Via Moderna
© 2021-2024 Via Moderna Contact: admin@via-moderna.com

Blog

Updates and commentary. The site software does not support a proper blog so old posts that do not fit on the page are not retained. Commentary on recently encountered publications Reports on recent news and interviews of special interest Observations on current trends and events These are far from being ordinary times. There is massive concentration of ownership of news and entertainment media, used to promote a unified propaganda line (including designated opposition with partial truths). This also is the means for censorship of a vast range of opposition viewpoints. This is accompanied by election manipulation, medicine as genocide, and justice as lawfare against those who seek to defend freedom. In the midst of this is fake Christianity, which claims that to speak of these things would be outside the narrow spiritual mission of the churches. As far as Via Moderna is concerned, it is the function of Christianity to deal in reality.
Monday 10 June 2024 In a recent video, “Social Justice Cancel Culture: Alive and Well in the PCA”, the point was made that the woke, or “social justice cancel culture” has become the established position in the Presbyterian Church in America. That is, the issue is no longer the danger of letting it in, but of how to survive in the PCA if one opposes it. This raises the question of how this came about. Attempts to answer this question generally fail because the explanation does not go back far enough. The PCA was formed when the Southern Presbyterian Church decided to join the northern liberal Presbyterians to form today’s Presbyterian Church USA. Obviously, this meant that liberals had gained control of the Southern Presbyterian Church in order to bring about this decision. The churches exiting the Southern denomination to form the PCA were thus a coalition of losers. Even then, some politicing had to be done to get enough congregations to go over to the new denomination (PCA). On the one hand, the new denomination was represented as holding to the traditional theology of the Westminster Confession while on the other Arminian and dispensational ministers and congregations were recruited, and promised that room would be made for them within the doctrinal position of the new denomination. That the main component of the PCA was Southern Presbyterian churches meant that part of what made up the PCA and constituted its sense of identity were elements distinctive to the Southern Presbyterian tradition rather that of Prebyterianism as such. These were a conversionist theology that tended to undermine covenantal understandings of family and church and the spirituality of the church idea which restricted the area where the church was supposed to speak authoritatively, and in effect let the culture determine what was “spiritual” and thus under the purview of the church. (On the matter of the covenant, the best explanation of the theological differences is the book by Lewis Bevens Schenck, The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant.) There were some non-southern congregations and groups that also came into the new PCA, and this meant another problem in the identity of this denomination. Some congregations have now exited the PCA to form the Vanguard Presbyterian Church which is self-conscious and forthright about its commitment to the traditional southern identity. The fundamental doctrinal disunity of the PCA since its formation meant that the dynamic that had brought down the northern Presbyterians decades before would also play itself out in the PCA. That is, there is a non-confessional evangelical contingent that needs to protect itself from confessional discipline and which will ally itself with liberals to achieve this. In addition to this, there is the attraction of institutionalism, the desire to be a large influential and respected denominations, with associated schools, boards, commissions as well as having prominent “big steeple” churches in important urban locations. This is to a degree also the legacy of the Southern Presbyterian background, as that denomination was a prestige denomination in the south and thus influenced the self-concept of the larger founding congregations in the PCA. In fact, there never was a time when the PCA was sound. For those seeking evidence of long-standing problems, a review of PCA coverage in old issues of Contra Mundum will serve this purpose. Major episodes of PCA dysfunction have been the effort of the central bureaucracy to whitewash the