Conservatism And The GOP

What if conservatives retake the Republican Party?   What if nationalism - even as defined by the MSM - pushes the entrenched globalist eunuchs out of the party, and actually succeed in making America great again?  What if the tenets espoused by the Tea Party - smaller government, more self reliance, fewer taxes and far lower government debt - were actually embraced and promoted by the GOP party elders?  And what if voters in the midterm elections coming up next year said "Hell, yeah!" to all or some of these philosophical betterments and made them happen?  What a wonderful world it would be.

Get mad, get mean, get great!

But the road to that happy place is beset on all sides by ill-wishers in both parties and the media, along with NGOs and other heavily funded resources from outside our borders.  That means George Soros, as well as others.  And the game is already afoot:  History is being erased.  Speech is being censored.  Education has become propaganda.  Biology is being redefined as merely a personal preference.  Ethnic cleansing is alive and well as the war against the white race intensifies.  The radical left, emboldened by sixty years of its applied cultural erosion, is now engaged in all out warfare against the Constitution.

And it all came to a head when the American electorate, having another temper tantrum as Peter Jennings once famously observed, actually chose a political outsider as their duly elected president and commander in chief.  How dare they give a resounding vote of no confidence to the entrenched elitists in power in Washington DC?  It simply isn't done!  

So in November of last year, the campaign began in earnest to destroy not only President Donald Trump, but all who may have voted for him.  Working class white males, discarded as being "deplorable" by Mz Clinton and the Democrats, exacted a little revenge in November.  Clinton lost.  Trump won.

Now we find ourselves in philosophical warfare between two basic ideologies.  The first is the Kenyan's globalist view that America is only one of many nations, and should be taken down a notch or two.  The second is President Trump's contention that America is the world's shining city on the hill, a beacon of freedom and opportunity for all who wish to come here and become Americans.

The power elite and the MSM is heavily invested in the former.  But the American voter chose the latter.  The mid-terms will flesh out the two.  RINOs will be primaried.  Already in Arizona incumbent Jeff Flake is trailing badly  to newcomer Dr. Kelli Ward, due to his anti-Trump and pro-globalist stance.  And remarks.  I doubt that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell will retain their leadership positions, as the republican voters in fly-over country have had enough betrayal.  They - the working men and women largely ignored by the political class - handed both houses of congress and the Oval Office to Republicans because they wanted no more of the disastrous policies that the Kenyan forced upon them.

But the squishy Republican leadership, by standing in the way of enacting Trump's agenda, has effectively handed over that once-in-a-generation full Republican legislative and executive control to others, and in doing so has betrayed the electorate.  But the American voter wants a new boss, a new direction, and a new competitiveness in this 21st century. If the political class of donor sponsored Republicans want to keep their jobs, they better embrace some platform planks upon which they campaigned, and for which Americans voted. 

They damn sure better, or there will be hell to pay.  You can take that to the bank.

What Can You Say?

It's refreshing to learn that the technology giants are rushing to save free speech, by censoring what they euphemistically refer to as hate speech.  Yep, Google, Facebook, Twitter, several hosting services, ESPN and others have endeavored to save us from speech - both conservative and from-the-right -  that may offend us.  Whew.  As fractionalized as the United States has become under the clinched fist of the Great One, the Kenyan, it's good to know that some of these benighted tech CEOs are there to protect us.

Facebook has cancelled accounts of conservative groups, citing violations of terms of service as their justification. Yeah, like expressing political opinions, which is emphatically protected by the first amendment.  No matter, that.  Anything not in keeping with Facebook's echo chamber, by their definition, is hate speech, and therefore must be stifled.  And they do.   Further, Facebook caved in to Pakistan's government to censor and delete any criticism of Islam.

Google is worse, in that it's essentially the search engine of default in most browsers.  Results of queries are screened for conservative content, and then subsequently filtered in favor of liberal, left wing results. Go ahead, search a controversial topic - "Clinton's crimes" could be an interesting example - and run the same search in Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo, or others, and note the difference in what is returned as a match.  Are the results  history, propaganda or political commentary?  It's subtle, but it's there.

One could argue that these are private corporations, and they can set policy as they please.  Fine, I agree.  But the government has retained the right to bust up monopolies, and has done so in the past.  As cultural realities in the 21st century require a reliance on the internet, both for input and output, it's of societal concern to Americans that the medium for political free speech be - as the first amendment guarantees - uncensored.  Even, or especially, if that speech may be repugnant to some.

