The Illusion of Matter - fascinating article on quantum physics

Keeping an open mind is very important as science discovers new information through research. Some would like to shut it out and stick with the old ways of thinking, even when the old beliefs have been superceded by new discoveries, proven by evidence that cannot be refuted. Denial is one way of dealing with fear.  How will the unknown ever become known if fear shuts down new information, without allowing further investigation? The following article tells of discoveries in quantum physics that give entry into an understanding of the physical body as patterns of energy, which can lead to medical treatments that affect those energy patterns toward healing, such as are used in homeopathy and acupuncture.  For those of a curious nature, the following article gives an intriguing peek into the true nature of our world, as revealed by quantum mechanics. 

There is a principle which is proof against all information, which is proof against all arguments, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance; that principle is contempt, prior to investigation.  --Herbert Spencer

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/12/05/the-illusion-of-matter-our-physical-material-world-isnt-really-physical-at-all/

The Illusion of Matter: Our Physical Material World Isn't Really Physical At All

Arjun Walia

Niels Bohr, a Danish Physicist who made significant contributions to understanding atomic structure and quantum theory once said: "if quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet." Quantum physics has left scientists all over the world baffled, especially with the discovery that our physical material reality, isn't really physical at all. "Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." It seems philosophers of our ancient past were right, our senses really do deceive us.

Again, our physical material reality really ISN'T physical at all. The meaning, significance and implications of these findings within our quantum world have led to a plethora of ideas and theories, some of which lay inside the label of "pseudo-science."  This article will present scientific evidence that clearly show the connections between consciousness and what we call reality and how these can no longer be denied. It will also ponder the implications of this knowing, and how this realization plays an important role in the potential transformation of our planet, at a time when we need it the most.

Scientific understandings change continuously throughout human history.  Old "knowings" are constantly dismissed as we come across new ones. Even with our current understanding about the laws of physics, it could have some loopholes, especially with the recent disclosure of the black budget. We now know that trillions of dollars are going towards projects that the human race knows nothing about. Other phenomenon, like zero-point energy, extracting energy and heat from electromagnetic zero-point radiation via the Casimir force have shown to be correct and conclusive -for more information on these sources, please click here. (1)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13) Some of these ideas threaten our current understanding of physics, but how can we even have an understanding of physics when what we call 'matter' isn't even real? How can we understand it if when we observe an atom at its tiniest level the behavior of that atom changes? The quantum world is definitely a weird one, and it's safe to say that we don't understand it, but we do recognize the significance and potential it has to help transform our world. We are starting to recognize that non-physical properties govern the universe, and we are turning our attention towards consciousness and the role it plays with regards to the physical make up of our reality.

The notion that the atom was the smallest particle in the universe fell with the discovery that the atom itself is made up of even smaller, subatomic elements. What was even more shocking was the revelation that these subatomic particles emit various "strange energies."(0) Proponents would argue that the findings within quantum physics only apply and are significant at the subatomic level, but to those I say, are we not all existing at the subatomic level? When we observe ourselves and our physical environment at the smallest level, are we not made up of atoms? Are we not made up of subatomic particles? Are we not what we observe?

At the turn of the nineteenth century, physicists started to explore the relationship between energy and the structure of matter. In doing so, the belief that a physical, Newtonian material universe that was at the very heart of scientific knowing was dropped, and the realization that matter is nothing but an illusion replaced it. Scientists began to recognize that everything in the Universe is made out of energy.

Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature. Therefore, if we really want to observe ourselves and find out what we are, we are really beings of energy and vibration, radiating our own unique energy signature -this is fact and is what quantum physics has shown us time and time again. We are much more than what we perceive ourselves to be, and it's time we begin to see ourselves in that light. If you observed the composition of an atom with a microscope, you would see a small, invisible tornado like vortex, with a number of infinitely small energy vortices called quarks and photons. These are what make up the structure of the atom. As you focused in closer and closer on the structure of the atom, you would see nothing, you would observe a physical void.(0) The atom has no physical structure, we have no physical structure, physical things really don't have any physical structure! Atoms are made out of invisible energy, not tangible matter.

It's quite the conundrum, isn't it? Our experience tells us that our reality is made up of physical material things, and that our world is an independently existing objective one. Again, what quantum mechanics reveals is that there is no true "physicality" in the universe, that atoms are made of focused vorticies of energy-miniature tornadoes that are constantly popping into and out of existence.  The revelation that the universe is not an assembly of physical parts, suggested by Newtonian physics, and instead comes from a holistic entanglement of immaterial energy waves stems from the work of Albert Einstein, Max Planck, and Werner Heisenberg, among others.

Despite the findings of quantum physics many scientists today still cling onto the prevailing matter-oriented worldview, for no good reason at all. As mentioned earlier, these scientists restrict quantum theory's validity to the subatomic world. If we know that matter isn't physical, how can we further our scientific discovery by treating it as physical?

Despite the unrivaled empirical success of quantum theory, the very suggestion that it may be literally true as a description of nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension and even anger. (T. Folger, "Quantum Shmantum"; Discover 22:37-43, 2001)

What Does This Mean?

What does it mean that our physical material reality isn't really physical at all? It could mean a number of things, and concepts such as this cannot be explored if scientists remain within the boundaries of the only perceived world existing, the world we see. Fortunately, many scientists have already taken the leap, and have already questioned the meaning and implications of what we've discovered with quantum physics. One of these potential revelations is that "the observer creates the reality."

A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a "mental" construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: "The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. (R. C. Henry, "The Mental Universe"; Nature 436:29, 2005) (14)

 We can no longer ignore the fact that our beliefs, perceptions and attitudes (consciousness) create the world.

... The possible influence of human consciousness on the behavior of physical or biological systems has been subject to rigorous research and documentation for a number of years by several researches. Many of the experiments that use the role of human consciousness and how it affects our physical material world have been done so under the Department of Defense and military agencies, thus remaining classified -hidden science kept from the eyes of the mainstream public world. (3)

One example of this is the 24-year government-sponsored program to investigate ESP and its potential use within the Intelligence Community. This operation was called STAR GATE , and most of its research and findings remain classified to this day. (4) Another example is the research conducted by the CIA and NSA in conjunction with Stanford University. (5)(6)(7).

Personally, I am compelled to believe that much of the science that deals with the "weirdness" of the quantum world, and many of its technological applications remains within the realm of the classified world. A world so secretive that it could be thousands of years ahead of the mainstream world.

