When of one mind, Janus' views
form a composite of his two main sides. He attempts to consider issues with care and thoughtfulness, though he remains biased towards Christianity and Western
traditions. Outsiders might call him a Conservative, but in fact he is a Fundamentalist in that he promotes the Christian values that raised Western civilization to its peak.
One of the faces, looking to our right and called Patulcius, is the headstrong and determined side of Janus, tending to authoritarian ideals. Patulcius looks to history and upholds the traditions of
Christianity and Western civilization, and the well-being of Western nations. Patulcius sees world events as a struggle between divine and demonic
forces.
The other face—the easy-going, more open-minded, left-facing Clusivius—dislikes authority and prefers a more individualistic outlook. Clusivius looks to the future and contemplates changes. While
Christian, Clusivius takes an interest in the well-being of other civilizations as well as the Western. Clusivius tends to believe that elitist conspiracies play a major part in world events.
When possible, the complete Janus seeks to form a synthesis of the two sides when making a decision. At other times Janus allows any differences to stand without resolution. But now and again the two sides must battle one another until one side wins Janus' acceptance.
Tending to sensationalize, and sometimes to hyperbolize, C. F. van Niekerk over-analyzes any number of subjects from mundane minutiae to the great philosophical questions of life itself.
Katáxiros, the parched one, alone and adrift at sea, yet ever rowing ahead anyhow, sometimes weakly and sometimes vigorously, thirsting after God through the Orthodox Christian Church, contemplating the ways of the Lord, recognizing that while he is inadequate to the task, he must press ever ahead. Katáxiros writes about matters pertaining specifically to the Orthodox Church.
Barzillai Alpheus Bozarth claims to be a 19th Century man marooned in the 21st Century after a failed experiment in inter-dimensional travel. Not at all impressed with the wonders of our time, he would give just about anything to return to his beloved world of "horse manure and civilized etiquette". Barzillai writes historical observations and pores over old books and documents.
We don't know what to make of the Wanderer. He walks in with the moon and rolls out with the wind. He uses no name; the smells of rank sweat, dirt, and smoke mark him as much as anything. He's always near, but never close. Heedless of human ideals and bounds, he stands unyielding for honor on the ground. He's practical to a fault when he's not romantic to even greater fault. He says little, but when he does finally speak, we listen up. The Wanderer is our lawman of final resort. By hook or by crook, he sees a job done, just don't ask how. Frankly, we're a little afraid of the Wanderer.
Nature can be cruel to mankind.
If Concussus had his way, nature would be crueler yet. Concussus tends to arrive at the blackest of times, when humanity seems the most despicable.
Diabolus, the devil's advocate. Sometimes we are tempted to embrace the evil world that we despise. Diabolus is there to encourage us in this folly. Fortunately a rare visitor here.
Patulcius:
When it comes to tolerance and what it has done to Western Civilization, two quotes from the great 18th Century theologian John Wesley aptly describe the effects. The first:
What one generation tolerates, the next generation will embrace.
And from John Wesley’s Notes on the Bible for Matthew 24:9:
Then shall they deliver you up to affliction – As if ye were the cause of all these evils. And ye shall be hated of all nations – Even of those who tolerate all other sects and parties; but in no nation will the children of the devil tolerate the children of God.
Next to egalitarianism, tolerance is the key (stated) virtue of the Progressive Left.
Of course, to the Left, tolerance is something that other people must accept. Christians must tolerate other religious points of view and the acceptance of homosexuality. Nativists must tolerate the flood of foreigners in their midst. Men must tolerate a lack of respect from their wives and children—and from society in general. Football fans must tolerate anti-bullying rules.
But the Left not only does not, but must not, tolerate viewpoints and people whom their side does not approve. Why should they tolerate those who don’t believe in equality and tolerance? Why should Progressives tolerate those who, by the very nature of their privileged births, are deemed bigots and oppressors? And what about smokers and fat people? Well, they’re not following the sacred tenets of good health and nutrition, so they deserve to be shamed and spat upon for their own goods.
And the Left disapproves of no one more ferociously than a Bible-believing Christian.
The former Western hegemony of White, Christian, and male was nagged bit-by-bit into tolerating groups of people who opposed them. Often the outcasts and misfits could make a persuasive case for the extension of Christian mercy, love, and compassion. And what one generation tolerated, the next generation accepted as normal, and the third generation fully embraced.
