2009年9月30日水曜日

What is a Psychic reading? & who is the new generation of Psychic | Margaret Ruth



I luckily bumped into Lilou's video today. This Margret (PhD in ?? I'll find out later) is just great! I love the way she encourages the younger generation to be/ believe in themselves. Also the suggestion to control one's psychic antennas is just right on time for me, cause I tend to absorb not only positive energy but negative ones as well which makes me so exhausted sometimes. I'll keep in mind to tune into more brighter energy field. Loved it!
I'm gonna find out more about both of them, Lilou and Margaret after coming back. gotta go pick up my daughter.

Bio: Margaret Ruth
 Margaret Ruth is one of the most popular and well known metaphysical teachers and psychics in Utah and is proud to be the Friday morning guest of one of the country's best radio morning shows, airing on the highest rated Alternative Rock station in the country - one that has been written up in national publications such as Rolling Stone Magazine. She has also appeared on national radio stations and regional television segments such as Good Things Utah, ABC 4 News (ABC KTVX), Good Day Utah, (Fox KSTU), 2 News, 2 News This Morning (CBS KUTV).



I am an ordinary person living an extraordinary life. I learn from amazing people that i attract in my life and share my insights, challenges, lessons, successes on personal video blogs and interviews that i post here.

I lost my job as Internet Marketing Director on February 16th 2009 and decided to record my diary applying the law of attraction to find my dream job. I became a published author in 6 weeks. The book is on sale on Amazon.com and is called I LOST MY JOB AND I LIKED IT: 30-Day Law-of-Attraction Diary of a Dream Job Seeker.

My intention is to host an inspiring international television show where I interview world leaders about their secret to success.
About Me:

I apply consciously Universal Laws everyday in my life
, 100 days at a time...and it makes it very JUICY.

My dream is to empower millions of people daily to live a life of Passion and Purpose. A Juicy Life!






2009年9月29日火曜日

Erich Fromm "Benign Aggression: The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness" エーリッヒ・フロム 『破壊ー人間性の解剖』

 Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (190K).
 "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness"

Erich Fromm : "The Courage to Be Human"

Erich Fromm "The Heart of Man" : エーリッヒ・フロム 『悪について』

エーリッヒ・フロム( Erich Fromm )は、人間は基本的に下記2つの矛盾した傾向を自己の内部に持つ存在であると説明。

①「生長」に向かう傾向
(生を好む傾向、他・異への愛、独立)
②退行に向かう傾向
(死を好む傾向、ナルシシズム(客観性の欠如、他・異の排除)、近親相姦的共生依存)

善VS悪の価値観は、その個人が属する社会の価値観に適合するかどうかで決まると、エーリッヒ・フロム自身認めているが、もちろん①を目指すことを説く。

いかに、①「生長」に向かうのか?

まず、「自覚」が必要であることを指摘。

①②の2傾向についての自覚、

また、自分自身の選択する行動によって引き起こされる「結果」についての自覚

矛盾した内部を抱える人間は、それだからこそ、その矛盾した2傾向の行動のどちらを行なうか、の選択の自由がある。

多くの人間が選択の自由がある時点での自覚がなく

退行につながる選択を重ねてしまうことで、後戻りできない=選択の自由がなくなる状態にまで陥ってしまうとエーリッヒ・フロムは説く。

つまり、矛盾した2傾向の選択が可能な時点で、自分の行動の結果とその傾向を「自覚」することで、

より①の傾向へ向かう選択を重ねていくべきである、と提示している。

Personality Theories: Erich Fromm
A helpful page from C. George Boeree’s site on
Evil
Fromm was always interested in trying to understand the really evil people of this world -- not just one's who were confused or mislead or stupid or sick, but the one's who, with full consciousness of the evil of their acts, performed them anyway: Hitler, Stalin, Charles Manson, Jim Jones, and so on, large and small.
All the orientations we've talked about, productive and non-productive, in the having mode or the being mode, have one thing in common: They are all efforts at life. Like Horney, Fromm believed that even the most miserable neurotic is at the least trying to cope with life. They are, to use his word, biophilous, life-loving.
But there is another type of person he calls necrophilous -- the lovers of death. They have the passionate attraction to all that is dead, decayed, putrid, sickly; it is the passion to transform that which is alive into something unalive; to destroy for the sake of destruction; the exclusive interest in all that is purely mechanical. It is the passion "to tear apart living structures."
If you think back to high school, you may remember a few misfits: They were real horror movie aficionados. They may have made models of torture devices and guillotines. They loved to play war games. They liked to blow things up with their chemistry sets. They got a kick out of torturing small animals. They treasured their guns. They were really into mechanical devices. The more sophisticated the technology, the happier they were. Beavis and Butthead are modeled after these kids.
I remember watching an interview on TV once, back during the little war in Nicaragua. There were plenty of American mercenaries among the Contras, and one in particular had caught the reporters eye. He was a munitions expert -- someone who blew up bridges, buildings, and, of course, the occasional enemy soldier. When asked how he got into this line of work, he smiled and told the reporter that he might not like the story. You see, when he was a kid, he liked to put firecrackers up the backside of little birds he had caught, light the fuses, let them go, and watch them blow up. This man was a necrophiliac.
Fromm makes a few guesses as to how such a person happens. He suggested that there may be some genetic flaw that prevents them from feeling or responding to affection. It may also be a matter of a life so full of frustration that the person spends the rest of their life in a rage. And finally, he suggests that it may be a matter of growing up with a necrophilous mother, so that the child has no one to learn love from. It is very possible that some combination of these factors is at work. And yet there is still the idea that these people know what they are doing, are conscious of their evil, and choose it. It is a subject that would bear more study!
 