What Level Of Consciousness Do You Operate From?

Now that we've established that our physical makeup is one that is not physical at all, where do we go from here? We are atoms, made up of subatomic particles, that are actually a bunch of energy vibrating at a certain frequency. Us, these vibrational beings of energy exhibit consciousness, which has been shown to manifest, create and correlate to our physical material world. The next question to ask ourselves is: what level of consciousness/ state of being do we individually, and more importantly, collectively operate from?

Studies have shown that positive emotions and operating from a place of peace within oneself can lead to a very different experience for the person emitting those emotions and for those around them. At our subatomic level, does the vibrational frequency change the manifestation of physical reality? If so, in what way? We know that when an atom changes it's state, it absorbs or emits electromagnetic frequencies, which are responsible for changing it's state. (15) Do different states of emotion, perception and feelings result in different electromagnetic frequencies? Yes! This has been proven. (8)

The non-physical world is weird, isn't it? The fact that material substances (matter) appear out of thin air, with lots of evidence to point to consciousness as that which is creating it, is pretty intriguing. One minute we are holding a physical object in our hand, like a coin, and then the next minute we realize that if we were to focus in on the coin's material substance with an atomic microscope, we would see that we are actually holding nothing.

The best we can do for now is understand that the human race must operate from a place of peace, a place of cooperation and understanding. We must realize that we are all interconnected, that we can solve our problems here easily, given the fact that we have a number of solutions. The only way we will be able to implement and utilize these solutions is through a shift in consciousness. The world is indeed waking up. My soul knows the significance of these findings, it is difficult for the mind to explain. Hopefully I did a decent job.

Related CE Article: 10 Scientific Studies That Prove Consciousness Can Alter Our Physical Material World

 (14 pg 65 of 88)

Sources:

Lipton, H Bruce. The Biology of Belief. United States: Hay House INC. 2008

(1) http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v48/i2/p1562_1

(2) http://media.noetic.org/uploads/files/PhysicsEssays-Radin-DoubleSlit-2012.pdf

(3) http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf

(4) http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/media/air_mayresponse.html

(5) http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_10_1_puthoff.pdf

(6) http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/1979-precognitive-remote-viewing-stanford.pdf

(7) http://www.lfr.org/lfr/csl/library/AirReport.pdf

(8) http://www.heartmath.org/research/research-publications/energetic-heart-bioelectromagnetic-communication-within-and-between-people.html

(9) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7226/edsumm/e090108-01.html

(10) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=darpa-casimir-effect-research

(11) http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1012369318404

(12) http://www.disclosureproject.org/docs/pdf/OutsideTheBox-TedLoderPaper.pdf

(13) http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v39/i5/p2333_1

(14) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.Universe.pdf

(15) http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/RVGS/ACT/notes/notes-electronic_structure.html

One example of this is the 24-year government-sponsored program to investigate ESP and its potential use within the Intelligence Community.  The final report was released in 1995, and the CIA concluded that a statistically significant effect had been demonstrated in the laboratory. This operation was called STAR GATE, and most of its research and findings remain classified.(3) The Department of Defence suppressed a large amount of data from this 24 year study. – See more at: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/11/18/psychokenesis-science-fact-not-fiction/#sthash.xccXoedz.dpuf

---

Read More

Robert Reich Speaks Truth about the DNC and establishment politics

Oh, how different it could have been with Bernie Sanders at the top of our ticket, instead of another round of the Clintons. A real clean up of the Democratic party could at least have been started. Now we will have to endure 4 to 8 more years of the same old skullduggery that has always accompanied the Clintons and their Wall Street-owned ilk.

I am feeling like Martin Luther King these days -- At my age, I may not live to see any major changes initiated at the top level where they are so needed, but Bernie has started a revolution that will build from the grassroots and the local level, demanding and making the changes that will eventually reach the top.  We hope. Desperately--for the sake of our children and grandchildren. This planet is awaiting real leadership to address the most important issues like climate change being accelerated by human actions--a looming disaster that will affect (and is already affecting!) all life on Earth.

Why the Shake-up at the Democratic National Committee Is Doomed

by Robert Reich | August 3, 2016

---

— from Robert Reich's Blog

The shake-up at the Democratic National Committee after an embarrassing breach of its email system continued Tuesday with the departure of three senior officials.

But purging the DNC of top officials won't remedy the DNC's problems. Those problems aren't attributable to individuals who didn't do their jobs. To the contrary, those individuals probably fulfilled their responsibilities exactly as those jobs were intended to be done.

The DNC's problems are structural.

The Democratic National Committee – like the Republican National Committee – has become little more than a giant machine designed to suck up big money from wealthy individuals, lobbyists bundlers, and corporate and Wall Street PACs.

As long as this is its de facto mission, the DNC won't ever be kindly disposed to a campaign financed by small donations – Bernie's, or any others. Nor will it support campaign finance reform. Nor will it be an institutional voice for average working people and the poor. It won't want to eliminate superdelegates or support open primaries because these reforms would make Democratic candidates vulnerable to non-corporate interests.

What's needed is structural reform. The DNC has to turn itself – and the Democratic Party – into a grass-roots membership organization, with local and state chapters that play a meaningful role in selecting and supporting candidates.

And it has to take a lead in seeking public financing of campaigns, full disclosure of all donations, and ending the revolving door between government and the lobbying-industrial-financial complex.

Unfortunately, I doubt this will happen. Which is why no number of purges of individuals are going to make the DNC the kind of organization that serves the public interest. And why we're going to need a third party, or a third force, to pressure the Democratic Party to do what's right by America.

Read More

How Long Before the GOP Repudiates Trump?

Today, a military veteran, a supporter duped by the Donald, gave Trump his Purple Heart. Trump didn't do the decent thing and give it back to the man with gratitude for his service and acknowledging the honor the man had just bestowed on him. No, he did just exactly what we have come to expect and why we shake our heads about him:  he took the medal and said, " I've always wanted to get the real Purple Heart.' This was much easier."  [than fighting in Vietnam and suffering wounds of war himself]

When will the Republican party repudiate this heartless man, totally and unequivocally????   To be honest, Trump is exactly the candidate who has been carefully fashioned by the Tea Party all throughout the Obama presidency. Their hatred of Obama and the vicious barbs and stubborn obstructionism that accompanied it caused our country to be deprived of programs that could have benefited all Americans.  Trump is the monster that boiled up out of that poisonous brew stirred up by Mitch McConnell and the Tea Party -- and now the right wingers are face to face with their own FrankenTrump creation, manifested from the darkness of their own minds.  They don't like what they are seeing, they can't control the monster, and they are unwilling to take responsibility for summoning him up from the nether regions of their psyches.  They paved the way for him, and he is stomping around now like Godzilla, destroying the Creators and their Party...and threatening America and the world at large.   

