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.
– 8 August 2015 –
Patulcius:
Last Thursday’s Republican debates demonstrated that Fox News is just another tilted blabber-box of the Left-wing establishment, as if most of us didn’t know that already.
Presumably the real agenda of the debates was to attack and tear down Donald Trump and to promote Jeb Bush, all framed within the Leftist dialogue of race, religion, and sexual deviancy.
When Trump was questioned by the panel of Fox weasels (Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly, and Chris Wallace), the demeanors of the questioners grew harsh and accusatory; Kelly and Wallace in particular scowled and smirked. Trump was questioned on very specific issues in his past from his personal business dealings, his personal statements about women from his show, his former support of universal healthcare and of the Democratic party. These are fair questions, but that level of detail was unfairly applied to Trump only, and the moderators’ tones were unmistakably manipulative.
Record numbers of people watched this debate just to see what Trump would say, and a lot of the “low-information” conservatives won’t have known about Trump’s liberal past. According to the liberal blabbering heads, this exposure will count as a loss for Trump’s side, and those people (the majority) who didn’t watch these debates will believe what the TV and talk radio pundits tell them. Trump’s weakest defense was his excuses for donating to liberals, where he candidly explained that he donated to get paybacks later.
Despite the bias, and contrary to what the pundits are saying (digesting the debates for the idiot masses), Trump held his own pretty well against a hostile group of peers, moderators, and large segments of the audience He gave some outstanding answers. He stood up to Kelly’s feminist attack by denouncing Rosie O’Donnell and political correctness. He called the US government “stupid” for allowing illegals to flood the country and Mexico “cunning” for exporting its unwanted people so the stupid Americans will pay for them. He explained how he changed his views on abortion over time because he saw a child grow up who was supposed to be aborted.
The attempt to damage Trump over his subsequent and typically juvenile attacks on Megyn Kelly will probably not impact his polling numbers by themselves (unless Republicans just love that woman from “their” network so much). Frankly, Kelly did express hostility to Trump, particularly in her statements after the debates. I don’t watch television news, so I had never seen her (or the other moderators) before, but I gather that the man-voiced Kelly poses convincingly as a conservative on her Fox talk show. Of course, a “conservative” these days could mean quite a lot. What I saw from Thursday’s debate was a liberal acting like a liberal, but who knows?
Megyn Kelly scolds while Chris Wallace smirks. The moderators showed subtly hostile attitudes towards Trump while they blatantly interrogated him more aggressively than the other candidates, especially Jeb Bush.
Contrary to Trump’s inquisition, the moderators treated Jeb Bush with warmth and deference. The moderators seemed to give Bush more than his share of softball questions (how are you different from your brother and father; how would you make the economy grow?). Bush responded to every question with touchy-feely, aww-shucks feel-good answers where he tries to sit on both sides of an issue like an exploded bag of Jello. For instance, his answer to a question about illegal immigration:
I believe that the great majority of people coming here illegally have no other option. They want to provide for their family.
But we need to control our border. It’s not — it’s our responsibility to pick and choose who comes in. So I — I’ve written a book about this and yet this week, I did come up with a comprehensive strategy that — that really mirrored what we said in the book, which is that we need to deal with E-Verify, we need to deal with people that come with a legal visa and overstay.
We need to be much more strategic on how we deal with border enforcement, border security. We need to eliminate the sanctuary cities in this country. It is ridiculous and tragic…
(APPLAUSE)
BUSH: — that people are dying because of the fact that — that local governments are not following the federal law. There’s much to do. And I think rather than talking about this as a wedge issue, which Barack Obama has done now for six long years, the next president — and I hope to be that president — will fix this once and for all so that we can turn this into a driver for high sustained economic growth.
And there should be a path to earned legal status…
(BUZZER NOISE)
BUSH: — for those that are here. Not — not amnesty, earned legal status, which means you pay a fine and do many things over an extended period of time.
All of Bush’s answers fit this model. Gentle Jeb cares so much; he’s so safe and warm, like a thick sweater vest. If he gets nominated, this is going to be one boring election campaign.
I must confess that I skipped through most of the answers by Christie, Rubio, and Kasich. What I did hear were a few “Nine-elevens” from Christie and “we’re just lowly working-class guys” from the other two. I just don’t care what these RINO’s have to say.
I think the rest of them spoke rather well. Ben Carson, whom I admit I’d never heard speak, gave very sound, if somewhat vague and philosophical, answers delivered in a very relaxed, almost soothing, fashion. I can see why so many people like him. My respect for Carson has increased somewhat, though I don’t think he has the political experience or the temperament to handle the reigns of power.
Rand Paul came across as weak and quarrelsome, like a freshman in high school, though some of this arose from the tendency of the moderators to pit two candidates against one another. This is a shame because I agree with many of his political stances and much of his record.
I think Cruz, Huckabee, and Walker spoke well. Huckabee is a smooth, clever speaker, but his record as governor of Arkansas is mixed, a politician through-and-through. Walker is a very competent and succinct speaker, and his record of success in a liberal state is appealing, but he has expressed support for amnesty and universal healthcare. Cruz has shown that he has backbone, honor, and sticks to his principals, but the poor guy has the face of a rodeo clown and the voice of Chuck-E-Cheese. I have to support Cruz, though he hasn’t got a chance.
But I still would love to see Trump get the nomination if only because the establishment seems to hate him so much.
Overall, I think the processed and packaged reaction to the debate, repeating how Trump lost, might hurt Trump a little in the polls, but only a little. And this debate won’t by itself succeed in improving Jeb Bush’s numbers. The effects of these manipulated debates are going to take time and will proceed in a cumulative way. We get one debate per month until February, when they start doubling. Hooray.
