The Chimay Trappist Beers, official video in English
(French language version)
Robb Wolf | The Paleo Solution book and podcast | Paleo diet, Paleolithic nutrition, intermittent fasting, and fitness
Risk is a corollary of freedom, and while there may be irresistible political pressure to compromise liberty when there are enormous risks to the general public, it’s with good reason that there is little constituency for such things otherwise — unless, that is, dangers are magnified out proportion by ideologues and ill-premised fears are indulged by people who wish to wallow in timidity or paranoia.
Most non-Anglo Americans have a very retarded and romantic attitude about immigration because their grandparents or great-grandparents were immigrants. First, they don't understand how those nineteenth and early twentieth waves of immigration harmed the USA for the obvious reason that they don't understand the Constitution or the English Common Law any better than their immigrant forebears from Germany, Ireland, Italy, and Scandinavia did. They may have the emotional attachment to the flag and the pledge of allegiance - the latter only created in 1892 - but they are not genuine Americans in the sense of having been born in a tradition of sovereign rebellion.The've absorbed the Yankee national myth and an understanding of citizenship proper to servitude, not self-governance? (Does the latter go hand inhand with wage slavery?)
Our country was founded by certain sorts of peoples with a particular language, culture, and religion. It welcomed an increasingly diverse set of immigrants--Eastern and Southern European Catholics--but on condition that they make an effort to assimilate to our way of life. Since Catholics were here from the beginning--or in the case of Louisiana and the Southwest--even before the beginning, they only presented a problem if they tried to reproduce some of the Catholic institutions of the Old World.
For all you good men out there—fathers, husbands, brothers, sons, and friends—let me just say, I believe in you. Because yes, Mr. Seminarian, Paul told wives to submit to their husbands. But he also told husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church. That means completely, self-sacrificially, and with her joy as the primary goal.Her joy as the primary goal? Questionable. Christ loved the Church to the point of sacrificing Himself for it, but this was first of all to make manifest God's love and goodness, by making it possible for men to be in (supernatural) communion with God. Joy as an emotion? Does St. Paul not see that as a "problem" with marriage, that spouses (or hsubands) are preoccupied with pleasing the other? A husband does not subordinate his happiness to his wife's - his happiness may consist in loving his wife, but both spouses must love and cooperate with one another, and marital love is subordinate to the love of God.
First, I recognize that sex is and should be an important part of marriage. For both partners. The Bible says, “Let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” (1 Corinthians 7: 2-4)Is she inferring the second from the first? Please can be rather ambiguous - "rendering the conjugal debt" is not necessarily the same as [physically] ensuring climax for the wife (though this is supported by some TOB advocates), and it may even be that (1) climax for a woman is more dependent upon psychological factors (her mood, how she views herself in relation to her man, whether she respects him, and so on) and (2) the process leading to it is not as "egalitarian" (or "idealistic" or "romantic") as some might suppose.
Scripture’s picture of marriage is remarkably even-handed. A woman should be concerned with pleasing her husband, but a man’s first priority in sex, as in everything, is also to please his wife.
Q:Why does the LS seek to protect the Anglo-Celtic core population and culture of the historic South?
But should the letter be taken as signalling a shift in direction for the organization? Or is it just a protest against the attacks by radicals upon white America?
A: The Anglo-Celtic peoples settled the South and gave it its dominate culture and civilisation. We believe that the advancement of Anglo-Celtic culture and civilisation is vital in order to preserve our region as we know it. Should this core be destroyed or displaced the South would be made over in an alien image — unfamiliar and inhospitable to our children and grandchildren. We, as Anglo-Celtic Southerners, have a duty to protect that which our ancestors bequeathed to us. If we do not promote our interests then no one will do it for us.