5.0 out of 5 stars Fear of life = love of death, March 9, 2009
This review is from: The Heart of Man (Paperback)
More than 40 years later, this short but insightful volume remains one of the best in-depth discussions of the human psyche at its darkest. Erich Fromm brings all his decades of knowledge & experience to this descent into the roots of what he aptly calls "necrophilia",  a literal love of death born from an overwhelming fear of life.

What's especially fascinating is that as he analyzes the psychology of the necrophiliac, we can immediately recognize so many of the people who run & ruin our world today, from the most personal level to the global. We've all met them, and all too often suffered because of them. Their obsessive fear & compulsive need to control that fear invariably affects the rest of us, precisely because we refuse to meekly submit to their murderous control.

But what exactly does Fromm mean by "necrophiliac," anyway?

To condense his rich book into a few lines is an impossible task, but here's the gist of it: the necrophiliac personality fears life because of its messiness, its randomness, its uncontrollability. And so he (it's so often "he," by the way) does his best to control it through brute force, fear, torture, and ultimately death.

And how do we recognize these necrophiliacs?

No matter what their political, religious, or ideological affiliations, they share the same basic traits & worldview. They worship strength, toughness, a lack of tender emotions; they glorify the mechanical & do their best to become machines themselves: they loathe yet are fascinated by decay, disease, filth. Hence they often have rigid ideas about sexuality (one of the most uncontrollable aspects of living things), and espouse strict, letter-of-the-law moral codes concerning it ... although their private lives are frequently an immersion in what they publically denounce as disgusting.

A familiar picture begins to take shape: the stern, self-righteous, excessively judgmental, often uniformed strong man, one who prides himself on being able to make "the tough decisions," untroubled by reflection or regret. The uniform can be military, or a business suit, or a minister's collar, or any clothing that embodies status -- because it's status, rank, and power that matters most to them. And they have no problem killing others in the name of some greater good, if anything seeing it as an outward emblem of their unyielding virtue.

The poet Lew Welch wrote about this sort of mentality in "The Basic Con" - "Those who can't find anything to live for, / always invent something to die for. / Then they want the rest of us to / die for it too." Whether it's for their god, their politics, their bank accounts, or their own desperate need to believe in their own superiority, they project their inner loathing & emptiness onto the rest of us, making us scapegoats for their own inability to face the uncertainty & wonder of life. They must have answers for everything, and can't tolerate questions, or doubts, or ambiguity.

This is a book that, all too sadly, will never be outdated. Each new generation faces the same necrophiliac mindset, dressed up in the latest fashions of the day, as recent history has taught us. All the more reason to keep this book in print -- most urgently recommended! Comments (2)






References
Fromm is an excellent and exciting writer.  You can find the basics of his theory in Escape from Freedom (1941) and Man for Himself (1947).  His interesting treatise on love in the modern world is called The Art of Loving (1956). The Sane Society (1955), which perhaps should have been called "the insane society"  is devoted to demonstrating how crazy our world is right now, and how that leads to our psychological difficulties.  He has also written "the" book on aggression, The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (1973), which includes his ideas on necrophilia. He has written many other great books, including ones on Christianity, Marxism, and Zen Buddhism! (Dr. C. George Boeree)

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/fromm.htm 

Erich Fromm: Resolving Conflicts Without War 
pt.1

pt.2

pt.3

pt.4

pt.5

2009年9月28日月曜日

ROFL Obama = Robot


Barack Obama's amazingly consistent smile from Eric Spiegelman on Vimeo.
I just got this from my son. So funny!!

・・・how come Obama never changes his tie, i wonder....??

The Michael Jackson Tapes: A Tragic Icon Reveals His Soul In Intimate Conversation by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach


マイケルの友人でスピリチュアルアドバイザーだったユダヤ教のラビ、シュムリー・ボテアック(Rabi Shmuley Boteach)がマイケル本を書くために録音したテープ。ラビはこのインタビュー録音を本にまとめた。
"The Michael Jackson Tapes: A Tragic Icon Reveals His Soul In Intimate Conversation"

Explaining why he decided to write the book, Boteach says in his website, “It was Michael’s wish to bare his soul and unburden himself to a public that he knew was deeply suspicious of him.”
The Michael Jackson Tapes: A Tragic Icon Reveals His Soul In Intimate Conversation is based on 30 hours of taped interviews, conducted between 2000-2001, in which Jackson talks about his children, his fear of aging, his desire to draw away from the public eye, Madonna’s purported interest and jealousy of him, and his preoccupation with mannequins.

THE MICHAEL JACKSON TAPES:MICHAEL RECALLS FEAR OF FATHER 
PT 1 OF 2

PT 2 OF 2

According to Shmuley Boteach, Michael Jackson felt that his life was drawing to an end.
“He lost the will to live. I think he was just going through the motions of life toward the end,” Boteach said on NBC’s Today show.

The Michael Jackson Tapes: On Aging
The Rabbi says in his book that Michael Jackson was afraid of growing old, and, therefore, surrounded himself with yes-men and started abusing prescription drugs and cosmetic surgery, nearly ten years before his death on June 25, 2009.

“When the body breaks down and you start to wrinkle, I think it’s so bad…I don’t want to grow old.”
“I would like some way to disappear where people don’t see me anymore at some point. I don’t want to grow old. I never want to look in the mirror and see that,” Jackson said.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach said that Jackson was ashamed of the way he looked at that point. “Because I am like a lizard. It is horrible.”
A lot seems to have been said about impending death in the tapes.