If someone is prejudiced against certain religious groups, and wished to express that position, such speech should be uncensored.  That goes for opinions that are anti-Muslim, as well as anti-Jew  or anti-Christian, for instance.  Or those opinions that may be anti-black, as well as those who may be anti-white.  Or any other contentious opinion.  That's free speech.  Bigotry is a human attribute, after all.  We're tribal.  Non sunt mei: They are not me.  So what?  It's a good thing that we're different.  We can agree to disagree on whatever topic without either government or corporate censorship. 

Those easily offended among us would do well to remember the famous quote: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

That's the American way.

Boomerang: Unintended Consequence

Boomerang.  Backlash.  Those are words that refer to unintended consequence.  After decades of being the whipping boy for every cultural fault, shortcoming or slight - whether real or imagined - is it any wonder that white people, especially males, are pushed to the point of pushback?  I don't think so either.  As I've noted on these pages recently, the war against white men began with the misguided feminist movement some sixty years ago.  And, as I've noted, that war was won:  men were ostracized and literally criminalized.  In fact, those feminist radicals' tactics worked so well, that every other aggrieved disenfranchised group has adopted them.  We're victims of you, the great white male, they claimed.  Right. 

Be careful what you throw . . .

So after decades of enduring this war, the white male, genteel to the core, has heretofore smiled and just let it all go.  But in recent years fuel has been added to the fire, and under the divisive Kenyan's reign, the hate of white males has been ramped up by orders of magnitude.  Hate has now become its own ideology.  Hatred not from white males, but of white males.  No problem.  That's permissible.  It's not discrimination or hate speech if vitriol is directed toward white males.  But let a white man express his position on blacks, Hispanics, Muslims or women, and he's excoriated.  

Is it any wonder that white people, especially males, are pushed to the point of pushback?

Enter the interesting case of the website Daily Stormer. Because its editor is a member of what the media refers to as white supremacist, and because of the exercise of his right of free political speech, GoDaddy decided to drop him from its hosting service.  The website's content didn't seem to bother GoDaddy for the years the site has been up, but suddenly it's hate speech.  Which, as many constitutional scholars have pointed out, the suppression of which is actually censorship.  If there is one common attribute of those of the alt-right, another label that the MSM has applied to Daily Stormer, it may be irreverence.  The cite used dark humor to mock feminism, Jewishness, liberals, entrenched government, and every other established icon.  It was satirical if nothing else. Nonetheless, the site was shut down.  No opposition voices may be heard in our free and tolerant society.  Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter, Planned Parenthood, and every other hate group on the far left have had no threats against their respective websites or host providers.

As I write this, the news in the background revealed that several Confederate statutes in several states - including my home state of Florida - have either been torn down and/or vandalized.  Not solely because they were Confederate, but because they were of white guys.  Think that's a stretch?  Consider this:  Al Sharpton on The Charlie Rose Show just called for the removal of the Jefferson Monument in Washington, D.C.  He wasn't kidding.  Jefferson owned slaves, therefore was racist, he explained. 

So there it is.  What started as a hissy fit by unattractive females against the men who wouldn't notice them has now become an ideology within Black Lives Matter and others that are being fueled by the far-left MSM and funded by its sponsor, George Soros.

 

Is it any wonder that white people, especially males, are pushed to the point of pushback?

The War on White

With the recent events coming out of Charlottesville, Virginia, the anti-white-male mainstream media is hoping that they finally have the Great White Terrorist Villain that they've sought for such a long time.  A young white male crashes his car into a crowd, killing one and injuring more.  At last we have the home grown American Terrorist!  The problem is that the young man in question may very well be Jewish.  We'll have to wait to find out if that's so.  But for now, the MSM and grandstanding politicians trash the rally-goers, those normal Americans who had the proper permits to exercise their right to free speech and to peaceably assemble.  Of course, the Soros funded "activists," known to law enforcement as Antifa, short for anti-fascist, were there in numbers as well.  Their job, as anti fascists of course, is to physically attack the rally-goers and start a riot.  Which will essentially quell any assembly or free speech by any other philosophy apart from their own Soros funded fascism.  Yes, the irony is completely lost on them. And true to form, the far left and corrupt governor Terry McAuliffe rescinds the permits, effectively placing the rally-goers in violation of the law.  The Antifa black thugs of course, are not, according the the city's black mayor.