Stop Indulging Trump

Frank Bruni AUG. 2, 2016

Photo

Credit Ty Wright for The New York Times

This column has been updated to reflect news developments.

John McCain, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and the rest of you: It's time to stop suggesting that Donald Trump doesn't represent you, because he does represent you. He's your party's nominee, with your endorsements. Until you withdraw those, he has your blessing. Your permission.

And if you keep forgiving him and prioritizing your political survival over the country's stability, he could wind up representing all of us.

Tell me that doesn't scare the bejesus out of you. Do it with a straight face.

Senator McCain, Representative Ryan, he's just given you fresh cause to bolt, saying in a Tuesday interview with The Washington Post that he doesn't support either of you in your respective Republican primary contests.

From the standpoint of tradition, this is shocking. From the standpoint of Trump, not so much. You've upbraided him (mildly). You've bruised his tender ego. So now he gets to stick out his tongue at you.

It has to make you wonder why you twisted and turned and tried to justify your support of him in the face of his petulant, gratuitous attack on the Muslim parents of a soldier who died fighting for America. Or why so many G.O.P. leaders twisted and turned after his petulant, gratuitous attack on a Mexican-American judge. Or why you all should stick around to twist and turn the next time.

Trump isn't slouching toward gravitas. He's having a tantrum, and to threaten him with timeouts that never come only encourages it. Spare the rod, spoil the Donald.

This isn't a normal presidential election, he isn't a normal political candidate, and you know it. We all do. And it's well past time to reckon fully with that.

Not just you but all of us keep according larger historical sense to his candidacy and trying to fit it into pre-existing frames, but I fear that when we do that, we minimize the outright outrage and singular farce of it.

We throw around terms like demagogue and fascist, but I'm not sure he's coherent, consistent or weighty enough for either.

We label him anti-establishment, and that's a howler. He grew up affluent. Went to an Ivy League college. Sent his kids to posh boarding schools. Mingled with Bill and Hillary Clinton at his (third) wedding. He is the power elite, albeit an ostentatiously gold-tufted version of it.

In presidential races past, we've seen protectionists, nativists, even racists. What we haven't seen, not in my lifetime, is a major-party nominee who is such an unabashed and unrepentant fabulist, with so little control over his temper and a worldview shaped entirely by what and who flatter him.

Never has a nominee pouted with his grandeur. Never has one bragged with his abandon.

He's best described not in political terms but in developmental ones. He's a toddler. I'd say "infant" but infants are pre-verbal, and he has a few words, most of them monosyllabic.

Only a toddler could be so self-justifying and tone-deaf that he'd compare the sacrifice of Humayun Khan — the soldier I mentioned who was killed in Iraq — to his own professional work of erecting tall buildings and simultaneously enriching himself.

Only a toddler would respond to Michael Bloomberg's digs at him by saying that when they golfed together, "I hit the ball a lot longer." Yes, Donald, everything about you is longer. We haven't forgotten that G.O.P. presidential debate.

Over the last few days, the word "decency" has popped up a lot, and it's on target.

"There's just no sense of decency from this man," Rick Tyler, a Republican strategist who worked for Ted Cruz, told Politico.

"He has no decency," Khizr Khan, the fallen soldier's father, told ABC News.

Trump isn't just uninformed, as his recent comments on Ukraine reaffirmed. He's a repository of almost every character trait that we reprimand children for.

And the examples of his indecency get lost in the sheer volume of them. Any one might end another candidate's quest. But they're the white noise of his bid. He's redeemed by his own repulsiveness.

I appreciate that for many conservatives, a Supreme Court shaped by Hillary Clinton would be an abomination. But can they really elevate that concern above national security and entrust the country to a tyrant-loving, Putin-flirting, NATO-dissing novice?

I understand that renouncing him means abetting her, which hurts, given her considerable flaws and their genuine qualms.

But there are bigger things at stake. That's why so many loyal Republicans have already fled, to regroup over the next four years.

I get it: If McCain and other congressional Republicans turn off Trump's supporters, they might get turned out themselves.

But as the Post interview made clear, Trump is already giving those supporters license to do as they wish. Besides which, isn't there a point at which principle must kick in? Aren't there bounds to partisanship and personal interest? I ask that not in favor of Clinton or the Democrats but out of concern — no, alarm — for America, which needs a grown-up who honors our values, not a brat who shreds them.

Read More

End may be near for right-wing Fox News network

Oh Lordy, what will the Tea Party Trump supporters DO without Fox telling them what to think?  And will the new regime stop requiring the women employees to wear high heels, short skirts and flash their crossed legs up past their thighs in order to keep the aging white men viewers leeringly happy?  What will happen to Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and their ilk?  In the news today, I heard that 25 women have come forward re. being sexually harassed and abused by Roger Ailes, who set the tone for other men at Fox to do the same thing. Evidently, sexual harassment of women was standard procedure at Fox, the "Fair and Balanced" self-proclaimed family values network.  And the women took it, trying to finesse their way around it all, or they would lose their jobs. Shades of the "good old days" in the 1950s!!!

In the right wing, heads are rolling and the GOP is falling apart, as karma finally demands its due.

Media watchers say end is near for right-wing Fox News network

David Ferguson

The Fox News Channel's days as a reliably right-leaning news source may be numbered, according to media watchers.

Monday's Morning Media report from Politico claims that in the wake of Roger Ailes' departure from the network in disgrace, there are questions about whether Fox News will continue to offer the same type of right-slanted programming that has made its fortune over the course of two decades.

Rupert Murdoch has stepped in as interim CEO and director of Fox News, but has made it known that he will be handing the operation over to his sons. Rumors have flown for years that the Murdoch sons — who are more liberal than their 85-year-old media magnate father — are embarrassed by the right-wing antics regularly featured on the network.

While some in the industry argue that Murdoch would never give up the lucrative cash cow that Fox News has become, others say that the network is losing its cachet with viewers. Fox's audience is aging and dying off, they argue, and many once-loyal viewers have abandoned the network in favor of alt-right media sources like Breitbart.com.