Christian Reformed Church (because both the CRC and PCA were in NAPARC, from which the CRC was eventually suspended), and the failure to deal with the Federal Vision heresy. The PCA is far from alone in its current problems. The Evangelical Free Church has been exhibiting high-handedness in its attempt to crush the Biblically faithful pastors (see Erastian Church Compromise in the EFCA). One might attribute the more evidently egregius nature of this, compared to the PCA, to the prevalence of pietistic twits in the EFCA, were it not that the same undiguised behavior was manifested in the Lutheran Missouri Synod in the recent and highly publicized Ryan Turipseed case. Friday 12 April 2024 Can the Reformed world survive itself? There are many indications that it has become its own worst enemy. Step by step it is falling more deeply under the influence of kook theology. 1. There was, starting a century ago, the invasion of Presbyterianism by the neo-calvinists with their aberrant three-covenant theology. 2. This was always associated, to varying degrees, with the theosophical speculations of Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven, which got a grip on many "intellectuals" in the Reformed world. 3. The idealogy of much of northern Presbyterianism (i.e. OPC and sympathetic elements of the PCA) was Van Tillianism, though Cornelius Van Til was never a competent philosopher, nor a competent theologian, nor an exegete for that matter. In fact, he taught that it was illegitimate to create a systematic theology by deduction from exegesis. All that was permitted was to try to organize exegetical material as best as possible. 4. Westminster, California escaped this only by building on Meredith Kline's inverted neo-calvinism, for which the three-covenent theology was still the foundation. The result was something even further from Reformed thought. 5. Some Reformed Baptists, trying to find something to say to the modern world, have adopted the sphere sovereignty covenants from neo-calvinism, on the assumption that they can pick up various ideas without implicating themselves in a system of thought. These Reformed Baptists, however, continue their habit of picking up things, now by taking up the current craze for Nephilim, hollow earth, and similar ideas. 6. Also coming into the Reformed Baptist world is the critique of ecclesiocentrism based on the recognition that the Biblical teaching on the Kingdom is much wider than the institutional church and the clerical sphere of operations. Well and good; but there are other realizations that follow not far behind this. For example, there are no clergy in the Bible. The pastor is a spiritual gift, not an office, and the elder is much more an organic office than the institutional model embedded in traditional Reformed denominations derived from the old world of Europe. Will Reformed Theology be able to carry on without its institutional ecclesiology? 7. An alternative to this is being offered in the form of a return to Thomist, as though this sort of pre-scientific medievalism offered an intellectual foundation for anything other than apostocy to Rome. We can step back into history and look at the prelude to this. New England was congregational because it was built in recognition of the failure of the hierarchical church model in union with the state. In New England, there was the option of doing what the English Puritans claimed they wanted which was to purify the Church of England model, but with the opportunity that America offered to start over, they did something different. The next notable divergence was the Great Awakening and the incentive it offered for Jonathan Edwards to begin the creation of Edwardian Calvinsim. This laid the foundations for the New England New Divinity and that, in turn, laid the foundations for Charles Finney's humanistic departure from Reformed precedents. In other words, much of Evangelicalism as we know it today, particularly the most aberrant side of it in the Charismatic kookery, begin this way. Edwards remains the hero for many neo-Puritans, who refuse to recognize the extent to which he is the founder the the popular theologies they so much oppose, or think they do. The lesson here is that even mild aberrations can get out of control before people can conceive what the effects will be. Today's aberrations are much more than mild. Thursday 15 February 2024 The Divided Knowledge book is now published in French. A continuing question about apologetics for many decades now has been why it has been dominated by guru