The Michael Jackson Tapes about his children
Jackson apparently said that if it wasn’t for children, he would choose death. “I mean it with all my heart.”

A transcript from The Michael Jackson Tapes: A Tragic Icon Reveals His Soul In Intimate Conversation, on Shmuley’s website says:
My greatest dream that I have left—I have accomplished my dreams with music and all that and I love music and entertainment—is this children’s initiative, is this thing that we are doing.
But, um, ’cause I don’t care about [anything else], I really don’t, I don’t care about [career], I honestly don’t… What keeps me going is children, or else I would, I would seriously. . . I’ve told you this before, I swear to God I mean every word.
I would, I would just throw in the towel if it wasn’t for children or babies. And that’s my real, my honest [answer]. . . and I’ve said it before, if it weren’t for children, I would choose death. I mean it with all my heart.

Talking about the tough times in his life, Jackson said, “Anybody else would probably be dead by now, or a junkie, with what I’ve been through, Shmuley.”
The Michael Jackson Tapes on Madonna

The pop star had a great deal to say about Madonna as well. 
In The Michael Jackson Tapes he apparently said, “I think she was sincerely in love with me and I was not in love with her. I think she likes shock value and she knows how to push buttons on people.”

He also said that Madonna did a lot of crazy things and that they had nothing in common. “She is not sexy at all. I think being sexy comes from the heart in the way you present yourself.”

He apparently said that Madonna was jealous of him as an entertainer. “She is a girl, a woman and I think that’s what bothers her. I think women don’t scream for other women. Men are too cool to scream for women. I get the fainting and adulation and she doesn’t.”

Shmuley Boteach maintains that Michael Jackson was attracted to women but was very shy. He said that that he was quite fond of Princess Diana, that she was his type and he didn’t like most girls.

Apparently, he also considered dating close friend Elizabeth Taylor, 25 years his senior, but was afraid of being publicly ridiculed.
“I know that if we ever did anything romantically the press would be so mean and nasty and call us The Odd Couple. It would turn into a circus and that’s the pain of it all,” Jackson said.

The Michael Jackson Tapes: About his Father
Boteach has posted a transcript of his conversation with Michael Jackson about his father, Joe Jackson, on his website.
Michael Jackson, “He did a brilliant job with training me for the stage as an artist, but [as a] father he was very, very strict. I hate to judge him, but I would have done things a lot different as a father. I never felt love from him.

I remember being on the airplane and they used to have to carry me on the plane because I hated turbulence and I would be screaming and kicking because we would take off in storms. I remember it very clearly. He would never hold me or touch me and the stewardesses would have to come and hold my hand and caress me.”

Apparently Jackson also said that his father beat him with and electric cord.

The Michael Jackson Tapes: About his obsession with Mannequins
Coming to his obsession for mannequins, Jackson said, “I needed someone. That’s probably why I had, uh, the mannequins, I would say. Because I felt I needed people, someone, and I didn’t have, I was too shy to be around real people.”

Michael Jackson also talked about Hitler. “Hitler was a genius orator. To make that many people turn and change and hate, he had to be a showman and he was.”
The reclusive pop star said that he could have changed Hitler. “You have to help them, give them therapy, teach them that somewhere, something in their life went wrong.”

The Michael Jackson Tapes: About Love
Shmuley Boteach: Did you know that that was part of being corrupted as a child when you start feeling that way—hatred? Did you know, “I gotta get rid of this somehow. I gotta do something about this”?
Michael Jackson: Yeah, I wanted to become such a wonderful performer that I would get love back.
SB: So you could change him, you thought. If you . . . so you thought that if you became a great star, very successful, and were loved by the world, your father would love you too.

On Loneliness
Michael Jackson: I wanted so badly to play in the park across the street because the kids were playing baseball and football but I had to record. I could see the park, right across the street.
But I had to go in the other building and work until late at night making the albums. I sat there looking at the kids with tears running down my face and I would say, “I am trapped and I have to do this for the rest of my life. I’m under contract.”
But I wanted to go over there so bad it was killing me, just to make a friend to say, “Hi.” You know…just to do that. I used to walk the streets looking for people. I told you that didn’t I?

On Jealousy vs Admiration
Shmuley Boteach: Were you ever jealous of someone in your career who made you work harder?
Michael Jackson: Never jealous. Admiration, complete admiration.
SB: So admiration can bring even greater goals than jealousy because it’s positive and not negative. So you would look at say, Fred Astaire and say, “I want to be able to do that.”
MJ: Yes, absolutely, Shmuley. Complete inspiration, never jealousy. It’s wrong, but people are like that aren’t they? It’s true Shmuley?

**************************

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is an orthodox Jewish rabbi who met Michael Jackson through British entertainer Uri Geller.
Boteach is the author of books like “Kosher Sex” and “Shalom in the Home.”
Boteach has said that he planned to release the book in 2003, to give people a better image of the star.
However, according to the Rabbi, the idea was abandoned after Jackson did not comply with a recovery program, part of which was waking up at a decent time and keeping away from children.
They fell out when Jackson was arrested the second time on charges of child abuse.
Michael Jackson’s family has not commented on the book so far.


DateLine 9-25-2009- The Michael Jackson's Tapes
pt.1

pt.2

pt.3

pt.4

pt.5

pt.6


Excerpt from "The Michael Jackson Tapes: A Tragic Icon Reveals His Soul In Intimate Conversation".