"Ailes' number may well have been up soon enough anyway; the real question the new allegations continue to raise is what, if anything, Ailes can manage for a next act," Politico said.

The former Nixon aide was forced to step down due to findings by an internal investigation conducted by the law firm Paul, Weiss into a reportedly widespread and deeply entrenched culture of sexism, harassment and bullying at the company. Female employees were regularly told that to move up the company ladder they must perform sexual favors for higher-ups.

In early July, former Fox anchor Gretchen Carlson launched a sexual harassment lawsuit against Ailes, alleging that he repeatedly pressured her to enter into a sexual relationship in order to advance her career. That suit was aimed directly at Ailes and not at Fox News management in general.

However, on Friday, New York magazine editor Gabriel Sherman published an explosive profile of former Fox News employee Laurie Luhn who said that Ailes sexually harassed, abused, bullied and coerced her to the point that she has had multiple breakdowns.

Implicated in the abuse and cover-up are Fox News executives Bill Shine, Dianne Brandi and others who enabled Ailes and silenced women like Luhn with multi-million dollar severance packages that contain "iron-clad nondisclosure provisions."

Luhn's story mirrors that of former Fox News reporter Rudi Bakhtiar, who was demoted and marginalized within the network after she turned down the sexual advances of Washington, DC bureau chief Brian Wilson. When she threatened to go public with the accusations, Fox News settled with her out of court and again demanded silence.

Media Matters — an organization that has done some of the most detailed scrutiny of Fox News and its culture — said that Fox urgently needs to "clean house" if it wants to survive.

"(I)f James and Lachlan make no concerted effort to fix the widespread problems facing the women working at Fox News, that means James and Lachlan will soon own that problem and that stigma," wrote Eric Boehlert. "I don't expect Fox News to become a beacon of journalism anytime soon. But it's hard to justify allowing Fox News to continue to reward an outdated, hands-on, Mad Men culture."

Read More

Kid Quotes -- Your laugh for the day

We really can use some laughs after listening to the political campaign rhetoric from both sides, so here are a few chuckles provided by the best spirit-lifters of all -- wonderful kids with their own insights on life:

Never give up because life gets harder as you get older. After preschool the road of life keeps getting bumpier and bumpier and bumpier.  --Angela Martin, age 11

Never blow in a cat's ear because if you do, usually after three or four times, they will bite your lips!  And they don't let go for at least a minute. --Lisa Coburn, Age 9

Don't think life is easy, because when you get older it is hard work.  I used to think life was easy, now I have to do the dishes--every other day.  --Nick Coleman, Age 9

(This one is my favorite!) Take risks.  I mean, if you like this person and you don't know if they like you, ask them out and see what happens. I liked this girl and I asked her out. She said no and she hates me now, but I took that risk.   --Bruce Wagner, Age 13

Read More

Very Interesting article: The Psychopathology of Donald Trump

The Psychopathology of Donald Trump

Posted on Jul 31, 2016

By Bill Blum

 

Does Donald Trump only say crazy things, or does he say crazy things because he actually is crazy? In a speech delivered on the third day of the Democratic National Convention, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg openly questioned the GOP candidate's sanity on prime-time television.

More importantly, if less sensationally, the issue of Trump's emotional stability has also been raised by a growing number of influential and highly respected mental-health practitioners. They have done so out of a sense of urgency, even in the face of a code of conduct promulgated by the American Psychiatric Association that cautions psychiatrists against making public statements about public figures whom they have not formally evaluated.

Ordinarily, as someone licensed to practice law rather than psychology, I'd stay out of the debate and remain in my comfort zone of traditional legal and political commentary, committed to exposing the policy shortcomings of both major-party candidates and their surrogates. But Donald Trump has secured the GOP nod for president. He's one election away from being the commander in chief of the most powerful nation the planet has ever seen. As such, he, like Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, deserves heightened scrutiny, both as to policy and personality.

This column is about Trump. There will be future ones on Clinton. And here's my take, with no punches pulled: If Trump is elected our 45th president, he could well be the most profoundly disturbed occupant of the Oval Office since Richard Nixon, our 37th, whose extreme paranoia brought us Watergate and precipitated the most far-reaching constitutional crisis of the late 20th century. 

Some readers, particularly on the progressive left who by orientation are predisposed to policy critiques, may not be comfortable with my approach. Some may even ask if it isn't a waste of time to examine the psyche of a president or a presidential hopeful, noting that even a paranoid Nixon agreed to end the Vietnam War and opened the door to normalized relations with China. So why not just stick to policy?

To such doubters, I would say that few people, including world leaders, rarely represent pure evil or insanity. Most are capable of the occasional act of goodness or kindness or wisdom, even if by accident. But to gain a more complete understanding of any person—especially someone on the national stage, who once in office will be subject to the external pressures of social and political movements and public opinion and be responsible for the well-being of millions—a more nuanced and dialectical methodology is required that takes account of both the objective and subjective realms of human interaction. 

So comfort be damned. As we head for the general election in November, when it comes to the former reality-TV show host, I'm not going to be content to focus simply on what the Republican standard-bearer has to say about Mexican rapists, building a wall, Fox News' Megyn Kelly "bleeding from her whatever," New Jersey Muslims cheering the fall of the World Trade Towers, being the "only one" who can save America from chaos, crime and radical Islamic terrorism, or any of the other abject falsehoods, outbursts and calumnies he's uttered or tweeted.

I've decided to probe the why behind such seeming lunacy. To do that, I've done something positively un-Trumpian: I've consulted the experts and dug deeply into the public record.

Here's what I've found thus far:

The Diagnosis

A consensus has emerged that Trump suffers from narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Unless you've tuned out of politics completely in this election year, you've no doubt heard the word "narcissist" bandied about in connection with Trump, along with labels like "bombastic," "hyperbolic" and "politically incorrect," and criticisms that he lacks the temperament and judgment to be president.

But NPD is more than a label, or a momentary mood or affect. It's a sickness.

The Mayo Clinic, in a website entry posted before Trump's current presidential bid was a twinkle in anyone's eye or a nightmare in anyone's mind, defines it thusly:

Narcissistic personality disorder is one of several types of personality disorders. Personality disorders are conditions in which people have traits that cause them to feel and behave in socially distressing ways, limiting their ability to function in relationships and other areas of their life, such as work or school.

