As a sophomore in a Kentucky high school my friends and lunchmates would discuss and debate a gravitas of issues. One that day was the origins of the peace symbol. One mentioned that they had heard in their church that it was from the Church of Satan in meaning (looking like a pitch fork by Anton LaVey). As one who owned jewery with the symbol, I was compelled to find the meaning. The school and local library was no help, so I sought out the new state library on the hill. The librarian, who thought that it was christian based, and I found a book on symbols. There it spelled out its origins and meaning. Total Nuclear Disarmament.
The peace symbol is far more deeper meaning than the commercialization of the symbol portrays. It is a symbol to put the nuclear weapon dragon back in the cave.
Gerald Holtom's original sketch for Nuclear Disarmament
February 18, 1958 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT symbol of N semaphoric letter and D semaphoric letter were stitched in purple and white and later adopted by the "DAC", Direct Action Committee Against Nuclear War. It was founded in
late summer of 1957. The National Council for the Abolition of Nuclear
Weapons Tests changed its name to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
on 27th January 1958 and held its first public meeting on the 17th
February which featured speeches by Bertrand Russell and J B Priestley,
and then a march to Downing Street which was stopped by some rough
police action. They later merged.
"Peace - The Biography of a Symbol," by Ken Kolsbun, National Geographic
In the maritime world during the nineth century while underway, signaling using hand flags was commonly used. The placement of the flags encoded specific information to the daytime observer or flashlights at nighttime. Flag Semaphore means sign bearer. With 30 different positions they denote 30 characters that have specific meaning or alphabet letters or numbers. At sea the flags used to signal are the oscar flags (half red and yellow) and on land the papa (half white and blue) flags are used for signalling
Flag positions for N and D (which also represents 4), N stands for Nuclear, D stands for Disarmament
from Wikipedia... One enduring example is the peace symbol, adopted by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in 1958 from the original logo created by a commercial artist named Gerald Holtom from Twickenham, London.[3]
Holtom designed the logo for use on a protest march on the Atomic
Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, near Newbury, England.
On 4 April
1958, the march left Trafalgar Square for rural Berkshire, carrying Ban
the Bomb placards made by Holtom's children making it the first use of
the symbol. Originally, it was purple and white and signified a
combination of the semaphoric letters N and D, standing for "nuclear
disarmament," circumscribed by a circle.[4]
from Flagspot.net "The first mark on paper, according to Mr Holtom, was a white circle
within a black square, followed by various versions of the Christian
cross within the circle. But the cross, for these people, had too many
wrong associations - with the Crusaders, with military medals, with the
public blessing by an American chaplain of the plane that flew to
Hiroshima - and eventually the arms of the cross were allowed to drop,
forming the composite basic semaphore signal for the letters N and D,
and at the same time a gesture of human despair against the background
of a round globe. Eric Austen, who adapted the symbol for Holtom's
waterproof "lollipops" on sticks to ceramic lapel badges, is said to
have "discovered that the 'gesture of despair' motif had long been
associated with 'the death of man,' and the circle with 'the unborn
child,'" source)
and also the folowing (on the first public use of the symbol): "So on a
wet, chilly Good Friday — 4 April 1958 — the symbol as we know it made
its debut in London's
Trafalgar Square where thousands gathered to support a "ban the bomb"
movement and to make a long march to Aldermaston, where atomic weapons
research was being done.
The United States of America is a great state bounded by theUS Constitution, ratified in 1790, checked and overseen by the balance between three divisions of the federal government and its people, one nation of people. One man or woman can not make it or break it, but a nation of people could if they ignore the foundation that the state is built upon. Do not ignore who is slated to be the head of our protection and military as commander in chief. Take the time to read what he was said and what others have researched about him. I endorse no candidate and unhappy with the available choices. Holding the codes to our nuclear weapons is a very crucial responsibility. Read about our many soldiers and citizens that were exposed to an over zealous individual. We need to understand and predict the President's decisions on this toxic serpent of nuclear weapons.
“Several months ago, a foreign policy expert went to advise Donald Trump,” Scarborough said. “And three times he asked about the use of nuclear weapons — three times he asked. At one point, ‘If we have them, why can’t we use them?’”
