal salvation.” He continues: “How many testimonies of this violence which is in love are daily found, for it not only inflames the younger sort, but it so far exaggerates some persons far gone in years, as through the burning heat thereof, they are almost mad. Natural diseases are for the most part governed by the complexion of man, and therefore invade some more fiercely, others more gently; but love, without distinction of poor or rich, young or old, seizeth all, and having seized, so blinds them, as forgetting all rules of reason, they neither see nor hear any snare.” (Would have to look at the text to get this right for quoting because I had to guess at some of the words, as well as the grammar; it’s a good passage though, as good as a Puritan would compose.) Some of Valentine’s other books’ titles are given at 30:15, good for chemists. He did not try to transmute metals for selfish gain, the author assures us. And he believed in nature more than in chemical drugs. (Much of this chapter is on antimony and the use and success of it. It seems to have included salt and I know not what else; from what I gather in this chapter, it seems to have been the first pharmaceutical drug, though this is not explicitly asserted.)


Appendix 1, Part 1: Luke the Physician. The author takes the traditional view against the higher critics about Luke having been a physician. Reasons are given, then, to show how his account brings this out. Background is added, too, of medicine before, during, and after his day in that part of the world. Henry Samuel Baines has done a bio of Luke, published in 1870, he says. (That would be worth looking up.) This is an interesting, important chapter, the third or fourth so far to deserve a place in my ‘favorites.’ See the ends of the chapter notes to see the ones that I said were most worthy.


Appendix 1, Part 2: Similarity of style between the third gospel and the book of Acts has established the single authorship of Luke. The use of medical words employed has established it. At 3 minutes a book is recommended by Harnack on the subject, and another at 5 minutes. The close of this chapter could be used for a quote on scholars, like in the Millennium book: their use of modern translations and, I think, even modern concordances.     


Appendix 2, Part 1: Science at the medieval universities. In the 17th and 18th centuries there was a neglect of history. (I have noticed this as well in my pursuit of knowledge on dragons; but life was hard in those days; and the authors were busy with important subjects.) This is why the science of medieval times is little known about. Their hospitals were better than what these later centuries built. Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, and Thomas Aquinas were the three major teachers of the 13th century. (The author says that the greatest mind ever was probably Aristotle. He mentions something called Monograph on the History of Thought by G. H. Lewes; could look that up because Lewes is the author who wrote the excellent Life of Maximilien Robespierre, which ended up helped me a lot for my Covid book. Just looked it up: the monograph might be the same as his Biographical History of Philosophy, which I do not want.) The author then shares praises of Aristotle in order to defend the medieval giants who were devoted to him. The author says, through quotes, that the theory of evolution may be found in Aristotle’s writings. To prove that great men of medieval times were not overly devoted to Aristotle, the author points out that Magnus corrected Aristotle on some things and Bacon discouraged the study of Aristotle because men relied on him so much as to not think for themselves. Four grounds of human ignorance at 23 minutes from Roger Bacon: “First, trust in inadequate authority; second, that force of custom which leads men to accept without properly questioning what has been accepted before their time; third, the placing of confidence in the assertions of the inexperience; and fourth, the hiding of one’s own ignorance behind a parade of superficial knowledge so that we are afraid to say, ‘I do not know.’” Bacon at 24 minutes: “The strongest argument proves nothing so long as the conclusions are not verified by experience. Experimental science is the queen of sciences and the goal of all speculation.” Contrary to popular belief, the author says, the universities of the Middle Ages did not neglect science, they were scientific universities. The study of classic languages came into its own only in the renaissance.                                         


Appendix 2, Part 2: Some quotes are given in support of Magnus having been a great botanist, among other specialties. He wrote much on a variety of topics, like meteors, sleep, old age, youth, the soul, and death. He was a phenomenon of the Middle Ages. He followed Hippocrates and Augustine more than Aristotle on scientific and medical matters. Roger Bacon was much interested in astronomy, invented spectacles and developed lenses. One of Bacon’s prophecies (because he believed that man would one day be able to control the energies exhibited by explosives): “Art can construct instruments of navigation, such that the largest vessels governed by a single man will traverse rivers and seas more rapidly than if they were filled with oarsmen. One may also make carriages which, without the aid of any animal, will run with remarkable swiftness.” He predicted flying also, though not by explosive compulsion. Aquinas anticipated many modern ideas as well. He said, “Nothing at all would ever be reduced to nothingness.” This is the law of the ‘conservation of matter.’ These three men did not believe in the transmutation of metals in the exaggerated sense, as did some of their contemporaries. Dante’s writings are full of science and nature, and in surprising detail. Science was taught by the great teachers back then, not literature. Theology, law, and medicine were the graduate departments, theology being a science. In the time of Emperor Frederick II around 1241, a law was passed concerning the regulation of medicine. Based on this information, here is a quote from our author: “If the government inspector violated his obligations as to the oversight of drug preparations, the penalty was death.” (All of our Covid vaccine pushers would be in violation in that day.) The author goes into detail about the time and rigor involved in the making of a physician in that century. Of course their therapeutic arts were often absurd, he admits. Professor Richid? at 23:47 said: “The therapeutics of any generation is quite absurd to the second succeeding generation.” In this medieval time, doses of opium were figured out, and laxatives were used to good effect, as was iron. Leprosy too was controlled and even expelled from Europe. They anticipated much in surgery, rabies, and blood poisoning. Modern advance is often reinvention. Alcohol is still used as an antiseptic. The author explains the pope’s bulls against dissection as that which did not forbid the practice absolutely; and he rationalizes generally about this and other papal restrictions. He says that surgery in the medieval time has only been surpassed by what is being done in the author’s day, and this only ‘possibly.’ Medieval arts and crafts are not surpassed yet, he says. (He’s right about that.) The author defends his thesis for a lot of this chapter. So there is quite a bit of reiteration. The thesis: the medieval time was not backward scientifically, but as theoretically and practically advanced as it in the 19th century. “Their minds were occupied entirely with science,” says the author about the students and teachers of the universities in that late medieval day. (He stretches things because this thesis of his has possessed him almost to the point of fanaticism; for sure it has negatively affected his critical faculty.)