If you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious. You often monopolize conversations. You may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior. You may feel a sense of entitlement—and when you don't receive special treatment, you may become impatient or angry. You may insist on having 'the best' of everything—for instance, the best car, athletic club or medical care.

At the same time, you have trouble handling anything that may be perceived as criticism. You may have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliation. To feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make yourself appear superior. Or you may feel depressed and moody because you fall short of perfection.

Many experts use the criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), published by the American Psychiatric Association, to diagnose mental conditions. This manual is also used by insurance companies to reimburse for treatment.

DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:
● Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance.
● Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it.
● Exaggerating your achievements and talents.
● Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate.
● Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people.
● Requiring constant admiration.
● Having a sense of entitlement.
● Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations.
● Taking advantage of others to get what you want.
● Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others.
● Being envious of others and believing others envy you.
● Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner.

Although some features of narcissistic personality disorder may seem like having confidence, it's not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence into thinking so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal and value yourself more than you value others.

In a Vanity Fair article published in November, a group of six mental health professionals weighed in on the subject of Trump's narcissism and gave the diagnosis an unequivocal thumbs-up. One interviewee, a clinical psychologist who lectures on manipulative behavior, went so far as to say of Trump: "He's so classic that I'm archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there's no better example. … Otherwise, I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He's like a dream come true."

But identifying Trump as an NPD sufferer is only the first step toward inventorying his personality. Not all versions of NPD are the same.

To some commentators—lay and expert alike, including, most recently, Libertarian Party vice presidential candidate William Weld—Trump presents as a "malignant" narcissist, commonly described as someone who mixes a blend of narcissism, antisocial personality disorder, aggression, lack of empathy and sadism.

Malignant narcissists take special pleasure in the humiliation of others, often in response to perceived threats and disparagements. They frequently respond with over-the-top vitriol of their own.

The New York Times keeps a running tab on Trump's verbal abuse in a feature titled "The 250 People, Places, and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List." Psychologically speaking, many of Trump's barbs appear to be a form of "projection," a primitive defense mechanism long ago identified by Sigmund Freud, whereby a person ascribes negative feelings about themselves to others. A good example—as a projection of Trump's own racism—might be his bizarre allegation that federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is presiding over the Trump University litigation in San Diego, is biased against him because of his Mexican heritage. 

Other experts see Trump as more of a "thin-skinned" narcissist—one who, because of severe insecurity, is easily insulted, easily hurt and lashes out at perceived enemies in order to receive reassurance and affirmation from supporters. Among those who espouse the thin-skinned assessment is Justin Frank, a Washington, D.C.-based psychiatrist and psychoanalyst and a professor at George Washington University. Frank is also the author of two popular profiles on our last two presidents—"Bush on the Couch" and "Obama on the Couch."

Frank, who has never treated Bush, Obama or Trump, explained how he goes about his trade, utilizing the techniques of "applied psychoanalysis," in an hour-long interview in March with San Francisco radio host Peter Collins.

"I look for patterns and do a lot of careful study," Frank told Collins. "I look for what pops up over and over again to really understand people. Trump is a piece of work as a person."

Trump's narcissism, Frank continued, also combines with elements of other traits, such as paranoia, an inability to process facts, and attention-deficit disorder. Referring to Trump's loopy boast that he consults primarily with himself on foreign affairs, Frank remarked, "He's not interested in hiring anybody smarter than himself because there isn't anybody, and he's paranoid enough that he wouldn't want anybody smarter."

Regarding the GOP candidate's thought processes and unwillingness to admit to making any mistakes, Frank said, "Trump takes a preconception [for example, that Mexican rapists are streaming across the border] and turns it into an absolute fact, whereas most people have experiences that can change their preconception into a new conception. You can't argue with a narcissistic person [like him] on content."

In Frank's view, Trump's limited vocabulary—his overuse use of words like "amazing," "huge" and "winner" to describe himself, and terms like "loser" and "disgusting" to smear his foes—is typical of youngsters struggling with ADD and lack of impulse control. Like such children, he added, Trump engages in the "childlike quality" of "magical thinking" when it comes to his policy proposals. The fact that his proposals lack detail or make no objective sense is of little consequence, because his programs will be "great," as if wishing will make it so.

Frank departs, however, from other observers on the question of whether Trump is a pathological liar. Because of his magical, childlike thinking, "Trump actually believes what he says at the moment," Frank maintained. "He lives in digital, not analog time. He doesn't think about what he said an hour ago."

Liar or not, the end result is someone entirely unsuitable for high office. "He has the brains of a big man, but the maturity of an 8-year-old," Frank said, summing up. "And those people are very dangerous potentially."

The Experience of Tony Schwartz and the Art of the Deal

If Trump, who is 70 years old, in fact has NPD, the malady should have shown up long before his current presidential run.

From all appearances, it did. Just ask Tony Schwartz, the co-author of Trump's signature memoir, "The Art of the Deal," originally released by Random House in 1987.

No other piece of publicity did more than this book to catapult Trump into the limelight as a world-class celebrity, endowing him with the glittering image of the consummate, swashbuckling deal-maker, who always walks away from high-stakes negotiations richer and stronger than anyone else.

Schwartz first came to Trump's notice after writing an exposé for New York magazine in 1985 about the real estate mogul's protracted battle to evict a group of rent-controlled tenants from a building he had purchased and planned to redevelop on Manhattan's Central Park South. Although the article was extremely unflattering, the magazine pasted his photo on the cover. The resulting publicity was enough for Trump to seek out Schwartz and offer him a lucrative deal to ghostwrite his life story.

Although the ensuing collaboration netted Schwartz a half-million-dollar advance and copious royalties, Schwartz has regretted the undertaking ever since. "I put lipstick on a pig," he confessed to New Yorker staff writer Jane Mayer in a tell-all interview published in late July.

Schwartz told Mayer, in sum and substance, that the best-selling book is a fraud, much like its subject. Instead of a "charmingly brash entrepreneur with an unfailing knack for business," as depicted in the book, Trump, said Schwartz, is a human "black hole," a man with no real friends, fixated on publicity, motivated by "gaudy, tacky, gigantic obsessions," with "an absolute lack of interest in anything beyond power and money."

As Trump's presidential bid gained traction, Schwartz decided to go public with his misgivings. "I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is," he said. "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."