Trump was asked to offer his opinion on which leg of the nuclear
triad, decried by many as outdated, he believed was most crucial to
update. The Republican frontrunner did not appear to understand the
topic.
In his original answer, Trump said it was important to have a strong
leader with sound judgment during perilous times. He then trailed off to
talking about opposing the Iraq War and how important limiting nuclear
proliferation is. The response did not touch on Hewitt’s question, so he
asked again.
“I think for me nuclear – the power, the devastation is very important to me,” Trump said in his second attempt
Trump has suggested America use nuclear weapons to bomb Islamic State.
He has proposed that Japan and maybe even Saudi Arabia build their own
arsenals. And he may have weakened the deterrent effect of nuclear bombs
in Europe by suggesting a Trump administration would not come to the
aid of NATO members who owe the alliance money.
“It’s been shock therapy for the American public,” said
Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, which promotes
nuclear disarmament. “Up until last month, most Americans did not even
know a president could launch a nuclear war on their own authority.”
Regardless,
Trump has plunged into an issue presidential candidates gently
sidestepped for years. U.S. policy for when and how nuclear arms should
be deployed has been one of the rare points of bipartisan foreign policy
agreement. Yet it doesn’t fit neatly into Trump’s unique ideology,
which is driven by challenging existing orthodoxy on everything.
In
a phone interview, Brown vividly lays out a scenario Perry warns about
in which terrorists could smuggle a crude nuclear device into the center
of Washington and use it to wipe out the president, key Cabinet
members, most of Congress and tens of thousands of people..setting off
mass panic and descending the nation into chaos.
“The only way people talk about [nuclear weapons] is as if Trump
might get his hand on the button,” Brown said. “Whether he does or not,
we have these catastrophic dangers lurking out there. And leaders that
should be worrying about it are sleepwalking.”
Trump also suggested Clinton and others are wrong to outline their
national security policies, because doing so could help the nation's
enemies. "Maybe we shouldn't be so honest when it comes to military
strategy," he said.
But at a crowded rally Friday night in Pensacola, Trump said he'd
order an attack on Iranian boats if they harassed the U.S. Navy.
"This morning, Trump has a new idea. He wants to talk about the threat of nuclear war. He wants to talk about how the United States should negotiate with the Soviets.
He wants to be the negotiator.
He says he has never acted on his nuclear concern. But he says that his good friend Roy Cohn, the flamboyant Republican lawyer, has told him this interview is a perfect time to start.
"Some people have an ability to negotiate," he says. "It's an art you're basically born with. You either have it or you don't."
He would know what to ask the Russians for, he says. But he would rather not tip his hand publicly. "In the event anything happens with respect to me, I wouldn't want to make my opinions public," he says. "I'd rather keep those thoughts to myself or save them for whoever else is chosen...
"It's something that somebody should do that knows how to negotiate and not the kind of representatives that I have seen in the past."
He could learn about missiles, quickly, he says.
"It would take an hour-and-a-half to learn everything there is to learn about missiles... I think I know most of it anyway. You're talking about just getting updated on a situation... You know who really wants me to do this? Roy... I'd do it in a second." "
"Donald Trump with the power to destroy life on earth. At the heart of
the near hysterical (and mostly justified) Fear of Trump that escalates
as he approaches the Republican nomination is the Fear of Trump With the
Trigger. That explosive temperament combined with that explosive
capability.
But it has largely been forgotten that Trump is not new to nuclear
matters. He has been thinking about how he’d handle nuclear weapons and
nuclear proliferation for more than a quarter-century, at least since
1987, when he claimed to me that he was “dealing at a very high level”
with people in the White House (that would have been the Reagan White
House) on doomsday questions...
“He told me something a few years ago,” Trump recalls. “He told me, ‘You
don’t realize how simple nuclear technology is becoming.’ That’s scary.
He said it used to be that only a few brains in the world understood it
and now you have a situation where thousands and thousands of brains
can easily understand it, and it’s becoming easier, and someday it’ll be
like making a bomb in the basement of your house. And that’s a very
frightening statement coming from a man who’s totally versed in it...”