Now tolerance has reached absurd dimensions in the West to such an extent that Whites are immigrating themselves into oblivion, Western Christianity is a force of impotence, and Western men have grown weak and effeminate and/or degenerated into delinquent free-loaders.
And now the “children of the devil” have taken over the Establishment. They grow bolder every day in their repression of the White, the male, or the Christian wherever the former “oppressors” might assert themselves.
“Coexist.” Well, Western society isn’t targeting the Muslims here, nor the peaceniks, transvestites, homosexuals, Jews, letter-I worshippers, or Taoists. Just the Christians. Funny how that tolerance thing works.
Interestingly, the Left usually tolerates Muslims. Muslims (ostensibly) condemn homosexuality, repress women worse than any Medieval Christian, and have little patience for the enlightened Progressive virtues of tolerance and social equality. So why does the Left tolerate Muslims and not Christians? Leftists consider Muslims to be a people oppressed by the former White-male-Christian hegemony, for one thing; and for another, Muslims blow people up.
(And despite all of the Hollywood propaganda that suggests otherwise, it is un-Christian to blow up innocent people in the name of Christ, and Christians simply don’t do it. Such tactics wouldn’t work anyway. There’s a blowing-people-up double-standard.)
Now Western society is lost. To survive here, Christians must recognize that the popular culture is no longer our culture, that our countries no longer belong to us, that the greater society is no longer ours.
The misconception that we belong to the greater society, so hard to break, is preventing the formation of a distinct Christian society in the West that can resist the evils of the outside world. The early Church was coherent because it remained a society separate from the Romans.[1] A similar separation is necessary today.
And if Christians can form a distinct society in the ashes of the West, then we must no longer tolerate unrepentant sin in our midst. Only then will we survive and grow.
Clusivius:
While Christians must certainly forge a tighter community and weed out the unrepentent rebels in our midst, it is too early to give up on Western Civilization.
It may now be suicidal to fight for one’s government, or to partake in most of its culture, but the nations of the West are not yet lost.
People who love their nations are waking up and returning to their roots. Such people must band together to resist the tyranny of the Globalist Establishment.
Considering tolerance, a free society must possess some degree of tolerance in order to remain free. The question is, tolerance to what degree? What a society must not do is allow its defining, majority culture and religion to fall to the wayside in the name of tolerance of others, as we see in the West.
Concorditas:
Indeed, there is room for a variety of like-minded people to gather together and organize resistance in groups, and for compatible groups to work together against the forces of Progressivism and Globalism. In fact, they are doing so already.
And each of these groups, be they religious or political, must strengthen and uphold the ancient moral codes of our civilization in order to remain cohesive against our enemies.
The causes are not yet lost.
[1] Christian society remained separate from the Romans until they gained enough numbers that Roman society joined and conformed to Christendom.
FINES ET INITIA 
rogerunited
/ 3 December 2013I frequently say something similar to that John Wesley quote at the top, good to know I’m not alone in thinking that.
Intolerance is fundamental to maintaining a cohesive society, especially intolerance of differning fundamental values.
The church is always strongest when its persecuted. We may see an Amish type movement from Christians in the near future, groups falling back to the rural areas and working in agriculture or online. I think this would be a good thing.
I think the current status quo of globalism and big, centralised beauracracy will crumble like Rome and we’ll see a resurgence of nationalism. I think it will be violent, though, as people sort themselves or get sorted.
Good post.
LikeLike
rogerunited
/ 3 December 2013Here’s an article in veterans today about cultural debasement in Weimar Germany
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/24/sexual-decadence-weimar-germany/
LikeLike
Janus
/ 3 December 2013Thanks. I’ll be discussing this phenomenon in a future post, though I’m not sure exactly how soon.
LikeLike
Janus
/ 3 December 2013The fires of persecution will burn out the impurities, like forging steel.
LikeLike
Brittius
/ 3 December 2013Reblogged this on Brittius.com.
LikeLike
Janus
/ 3 December 2013Thanks!
LikeLike
Brittius
/ 3 December 2013You’re welcome.
LikeLike
Bay Area Guy
/ 3 December 2013And what about smokers and fat people? Well, they’re not following the sacred tenets of good health and nutrition, so they deserve to be shamed and spat upon for their own goods.
That’s interesting, because I’ve observed the opposite. If anything, it’s the left that endorses “fat acceptance” and “body positive” activism. Think people like Lindy West.