The MSM has its narrative locked down.  White Americans, not all of whom are Southerners by the way, are labelled.  It's easier to hate somebody if they are labelled, especially with a passive-aggressive pejorative.  So these white Americans rally-goers are labeled Nazis, white nationalists, or white supremacists by the oh-so-tolerant MSM.  And we all know it's OK to hate Nazis.  Right?  So goes the war on whites.

How did all this divisiveness begin, this war on white men?  Apart from the Kenyan's eight year constant anti-white, anti-Christian policies, it began in earnest over fifty years ago in the primordial, radical cultural swamp of the 1960s.  And, it began, oddly enough, with self hating Jewish women who were too ugly - both inside and out - to attract a male.  Spoiled narcissists, shrill and vocally vicious, these harpies came onto the scene hating men because of their own personality failings.  Well, it can't be my fault, they said.  It must be men's attitudes that make them look away when I approach.  And so the women's "movement", now called feminism, began.  Led by Gloria Steinem and other females who refused to succumb to nature's most basic law of the sexes, this movement first defined and glorified victimization.  Men victimized women, and that must stop.  All within the guise of egalitarianism, of course.  But equality was never the goal.  Female superiority was.  It was time to bring down the cultural patriarchy of white male cultures.     

It worked.  By the early 1970s, laws were passed.  It became a federal crime to "discriminate" on the basis of sex. To discriminate is to victimize.  To victimize is a crime.  Therefore, only white males can be guilty of  discrimination, because you see, well, they're white.  In today's world, this hate for white males is directed toward what is referred to as white privilege.  I kid you not.  Read some feminist insanity on the topic here.

If you opened that link, you will note how the nonsensical feminist manifesto includes blacks and other people "of color" in their little cadre of victims.  So it's not really about feminism at all, then.  It's about anti-white-American-males. And by extension, any cultural achievement or human advancement brought to civilization by the European - that means white -  patriarchal culture.  And that's what they hate.  White males, and the civilization white males have built. 

It has been working so well that over the last fifty years that we've witnessed the death of the traditional nuclear family, a requisite for civilization for thousands of years.  We've witnessed the rise - and unfortunately a partial public acceptance - of infanticide as a function of a woman's "right."  We've watched as the MSM embraces the reanimation of an obscure 7th century death cult and its war on white culture both here and abroad.  We've watched as other disenfranchised and lunatic fringe groups adopt and employ the same victimization tactics:  blacks, Muslims, non-white Hispanics and central Americans, homosexuals, sexually confused individuals.

The agents of destruction are well on their way to the realization of their stated goal:  the end of white patriarchal American culture, and the removal of its existence from history.  Is it any wonder that white America is waking up and recognizing this existential threat?   Those rally-goers in Charlottesville certainly have done.  They are Americans.  White Americans.  And male. They are not the the villains the mainstream far-leftist media claim them to be. They are you and me.  The folks that built this nation and culture.  And as such, they are those who would defend her from all threats, foreign and domestic.  

And to Gloria Steinem, Lena Dunham, Rosie O'Donnell, the once-beautiful Ashley Judd, and all the other shrill and vicious harpies I say:  Be careful what you wish for.  If whites lose this war, you may just end up Muslim.

The Sad Case of Charlie Gard

From the descendants of the freedom seeking peoples who overthrew a mighty king and gave us the Manga Carta, to that same fearless spawn who escaped a different tyrannical king and settled upon a new continent to subsequently establish a libertine form of government, to those cowardly authoritarian socialists who inhabit the country today, we can only recoil in horror at the dystopian news coming from the once great English courts.

RIP Charlie, a victim of socialism's war on the innocent

I refer, of course, to the infant Charlie Gard, who was born with a rare disease that the state-run medical community decreed to be hopeless, and was allowed to die despite the fact that his parents had fought a five-month legal battle to keep him alive.  In the end, however, the British nationalized health service decided his life couldn’t be prolonged and that his life support should be turned off.

The argument is not whether the American or Italian teams of specialists who volunteered to intercede could have saved him.  Nor is it the cost of any experimental or otherwise unorthodox treatment that may have been considered; the parents had raised over a million pounds themselves absent any state sponsored funding. Nor is the argument that any treatment may or may not have had any effect on his condition at all.  Those are just hypothetical debates that have no resolution. The argument is simply this.  It is up to the parents alone to decide what is the best course of action for their son.  Period.