Still, Impatience, combativeness, impulsiveness—not exactly what you’re
hoping for when it comes to the guy in charge of the nuclear trigger.
The combo makes one uneasy."
-Would you be willing to have the U.S. be the first to use nuclear weapons in a confrontation with adversaries?
TRUMP:
An absolute last step. I think it’s the biggest, I personally think
it’s the biggest problem the world has, nuclear capability. I think it’s
the single biggest problem. When people talk global warming, I say the
global warming that we have to be careful of is the nuclear global
warming. Single biggest problem that the world has. Power of weaponry
today is beyond anything ever thought of, or even, you know, it’s
unthinkable, the power. You look at Hiroshima and you can multiply that
times many, many times, is what you have today. And to me, it’s the
single biggest, it’s the single biggest problem.
-Could
you give us a vision of whether or not you think that the United States
should regularly be using cyberweapons, perhaps, as an alternative to
nuclear? And if so, how would you either threaten or employ those?
TRUMP:
I don’t see it as an alternative to nuclear in terms of, in terms of
ultimate power. Look, in the perfect world everybody would agree that
nuclear would, you know, be so destructive, and this was always the
theory, or was certainly the theory of many. That the power is so
enormous that nobody would ever use them. But, as you know, we’re
dealing with people in the world today that would use them, O.K.?
Possibly numerous people that use them, and use them without hesitation
if they had them. And there’s nothing, there’s nothing as, there’s
nothing as meaningful or as powerful as that, and you know the problem
is, and it used to be, and you would hear this, David, and I would hear
it, and everybody would hear it, and — I’m not sure I believed it, ever.
I talk sometimes about my uncle from M.I.T., and he would tell me many
years ago when he was up at M.I.T. as a, he was a professor, he was a
great guy in many respects, but a very brilliant guy, and he would tell
me many years ago about the power of weapons someday, that the
destructive force of these weapons would be so massive, that it’s going
to be a scary world. And, you know, we have been under the impression
that, well we’ve been, I think it’s misguided somewhat, I’ve always felt
this but that nobody would ever use them because of the power. And the
first one to use them, I think that would be a very bad thing. And I
will tell you, I would very much not want to be the first one to use
them, that I can say.
-What they’ll say to you is that Russia is resurgent right now. They are
rebuilding their nuclear arsenal. They’re [unintelligible] Baltics.
We’ve got submarine runs, air runs. Things that have at least echoes of
the old Cold War. The view is that their mission is coming back. Do you
agree with that?
TRUMP:
I’ll tell you the problems I have with NATO. No. 1, we pay far too
much. We are spending — you know, in fact, they’re even making it so the
percentages are greater. NATO is unfair, economically, to us, to the
United States. Because it really helps them more so than the United
States, and we pay a disproportionate share. Now, I’m a person that —
you notice I talk about economics quite a bit, in these military
situations, because it is about economics, because we don’t have money
anymore because we’ve been taking care of so many people in so many
different forms that we don’t have money — and countries, and countries.
So NATO is something that at the time was excellent. Today, it has to
be changed. It has to be changed to include terror. It has to be changed
from the standpoint of cost because the United States bears far too
much of the cost of NATO. And one of the things that I hated seeing is
Ukraine. Now I’m all for Ukraine, I have friends that live in Ukraine,
but it didn’t seem to me, when the Ukrainian problem arose, you know,
not so long ago, and we were, and Russia was getting very
confrontational, it didn’t seem to me like anyone else cared other than
us. And we are the least affected by what happens with Ukraine because
we’re the farthest away. But even their neighbors didn’t seem to be
talking about it. And, you know, you look at Germany, you look at other
countries, and they didn’t seem to be very much involved. It was all
about us and Russia. And I wondered, why is it that countries that are
bordering the Ukraine and near the Ukraine – why is it that they’re not
more involved? Why is it that they are not more involved? Why is it
always the United States that gets right in the middle of things, with
something that – you know, it affects us, but not nearly as much as it
affects other countries. And then I say, and on top of everything else –
and I think you understand that, David – because, if you look back, and
if you study your reports and everybody else’s reports, how often do
you see other countries saying ‘We must stop, we must stop.” They don’t
do it! And, in fact, with the gas, you know, they wanted the oil, they
wanted other things from Russia, and they were just keeping their mouths
shut. And here the United States was going out and, you know, being
fairly tough on the Ukraine. And I said to myself, isn’t that
interesting? We’re fighting for the Ukraine, but nobody else is fighting
for the Ukraine other than the Ukraine itself, of course, and I said,
it doesn’t seem fair and it doesn’t seem logical.