centered movements, most notably Van Tillianism. More recently the disciples of Thomas Aquinas have been vying for this spot. These movement are professor-led, but the explanation cannot be that they are academic apologetics movements. There are some very academic approaches that do not have this characteristic. For example, the Reformed Epistemology people have been highly academic, even more professional philosophers than practitioners of apologetics, but do not have this authority worship. It is not academics as such that produces the phenomenon. We see it, rather, in seminaries where the professors are not training philosophers but clergy. In these places there is some critical thought inculcated in certain areas, particularly Biblical theology where there are still many new and contending perspectives, and originality it still admired and rewarded. But in apologetics a different tradition was established early, where professors of dubious competence were allowed to ride their hobby horses and indoctrinate students. This is tied to another characteristic that this apologetics took on, which was the confidence that there was a method which put an absolute foundation under Christian belief, and if mastered this gave a certain way to handle all intellectual opposition. Of course, Van Til, his successors, and their followers are most associated with this. Over on the other side of theology, the Evangelicals had Norman Geisler and the evidentialists, but they never were able to build the same combination of confidence and narrow-mindedness to rival what the Van Til movement had. But now there are an increasing number of Thomist professors, of very questionable philosophical ability, entering the affray on behalf of that movement. Most significant is that they are a much wider group, attracting many baptists. They can also draw on a reserve of papist has-been philosophy. As well as their strength this is also their weakness, as it becomes repartition of the dead past, unable to face real critical thought. This aspect of Thomism, as the pre-fab philosophy, attracts twits, as is readily seen in recent publications and pronouncements. Saturday 3 February 2024 The Divided Knowledge book is shipping, though it takes Amazon about six weeks to get the hard cover edition delivered. I am hoping to get across a few simple points in the book. 1) The Thomists haven’t much of a clue when it comes to analyzing Van Til. They assume an Enlightenment foundationalist model of knowledge. This shows that they have a very shallow understanding of their own Thomism as well. Nor do they understand how his sources and assumptions, for example aspects of Idealism that Van Til never questioned, structurally affected his system. 2) The Thomists, and for that matter the Van Tillians, do not grasp the difference between Reformed two-covenant theology, and neo- Calvinist three-covenant theology. 3) Neither side understands the role of Van Til in clarifying the implications of three-covenant theology, and thereby making way for the developments by Meredith Kline, whose theology, as well as that of the Radical Two-Kingdom theology, remains neo-calvinist at the most fundamental level. 4) The Thomists do not understand the natural law tradition that they tout so much. Actually it is natural law traditions. In fact, this book and its predecessor are merely quick attempts to point out some basic issues, but issues that are overlooked by the experts. They do not try to be general overviews or master critiques of Van Til’s thought. Whatever importance they have is in showing how allowing this theology to dominate certain institutions has made them into pseudo- Reformed entities. More could have been said about the Natural Law. For example, there is Jacques Ellul’s point (in The Theological Foundation of Law) that natural law is the stage in the development of law, found historically in various cultures, but that this has nothing to do with natural law philosophy. Further, natural law philosophy has nothing to do with actual bodies of law or jurisprudence. Besides this, advocates and critics do not take proper account of the very different ideas of natural law, both within the medieval background, and between such natural law theories and modernistic attempts to give a non-theist foundation, and how those differences affect the major programmatic distinction between giving an account of law, and discovering what it is as a body of law, and working out a judicial application. This exploration will have to await some other occasion.