But the nationalized, socialized death panels made a decision that should have been left to the parents.  The Death Panel had final say over this boy's life.  It's simply a matter of economics, they explained.  He can't be saved, so why spend the money? Chilling.

But death panels are exactly what we have here in the Land of the Free in Kenyan Care, which is a carbon copy of the "health care" system in the UK.  Its architects have admitted so, despite the spin put out by our state run media.  So if you're old, or suffering from a rare and heretofore untreatable malady, be prepared to die if your fate lies with the government's own Death Panels.

So perhaps this case can be viewed as an indication of we Americans can look forward to under this illegal and ill begotten law that the Kenyan forced upon us.  But even so, as heartbreaking as the evidence clearly is, some lawmakers - who are exempt from Kenyan Care, I hasten to add - couldn't find it in American's best interest to repeal that insidious and hateful law.

And in so doing, widen the gap between the governed and those who represent them.

It Ain't Easy Bein' Green

Home at last from a Caribbean cruise.  Lotsa fun, lotsa sun!  Oddly enough, after a week or more of me being incommunicado, it seems nothing has changed in the mainstream legacy media. The war upon the people of the United States by the entrenched power elites continues.  And intensifies.

I'm being to think that the only solution left in winning this war is through force of arms.  Radical?  Perhaps.  But the election results of 2016 was a wake up call for the swamp.  The denizens of that putrid place did take notice of the displeasure the voters had with their ruling betters.  The swamp was stunned, and even to this day operates in a fog of disbelief that they could be not only outed, but vilified as well.  But rather than acquiesce to the demand of the electorate, they pushed back even harder, trying to silence the populace and marginalize and nullify Mr. Trump's administration.

Good luck with that.

Back in the 1960s a cultural revolution against the establishment occurred. That movement was hijacked by Jewish radicals, Soviet collaborators, and hippy doper college dropouts, some of whom even created a textbook on how to resist, overcome and defeat established power structures.  Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals - which he dedicated to Lucifer, by the way - became the Bible for those radicals who now fifty years later are the very entrenched establishment that they once reviled.

Today a new cultural force has awaken and taken hold, and it is annoying the elites for several reasons.  First, the ruling class doesn't understand it.  And as such can't label it and therefore cannot defeat it.  Second, the movement has no leaders, so there's no one to destroy.  Third, it's organic. If Jung was right, and many philosophers including this one think he is, it means that this movement is a natural recognition of the current evil in politics.  

Enter the Alt-Right.  

What's the Alt-Right?  Ask ten people and you'll get ten different answers.  But the general idea is a cultural and political movement that's neither liberal nor conservative, but most probably a blend of the ideas of Libertarians, Socialists and Conservatives who have been left behind.  Educated, disillusioned and disenfranchised, these folks are primarily young white alpha males.  And they love Trump.   I expect that this movement will become the prevailing force in politics over the next generations, much like the leftward slide we've had to endure over the last fifty years.  That socialistic mudslide is what gave us the destruction of the American family, the rise of deviancy in all its forms, and the war on the Caucasian race.   Oh, yeah, and the Kenyan.

So, here's to Pepe, the icon meme of the Alt-Right.  Long may he live.

What Free Speech?

Does anyone you know really believe in free speech?  By that I mean as an applied philosophy, rather than just as an intellectual concept.  I'm not sure I know anyone who does.  Let's consider this for a moment.  The term "free speech" has been bantered about quite a bit recently, and as most terms in the political lexicon, its meaning becomes more ambiguous with each utterance.  It's being defined by different factions in different ways, so how do we know what we're talking about when we debate the concept of "free speech?"

Does free speech include vile, invective or disgusting language?  Or perhaps profane rants and calls for violence?  How about such no-no's as advocating death or annihilation?  Or maybe just biases and hate of one group by another?  Is any of that free speech?  Does free speech in a democratic and free society allow for any or all of those things?  I think it does.  And it should.

The immediate reaction most will have to that pronouncement is that we can't shout "fire!" in a crowded theater.  Why?  The nature of free speech is that one can express oneself fully and completely, and that's an admirable concept.  But there is no provision that someone else be protected from any reaction to that speech whatsoever, including outrage, offense, disgust or even terror.  So it would seem - in the purest sense of the concept - that one has the right to express oneself through the freedom of speech, but others are in no way obligated to listen.  