SANGER: So
we talked a little this morning about Japan and South Korea, whether or
not they would move to an independent nuclear capability. Just last
week the United States removed from Japan, after a long negotiation,
many bombs worth, probably 40 or more bombs worth of plutonium or highly
enriched uranium that we provided them over the years. And that’s part
of a very bipartisan effort to keep them from going nuclear. So I was a
little surprised this morning when you said you would be open to them
having their own nuclear deterrent. Certainly if you pull back one of
the risks is that they would go nuclear.
TRUMP: You
know you’re more right except for the fact that you have North Korea
which is acting extremely aggressively, very close to Japan. And had you
not had that, I would have felt much, I would have felt differently.
You have North Korea, and we are very far away and we are protecting a
lot of different people and I don’t know that we are necessarily
equipped to protect them. And if we didn’t have the North Korea threat, I
think I’d feel a lot differently, David.
SANGER: But with the North Korea threat you think maybe Japan does need its own nuclear…
TRUMP: Well
I think maybe it’s not so bad to have Japan — if Japan had that nuclear
threat, I’m not sure that would be a bad thing for us...
SANGER: For that reason, they may well need their own and not be able to just depend on us…
TRUMP: I
really believe that’s true. Especially because of the threat of North
Korea. And they are very aggressive toward Japan. Well I mean look, he’s
aggressive toward everybody. Except for China and Iran.
See
we should use our economic power to have them disarm — now then it
becomes different, then it becomes purely economic, but then it becomes
different. China has great power over North Korea even though they don’t
necessarily say that. Now, Iran, we had a great opportunity during this
negotiation when we gave them the 150 billion and many other things.
Iran is the No. 1 trading partner of North Korea. Now we could have put
something in our agreement that they would have led the charge if we had
people with substance and with brainpower and with some negotiating
ability. But the No. 1 trading partner with North Korea is Iran. And we
did a deal with them, and we just did a deal with them, and we don’t
even mention North Korea in the deal. That was a great opportunity to
put another five pages in the deal, or less, and they do have a great
influence over North Korea. Same thing with China, China has great
influence over North Korea but they don’t say they do because they’re
tweaking us. I have this from Chinese. I have many Chinese friends, I
have people of vast wealth, some of the most important people in China
have purchased apartments from me for tens of millions of dollars and
frankly I know them very well. And I ask them about their relationship
to North Korea, these are top people. And they say we have tremendous
power over North Korea. I know they do. I think you know they do...
SANGER: But the other day, I’m sorry, this morning, you suggested to us you would only use nuclear weapons as a last resort.
TRUMP: Totally last resort.
SANGER: And what did Douglas MacArthur advocate?
TRUMP: I would hate, I would hate —
SANGER: General MacArthur wanted to go use them against the Chinese and the North Koreans, not as a last resort.
TRUMP: That’s right. He did. Yes, well you don’t know if he wanted to use them but he certainly said that at least.
SANGER: He certainly asked Harry Truman if he could.