I suspect that the next debate will feature a rising Carly Fiorina, and she will be pitted against Trump to make him appear even more sexist than Megyn Kelly has tried to do.
FINES ET INITIA 
Brittius
/ 9 August 2015Reblogged this on Brittius.
LikeLike
oosorio456
/ 9 August 2015It’s time to discuss social justice along with tax cuts
LikeLike
Janus
/ 9 August 2015I agree, but I suspect that my idea of social justice is different than your idea.
I promote my own nation (a nation being a people who share common history, language, culture, etc.) before those of others. In this case, my nation is the so-called traditional white, Christian American.
I also believe that other nations in the midst of my nation must be treated with justice, though not to the detriment of my own nation. For minority nations who belong in our midst—in the United States those being the black descendants of our former slaves and the descendants of Indians or Mexicans who were present in these lands before we were—for them my nation should allow them a degree of social autonomy and separation in order to maintain their identities, though once again not to the detriment of my nation. They might not like my definition of justice, and I understand that because they are trying to promote their nations just as I promote mine. Nations compete with one another, and I get it.
Other people who belong here are those who form part of my nation but otherwise deviate from the nation’s predominant religion, culture, or philosophies. We could be talking about Mormons, the Amish, feminists, bikers, or even homosexuals. So long as they pose no harm or threat to the dominant nation, they should be justly tolerated. Deviancy will exist, but it is within the right of a nation to weed out or suppress the deviants who threaten the nation’s existence. Deviancy out of control will unravel a nation.
Concerning social classes, the wealthiest classes should not take unjust advantage of the poor. While I don’t advocate redistribution of wealth, the poor should be protected from predatory lending, excess taxation, and confiscatory policies. To the extent that the poor form a distinct culture, that culture should be respected so long as it doesn’t hurt the overall nation.
For those peoples who don’t belong in my nation, particularly those who arrived since 1965 or their descendants, my nation owes them no accommodation at all. They arrived here willingly and should live according to our rules. If they don’t like it, they should leave. I encourage them to leave.
Also, a nation has the responsibility to protect the people over whom it has authority from threats of war, famine, or other widespread strife to the reasonable extent of its powers. This can be done locally or nationally or however according to the customs of the nation, but it is the nation’s responsibility.
Generally speaking, each nation in the world should be allowed the freedom to exist as a distinct people, to various degrees under their own social laws, in the places where they belong. And each class of people within a nation should be tolerated to the extent that they pose no threat to the nation, without predatory exploitation. And a nation has the responsibility to protect those people under its authority.
That is my interpretation of social justice.
Obviously the United States and the rest of the West no longer believe the way that I do, and we can see that the Western nations who no longer believe in themselves are falling apart. Other peoples who adopt the secular, universalist, humanist philosophies of the modern world are also starting to fall apart.
And why do you suppose the international elites want to destroy the concept of nation? For the same reason they want to destroy the concept of race, religion, family, and gender. These stand as barriers to their rule. They want to rule a people who have no allegiance to anything but their own pleasures.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rogerunited
/ 9 August 2015Jeb, or Yeb as he’s called in some less polite corners of the ‘net, isn’t worth mentioning. So I won’t mention him again.
Carson is the token we’re-not-racist black man that the GOP throws out every election. He’s as conservative as Powell and Rice, both of whom at least tacitly supported Obama though Powell admitted to voting for O twice. Then there’s gun control:
‘Asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: “There’s a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons.”
But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live.”’
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/conservative-hero-ben-carson-to-beck-you-have-no-right-to-semi-automatic-weapons-in-large-cities/
Carson is only popular because of some things he said about Obamacare when it was the cause du jour. Hopefully his time has passed.
Ted Cruz is a globalist, a mild one, but still a milquetoast republican; a cuckservative if you will. He seems honest, just not that smart or courageous.
Rand Paul is a joke. He’s an open borders stoner who worries too much about the left calling him racist. I bet Putin would eat him alive!
The rest, I think, are filler.
Now Trump. Trump is way more liberal than I am (to be fair, everybody is way more liberal than me!) and he’s more interested in business than people. However, as a single issue voter, Trump is my favorite simply because his stance on my single issue is the strongest. Do I think he’d be effective at implementing? I don’t know, but I doubt it. The best thing that could of a Trump presidency is to push the immigration conversation to the right and that might be worth four years of a Trump admin. I doubt he’d be any worse than the last couple presidents and Trump vs Putin could be entertaining!
So, if trump gets on the ballot he’d be my choice assuming I vote. I think we both know Trump won’t be on the ballot, though. I think you may have been right in an earlier article when you said Trump was acting as a foil to draw attention away from Yeb. I think Trump is playing the populist conservative (he’s having an easy time looking like the tough strong man among a bunch of flaccid GOP cucks) with the goal of discrediting his positions. He may not be voluntarily playing this role, but ‘they’ have a way of discrediting ‘their’ opposition.
Once again, I’ll probably sit this election out, not worth my time.
LikeLike
Janus
/ 9 August 2015Nice analysis, and for the most part I agree. And yes, you are on the knife’s edge of the right side of the political/philosophical bell curve, probably a little to the right of myself in most ways.
Personally, I never sit elections out, though frequently boxes are left unchecked or cast for third parties. I had never voted for a main party candidate in the presidential race until 2012 when I voted for Romney because he seemed personally honorable, because the third party candidates were lousy that year, and because I wanted to participate in what seemed almost certainly the downfall of Barrack Obama, so much do I hate him. I will almost certainly resume my third party voting in the next presidential race.
It’s absurd to get caught up in national politics, considering what little control we actually have over their actions, but I can’t help but watch and analyze with interest to see how events play out. Shipwrecks are interesting to watch, and the United States is a big ship.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rogerunited
/ 9 August 2015Unfortunately, we’re going down with the ship instead of the captains.
LikeLike