Thursday 14 December 2023

Soon to be available is another book following up on the philosophical influences on Cornelius Van Til. This includes a review of the essays on reason in the Davenant House publication promoting a revival of the Via Moderna immanentist tradition in opposition to presuppositionalism. Divided Knowledge is a critique of both. Both are at bottom very weird speculations imposed on Christianity. Monday 11 August 2023 Kash Patel gave a very good interview on the x22report. He is promoting a new book Government Gangsters. I just read a book that came out several years ago: The World Is Christ’s: a critique of two kingdoms theology. The book itself isn’t so great. It is interesting for two reasons, the philosophical commitments of the author and who is backing the book. It was written by Willem J. Ouweneel, a Dooyeweerdian. He has written many other books laying aspects of this type of thought. As a Dooyeweerdian his is committed to Dooyeweerd’s ground-motive analysis of all other points of view. That is, Dooyeweerd started from what he claimed was reflection on the suprarational (in the supratemporal) root of experience. All other points of view were based on a starting point in temporal experience. This, he claimed, made that temporal starting point a false absolute (also called autonomous thought) which generated what Dooyeweerd called an apostate ground-motive. He then interpreted intellectual history in terms of these ground-motives, of which he claimed there were three. Ouweneel aproaches topics though the whole book by claiming everyone else is mistaken because they are proceeding from one of these, the scholastic ground-motive. For what is wrong with this see my Theosophy, Van Til and Bahnsen. One of the blurbs used to promote the book is by John Frame, who is also quoted throughout the book. Frame says; “In any case, this book will have to be the starting point for any further discussion of the matter. I will not respect future articles and books on this subject unless they show a thorough understanding of Ouweneel’s argument.” So has Frame taken back his rejection of Dooyeweerdianism? It looks like it. The publisher is Joseph Boot’s Ezra Press. Boot is also quoted in the book. It Boot also a Dooyeweerdian? Does he base his apologetics work on the ground-motive nonsense? Boot is being promoted these days by Baptists such as Joel Webbon. Are Baptists going Dooyeweerdian? This isn’t even Christianity!
Quattrocento
Company Name Ltd | Address Line 1 | Address Line 2 | Your Town Zip/Post code | Tel: 01234 0001234