Michael confused his afflictions of soul with ailments of the body. But whereas once upon a time the light of celebrity was hot enough to make him feel better, he had reached a stage where even that no longer warmed him. Drugs became the only balm by which to dull pain. As time went on I understood why things like painkillers or plastic surgery were so attractive to Michael. Michael knew nothing but pain.

Michael's drug use was difficult to detect because of how spacey and out-of-it everyone expected him to be. Plus, it was easy to assume that Michael took strong painkillers only when he was in physical pain. In the time that I knew him, he always seemed intent on me having a positive view of him and nothing untoward was ever done in my presence.

In retrospect, there were more signs that he was on something than I or anyone around him recognized or acknowledged. Michael was very forgetful. He sometimes seemed woozy. His head once drooped completely at the home of a friend that I had taken him to meet. But I just thought that with the kind of crazy hours he kept -- Michael was going to sleep at 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning -- he was just always tired. Michael often called me and spoke as if he was either tremendously inspired or a bit off.

"Shmuley, I'm just calling to tell you that I love you. I looovvveee you. IIII llloooovvveee yooouuu. . ." "I love you too Michael," I would say. But by and large, those conversations were very short, and I thought to myself, yes, that's strange, but that's Michael. He's different. He's eccentric. What perhaps should have made me most suspicious was Michael's constant physical ailments. He was always complaining that a part of his body was hurting or had been injured. This, of course, became a central staple of his trial. But the Angel Ball was my earliest exposure to it. Michael claimed that he had been slammed against a wall by fans and fellow celebrities trying to get his autograph. But even if that had happened, it seemed as though the smallest knocks could completely incapacitate him. And that was either true -- Michael did have a very fragile disposition -- or he was using these ailments, which in his mind were real, as an excuse to take more painkillers.

A few weeks before the major address Michael was to give at Oxford, when he was back in California and I was in New York, Michael called to tell me he had broken his foot while practicing dancing at Neverland. "Are you going to cancel Oxford?" I asked. "No," he said. "It's way too important." In due course, Michael arrived in Britain in a foot cast and on crutches. I heard him give a number of conflicting stories about how he had broken his foot, but again, I made nothing of it, thinking that Michael was forgetful.

A doctor traveled with him to England from the United States and stayed in Michael's hotel. Whenever he would complain of terrible pain from his foot, they would go together into his room and emerge, about a half-hour later, with Michael looking glassy-eyed. I asked the doctor about his background and his practice, and as I recall he seemed to give inadequate responses. He was a personal physician who practiced in New York. I wondered why he had accompanied Michael all the way from overseas just because of a broken foot. There were doctors in England if Michael needed one. But if he was being administered more painkillers for his broken foot, which is what I suspected, Michael was still nowhere near being so out of it that he couldn't function. Michael did come three hours late to Oxford, which meant that he did not attend the dinner that was staged by the Oxford Union in his honor, and he did arrive three hours late at our mutual friend Uri Geller's wedding ceremony the next day where I officiated and Michael served as best man. But other than that, the trip to Britain went off without a hitch.

As I was about to embark on my return flight home, Michael, who was staying on in Europe, reached me on my mobile phone. "Shmuulleeeey," he dragged out the word, partially slurring it, "Yesterday at the wedding, I was just staring at you conducting the ceremony. I was staring at you because I love you, because you're my best friend. I just loooovveeee you." I responded as I always did, "I love you too, Michael." "But no," he said, you don't understand. I loovvveeee yooouuuu," dragging out the words for effect. It was a flattering phone call, but it made me alarmed that Michael was on something very strong. I would continue having conversations with him about staying off the poison of prescription drugs. He never fought me and always agreed.

When Michael was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame that March, he invited me and my wife, Debbie, as his guests to the dinner at The Waldorf-Astoria in New York City. Although he was still on crutches, he seemed completely lucid. I spent a few hours in his suite helping him write his acceptance speech and he seemed cheerful and in good spirits. The next time we did a public event together was a few weeks later when we went to Newark, New Jersey. Michael's foot had healed and he was out of the cast. On that day, Michael seemed fine. Confident, chewing gum, and irritated with me as I explained earlier, but nothing more. I was certain that whatever medication he was taking had been connected with his broken foot and was now in the past.

It was a few months later, after I had severed all contact with Michael, that reports started to filter back to me from one of Michael's closest confidantes that he was hooked on prescription medication and imbibing large quantities of them. It was getting much worse, this friend said, and it was destroying his life. Demerol and Xanax, among others, were mentioned. "Is there a quack doctor giving this stuff to him?" I asked. "No," I was told. "The doctors around him seem okay. He seems to be getting his own supply; no one knows from where. Michael is injecting himself with the drugs intravenously." "Well," I said, noting that Michael and I had no interaction and I could therefore offer little assistance, you guys better do something and save him before he completely self-destructs." Michael's parents, Katherine and Joseph Jackson, were also concerned and invited me to their home in Encino, where they asked me to reinvolve myself in Michael's life. Michael's parents related to me that Michael had deteriorated significantly since I had last seen him. His state was bad enough for them to have attempted a family intervention to break the drugs' hold on him. Michael's brothers, a few weeks earlier, had arrived at Neverland unannounced to try to get him into rehab, where he had gone almost ten years earlier after admitting to an addiction to prescription drugs. Michael, however, had heard that they were coming and fled.