Schwartz also told Mayer that he kept a diary of his dealings with Trump over the 18 months that he tagged along with him to business meetings and listened in on phone conversations to acquire material for the book. From those notes and his recollection, he explained, in terms strikingly similar to the Mayo Clinic's description of NPD and standard definitions of ADD, that Trump "was like a kindergartner who can't sit still in a classroom. It was impossible to keep him focused on any topic, other than his own self-aggrandizement."

Schwartz related that Trump spoke to him, much as he does on the campaign trail, in "cryptic, monosyllabic statements." His short attention span left Trump, in Schwartz's view, with "a stunning level of superficial knowledge and plain ignorance. … If he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room, it's impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time."

Equally worrying from a public-interest standpoint, according to Schwartz, was the way Trump was always "playing people," easily segueing from "flattery" to "bullying."

Even worse—and here, there is a slight variance from Dr. Frank's analysis—was Trump's dishonesty. "Lying is second nature to him," Schwartz said to Mayer. "More than anyone else I have ever met, Trump has the ability to convince himself that whatever he is saying at any given moment is true, or sort of true, or ought to be true." When confronted with contrary evidence, Schwartz elaborated, Trump would "double-down, repeat himself, and grow belligerent."

In keeping with that belligerence, Trump has responded to Schwartz's revelations with a cease-and-desist letter penned by the chief legal officer of the Trump Organization, demanding that Schwartz stop giving interviews about his experiences writing "The Art of the Deal" and forfeit all royalties. Schwartz has hired an attorney to defend himself.

The Mass Psychology of Fascism

Understanding Trump's personal pathology is essential to any assessment of his fitness for office. But understanding the GOP nominee is only part of the task of combating his presidential aspirations. To fully comprehend Trump and the social and political dangers he represents, it's necessary to understand the appeal he has for millions of his core supporters.

To be sure, there are some legitimate reasons that explain why some have embraced Trump: The uneven economic recovery that has left large swaths of the working and middle classes behind is one. Another is the failure of neoliberalism, represented by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic leadership, which appears to many as a corrupt philosophy of governance incapable of addressing genuine popular needs. There are also some open, obvious and unsavory reasons for Trump's popularity, rooted in racism and ethnic nationalism, as exemplified by his racially tinged campaign slogan, aimed mainly at disaffected blue-collar whites, to "Make America Great Again."

But at the same time, there is something percolating underneath the surface at an unconscious level beyond economic distress, racism and social nostalgia that keeps a candidate who should be consigned to the margins of political life in the thick of the presidential race. What is it that explains the allure that a TV strongman, a clone, some say, of Benito Mussolini, holds for broad segments of the working class, who buy into the myth of Trump as an anti-establishment champion (a "blue-collar billionaire," to quote his son Eric) when he is in truth precisely the opposite?

The Marxist psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich struggled to understand a similar question as he tried to come to terms with the rise of Nazism and Stalinism in the 1930s. The answer, Reich posited in his classic work, "The Mass Psychology of Fascism," lies with the authoritarian and hierarchical structures of the patriarchal family, the dominance of the father as moral law-giver and bulwark against external danger. In times of extreme social stress, dislocation and fear, especially in the absence of viable alternatives, large numbers instinctively turn to figures of authority for protection, heedless of the disastrous consequences.

As University of California professor George Lakoff, a specialist in cognitive linguistics, described the phenomenon in a recent Huffington Post blog: "In the strict father family, father knows best. He knows right from wrong and has the ultimate authority to make sure his children and his spouse do what he says, which is taken to be what is right. … Fear tends to activate desire for a strong strict father—namely, Trump."

A study completed this winter by Matthew McWilliams, a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, further underscored the authoritarian bent of Trump's base. In a sampling of 1,800 registered voters across the country and the political spectrum, McWilliams found that only two variables had a statistically significant bearing on a voter's preference for Trump: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism.

Northwestern University psychology professor Dan P. McAdams also explored the authoritarian strain among Trump supporters in The Atlantic magazine's June cover cover story.

And therein lies the rub for the rest of us. In Donald Trump, one of our two major parties has nominated for the highest office in the land a deeply troubled and volatile man with the potential to attract and unleash the darkest undercurrents of the nation's soul. However you decide to vote come November, you can't in good conscience help to elect him.

Read More

Chilling Assessment of Our Country and Its Politics of War

This filled-with-truth analysis should be read by every U.S. citizen....but won't be.  And so, on we go....

Lurching Toward World War III

by John Chuckman | August 1, 2016 

---

When did America's establishment ever discuss, in elections or at other times, issues of war and peace for the people's understanding and consent? Virtually never. There was no mandate for Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, or a dozen other conflicts.  (!!!So True!!! We, the People have NO say in whether or not we go to war, and we are in the process of electing one of two candidates, both of whom are heading us in that direction).

Of course, once a war gets going, there is a tendency for Americans to close ranks with flags and ribbons and slogans such as "Support our troops" and "Love it or leave it." The senior leaders know this psychological pattern, and they count on it, every time.

The fundamental problem in America's government is an elaborate political structure much resembling democracy but with actual rule by a powerful establishment and a set of special interests – all supported by a monstrous security apparatus and a huge, lumbering military, which wouldn't even know what to do with itself in peace. Unfortunately, I don't think there is any apparent solution to this horrible political reality, and, while once it affected primarily Americans themselves, today it affects the planet.

There is an intense new element that has been added to America's governing establishment: the drive of the neocons for American supremacy everywhere, for complete global dominance, and it is something which is frighteningly similar to past drives by fascist governments which brought only human misery on a vast scale.

The neocons' underlying motive, I believe, is absolute security for America's colony in the Middle East, Israel – put another way, their concern is for Israel's hegemony over its entire region with no room for anyone else to act in their own interests. It is only if the United States is deeply engaged all over the planet that Israel can constantly benefit from its strange relationship with America.

It did not require the neocons to interest America's establishment with interfering in other people's affairs. America has a long history of doing so, stretching back to the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, the Philippine-American War, the brazen seizure of Hawaii from its people and going right up to the pointless War in Vietnam and Cambodia in the hope of keeping the Pacific Ocean effectively an American lake. But the neocons have added a new force, a new impulse to something which would be better left alone, and they are very influential in American affairs.

Ordinary Americans are not interested in world affairs, and there is a great deal of evidence to support that statement. American Imperialists of earlier times disparaged this tendency to just want peace at home with the pejorative name, isolationism, and avoiding isolationism became an excuse for a whole series of wars and interventions.

