I will call the DNC. Today!

DNC! Hello! Hello! DNC? Are you there? Hello.

Is it possible to reach the DNC and discuss the topics (A-D, below in this post)? That is a burning question that I have. They wrote, emailed, and texted me 10 times a day for 6 months before the 2024 election. Why do I have feeling that was not as personal as they tried to make it sound? It was only about my donation, right? I want to talk with them, and you, about:

A. Call the DNC, or Call Out The DNC?

B. Your Terminology Must Answer to Definition

C. Follow Newt’s Lead: You Want His Results!

D. Drama in the Senate

A. Call the DNC, or Call Out The DNC?

I will place a call this morning, as I emailed last week. I need to call out the DNC in complaint. It suffers from leadership. It suffers from a lack of urgency. Me. I was gifted something in my gut. You have it, or you do not have it. That simple. I was gifted with 1) an urgency to do business, and 2) an ability to feel the heat. It is a driving force in me to make the cash register ring, and if you don’t feel the heat of the deadline, you don’t belong in the kitchen.

That makes me seek out strong sales and closing arguments, and sense when direct action is needed immediately to recover a project in jeopardy. These are not learned traits, they are innate parts of me. Like I saw Gavin confront and take down, Trump. Trump struggled to get free and to hide his hand from the cameras. Gavin did not let Trump lead. Good job, Gov. Gavin Newsom. That was innate and spontaneous ability.

Gov. Newsom did a great job of confronting the President. He stared him down and owned this moment.

Then I was musing when Jim McCarthy rang my bell. Then the stalwart Ruth K kicked me in the seat of the pants. I did not want to discuss this with the AWOL DNC, but Jimmy Mac and Ruth K said offer up my brainstorming by mind mapping process. Give it pro bono to the DNC. Here is Jim’s message to me.

They said go and help the DNC to build the messages and the platform. Let me reverse that. Build a platform, and then build the messages to go with the platform. I started on the platform, in my lonely room where I could hide my face. (Pilgrim, Eric Clapton).

A lot of work has been done to begin the exercise. Nothing definitive, but a start by a layperson of the next platform

I advocate using the consensus-building Brainstorming by Mind Mapping process documented by Tony Buzan and reduced to good software by Chris Griffiths at Ayoa.com.

Tony Buzan published books on how to mind map as a the process, but it is more complicated that one might expect. A mind map is not built in a once-through process. It is built in 3 sequential phases with a group.

Each mind map is on a single topic. It generally takes 4 hours for the group to do one mind map. No one has ever seen the four mind maps we built for a proposal, unless they worked on that proposal. You get to see this:

The four mind maps on a proposal effort (Technical Approach, Management Approach, Discriminators, and Themes) would look like this. Every writer and contributor had these maps. They gathered up the key phrases with which to begin their writing.

Jim mentioned I might contact those seeking the DNC chair. I am not tuned in. That isn’t mentioned in Alabama. (We don’t talk about things like this in public. It just is not done here.) I will have to make a cold call to DNC Headquarters.

B. Your Terminology Must Answer to Definition

My major thrust to get us to name our foe in a consistent, standardized way is making a good deal of progress. There is confusion across the board regarding fascism and neo-fascism. Absolutely, no one turns to the definition before they speak or write. I have to do that as it was part of my tradelane in writing to the government every day. Most people, as Katharine Hill says, just sally forth and use the term that comes to mind.

Let me clarify. Neo-fascism is not the whole enchilada. Fascism is the whole kitten caboodle. That should help. Well, maybe a little more. It is complicated. Thank Dr. Abbey Heffer in the UK for enlightening me.

Specifically, fascists dream of using violent revolution to bring about the rebirth of the nation. You know all nations are contrived with maps artificially constructed with lines agreed mostly by wars. Those lines fulfil political purposes, however, the fascists want to change the political ideology of the nation within the lines. More often than not, the fascists will try to strip the rights of those not party to their fascist political ideology. All other parties in Germany were banned in 1933.

Palingenetic ultranationalism is a definition of "true fascism" proposed by political theorist Roger Griffin in his 1991 book The Nature of Fascism. This is how Griffin defines fascism, or his "palingenetic ultranationalism". That, he posits, hides in plain sight among the populist movements of today's mainstream politics. The movements are there, but they lack the portfolio that created a social upheaval.

Fascism, is defined by a social revolution occurring first. This is a precedent before the desired "national rebirth", or palingenesis, can take place. Lacking the precedent, fascism does not exist here. Yet.

But you see in this that the definition is critical to the use of the term “fascism”. This lends some credence to my term of neo-fascism: having some, but not all of the primary fascism tenets.

Griffin asserts that the sociopolitical upheaval, such as with the Third Reich and the Bolshevik Revolution, is the "fascist minimum". Without this minimum, according to his definition, there can be no "true fascism". Griffin himself describes fascism as a political philosophy built on the "perverse mythic logic" of destruction, which the fascist believes will then be followed by some form of political rebirth.

Those are the reasons that I cringe when a layperson throws out inaccurately the term “fascism” to label what we have in this country, our psychopathic neo-fascism. I have thrown that term psychopathic neo-fascism out there to ask for and to catch the abuse of the naysayers. I wanted to know the downside.

I had interesting feedback. During the last two days regarding using the term psychopathic neo-fascists:

• I had a record number of subscribers

• None said the term was incorrect

• Many said “People will not like it.”

• Many said “People will not understand it.”

• I got many thank you’s for nailing it, and

• I had many alternative “labels” offered up.