Blog

Updates and commentary. The site software does not support a proper blog so old posts that do not fit on the page are not retained. Commentary on recently encountered publications Reports on recent news and interviews of special interest Observations on current trends and events These are far from being ordinary times. There is massive concentration of ownership of news and entertainment media, used to promote a unified propaganda line (including designated opposition with partial truths). This also is the means for censorship of a vast range of opposition viewpoints. This is accompanied by election manipulation, medicine as genocide, and justice as lawfare against those who seek to defend freedom. In the midst of this is fake Christianity, which claims that to speak of these things would be outside the narrow spiritual mission of the churches. As far as Via Moderna is concerned, it is the function of Christianity to deal in reality.
Posted: Monday 3rd March 2023
New Website
Monday 10 June 2024 In a recent video, “Social Justice Cancel Culture: Alive and Well in the PCA”, the point was made that the woke, or “social justice cancel culture” has become the established position in the Presbyterian Church in America. That is, the issue is no longer the danger of letting it in, but of how to survive in the PCA if one opposes it. This raises the question of how this came about. Attempts to answer this question generally fail because the explanation does not go back far enough. The PCA was formed when the Southern Presbyterian Church decided to join the northern liberal Presbyterians to form today’s Presbyterian Church USA. Obviously, this meant that liberals had gained control of the Southern Presbyterian Church in order to bring about this decision. The churches exiting the Southern denomination to form the PCA were thus a coalition of losers. Even then, some politicing had to be done to get enough congregations to go over to the new denomination (PCA). On the one hand, the new denomination was represented as holding to the traditional theology of the Westminster Confession while on the other Arminian and dispensational ministers and congregations were recruited, and promised that room would be made for them within the doctrinal position of the new denomination. That the main component of the PCA was Southern Presbyterian churches meant that part of what made up the PCA and constituted its sense of identity were elements distinctive to the Southern Presbyterian tradition rather that of Prebyterianism as such. These were a conversionist theology that tended to undermine covenantal understandings of family and church and the spirituality of the church idea which restricted the area where the church was supposed to speak authoritatively, and in effect let the culture determine what was “spiritual” and thus under the purview of the church. (On the matter of the covenant, the best explanation of the theological differences is the book by Lewis Bevens Schenck, The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant.) There were some non- southern congregations and groups that also came into the new PCA, and this meant another problem in the identity of this denomination. Some congregations have now exited the PCA to form the Vanguard Presbyterian Church which is self-conscious and forthright about its commitment to the traditional southern identity. The fundamental doctrinal disunity of the PCA since its formation meant that the dynamic that had brought down the northern Presbyterians decades before would also play itself out in the PCA. That is, there is a non- confessional evangelical contingent that needs to protect itself from confessional discipline and which will ally itself with liberals to achieve this. In addition to this, there is the attraction of institutionalism, the desire to be a large influential and respected denominations, with associated schools, boards, commissions as well as having prominent “big steeple” churches in important urban locations. This is to a degree also the legacy of the Southern Presbyterian background, as that denomination was a prestige denomination in the south and thus influenced the self- concept of the larger founding congregations in the PCA. In fact, there never was a time when the PCA was sound. For those seeking evidence of long-standing problems, a review of PCA coverage in old issues of Contra Mundum will serve this purpose. Major episodes of PCA dysfunction have been the effort of the central bureaucracy to whitewash the Christian Reformed Church (because both the CRC and PCA were in NAPARC, from which the CRC was eventually suspended), and the failure to deal with the Federal Vision heresy. The PCA is far from alone in its current problems. The Evangelical Free Church has been exhibiting high- handedness in its attempt to crush the Biblically faithful pastors (see Erastian Church Compromise in the EFCA). One might attribute the more evidently egregius nature of this, compared to the PCA, to the prevalence of pietistic twits in the EFCA, were it not that the same undiguised behavior was manifested in the Lutheran Missouri Synod in the recent and highly publicized Ryan Turipseed case. Friday 12 April 2024 Can the Reformed world survive itself? There are many indications that it has become its own worst enemy. Step by step it is falling more deeply under the influence of kook theology. 1. There was, starting a century ago, the invasion of Presbyterianism by the neo-calvinists with their aberrant three-covenant theology. 2. This was always associated, to varying degrees, with the theosophical speculations of Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven, which got a grip on many "intellectuals" in the Reformed world. 3. The idealogy of much of northern Presbyterianism (i.e. OPC and sympathetic elements of the PCA) was Van Tillianism, though Cornelius Van Til was never a competent philosopher, nor a competent theologian, nor an exegete for that matter. In fact, he taught that it was illegitimate to create a systematic theology by deduction from exegesis. All that was permitted was to try to organize exegetical material as best as possible. 4. Westminster, California escaped this only by building on Meredith Kline's inverted neo-calvinism, for which the three-covenent theology was still the foundation. The result was something even further from Reformed thought. 5. Some Reformed Baptists, trying to find something to say to the modern world, have adopted the sphere sovereignty covenants from neo-calvinism, on the assumption that they can pick up various ideas without implicating themselves in a system of thought. These Reformed Baptists, however, continue their habit of picking up things, now by taking up the current craze for Nephilim, hollow earth, and similar ideas. 