His parents were concerned, and I felt for them. But this just reinforced my decision. Not only was I sure that Michael would not listen to me, I knew next to nothing about helping people in this situation except to get them into rehab. Perhaps I could inspire Michael to make that decision, and his parents thought I could at least help. But I knew they were wrong. Michael had long since ceased taking my counsel. He found my advice too demanding. I was an irritant and was treated as such. Katherine, who was the anchor of Michael's life and whom I knew from the long interview I had done with her for this book, and Joseph Jackson, who I was meeting for the first and only time, had much more sway with their son than I did, and it was imperative for them to save their son's life by becoming available parents in his greatest hour of need. And if his own parents could not persuade him to get help, how could I?

Joseph Jackson also raised the subject of Michael's management with me. He said he didn't approve of the people running Michael's career at present and that he wished to reinvolve himself in Michael's management. I told him sternly, if respectfully, "Mr. Jackson, your son doesn't need a manager right now. He needs a father. You should relate to him as the father he feels he never had." I left that meeting shaken. How tragic for Michael, and how similar this was all beginning to sound to Elvis, a fallen star, in terrible emotional and mental anguish, turning to drugs for relief, until they eventually destroyed him. Would Michael end up dead at an early age as well?

According to someone very close to Michael, the year before his arrest, Michael got clean. This person told me that Michael had, by himself, "gotten off the stuff . . . he's completely clean." I was incredulous. "He didn't go for rehab?" I asked. "You're saying he got himself clean on his own?" "Yup," he said, "We're really proud of him. He's clean. I swear it's true." Well, that was good news. I was therefore extremely troubled to hear, from the same person again, that shortly after the arrest Michael had gone back on "the same stuff. He's delusional. That's how he's coping with the case. He's out of it a lot of the time." "Have you tried to get him to stop?" I asked. "Yeah, I had a meeting with him. I told him I was positive he was back on the stuff. He denied it, but I know what he's like when he takes that stuff. But he responded by sort of cutting me off from him. Now, I can't get access to him."

This, sadly, was a typical response to Michael hearing people criticize his behavior. He just shut them out. "Do the people around him know?" I asked. "I don't see how they can't," he responded. "He's drinking a lot of wine and mixing it with all this stuff." This last comment especially surprised me, because, to my knowledge, Michael never drank alcohol. Indeed, even when he came to our home for the Sabbath meals, he would reject the tiny quantity of sacramental wine I offered him, telling me that he never drank "the Jesus juice."

The fact that Michael Jackson had been taking large doses of prescription medication explained much of his erratic behavior. Why would the man who was so famously overprotective of his kids suddenly dangle his own new baby from a balcony in Berlin? Why would the man who was so famously reclusive agree to a British journalist virtually living with him for a tell-all television documentary? Michael always told me how much he hated the British press more than any other. He told me that "Whacko Jacko" had started in England. So why would he have allowed Martin Bashir to essentially live with him for so many months? Indeed, Michael's decision to grant full access to Bashir will forever remain the professional decision that most unraveled his life.

When I watched the 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley that preceded the trial, in which Michael accused the Santa Barbara police of locking him up for forty-five minutes in a feces-covered bathroom and roughing him up so badly that they dislocated his shoulder, it seemed so improbable that I suspected that Michael's reality had been impaired. Sure enough, twice in the interview they showed Michael stopping the interview to complain about how much his back hurt. The old opportunities (excuses) to take more prescription medication were back. I called my friend. "Did the police do all those things?" "No," he said. "They were really nice to him. Michael is delusional." Now this report may have been inaccurate, but I doubt it.

In 2004 I wrote in a public article, "If people around him don't save Michael from himself, Michael may be yet another superstar who dies young, God forbid, due to the quintessential celebrity-oriented diseases of drug and substance abuse. But a wall of silence around this problem, while it might protect Michael's image, will do nothing to protect him."

The above is an excerpt from the book The Michael Jackson Tapes: A Tragic Icon Reveals His Soul in Intimate Conversation
by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. The above excerpt is a digitally scanned reproduction of text from print. Although this excerpt
has been proofread, occasional errors may appear due to the scanning process. Please refer to the finished book for accuracy.
Copyright 2009 Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, author of The Michael Jackson Tapes: A Tragic Icon Reveals His Soul in Intimate Conversation.



2009年9月27日日曜日

Legal Exemptions to Vaccination

http://www.know-vaccines.org/exemption-legal.html

K.N.O.W. Vaccines
Kids Need Options With Vaccines in the US
    
Legal Exemptions to Vaccination
Reprinted from National Vaccine Information Center.
Medical, philosophical or personal belief exemptions are worded differently in each state.  To use an exemption for your child, you must know specifically what the law says in your state.

Philosophical Exemption:
The following 18 states allow exemption to vaccination based on philosophical, personal or conscientiously held beliefs: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

In many of these states, individuals must object to all vaccines, not just a particular vaccine in order to use the philosophical or personal belief exemption.  Many state legislators are being urged by federal health officials and medical organizations to revoke this exemption to vaccination.  If you are objecting to vaccination based on philosophical or personal conviction, keep an eye on your state legislature as public health officials may seek to amend state laws to eliminate this exemption.
Religious Exemption:
All states allow a religious exemption to vaccination except Mississippi and West Virginia.

The religious exemption is intended for people who hold a sincere religious belief opposing vaccination to the extent that if the state forced vaccination, it would be an infringement on their right to exercise their religious beliefs.  Some state laws define religious exemptions broadly to include personal religious beliefs, similar to personal philosophical beliefs.  Other states require an individual who claims a religious exemption to be a member of The First Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Science) or another bonafide religion whose written tenets include prohibition of invasive medical procedures such as vaccination.  (This kind of language has been ruled unconstitutional when it has been challenged in state Supreme Courts.)  Some laws require a signed affidavit from the pastor or spiritual advisor of the parent exercising religious exemption that affirms the parents' sincere religious belief about vaccination, while others allow the parent to sign a notarized waiver.  Prior to registering your child for school, you must check your state law to verify what proof may be needed.