Some were quick to offer alternatives that were simply derogation via vulgar or offensive epithets. Such was not sought and will not cut it in polite society. Below is a sample of comments.

Some quickly seized on the accuracy of psychopathic neo-fascist.

I appreciate those that do not like the name psychopathic neo-fascists. That is not the question. Is the name deadly accurate? That is the question.

That some may not understand it does not fly here. (Speak for yourself and don’t call other people stupid.) That some may not like it? Should we care about that? This is not margarine. Also, if I can learn to say “narcissistic misogynist” in under 1 week, others can learn psychopathic neo-fascists.

I have neither a way of forcing my terminology on others, nor they on me. I will take this question and answer to the DNC. Today. Our terminology must be standardized. If that is not obvious to all, we will all suffer dire consequences.

C. Follow Newt’s Lead: You Want His Results!

Don’t you remember? It was Newt Gingrich that did language standardization for the Republicans, along with his list of nasty words. He became the Speaker.

Gingrich used scripted messaging to send and communicate ideas, policy positions, and other messages to voters. Specifically, it included making procedural motions (on the House floor)
and speeches (both on and off the floor) to:

1) advertise popular conservative ideas and score
partisan points against Democrats,

2) conduct interviews with reporters, and

3) employ “on message” bills and amendments that would distinguish the two parties.

Gingrich passed out sound-bite documents to his Republican House members so they had a script of pejorative words to use for the cameras. That unified single voice helped improve the Republican brand, tarnish the Democratic brand, and make the GOP appear to be a cohesive team. This unified single voice allowed Gingrich’s ideas to gain greater traction. The unified single-voice onslaught meant not only denigrating liberal policy ideas, but also forcing his own party to be more consistently conservative in both word and deed. Indeed!

Other strategic objectives of Gingrich’s included tarnishing the reputation of Congress (and thereby that of the majority in control, the Democrats), improving Republican candidates’ electoral competitiveness, and heightening his own public profile and intraparty responsibilities.

Now, the Republicans have the majorities and a disaster for a legislative record. And we do not decry how ineffective they are. Shame on us. They have the worst legislative record in our history, and I do not think their new bill on men masturbating will pass. They make a mockery of legislating.

No Congress has a record this poor. Why have they not been repeatedly attacked for such poor performance? Democrats playing nice? How is that working out for you?

Evidence that these were Gingrich’s strategic objectives and methods comes from no less a source than Gingrich himself, who did not shy from sharing them with others. We can benefit from Newt’s protocols. The results are worthy of your attention.

We Democrats are known for our disorganized approach to politics and not listening when people expressed how hard their lives are. Our standard answer has been to point to macroeconomic figures such as GDP per head, a soaring stock market, more jobs created, rising average wages and falling inflation. Intellectually correct, but lacking any empathy for the poor.

Four in ten people said the economy was the most important issue for them in this election. But by ‘economy’ they did not mean abstract things that economists measure. They meant what was happening to their lives at the grocery store. When they told Democrat politicians this, time and time again, they were told their sense of their own lives was wrong. We need to get back to our roots of caring for the least of these. We can get our act together for the midterms, but we need a goal and a unified effort.

Look at the 1994 midterms for a model. The 1994 midterm elections have been described as the "Republican Revolution" because the Republican Party captured unified control of Congress for the first time since 1952. Newt had success. Republicans picked up 8 seats in the Senate. They won a net of 54 seats in the House of Representatives. Republicans also picked up a net of 10 governorships and took control of many state legislative chambers. This was the first midterm election since 1946 in which the Republicans ended unified Democratic control of Congress in a midterm election under a Democratic president (Bill Clinton). You can see why a unified voice is so important!

D. Drama in the Senate

The confirmation of Hegseth indicates the gamesmanship in the Senate is at a high level. The max number of no votes was 3 to get Hegseth confirmed. It is magic. Drama. Had there been more than 3 Republicans to vote No, McConnell would have voted Yes, as in taking cover. As it was, McConnell orchestrated letting JD Vance shine dramatically. What a crock of stuff.

Clearly there is a lack of empathy and caring that is so prevalent within these Republican senators. When focused on our service members, being devoid of empathy and caring shows psychopathy. Supporting a neo-fascist ruler makes them neo-fascists. Do you need any other proof that we face an army of psychopathic neo-fascists (PNFs)? Psychopathic neo-fascism is their specific medical malady and political ideology!

Knowing exactly who and what they are is critical to knowing their tactics and how to fight them. “Know thy enemy” is a phrase that comes from the ancient Chinese general Sun Tzu's The Art of War.

The full quote is, “Know thy enemy and know thyself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated.”

I suggest we learn the term psychopathic neo-fascist because that is exactly who we fight. We must raise, rouse, and rile our army to fight ONE demon, not ONE HUNDRED.

Naming requires both discovery and invention. In that, naming requires faithfully following two principles. The first principle is the reality principle; and the second principle is the creativity principle.

• Reality. The reality principle is an arché, the actuating point and orginating source. The arché establishes a base and sets the trajectory in a particular direction.

• Creativity. The creativity principle explores beyond what’s (presently) there, seeking a meaningful destination. Naming includes the intent to design follow-on context and evolve actual meaning.

When you are done naming faithfully, the only questions will be: 1) whether you are faithful or not, and 2) whether you are accurate or not (within the historical world as we know it). Accuracy implies your name includes everyone in the grouping.

The DNC is not standardizing our lexicon, but I am trying. My three previous posts walk you through the work done to date.

On these subjects, this is what Leigh McGown has to say on the topic. I wish I could speak off the cuff like her.