6. Also coming into the Reformed Baptist world is the critique of ecclesiocentrism based on the recognition that the Biblical teaching on the Kingdom is much wider than the institutional church and the clerical sphere of operations. Well and good; but there are other realizations that follow not far behind this. For example, there are no clergy in the Bible. The pastor is a spiritual gift, not an office, and the elder is much more an organic office than the institutional model embedded in traditional Reformed denominations derived from the old world of Europe. Will Reformed Theology be able to carry on without its institutional ecclesiology? 7. An alternative to this is being offered in the form of a return to Thomist, as though this sort of pre-scientific medievalism offered an intellectual foundation for anything other than apostocy to Rome. We can step back into history and look at the prelude to this. New England was congregational because it was built in recognition of the failure of the hierarchical church model in union with the state. In New England, there was the option of doing what the English Puritans claimed they wanted which was to purify the Church of England model, but with the opportunity that America offered to start over, they did something different. The next notable divergence was the Great Awakening and the incentive it offered for Jonathan Edwards to begin the creation of Edwardian Calvinsim. This laid the foundations for the New England New Divinity and that, in turn, laid the foundations for Charles Finney's humanistic departure from Reformed precedents. In other words, much of Evangelicalism as we know it today, particularly the most aberrant side of it in the Charismatic kookery, begin this way. Edwards remains the hero for many neo-Puritans, who refuse to recognize the extent to which he is the founder the the popular theologies they so much oppose, or think they do. The lesson here is that even mild aberrations can get out of control before people can conceive what the effects will be. Today's aberrations are much more than mild. Thursday 15 February 2024 The Divided Knowledge book is now published in French. A continuing question about apologetics for many decades now has been why it has been dominated by guru centered movements, most notably Van Tillianism. More recently the disciples of Thomas Aquinas have been vying for this spot. These movement are professor-led, but the explanation cannot be that they are academic apologetics movements. There are some very academic approaches that do not have this characteristic. For example, the Reformed Epistemology people have been highly academic, even more professional philosophers than practitioners of apologetics, but do not have this authority worship. It is not academics as such that produces the phenomenon. We see it, rather, in seminaries where the professors are not training philosophers but clergy. In these places there is some critical thought inculcated in certain areas, particularly Biblical theology where there are still many new and contending perspectives, and originality it still admired and rewarded. But in apologetics a different tradition was established early, where professors of dubious competence were allowed to ride their hobby horses and indoctrinate students. This is tied to another characteristic that this apologetics took on, which was the confidence that there was a method which put an absolute foundation under Christian belief, and if mastered this gave a certain way to handle all intellectual opposition. Of course, Van Til, his successors, and their followers are most associated with this. Over on the other side of theology, the Evangelicals had Norman Geisler and the evidentialists, but they never were able to build the same combination of confidence and narrow-mindedness to rival what the Van Til movement had. But now there are an increasing number of Thomist professors, of very questionable philosophical ability, entering the affray on behalf of that movement. Most significant is that they are a much wider group, attracting many baptists. They can also draw on a reserve of papist has-been philosophy. As well as their strength this is also their weakness, as it becomes repartition of the dead past, unable to face real critical thought. This aspect of Thomism, as the pre-fab philosophy, attracts twits, as is readily seen in recent publications and pronouncements. Saturday 3 February 2024 The Divided Knowledge book is shipping, though it takes Amazon about six weeks to get the hard cover edition delivered. I am hoping to get across a few simple points in the book. 1) The Thomists haven’t much of a clue when it comes to analyzing Van Til. They assume an Enlightenment foundationalist model of knowledge. This shows that they have a very shallow understanding of their own Thomism as well. Nor do they understand how his sources and assumptions, for example aspects of Idealism that Van Til never questioned, structurally affected his system. 2) The Thomists, and for that matter the Van Tillians, do not grasp the difference between Reformed two- covenant theology, and neo-Calvinist three-covenant theology. 3) Neither side understands the role of Van Til in clarifying the implications of three-covenant theology, and thereby making way for the developments by Meredith Kline, whose theology, as well as that of the Radical Two-Kingdom theology, remains neo-calvinist at the most fundamental level. 4) The Thomists do not understand the natural law tradition that they tout so much. Actually it is natural law traditions. In fact, this book and its predecessor are merely quick attempts to point out some basic issues, but issues that are overlooked by the experts. They do not try to be general overviews or master critiques of Van Til’s thought. Whatever importance they have is in showing how allowing this theology to dominate certain institutions has made them into pseudo-Reformed entities. More could have been said about the Natural Law. For example, there is Jacques Ellul’s point (in The Theological Foundation of Law) that natural law is the stage in the development of law, found historically in various cultures, but that this has nothing to do with natural law philosophy. Further, natural law philosophy has nothing to do with actual bodies of law or jurisprudence. Besides this, advocates and critics do not take proper account of the very different ideas of natural law, both within the medieval background, and between such natural law theories and modernistic attempts to give a non-theist foundation, and how those differences affect the major programmatic distinction between giving an account of law, and discovering what it is as a body of law, and working out a judicial application. This exploration will have to await some other occasion.