So, Americans today cannot be allowed to fall back into their natural tendency of not caring. Thus we have the drive of the neocons and, tragically, thus we have America being driven into direct confrontation with Russia. And with China, too, of course, but Russia is my focus since Russia is the only country in the world literally capable of obliterating the United States. There is unquestionably a sense here of Rome wanting to go after Carthage, although cavalry, swords, spears and catapults no longer can settle such conflicts.

The situation is compounded by the American establishment's dawning realization that its days of largely unquestioned supremacy in the world are fading into memory, as other countries grow and develop and have important interests in world affairs.

In many respects, it has been a long downhill slide for the average American since the economic heyday of the 1950s. Decline in real incomes, decline in good job opportunities at home, the export of American industries abroad to areas of less costly labor, and the virtual collapse of American towns and cities in many places, Detroit being perhaps the most sorrowful case of many – all these are evident year-in and year-out.

Lost Perspective

I do think the American establishment simply does not know how to handle its role in a brave new world, but do something it clearly thinks it must, and that is an extremely dangerous state of mind. It is armed with vast armies and terrible weapons so that it retains a sense of being able to act in some way to permanently reclaim its place, an illusion if ever there was one.

We know from scholars of the past the role that the mere existence of terrible military power can play in disaster. Huge standing armies were one of the major underlying causes of the First World War, a conflict in which 20 million people perished. Germany repeated the effort with Hitler's government working tirelessly to create what was to become the finest and most advanced army the world had ever seen until that time, but it, too, ended in disaster, and of even greater proportions.

America has not discovered the secret to making itself invulnerable, although I fear that its establishment believes that it can do so, and that represents the most dangerous possible thinking.

Contrary to political speeches, America's establishment has never shown great concern over the welfare of ordinary Americans, and today its lack of concern is almost palpable. Washington's white-maned, over-fed, crinkly-faced senators spend virtually every ounce of effort in two activities: raising funds from special interests for re-election (estimated at two-thirds of an average Senator's time) and conspiring on how to keep America dominant in the world. Anything else is just piffle.

America's unique place in the world of 1950 took care of ordinary Americans, not any effort by government. Again, the utter contempt for ordinary Americans perhaps offers a dark element in the thinking of America's establishment when it comes to possible nuclear war.

Russia is not, of course, a direct threat to neocon interests, except when it comes to matters like Syria, a deliberately-engineered horror to bring down the last independent-minded leader in the Middle East and to smash and Balkanize his country, parts of which, Israel has always lusted after in its vision of Greater Israel.

The coup in Ukraine, which borders along a great stretch of Russia, represented a direct challenge to Russia's security, offering a place ultimately to be filled with hostile forces and missiles and American advisors – all of which was expected to silence Russia's independent voice in the world and its ability to in any way thwart neocon adventures, if not, in the longer-range, savage dreams of some, to provide a platform for the ultimate destruction or overthrow of Russia herself.

Russia's effective countering with skillful moves in its own interests both in Syria and Ukraine has driven some of America's establishment to the edge of madness, and that madness is what we see and hear in Europe, which is once again being turned into a vast armed camp. Europe is now seething with anti-Russian rhetoric, threats and activities such as huge war games, the largest of which occurred around the anniversary of Hitler's invasion of Russia, the single most destructive event in all of human history.

America has created deliberately a situation almost as dangerous as the days of the Cuban missile crisis, which itself arose from the American establishment's belief that it had every right to interfere in Cuba's affairs.

Nuclear Threats

We have another element, now compounding the danger, in a far greater variety and level of sophistication of weapons, including some nuclear weapons whose controlled yields are regarded by America's military as being perhaps "usable" in a theater like Europe.

The installation of anti-missile systems near Russia is very much part of this threat since these systems not only are intended to neutralize Russia's capacity for response to a sudden, massive attack but to provide a cover for future covert, easily-done substitution of other kinds of missiles into the launchers, faster-arriving, nuclear-armed missiles which would indeed be an element in such an attack.

Russia, a country twice invaded with all the might of Germany and before that by Napoleon's Grande Armeé, cannot be expected just to sit and do nothing. It won't. It cannot.

The world must not forget that America's military, a number of times in the past, created complete plans for a massive, surprise nuclear attack on what was then the Soviet Union, the last of which I am aware was in the early 1960s, and it was presented as being feasible to President Kennedy, who is said to have left the Pentagon briefing sick to his stomach.

Nuclear war, just as with any other kind of war, can happen almost by accident through blunders and careless acts and overly-aggressive postures. Just let the blood of two sides get up enough, and an utter disaster could quickly overtake us.

Constantly decreasing the possibilities for accidents and misunderstandings is a prime responsibility of every major world leader, and right now the United States is pretty close to having completely abdicated its responsibility.
_______

Read More

Trump's erratic behavior has medical professionals questioning his mental health

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/donald-trumps-recent-erratic-behavior-has-medical-professionals-questioning-his-mental-health/comments/#disqus

About time someone said it out loud:

Donald Trump's recent 'erratic behavior' has medical professionals questioning his mental health

Tom Boggioni
01 Aug 2016

"Donald Trump is not of sound mind."

Trump "appears haunted by multiple personality disorders."

"Donald Trump is not a well man."

These are the comments of dismayed conservative political analysts who have watched the unorthodox campaign of 2016 GOP nominee Donald Trump lurch from one crisis to another due to the New York businessman's erratic behavior.

According to the Toronto Star, what started out as whispers about Trump have worked their way up to a scream as it begins to dawn on steadfast Republicans that a man whose mouth they can't control might be a danger to the country should he ascend to the highest office in the land.

Last week at the Democratic National Convention, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg alluded to Trump's possible lack of competency, as he endorsed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, saying, "Let's elect a sane, competent person."

Questions about Trump's mental state are nothing new. In an interview in January, Harvard professor and researcher Howard Gardner, stated Trump is a "textbook" narcissist, with clinical psychologist George Simon adding, ""He's so classic that I'm archiving video clips of him to use in workshops."

Conservative political experts have begun to take notice and are raising red flags now.

According to Stuart Stevens, chief strategist to Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign, "We can gloss over it, laugh about it, analyze it, but Donald Trump is not a well man," before adding that he is not a doctor or a psychologist.

"There is something definitely off about him." Stevens said. "At best, this is a very damaged person. And there's probably something more serious going on."