TRUMP: Yeah,
well, O.K.. He certainly talked it and was he doing that to negotiate,
was he doing that to win? Perhaps. Perhaps. Was he doing that for what
reason? I mean, I think he played, he did play the nuclear card but he
didn’t use it, he played the nuclear card. He talked the nuclear card,
did he do that to win? Maybe, maybe, you know, maybe that’s what got him
victory. But in the meantime he didn’t use them. So, you know. So, we
need a different mind set. So you talked about torture before, well what
did it say — well I guess you had enough and I hope you’re going to
treat me fairly and if you’re not it’ll be forgotten in three or four
days and that’ll be the story. It is a crazy world out there, I’ve never
seen anything like it, the volume of press that I’m getting is just
crazy. It’s just absolutely crazy, but hopefully you’ll treat me fairly,
I do know my subject and I do know that our country cannot continue to
do what it’s doing. See, I know many people from China, I know many
people from other countries, I deal at a very high level with people
from various countries because I’ve become very international. I’m all
over the world with deals and people and they can’t believe what their
countries get away with. I can tell you people from China cannot believe
what their country’s, what their country’s getting away with. At let’s
say free trade, where, you know, it’s free there but it’s not free here.
In other words, we try sell — it’s very hard for us to do business in
China, it’s very easy for China to do business with us. Plus with us
there’s a tremendous tax that we pay when we go into China, where’s when
China sells to us there’s no tax. I mean, it’s a whole double standard,
it’s so crazy, and they cannot believe they get away with it, David.
They cannot believe they get away with it. They are shocked, and I’m
talking about people at the highest level, people at — the richest
people, people with great influence over, you know, together with the
leaders and they cannot believe it. Mexico can’t believe what they get
away with. When I talked about Mexico and I talked about they will build
a wall, when you look at the trade deficit we have with Mexico it’s
very easy, it’s a tiny fraction of what the cost of the wall is. The
wall is a tiny fraction of what the cost of the deficit is. When people
hear that they say “Oh now I get it.” They don’t get it. But Mexico will
pay for the wall. But they can’t believe what they get away with.
There’s such a double standard. With many countries. It’s almost, we do
well with almost nobody anymore and a lot of that is because of politics
as we know it, political hacks get appointed to negotiate with the
smartest people in China, when we negotiate deals with China, China is
putting the smartest people in all of China on that negotiation, we’re
not doing that. So anyway, I hope you guys are happy.
Michigan Rep. Tim Walberg asked Trump what his understanding is of Article I (which enumerates the powers of Congress). “I
think his response was, ‘I want to protect Article I, Article II,
Article XII,’ going down the list. There is no Article XII,” Rep. Mark
Sanford (R-S.C.)
Free speech? He will “open up the libel laws” to allow public
officials to sue the media, and use the Federal Communications
Commission to fine critics.
Private property? To Trump, eminent domain
is a “wonderful thing” and is not actually “taking property” because the
owner can move “two blocks away.” (don't forget about the discourse at homeowners around his Aberdeen, Scotland golf course)
Faithfully executing the law? His
harebrained scheme to make Mexico pay for the border wall ignores the
clear text of a statute and unilaterally prohibits foreign commerce.
Serving as commander in chief? Trump has already pledged that he would
violate international treaties and domestic law. The military “won’t
refuse” his illegal orders. “Believe me,” he promised.
Protecting our
national security? Trump has lauded FDR’s internment of Japanese
Americans, one of the darkest hours in the history of our Republic.
About the Supreme Court? Assuming he keeps his promise to appoint
conservative jurists — and that this promise is not merely a negotiating
tactic — Trump’s approach would likely mirror that of George W. Bush:
appoint justices who will defer to bold assertions of federal power.
Judicial minimalist, thy name is John Robert
Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) pointed out, “if you are going to
kill the families of terrorists, realize that there’s something called
the Geneva Convention we’re going to have to pull out of. It would defy
every norm that is America.” He’s right. Common Article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions — which the United States Senate ratified, and is part of
our “supreme law of the land”, mandates that people who are taking no
active part in the hostilities “shall in all circumstances be treated
humanely.” That means you can’t kill innocent family members.
Donald Trump thinks that tactical nuclear weapons may be worth using in the war against the Islamic State.
With Mark Halperin and John Heilemann of Bloomberg, the Republican presidential frontrunner refused to rule out using tactical nuclear weapons in the war against ISIS.
“I’m never going to rule anything out—I wouldn’t want to say. Even if
I wasn’t, I wouldn’t want to tell you that because at a minimum, I want
them to think maybe we would use them,” he said.