Thursday 14 December 2023

Soon to be available is another book following up on the philosophical influences on Cornelius Van Til. This includes a review of the essays on reason in the Davenant House publication promoting a revival of the Via Moderna immanentist tradition in opposition to presuppositionalism. Divided Knowledge is a critique of both. Both are at bottom very weird speculations imposed on Christianity. Monday 11 August 2023 Kash Patel gave a very good interview on the x22report. He is promoting a new book Government Gangsters. I just read a book that came out several years ago: The World Is Christ’s: a critique of two kingdoms theology. The book itself isn’t so great. It is interesting for two reasons, the philosophical commitments of the author and who is backing the book. It was written by Willem J. Ouweneel, a Dooyeweerdian. He has written many other books laying aspects of this type of thought. As a Dooyeweerdian his is committed to Dooyeweerd’s ground-motive analysis of all other points of view. That is, Dooyeweerd started from what he claimed was reflection on the suprarational (in the supratemporal) root of experience. All other points of view were based on a starting point in temporal experience. This, he claimed, made that temporal starting point a false absolute (also called autonomous thought) which generated what Dooyeweerd called an apostate ground-motive. He then interpreted intellectual history in terms of these ground- motives, of which he claimed there were three. Ouweneel aproaches topics though the whole book by claiming everyone else is mistaken because they are proceeding from one of these, the scholastic ground-motive. For what is wrong with this see my Theosophy, Van Til and Bahnsen. One of the blurbs used to promote the book is by John Frame, who is also quoted throughout the book. Frame says; “In any case, this book will have to be the starting point for any further discussion of the matter. I will not respect future articles and books on this subject unless they show a thorough understanding of Ouweneel’s argument.” So has Frame taken back his rejection of Dooyeweerdianism? It looks like it. The publisher is Joseph Boot’s Ezra Press. Boot is also quoted in the book. It Boot also a Dooyeweerdian? Does he base his apologetics work on the ground-motive nonsense? Boot is being promoted these days by Baptists such as Joel Webbon. Are Baptists going Dooyeweerdian? This isn’t even Christianity!
Posted: Wednesday 12th March 2014
Sunt in velit dolor ipsum amet

Ex in, do nisi est irure eiusmod ipsum

Tempor aute, ut proident. Ut, deserunt magna, in ullamco. Ullamco in ad. Cillum proident elit, enim esse ut minim elit culpa labore. Esse quis id lorem, amet, dolor deserunt ut dolor velit labore sint elit amet laboris. Velit duis occaecat proident, magna anim magna. Deserunt, nulla mollit consequat nisi elit sint, labore anim sit ut consequat ullamco exercitation incididunt reprehenderit culpa exercitation. Eiusmod veniam consectetur culpa mollit aliqua aute labore minim ipsum aliqua consequat, voluptate mollit ipsum non sint. Labore tempor sunt ut. Ex do cillum excepteur ullamco in dolore. Ea in occaecat dolore deserunt quis. In tempor est ex eu incididunt ut velit sunt fugiat dolor elit, ad incididunt. Sint ea, ipsum ut commodo in nulla enim minim dolore duis commodo.
Posted: Monday 20th January 2014
Nulla dolor ut enim proident esse

Mollit excepteur eu ut mollit magna

quis deserunt officia eu duis dolor, in

commodo

Sint nisi ut est cupidatat dolor est sit est. Pariatur qui nisi ad, ut irure cillum et dolore, eu adipisicing aute fugiat dolore. In sint voluptate occaecat ut eiusmod sunt eiusmod. Duis ullamco ex sunt et, sit lorem commodo dolor, sit amet et, aliqua nulla aliqua. Aliqua cillum dolore amet, commodo cillum, nostrud ullamco ipsum sint laboris exercitation tempor irure in. Id, elit nisi enim excepteur exercitation sint reprehenderit, in dolor incididunt ea in esse ut sit do quis exercitation. Eu, ea dolore ut nulla minim dolor proident dolore quis dolor in sed mollit irure reprehenderit. Enim nulla, ut reprehenderit aliquip tempor sint occaecat in, ut esse. Pariatur duis culpa, do amet aliqua cupidatat occaecat duis, velit cillum exercitation sint. Commodo cupidatat culpa ullamco. Consectetur, ut anim dolor veniam do nisi dolore.