Due to differences in state laws, the National Vaccine Information Center does not recommend or provide a prewritten waiver for religious exemption because it may not conform with what is required in your state, and may actually draw attention to your child, and you may be singled out and challenged.

If you are challenged, you could end up in litigation brought by your state or county health department to prove your religious beliefs.  The religious exemption is granted based on the First Amendment of the Constitution, which is the right to freely exercise your religion.  Because citizens are protected under the First Amendment of the United States, a state must have a "compelling State interest" before this right can be taken away.  One "compelling State interest" is the spread of communicable diseases.  In state court cases which have set precedent on this issue, the freedom to act according to your own religious belief is subject to reasonable regulation with the justification that it must not threaten the welfare of society as a whole.

However, parents have successfully obtained religious exemptions to vaccination.  The constitutional right to have and exercise personal religious beliefs, whether you are of the Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other faith, can be defended.  If you exercise your right to religious exemption, you must be prepared to defend it.  It is always best to define your personal religious beliefs opposing vaccination in your own words when you write a letter defending them.  If you do belong to a church and take the time to educate the head of your local church about the sincerity of your personal religious beliefs regarding vaccination, obtaining a letter from your pastor, priest, rabbi or other spiritual counselor affirming the sincerity of your religious beliefs may also be advisable.

Medical Exemptions:
All 50 states allow medical exemption to vaccination.  Proof of medical exemption must take the form of a signed statement by a Medical Doctor (M.D.) or Doctor of Osteopathy (D.O.) that the administering of one or more vaccines would be detrimental to the health of an individual.  Most doctors follow the AAP and CDC guidelines.  Most states do not allow Doctors of Chiropractic (D.C.) to write medical exemptions to vaccination.

Some states will accept a private physician's written exemption without question.  Other states allow the state health department to review the doctor's exemption and revoke it if health department officials don't think the exemption is justified.

Proof of Immunity:
Some states will allow exemptions to vaccination for certain diseases if proof of immunity can be shown to exist.  Immunity can be proven if you or your child have had the natural disease or have been vaccinated.  You have to check your state laws to determine which vaccines in your state can be exempted if proof of immunity is demonstrated.

Private medical laboratories can take blood (a titer test) and analyze it to measure the level of antibodies, for example, to measles or pertussis that are present in the blood.  If the antibody level is high enough, according to accepted standards, you have obtained proof of immunity and may be able to use this for an exemption to vaccination.

Home Religious Exemption Resource Links About Us FAQs The Vaccine Controversy Florida Statutes Contact
About Religious Exemption
FAQs About Religious Exemption
Legal Exemptions to Vaccination
Compulsory Vaccinations Threaten Religious Freedom
Case History - Religious Exemption
Your Rights to Avoid Vaccination
KNOW. . .Religious Conviction
Vaccines from Abortion: The Hidden Truth
Sample Religious Exemption from Immunization Form
Sample Vaccine Waiver for College Students
Receipt of Information Regarding Vaccines And Vaccination Waiver for Meningococcal Meningitis and Hepatitis B

Project Camelot Interviews Dr. Pete Peterson REALLY AMAZING!!! esp. part 2 of 3

Dr. Pete Peterson US interior, June 2009

part 1 of 3

part 2 of 3

part 3 of 3    


When we were introduced to Dr Pete Peterson by a mutual friend, and spoke with him for the first time on the phone, we immediately realized we were talking with someone who even by Project Camelot standards had a quite enormous amount of high quality information, backed by personal experience, on an astonishingly large range of subjects.

We told our friend David Wilcock. David felt very strongly - as a psychic intuitive - that we needed to visit Dr Peterson immediately while he was willing to give on-record testimony. So this interview straight away broke new ground: it was the first Camelot interview in which David joined the two of us for the interview. A few days later, Bill flew to the US from Europe for the weekend especially for the meeting - which was held over two long days.

We talked extensively off-record, and Dr Peterson was extremely cautious about presenting some of his testimony on video. But we nevertheless recorded nearly four hours of testimony. Listen carefully to the questions and the answers - especially in Kerry's Part 3 (Part 1 was Bill and Part 2 was David) - and enjoy the very end of Part 2, just as that part of the interview fades. (This is our favorite section, and we have very purposely left it in.)

Dr Peterson is an extremely well-informed insider - and a most remarkable and brilliant scientist - who came forward to talk with us publicly because he feels the issues he cares deeply about, and knows about, are too important to keep silent about. We salute his courage.

Among the many things Dr Peterson spoke about at length was his strong, informed belief that there will be a melt-down of the global economy - and US infrastructure - which may be almost upon us; that Obama is planning to disclose the reality of ET contact by the end of the year; and that most, but not all, of the ET visitors are friendly.