When it comes to their “tolerance,” the rule that always drives the left is “root for the underdog.” Therefore, any group that is perceived to be marginalized, be it Muslims or fat people, must be supported, even if said groups are often opposed to many aspects of leftist ideology.
LikeLike
Janus
/ 3 December 2013I stand corrected on the issue of body image, having mistakenly tied it to the smoking issue.
I’d forgotten about the Lindy-West-types who push for self acceptance of any sort of body type, whatever its state, while the Michelle-Obama-types want to forcibly regulate what foods people can eat and in what quantities so that the most vulnerable in society can compete against the savvy pushers of addictive junk foods.
Oddly enough, I do sympathize somewhat with the body acceptance thing. Modern consumer culture has drilled the idea into peoples’ (and especially women’s) heads that if they are not beautiful or perfect (as seen on TV) they aren’t quite as human as those who are and they shouldn’t be happy. I sympathize with body-acceptance when people are otherwise healthy, but consider body-acceptance to be harmful if it means the acceptance of preventable body conditions that cause health problems or are the results of laziness and apathy.
My greatest contention, however, is when the government tries to impose one condition or the other on everyone, be it anti-discrimination of fat people in hiring at one end of the spectrum or the taxation or prohibition of junk food at the other.
Thanks for the correction! I do aim to be accurate here and encourage anyone to point out my errors when I make them. I may or may not agree, but I do appreciate constructive feedback.
LikeLike
rogerunited
/ 5 December 2013Here’s an example of what tolerance brings.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/horror-mob-of-topless-pro-abort-feminists-attacks-rosary-praying-men-defend.html
LikeLike
Janus
/ 6 December 2013It is interesting that Progressive-types so often behave like spoiled adolescents. Should we be surprised when people who demand to live like animals act like animals? The men comported themselves admirably in the face of these modern-day antediluvian daughters of Cain.
LikeLike
rogerunited
/ 7 December 2013I think the men should have punched the “ladies” in the front row. I bet that would be the last time we read about something like this. Chivalry is a two way street.
LikeLike
Dota
/ 5 December 2013The early Church was coherent because it remained a society separate from the Romans.[1] A similar separation is necessary today.
This seems like a bad idea. For one, it would reduce Christianity to “just another religion” among many others thereby playing right into the Multi-Cult’s hand.
LikeLike
rogerunited
/ 5 December 2013I was just reading about this church/state seperation thingy.
“One of the most difficult dilemmas that has always faced the Church is its relations with the State, the paradox of being in the world, but not of it. The Church, the Body of Christ, has a human nature through the Incarnation but She also has a divine nature, a spiritual ethos, for ‘My kingdom is not of this world’ (John 18, 36). The delicate and fine balance between being in the world but not of it, of rendering unto Caesar the things of Caesar and unto God the things of God (Matt. 22, 21) has rarely been achieved.”
——snip——-
“And indeed there have been periods of harmony or symphony between Church and State They occurred when the State limited itself to the material well-being and safety of its citizens and the Church was free to look to their spiritual Well-being and safety.”
http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/ocet52.htm
Of course, this presupposes a Christian state and/or society.
LikeLike
Janus
/ 6 December 2013A difficult balance, yes, and one requiring a Christian state/society. Some things do overlap between the two sides, making this management a difficult one. As it ideally protects its citizens while respecting their rights, so should a Christian state protect its church or churches while respecting their rights.
LikeLike
Janus
/ 6 December 2013They were in the world, but not of the world, and this is the goal for a Christian to achieve. Interact with the world, but don’t adopt its attitudes, methods, and culture.
As far as playing into the multi-cult’s hand, with the mult-cults Christians can’t win anyway. You can’t defeat them on their own battlefield, so we must stick to our own field.
LikeLike
beezernoid
/ 8 December 2013” Such people must band together to resist the tyranny of the Globalist Establishment.” Absolutely true. Too many in our society simply ignore or don’t care To know the history of the world and the direction we are clearly headed.Great article!
LikeLike
Janus
/ 8 December 2013Too many in our society simply ignore or don’t care To know the history of the world and the direction we are clearly headed.
Most people are content to live in whatever society exists so long as they can live their lives in peace. I can’t say that I blame them. The trouble arises when they can’t live their lives the way they had before; they are fit for whatever charlatan can hustle them.
Thanks for your kind words, beezernoid.
LikeLike