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.
– 9 July 2016 –
Janus:
Obama, the leader of all that is wrong with today’s United States, talks peace and understanding over Friday’s black sniper attack on police in Dallas, but his actions behind the scenes since he took office suggest a sinister agenda against white Americans.
“There is sorrow, there is anger, there is confusion about next steps,” Mr. Obama said at the start of a news conference. “But there is unity in recognizing that this is not how we want our communities to operate. This is not who we want to be as Americans.”
The president said he would visit Dallas early next week to pay homage to the police officers who were killed there. And he said he would invite activists, police officials and others to the White House next week to seek “constructive actions that are actually going to make a difference.”
Mr. Obama acknowledged that the killings had unleashed some harsh rhetoric, and he urged people of all points of view to be careful in how they express their opinions. But he said he believed that most people were simply saddened by the lives lost.
“When we start suggesting that somehow there is this enormous polarization and we’re back to the situation in the 1960s — that’s just not true,” Mr. Obama said. “You’re not seeing riots and you’re not seeing police going after people who are protesting peacefully.”
While he pretends to care about the country’s police forces, he in fact will use this opportunity to push the narrative that the police themselves have escalated racial tensions, and he will try to meddle even further in local police affairs across the country just as his Justice Department did in Ferguson.
Uncooperative Blacks and Wary Police
Of course, police around the country increasingly refuse to deal with crime in black areas, and we see crime rates spiking in these areas because of it. Why should the police risk their lives or their careers simply to stop ungrateful blacks from robbing and killing each other?
We also have a president who encourages groups like Black Lives Matter, a president who denounces the police whenever these incidents occur, who then meddles in internal, local affairs. The liberal media can’t help but act as a megaphone for the poor innocent victims of oppression if for no other reason than the coverage generates ratings. So the so-called president and his allies embolden the criminals and cow the police.
The experts in denial: “What’s basically happening is these cities are becoming victims of their own success,” said Professor Fox. The crime rate “can’t go to zero, and when you hit really low numbers, it can only go up.”
American blacks tend to have an uncooperative attitude towards authority, especially when confronted with non-black authority. Often they turn belligerent with little provocation. Even when American blacks aren’t outright hostile to authority, they recognize the police as an outside force whose interests don’t necessarily match their own. Even the best of black people will often resist authority through willful silence and inaction.
Police deal with this uncooperative or hostile black attitude regularly.
Combine that attitude with higher rates of black violent crime, with blacks regularly attacking the police, and situations between blacks and cops can quickly escalate, often leading to the death of an uncooperative but otherwise innocent black.
When confronted with police, the black “victim” knows in his head that he is innocent of a crime, so he doesn’t believe that he should have to cooperate with a cop who is obviously persecuting him because of his race, race, race. The victim can’t even understand how his actions would be interpreted by someone else as potentially deadly.
The cop knows that blacks, especially young and unkempt blacks, are more likely to attack him, and he proceeds with much more caution. And every cop on patrol today knows that every misstep with blacks could cost him his job or even risk his life and those of his family. In a black part of town, he might simply ignore a traffic violation or a domestic violence call-out, but he’s got to defend businesses and (especially) white suburbs and towns. But when it looks like a hostile black is going to pull a weapon, a one-second hesitation could cost the cop his life, and he’s going to kill the son of a bitch. Who wants to die at the hands of a low-life rowdy black asshole anyway?
In all reality, police do disproportionately target and ticket blacks for seemingly little or no reason. Part of the reason is that blacks are many times more likely to commit crimes, and the other part is that non-black police instinctively recognize blacks as alien to themselves and their people. There is justifiable mistrust on both sides.
This problem will only grow worse until the two nations are re-segregated, where blacks can take responsibility for their own justice system and law enforcement within their own territories.
Or until one side or the other is obliterated. . . .
Why Might Obama Want a Race War?
We have two major groups, or nations, in the United States who are so different from one another in their overall personalities that they can’t even really comprehend the thoughts and motivations of the other. They’re incompatible.
We also have an Obama administration that is fanning black hostility against the police in particular and against whites in general.