There is much, much more. Here is a very general list of the subjects we discussed:

• The probable (in Dr Peterson's strong opinion) collapse of the economy, infrastructure, and law and order in the US

• The planned disclosure of the ET presence

• The Aurora (now retired from service and replaced by vehicles capable of superluminal travel) and the TR3B (the large flying triangle, which functions as an aircraft carrier)

• Artificial intelligence and advanced robotics

• The "information field" and how the body, the mind, and DNA really function

• Healing modalities which work very rapidly and effectively

• 'Rescuing' brilliant scientists out of the old USSR

• How Mir (the Russian Space Station) was so heavy that it could not have been assembled without 'help' from our 'friends' (or, to be exact, the Russians' friends)

• Time spent in the Vatican Library

• The existence of Sumerian high technology

• Quantum computing (off-camera, Dr Peterson held in his hand a cheap quantum chip, which he had assembled himself in his own laboratory, with the computing power of 10,000 PCs)

• The genius of James Clerk Maxwell, and why Einstein was wrong

• Why you should not spend too much time in front of your new Digital TV

• The reality of the US prison camps

• How President Obama was (in all probability) set up

• How he came to understand that 15% of the world's population (of all races) have ET ancestry that can be seen in their DNA - and are also resistant to mind control technologies.

The release of this video was delayed because Dr Peterson was concerned that it might contain some material that was just too sensitive, and which might endanger us. He spent some time checking with colleagues to ensure that we would be safe to release the material. At the time of writing, he has not specified what these sensitive parts of the video are - though one might guess. We have taken the decision to take these risks upon our own shoulders and to release the interview in its entirety. It has not been cut.

We hope that those who have been waiting this for what feels (to us also!) quite a long time may understand the complexities and many factors involved, and that being a whistleblower is far from a simple matter. Dr Peterson is a person of high integrity who is very concerned about some of the problems faced by the human race, and who to his immense credit feels that he must give a warning. Besides the warning, as you will see, he offers a substantial smorgasbord of fascinating information on a very broad range of subjects.

Note: at the time of writing Dr Peterson is currently scheduled to speak at the Project Camelot Awake and Aware Conference in Los Angeles on 19-20 September. Don't miss this.

Enjoy the interview...

Bill Ryan
Kerry Cassidy
David Wilcock
4 September 2009

2009年9月26日土曜日

Erich Fromm - The Author's Quotes

Erich Fromm - The Author+Quotes

* Man's main task in life is to give birth to himself, to become what he potentially is.

* There is no meaning to life except the meaning man gives his life by unfolding of his powers.

* Immature love says, "I love you because I need you." Mature love says, "I need you because I love you."

* To take the difficulties, setback and sorrows of life as a challenge which to overcome makes us stronger rather than unjust punishment which should not happen to us requires faith and courage.

* Sleep is often the only occasion in which man cannot silence his conscience; we forget what we knew in our dream.

* We all dream; we do not understand our dreams, yet we act as if nothing strange goes on in our sleep minds, strange at least by comparison with the logical, purposeful doings of our minds when we are awake.

* The most beautiful as well as the most ugly inclinations of man are not part of a fixed biologically given human nature, but result from the social process which creates man.

* That man can destroy life is just as miraculous a feat as that he can create it, for life is the miracle, the inexplicable. In the act of destruction, man sets himself above life; he transcends himself as a creature. Thus, the ultimate choice for a man, inasmuch as he is driven to transcend himself, is to create or to destroy, to love or to hate.

* The successful revolutionary is a statesman, the unsuccessful one a criminal.

* Man is the only animal for whom his own existence is a problem which he has to solve.

2009年9月25日金曜日

Erich Fromm - The Art of Loving : エーリッヒ・フロム「愛するということ」

Erich Fromm - The Art of Loving

エーリッヒ・フロム「愛するということ」


▼本書の内容

【はじめに】
本書は次のように訴える。

《自分の人格全体を発達させ、それが生産的な方向に向くよう、全力をあげて努力しないかぎり、人を愛そうとしてもかならず失敗する。

満足のゆくような愛を得るには、隣人を愛することができなければならないし、

真の謙虚さ、勇気、信念、規律をそなえていなければならない。

これらの特質がまれにしか見られない社会では、愛する能力を身につけることは容易ではない。》(5頁)