I would submit that any abridgement of pure and unadulterated free speech is a form of censorship.   Here's why.  The notion that speech - of any kind, but particularity political speech - should be moderated is, to me, utter nonsense.  Who is it who moderates?  What moral authority do moderators have to quell opinions, or even biases and phobias?  Have the moderators no opinions, preferences or biases of their own?  And as such, why do those opinions trump my own?   You can see how easily censorship rears its ugly head at the very instance of speech moderation.  A most notable example is the less-than-subtle censorship in the form of anti-conservative biases prevalent in the mainstream media.

The Internet has changed the way we act as a society in many ways.  Opinions are sent though cyberspace in an instant, and reactions are returned just as fast.  Sensitive souls - yes, I mean snowflakes - may take umbrage or offense, and demand that "something be done" about all that opinionatin' goin' on.  Rather than ignore the offending remark, they instead seek censorship of the offender by some higher authority.  That'll show 'em.  Even Facebook has twisted itself into a moral and legal pretzel in trying to moderate "hate speech" among its now two billion-plus users.  But it's a waste of effort, because hate speech is free speech.

Should Black Lives Matter be allowed to call all white people racists and should be killed?  Should the sharia supremacists be allowed to call for the destruction of all non-Islamic civilizations?  Should skinheads be allowed to denounce homosexuals and Jews?  Should we allow feminists to advocate the breakup of the traditional nuclear family?  Haters gonna hate.  So what?  The answer, in a democratic and free society, is clearly yes for all of these.  But when rhetoric is acted upon, the law has a legal and  moral obligation to respond.  One may say what one wants, but actions are still guided by laws and have consequence.

Some of us grew up in a time when "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me" was more than a just schoolyard rhyme.  It was, and still is, a philosophy which is sorely needed today.  So get over being offended.  Say what you will.  Ignore what you dislike.  But don't censor "them," for "they" might just censor you.  If one takes exception to this across-the-board approach to freedom of all speech, however offensive or agitating it may be, then one doesn't truly believe in freedom of speech.  

And that, by definition, is censorship.

Fake News, Fake Terror

When the latest "terrorist involved" news came from London yesterday, I was skeptical.  Let me be even more frank:  I didn't buy it for a nanosecond.  The narrative - that is, the story - is that a middle aged white man drove his van into a crowd of Muslims, killing one and injuring ten.  It's plausible, no?  It certainly is when one considers that there would surely be a "backlash" occurring against all these savage killings of innocents at the hands of Islamists.  The MSM has been salivating for an instance in which normal folks may wantonly kill some random Muslims, just for, well, because they're Muslims.  And that is exactly the narrative that the media mafia is foistering on us.

And note that London has a Muslim mayor

Let us look at this fake story with a jaundiced eye.  The van attack on London Bridge last week, where crazed Islamists randomly ran down innocent Londoners and tourists, driving into them at a relatively fast speed, and then leaped from the assault vehicle and started slashing the crowd with their knives.  These were Muslims intent on killing and aiming as many people as possible.

In contrast, let's compare that act of terrorism on London Bridge a week ago, with the fake story of Muslims run down at the mosque yesterday.  First, the run down occurred a good distance form the mosque, across several streets and beyond a major highway artery overpass, despite the insinuation of the media mafia.  Second, the van was driving very slowly, according to early witness reports, people were actually stepping in the way of the vehicle, and the only fatality was a poor individual who was having a medical situation prior to any threat from the driver.  Third, and most amazingly, is the fact that the Finsbury Park mosque's imam just happened to be at the site at the time of the incident, and is now being painted as a hero for stopping the crowd from killing the driver, now identified as 47 year old Darren Osbourne.  This very mosque, by the way, recently was under investigation for its teaching of terrorism and inciting terrorist attacks, and its previous imam was arrested and incarcerated on terrorist charges.  The UK's big three newspapers have all dedicated extensive ink on this fake story, and it's embarrassing to read their over the top gushing praise for this so-called "hero" imam.  

This story is clearly fabricated attempting to create a sense of moral equivalence to deny civilization the moral high ground regarding the use of terror. This tatic has been tried and failed before - Dylan Roof and Tim McVeigh come to mind - but the radical left and the media mafia are betting the farm on this one, you can be sure.  Watch the media mafia in the next few days.  We'll see more and more pro-Islamist stories, complete with  personable imams, essentially saying, "See, they do it to us, too.  And we're not so bad."