..leaving open the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons against the Islamic State.
“I'm
never going to rule anything out—I wouldn't want to say. Even if I
wasn't, I wouldn't want to tell you that because at a minimum, I want
them to think maybe we would use them,” he said.
“We need
unpredictability,” Trump continued. “We don't know who these people are.
The fact is, we need unpredictability and when you ask a question like
that, it's a very sad thing to have to answer it because the enemy is
watching and I have a very good chance of winning and I frankly don't
want the enemy to know how I'm thinking. But with that being said, I
don't rule out anything.”
Yet Trump followed up his bellicose
rhetoric with positions unfamiliar from those of past Republican
standard-bearers, such as questioning America's involvement in the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization. “I think NATO may be obsolete. NATO was
set up a long time ago, many, many years ago. Things are different now,”
Trump said, adding, “We're paying too much. As to whether or not it's
obsolete, I won't make that determination.”
"I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear
codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end
of civilization," Tony Schwartz told Mayer.
Watch Trump on NBC talking about foreign affairs with NATO, IRAN, JAPAN
Watch the documentary of The Mad World of Donald Trump
Documentary by Selina ScottMeets Donald Trump, June 1995 ITV, censored by NBC (runs Trump's show, Apprentice). Who bought the video and all the extra footlage?
STROMBERG: Don’t good businessmen hedge against risks, not ignore them?
TRUMP:
Well I just think we have much bigger risks. I mean I think we have
militarily tremendous risks. I think we’re in tremendous peril. I think
our biggest form of climate change we should worry about is nuclear
weapons. The biggest risk to the world, to me – I know President Obama
thought it was climate change – to me the biggest risk is nuclear
weapons. That’s – that is climate change. That is a disaster, and we
don’t even know where the nuclear weapons are right now. We don’t know
who has them. We don’t know who’s trying to get them. The biggest risk
for this world and this country is nuclear weapons, the power of nuclear
weapons...
RYAN: You [MUFFLED] mentioned a few minutes earlier here that you
would knock ISIS. You’ve mentioned it many times. You’ve also mentioned
the risk of putting American troop in a danger area. If you could
substantially reduce the risk of harm to ground troops, would you use a
battlefield nuclear weapon to take out ISIS?
TRUMP: I don’t want
to use, I don’t want to start the process of nuclear. Remember the one
thing that everybody has said, I’m a counterpuncher. Rubio hit me. Bush
hit me. When I said low energy, he’s a low-energy individual, he hit me
first. I spent, by the way he spent 18 million dollars’ worth of
negative ads on me. That’s putting [MUFFLED]…
RYAN: This is about ISIS. You would not use a tactical nuclear weapon against ISIS?
TRUMP: I’ll tell you one thing, this is a very
good looking group of people here. Could I just go around so I know who
the hell I’m talking to?
LostTycoon by Harry Hurt III, referenced rape and ripping out the hair of Ivana Trump, his first wife, and reading Hilter's book, and Harry overhearing Fred Trump Sr to his longtime secretary/mistress 'hoping that it crashes' refering to Donald's plane
TrumpNaton by Timothy O'Brien who was sued by Trump when he wrote that he was not a billionaire. O'Brien won the case and Trump had to release financial records proving likewise.
NeverEnoughby Michael D'Antonio, about Trump's childhood
Trump, Dealsand theDownfall, in 1991 by Wayne Barrett, said the only signature on contracts that mattered was Fred Trump Sr
TheTrumps by Gwenda Blair, three generation, wrote about his grandfather's business in the Klondikes, where sporting ladies” could “entertain” miners
Trump and Meand CharacterStudies, Encounters with the Curiously Obsessed by Mark Singer(of the New Yorker, Trump Solo 5-19-1997)visits from the "fear monster" and "little freak-out." "From there it was only a short leap to saving the planet. What if, say, a
troublemaker like Muammar Qaddafi got his hands on a nuclear arsenal?