Appendix 3: Medieval popularization of science, and footnotes. Inductive investigation was not unknown and unpracticed in the Middle Ages. Boethius did it in the sixth century, and wrote many books on sundry topics. (His Consolation of Philosophy is an excellent book, which I read awhile ago.) He influenced many great writers, including Dante. Next the author speaks of Cassiodorus and his works, and after that Isidore of Seville from the 7th century. The next link is the Venerable Bede. He wrote mainly on history, but on science as well. (He wrote The Explanation of the Apocalypse, which I did not find particularly helpful.) Only in the 13th century, the author’s ‘favorite,’ did the university spirit take hold. The author uses the word ‘misinformation,’ which is interesting in light of its use today and some of us thinking that it is of contemporary origin. Here is a quote at 17 minutes on madness under the category of ‘medical lore’ from a 13th century encyclopedia, a work often adverted to by Shakespeare from a 15th century edition of the same for quoting and for the use of many expressions: the author of the quote is Batholomaeus Anglicus: “Madness cometh sometimes of passions of the soul, and of business and of great thoughts, of sorrow, and of too great study, and of dread, sometime of the biting of a wood-hound or some other venomous beast, sometime of melancholy meats, and sometimes of drink of strong wine. And, as the causes be diverse, the tokens and signs be diverse, for some cry and leap and hurt and wound themselves and other men, and darken and hide themselves in privy and secret places, the medicine of them is that they be bound, that they hurt not themselves and other men; and mainly, such shall be refreshed and comforted and withdrawn from cause and matter of dread and busy thoughts. And they must be gladdened with instruments of music and some deal be occupied.” The author quoted this passage on lunacy for its visible quaintness in the old orthography, but also because the causes, symptoms, and treatment are as well and succinctly put as anywhere he has ever read. The next quote from the same encyclopedia is about the result of the bite of a mad dog; the old word for mad is ‘wood’ and is in use here: “The biting of a wood-hound is deadly and venomous, and such venom is perilous, for it is long hidden, and unknown, and increaseth and multiplieth itself, and is sometimes unknown to the year’s end; and then the same day and hour of the biting it cometh to the head, and breedeth frenzy. They that are bitten of a wood-hound have in their sleep dreadful sights, and are fearful, astonied, and wroth without cause; and they dread to be seen of other men, and bark as hounds; and they dread water most of all things; and are a-feared thereof and sore and squeamiss also. Against the biting of a wood-hound, wise men and ready use to make the wounds to bleed with fire or with iron that the venom may come out with the blood that cometh out of the wound.” (This is not word perfect, for I had to guess at some of the words and at some of the spelling; and I had to guess at the grammar too; it’s close though.) 


Footnotes: Many absurd therapies used in the author’s recent times were as absurd as the most absurd ones that are found in the Talmud. It is surprising that something as useful as the ligature (though sometimes employed improperly to the hurt of patients) could have fallen into disuse, as once it did. The author: “The first dentist who filled teeth with amalgam in New York some eighty years ago had to flee for his life because of a hue and cry set up that he was poisoning his patients with mercury.” On the meaning of ‘universitas’: in the Middle Ages it refers to the whole world of students for the study of anything. Physicians of that day wore a cloak, and often a mask to protect them from infections. Some signs of pharmacy used: mortar and pestle, colored lights in windows of drug stores, the many colored barber pole, and (in the author’s day, I guess) the wooden Indian for the tobacco store. (I didn’t name all the signs he gave for the Middle Age pharmacy, only the ones I might recognize.) Spelling had no fixed rule in the Middle Ages; some of the same words could be written differently on the same page. Medical books were some of the first that were published by the printing press. He speaks of the neglect that medieval medical books have suffered since the late 17th century until his day, more neglected than before.


(There is a lot of learning in this book; nothing to help my ailments, probably; but definitely a worthwhile one to listen to. I would probably give it an A- instead of A, but only because the subject is an obsession with him, which therefore renders some of the information suspect; and also because the noticeable bias in favor of the Roman Church means the turning of a blind eye. The chapters to bring together for listening to again are: 1; 7; 14, part 1; appendix 1, part 1: all good for my ‘favorites’ drive.)

      


CANADA'S PRIME MINISTER IN 2023


JUSTIN & BARBIE


Our effeminate Prime Minister

Went to see a movie about a doll.

But while he plays with Barbie

His fiefdom is starting to fall:

A fitting end if he gets finished

By his fetish for all things pink.

Soon we think, we hope, we pray:

We’ll have ourselves a better Canada Day,

When what we’ve seen we’ll see no more forever,

Like him sitting there acting the princess

With his prissy legs pressed together,

Or his standing between two perverts

With his pornographic tongue hanging out.

It hurts to have a drama queen

In love with drag for our Prime Minister.

But while Justin and Barbie play in the sand

Without their skirts to spread their tan, 

Someone’s preparing the color blue

To paint the country like a man; 

Or at least he won’t play with dolls.