But of course we - that is, civilized people and advanced societies - don't engage in terror tactics.  But Muslims do.  In fact, during the so-called holy month of Ramadan this year, fatalities during this holiest month for Muslims this year, stand at 1,155.  This is nearly triple the 421 deaths that took place during the entire Ramadan period last year.  And Ramadan doesn't end for another six days.  And  so far in 2017, crazed Islamists have conducted 583 attacks, and killed 3,965 people according to storymaps.com.  But the media mafia will use this fake story to beat readers over the head with the false notion that Muslims are victims of civilized non-Muslim terror.  They aren't.

But actually, subjecting them to the same treatment to which they've subjected us for the last 1,400 years may be an excellent idea.  Maybe we should try it.

But of course, we won't.  You see, we're civilized.

E Pluribus Unum, My Friends. Sine Qua Non

This famous quote, uttered by Andrew Jackson on the occasion of receiving his honorary doctorate from Harvard, can be translated to "Of many, one, my friends, without which, nothing."  He was commenting in the fact that but for unity, the United States would be nothing.  Lofty words, to be sure.  But two centuries later, we see the affect of disunity.  We see disrespect, divisiveness, unbridled rage, and little if any personal responsibility.  Why?

Interesting, isn't it, how the culture of the United States has so drastically been eroded in the last six decades?  There's ample evidence to support that much blame for this demise can be laid at the feet of our more than permissive society.  Political correctness is the self censorship that we as a society impose upon ourselves. Seeking to be fair and balanced in our thoughts and deeds, we lie to ourselves about the realities of the world, just to make us feel better about ourselves.  And after years of this deceit taking root and blossoming in the societal fabric, we now are beginning to see what it has wrought. And what it has wrought is that our progeny - in fact, our very culture - is unfamiliar with reality.  We ignore violence where it exists, and conjure violence where it does not.

And what do we get?  Invading Islamists seeking to annihilate western thought are not only not seen as an existential threat, but are welcomed and supported by those it seeks to kill.  And misguided souls who are feed continuous daily portions of the hate-filled and divisive rhetoric emanating from the radical left's media propaganda machine pick up arms and attempt to kill duly elected government representatives.  The media mafia is alive and well, and it does a good job of distorting reality.  Good is bad, bad is good.

And that Orwellian contradiction is echoed by popular culture as well.  By that I refer to the wanton violence found in certain video games, in the vile and disgusting lyrics of so-called rap music, as well as in the vulgarity and depravity oozing from Hollywood's motion pictures.  Not limited to the vile language and blood and gore that constitutes many films, but including the stupid and vapid plot lines of many of the feel-good films recently, all constitute an unstoppable onslaught on what used to be courteous and polite behavior.  Through these outlets, we are taught to be not gentle men and women, but rather to be crude, coarse, rude and violent.  And permissiveness finds its way into parenting, as well, and that adds to the demise of a gentle culture.  Gentleness comes from understanding and taking personal responsibility; of behaving in such a way that the enables the better man to live under the immutable laws of cause and effect, and of action and consequence, and that leads to the consideration of others.  That's how many of us were brought up.  We learned it from our parents, who demonstrated gentility in act and in deed.  But Gen X-ers, and Gen Y-ers and millennials may not recognize gentility as a moral foundation.  They, in many cases, may live under an I'm-right-the-hell-with-you attitude.  The God of Self.  That's the opposite of tolerance and civility.  And for eight years, our cultural fabric has been infused with this sort of "us and them" ideology, resulting in the demise of civility.

So it's no wonder that some yahoo, saturated to overflowing with anti-American, anti-self responsibility rhetoric from radical left wing sources, finally takes up arms and shoots some congressmen.  He vents his rage on folks who are not his enemies in a real world sense, but to him, brainwashed by overdosing on years of hateful, divisive discourse, they are.  E pluribus unum to him becomes non sunt mei: They are not me.  From unity to selfishness.   At the end of the day, all it got him was infamy - and dead.

But what to do?  We all know as a nation we are divided.  Non sunt mei can be our new unofficial national motto. The radical left has been intent on America's destruction since even before the end of WWII, and perhaps their labor is paying off for them.  Real Americans are gentle in behavior, and are slow to take offense, to take up arms.  But if this non sunt mei ideology becomes as irreversible as religious dogma, and a national unity cannot be achieved,  then we've lost the nation, and an actual civil war will surely occur.  

Should that happen it would prove Andrew Jackson right all along. "Of many, one, my friends, without which, nothing."  But for unity, the United States is nothing.  

Unity:  Do we have it still?