At every sensationalized case of a supposedly innocent black killed at the hands of law enforcement, Obama jumps into the story, railing against cops whether the victim was armed or not. Sometimes he involves himself or the Justice Department in the case.
If policemen are slaughtered at the hands of raging blacks, Obama usually has nothing to say. He said nothing about the Christopher Dorner shootings of police in California in 2013, for example. The Dallas case is the only black-on-police attack that I can think of where Obama has even commented. It’s quite obvious whose side Obama takes in these cases.
Why is Obama doing this?
It’s possible that he is simply incompetent. He and his Coloured administration identify with blacks, Mexicans, and Muslims, and they share a hostility against traditional white America. As a result, they simply attack traditional America whenever and wherever they can within the confines of their positions. This scenario is very possible, I suppose.
Obama has had a disproportionate number of mixed breed blacks in his administration. Prominent examples include Eric Holder, Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch, Jeh Johnson, and Valerie Jarrett.
But it’s best to assume that these people aren’t idiots. Somehow, even aided with affirmative action and mutual assistance, Obama and his Coloured appointees fought their ways into high levels of government. What if these people want to fan racial tensions rather than alleviate them? What would they gain by doing so?
It might be as simple as divide and rule. If no majority nation exists in the United States, then the government will need more power to keep the squabbling groups in line. Plus, the weakening of traditional white America on every front can only strengthen the Left-wing agenda. Eventually conservative whites will melt into political and cultural irrelevance, like those who oppose gambling or contraception. This is more likely the case, maybe even most likely.
Still, I don’t think it’s as simple as that.
Obama hates the old white America. He wants to destroy it altogether. “Revolution!” runs in Obama’s blood, not incrementalism. He worships Mao and Ho Chi Minh and Nat Turner and even Mohammad. He wants to “fundamentally transform” America.
“Oppressed peoples, unite to resolutely fight against US imperialism!” Revolution runs in Obama’s blood, not incrementalism.
He’s whipped blacks up against the police while the police allow blacks to commit more crimes. This breeds more crime and police reaction against the crime, creating more police “injustices” along with white resentment against blacks; while at the same time it breeds more frantic black anger against the police, leading to protests, rioting, and increasingly black retaliation. Police become more fearful and even resentful themselves, or more Dylan Roofs act out. Eventually, as this pendulum is pushed back and forth, the “Big One” will hit. Blacks will riot and kill a significant number of innocent whites. This will drive the angriest white patriots to act since the police won’t do anything, leading to the deaths of large numbers of angry blacks. The government will step in to restore order, but it will be too little, too late, on purpose.
In response to escalating violence and mayhem, and when the time is right, the federal government can play that dreaded card: the confiscation of all guns. We will have civil war. But the Marxists intend the war to take place on their terms. Obama spent years weeding out opposition in the military, and Leftists control the leadership of police in larger cities and other left-wing areas. Obama has imported hordes of non-white young men that he can call upon to fight against the evil racists. And once the civil war begins, Obama’s revolutionaries hope to flush out enough white patriots to mount a serious resistance but few enough patriots that they can’t possibly win. Thus, the revolutionaries can chop off the heads and fists of white America. Accomplishing that, they can then “mop up”, or exterminate, the countryside, that bastion of conservative, Christian resistance.
And for laughs, his Marxists can turn against the surviving liberal whites, making them serve the non-whites in the very worst jobs at the worst pay as penance for the crimes of their evil white ancestors, a new race of helots for the new elite. In the 1920’s and 30’s, the soviets did this very thing to the fallen bourgeoisie.
Without whites to hold them down, brown people will finally be able to build the utopias of their noblest dreams.
In the end, Obama and his ilk will have exterminated traditional America, and the countryside can be turned into pristine national parkland. To finish whites once and for all, the revolutionaries might even castrate white men and impregnate the women, muddying the whites out of existence. Then the post-racial, post-national, post-human utopia can truly begin.
It’s even possible that Obama’s trying to provoke a war between the West and Russia in order to further wipe out the white race in another fratricidal world war.
This is just speculation on my part, of course. But I think there’s at least a gem of truth to it.
So what if Obama wants to provoke us so he can destroy us?
Let us hope that he and his half-breeds are biting off more than they can chew.
FINES ET INITIA 