Well, Trump declared, he stood ready to work with the leaders of the
then Soviet Union to coördinate a formula for coping with
Armageddon-minded lunatics.", DT wrote to the editor of NY Times
TrumpRevealed 8-23-2016, by Washington Post journalists, Marc Fisher and Michael Kranish
How the End Begins, the Road to a Nuclear World War III by Ron Rosenbaum, inserted interview with Donald Trump
Son in law, Jared Kushner, of the NY Observer and real estate owner, whose father was convicted felon Charles Kushner (found in Business Insider). Also found in Gothamist 3-30-2016, Jared Kushner Not Good, owns 50 pieces of property
Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget or expenses, such as an independently audited financial statement.
Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
Says no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
Former members relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
There are records, books, news articles, or broadcast reports that document the abuses of the group/leader.
Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
Group/leader is always right. Claims to be the smartest, best at everything
Group/leader is the exclusive means
of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of
discovery is really acceptable or credible.
Recruiting styles and brainwashing: Love bombing by the leader and members, sleep deprivation, over work you, treat you like children, only the leader can save you, you must show immediate and unquestioning obedience to rules and regulations which maybe arbitrary, petty or pointless to ensure allegiance and obedience, they offer simple, clear messages in an increasingly complex world, opposition is evil and the worst
Seven Signs that You Are a Branch Trumpidianby Steve Berman 4-16-2016 Sign #1: You seek out friends who also love Trump and reject those who don’t
People
like friends who share their beliefs. That’s only natural. As you get
older, you make new friends, and lose some old friends. That’s natural
too. When there’s a pattern, where all your new friends believejust like you do in
the same doctrine, church, or group, and there’s no dissension at all,
that’s a sure sign of a cult. When those new friends start to pressure
you to drop your old friends, because they don’t believe, that’s a big,
red, flashing sign reading “warning: cult ahead!”
Sign #2: Nobody questions authority; your loyalty is required
Most
groups have some authority structure in the form of a leader or guiding
principles. Even anarchist groups have leaders—anonymous and hidden
though they may be. A group without a leader is a drinking club, but
still someone has to buy the booze and pour.
Sign #3: The source of authority is vested in a person.
Living
or dead, most cults have their genesis rooted in an individual, whose
special skills, revelation, or understanding have a unique, exclusive
quality and magnetism to which people are drawn.
Trump claimed in
an interview with the Washington Post that he can clear up American’s
$19 trillion debt in 8 years. The only source of this claim is Donald
Trump.
Sign #4: There is no independent evidence of that person’s authority
I
am declaring myself the world’s coconut bowling champion. Nobody is
better at coconut bowling than me. I know this to be true. That’s
because I just invented coconut bowling. I am making up the rules as
I’m writing this. If you have your own version of coconut bowling, it’s
not the authentic coconut bowling since I am the authoritative source of all knowledge for coconut bowling.
Of course, I’ve never tried coconut
bowling, and I’ve never written down the rules. Until I do, you have
no reason to trust my authority to determine who the champion is (it’s
me though). My point is that genuine authority cannot be claimed unless
it’s independently witnessed and testified to.
Trump says he’s a conservative, because he says so. But conservatives all over America (National Review devoted an entire issue to this) disagree with his statement. Thousands of Twitter and Facebook followers, many accounts which are in themselves suspect
or of unknown origin, support Trump. Suddenly, groups of people who
have never attended a single GOP meeting, never supported a single
candidate, never taken up a political cause, say they are true
conservatives, because they support Trump.
Sign #5: Doctrine must not be questioned
When you are
criticized for even questioning, that’s the sign of a cult. Knowledge
and learning thrive on questioning and challenging what is known and
what isn’t known. When what is known directly contradicts what’s being
taught, or just doesn’t line up with the group’s doctrine, it’s time to
ask questions and challenge doctrine.
Authentic groups welcome the challenge in any form.
This last sign is
fairly easy to understand. Going back to Zorg, if the only reference to
Zorg and Org and the Orgians came from me, you’d correctly count me
crazy. That’s because there’s no basis in reality for me to make this
claim. Only slightly more reality-based is a cult called Heaven’s Gate,
who you might remember suffered 39 suicides in 1997 when the promised
spaceship trailing the Hale-Bopp comet failed to beam them up.