Despite acknowledging that the candidate has some glaring issues, disability rights journalist David Perry cautions against using the C-word for Trump, stating,  "The casual association of behavior we find objectionable or erratic with mental illness spreads stigma."

"He's a liar, he's a bigot, he makes bad decisions, he's erratic and unpredictable. That's what we need to know. Do we need to then extend a diagnosis to go along with that, to make it really objectionable?" Perry said. "It hasn't really worked in eroding Trump's popularity, but it certainly makes people who actually have these conditions feel very uncomfortable — feel that the message is: 'If you have a mental health condition, you are not fit to be president.' And frankly, I suspect we've had lots of presidents with mental health conditions, and we'll probably have lots more."

According to Northwestern University psychology professor Dan McAdams, Trump exhibits a "healthy dose" of classic narcissism — not unheard of in politicians and wealthy businessmen —  but he wouldn't categorize Trump as a "clinical" case.

"Putting his name on everything, talking about himself all the time: this is beyond the pale," said McAdams, who wrote about Trump for The Atlantic. "I don't want to argue that it's a clinical condition … but if there's a continuum, in terms of narcissistic personality characteristics within a relatively normal population, he's really way off on the extreme end."

Scott Lilienfeld, a psychology professor at Emory University, cautions that extreme narcissism can lead to abuses of power, saying, "I don't think he's out of touch with reality, I think he knows what he's doing, he probably doesn't hear voices or have delusional thinking."

He did, however, pose a question voters should ask themselves.

"Is this individual's narcissism so high that it might be at the upper end of the curve where it's no longer just healthy self-confidence, which is probably good to some degree, or is it at the point where it could really cause problems?"

Read More

Let me see...Have I got this right?

• 

Read More

Trump:

Watch this video of Trump declaring in a past interview to Wolf Blitzer that he likes Hillary and that he is more a Democrat than a Republican.  Good Grief!  As a Democrat, I have to tell the Republicans that WE DON'T WANT HIM! YOU CAN KEEP HIM!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2WDxGzqTjw

And then read the following--can't you just see Paul Manafort, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan tearing their hair out by the roots?....  Every time he opens his mouth, Know-nothing Trump puts his foot in it and reveals himself to be the dunce we now all know him to be. What does that say about his supporters?  With even the top Republicans coming out against him now, there are still the Tea Party voters who think Trump is going to solve all their problems if he can only get into the White House. OMG! With all those Trump voters milling around in our country, waving their little flags, demanding their right to buy ever more guns, and declaring their love for the Donald, we had better start building more institutions for the insane--FAST!

Trump Melts Down Spectacularly in ABC Interview

Rob Garver

July 31, 2016

Trump Melts Down Spectacularly in ABC Interview

If Donald Trump's weekend was already a train wreck, the derailed cars burst spectacularly into flame on Sunday morning with the release of a taped interview the Republican presidential nominee gave to ABC's George Stephanopoulos. Trump appeared to be unaware that Russian troops are fighting in Ukraine, and have been for some time. He also suggested that Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, which Russia invaded and declared Russian territory in 2014, be ceded to the Kremlin.

In a discussion about US policy toward Ukraine, Stephanopoulos asked Trump about his campaign operatives' successful effort to block the addition of a plank to the GOP platform that would have advocated providing lethal weapons to Ukraine to help defend against the Russian-backed insurgency in its eastern Donbas region.

Related: Trump Lashes Out at DNC Critics -- Except for One

Trump said, "I was not involved" no fewer than five times in trying to avoid the issue, which put him in direct opposition to the majority of the Republican foreign policy establishment.

It wasn't even clear that Trump knew what the change entailed until Stephanopoulos spelled it out for him and asked why he thought it was a good idea.

Trump again dodged, appearing to claim that there was no need for the weapons by arguing that Russian President Vladimir Putin wasn't going to take action against Ukraine.

"He's not going into Ukraine, OK? Just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down and you can put it down, you can take it anywhere you want."

Related: As Clinton Accepts Historic Nomination, Dems Move in on GOP Turf

"Well, he's already there, isn't he?" asked Stephanopoulos.

"OK, well, he's there in a certain way, but I'm not there yet," Trump said, rapidly trying to shift the conversation to the subject of President Obama. "You have Obama there. And frankly, that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama, with all the strength that you're talking about and all of the power of NATO and all of this, in the meantime, he's going where -- he takes -- takes Crimea, he's sort of -- I mean…"

It was a place Trump should not have gone, because Stephanopoulos then asked about a recent suggestion that he would recognize the Crimea as Russian territory and eliminate sanctions imposed after Russia's invasion of the Ukrainian territory.

"I'm going to take a look at it," he said. "But, you know, the people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were."

Related: Clinton v. Trump -- The Roller Coaster You Can't Get Off

The idea of simply allowing Russia to take part of another country's territory by force with no consequences is anathema to most if not all of the United States' European allies, who have come to consider the US a major bulwark against Russian aggression on its Western borders.

In a part of the interview that was released Saturday, Trump also attacked the family of Pakistani-American US Army Capt. Humayun Khan, who died in 2004 while protecting his troops in Iraq. Khan's father, Khizr Khan, delivered a blistering takedown of Trump during the Democratic National Convention last week, challenging Trump's knowledge of the Constitution and questioning his right to impugn the patriotism of others when "You have sacrificed nothing. And no one."

Asked to address Khan's criticism, Trump began by insinuating that his wife, Ghazala Khan, had been silent during her husband's speech because she wasn't "allowed" to speak -- relying on his go-to assertion that "a lot of people have said that" make what looked very much like an attack on the Khan's Islamic faith a part of the public record.

"I saw him. He was, you know, very emotional. And probably looked like -- a nice guy to me. His wife, if you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably -- maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me, but plenty of people have written that. She was extremely quiet and looked like she had nothing to say. A lot of people have said that."

Related: 5 Significant Ways Sanders Pulled Clinton to the Left

Trump went on to say that he has "made a lot of sacrifices. I've worked very, very hard. I've created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, built great structures. I've done -- I've had tremendous success."

"Those are sacrifices?" Stephanopoulos asked.

"Oh, sure. I think they're sacrifices, he said, before going on to list things, like hiring people with employee benefits and raising money for charity, that don't qualify as sacrifices in any context, much less when comparing them to a family who lost a son in the nation's service.

The Trump campaign issued a furious denial Saturday night, claiming that he had not attacked the Khan family or compared his "sacrifices" to theirs. But the transcript doesn't lie.

Read More