【第一章 愛は技術か】

愛は技術である。それを得るためには知識と努力が必要だからだ。

ところが今日の人びとの大半は、愛は運であると信じているようだ。なぜか。そこには次のような誤解がある。

第一に、愛の問題が、愛する能力の問題ではなく、どうすれば愛されるかという問題として捉えられている。

第二に、愛は能力ではなく、対象の問題、すなわち、愛することは簡単だが、愛するにふわさしい相手を見つけることは難しいと考えられている。

第三に、恋に「落ちる」という最初の体験と、愛している、という持続的な状態とが、混同されている。

愛の技術を習得するには

(1)理論に精通すること

(2)修練に励むこと

(3)技術

を習得することが自分にとっての究極の関心事になること、が必要である。

【第二章 愛の理論】

愛に関するどんな理論も、人間の実存についての理論から始めなければならない。

人間は孤独である。そして孤独こそがあらゆる不安の源である。

そのため、人間の最も強い欲求とは、孤立を克服し、孤独の牢獄から抜け出したいという欲求である。

この欲求を満たすために人間は自分以外の人間との同調を目指すが、

その最も完全な方法は、人間同士の一体化、他者との融合、すなわち愛である。

愛にもいろいろあるが、成熟した愛は、自分の全体性と個性を保ったままでの結合である。

愛は能動的な活動であり、受動的な感情ではない。

そのなかに「落ちる」ものではなく、「みずから踏み込む」ものである。

愛が能動的であるためには、与えること、配慮、責任、尊敬、知という要素が必要である。

一人の人をほんとうに愛するとは、すべての人を愛することであり、世界を愛し、生命を愛することである。しかし、対象によって愛の種類もさまざまである。

(a)兄弟愛:あらゆる種類の愛の根底にあり、配慮、責任、尊敬、理解を必要とする。

(b)母性愛:子どもの生命と必要性に対する無条件の肯定である。

(c)異性愛:誰かを愛するというのはたんなる激しい感情ではない。それは決意であり、決断であり、約束である。

(d)自己愛:他人を愛するためには自己愛が必要である。しかしこれは利己主義とは異なる。

(e)神への愛:人間への愛と変わらない。

【第三章 愛と現代西洋社会における崩壊】

西洋社会は愛の発達を促すものではない。

資本主義社会は自分を商品化してしまった。

また、神への信仰も社会的成功の手段となってしまった。ここに愛の崩壊が見られる。

【第四章 愛の習練】

技術の習練には規律、集中、忍耐、最高の関心が必要である。

その上で、愛を達成するための基本条件は、ナルシシズムの克服である。

ナルシシズムの克服のためには客観化が必要であり、そのためには理性、謙虚さが求められ
る。 

また、自分自身の愛に対する信念も必要だ。しかしそれは理にかなった信念でなければならない。

さらに信念を持つには勇気がいる。勇気とは、苦痛や失望を受け入れる覚悟である。

愛するということは、なんの保証もないのに行動を起こすことであり、こちらが愛せばきっと相手の心にも愛が生まれるだろうという希望に、全面的に自分をゆだねることである。

愛の習練には能動性(自分の力を生産的に用いること)も必要である。

現在の資本主義社会においては、人を愛することのできる人は例外的である。

愛が社会的現象になるためには、現在の社会構造を根本から変えなければならない。

人を愛するという社会的な本性と、社会的生活とが、分離するのではなく、一体化するような、そんな社会をつくりあげなければならない。

******************************************************************
Michael Jackson -Smile-

Michael Jackson - Smile - Watch a funny movie here


愛は技術だろうか。技術だとしたら、知識と努力が必要だ。


愛は、人間のなかにある能動的な力である。
人をほかの人々から隔てている壁をぶち破る力であり、
人と人を結びつける力である。


愛は能動的な活動であり、受動的な感情ではない。
そのなかに“落ちる”ものではなく、
“みずから踏みこむ”ものである。


たくさん持っている人が豊かなのではなく、
たくさん与える人が豊かなのだ。


もらうために与えるのではない。
与えること自体がこのうえない喜びなのだ。


愛とは愛を生む力であり、
愛せないということは愛を生むことができないということである。


愛とは、愛する者の生命と成長を積極的に気にかけることである。


愛と労働は分かちがたいものである。
人は、何かのために働いたらその何かを愛し、
また、愛するもののために働くのである。


“愛は自由の子”であり、けっして支配の子ではない。


神学の論理的帰結が神秘主義であるように、
心理学の究極の帰結は愛である。


一人の人をほんとうに愛するとは、
すべての人を愛することであり、世界を愛し、生命を愛することである。


自分の役に立たない者を愛するときにはじめて、愛は開花する。


愛情深い母親になれるかなれないかは、
すすんで別離に堪えるかどうか、
そして別離の後も変わらず愛しつづけることができるかどうかによるのである。


誰かを愛するというのはたんなる激しい感情ではない。
それは決意であり、決断であり、約束である。
もし愛がたんなる感情にすぎないとしたら、
“あなたを永遠に愛します”という約束はなんの根拠もないことになる。


愛は誰かに影響されて生まれるものではなく、
自分自身の愛する能力にもとづいて、
愛する人の成長と幸福を積極的に求めることである。


一人の人間を愛するということは、人間そのものを愛することでもある。


利己的な人は、自分を愛しすぎるのではなく、愛さなすぎるのである。
いや実際のところ、彼は自分を憎んでいるのだ。


愛の技術の習練という問題に立ち向かうことにする。
…技術の習練には規律が必要である。
規律正しくやらなければ、どんなことでも絶対に上達しない。
“気分が乗っている”ときにだけやるのでは、
楽しい趣味にはなりうるかもしれないが、
そんなやり方では絶対にその技術を習得することはできない。


一人でいられる能力こそ、愛する能力の前提条件なのだ。


自分自身を“信じている”者だけが、
他人にたいして誠実になれる。


他人を「信じる」ことのもうひとつの意味は、
他人の可能性を「信じる」ことである。


愛するということは、なんの保証もないのに行動を起こすことであり、
こちらが愛せばきっと相手の心にも愛が生まれるだろうという希望に、
全面的に自分をゆだねることである。


愛とは信念の行為であり、
わずかな信念しかもっていない人は、わずかしか愛することができない。

*****************************************************************
4.0 out of 5 stars Love Conquers All... Surrender to it.. E. FROMM, February 12, 2002
By
Richard R. Rohde, Esq. (West Covina, CA USA) - See all my reviews
"Love," says Fromm, "is the only satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence." Poets have written that, "Love conquers all," and to "surrender to it." Urging one to surrender implies resistence to Love, but why?Fromm asks, is Love an art, or is Love a pleasant sensation or feeling which to experience is a metter of chance, i.e. something one, "falls into," if one is lucky. Fromm asserts that Love is an art, and says that to truly Love, in all its forms, one must possess: Maturity; Self-Knowledge; and Courage.
"Object," or "faculty,": Many people pursue objects or affection, or objects to love, and correspondingly treat them as possessions. Fromm asserts that Love is the faculty or ability to Love in its different forms: brotherly love; romantic love, etc. Since Love is an art to be practiced, Fromm asserts that it can only be practiced in freedom with one another. In other words, people cannot treat others as objects or possessions to be controlled for ones own egotistical or selfish purposes. Such behavior to result in certain destruction and never to attain true Love.
"Love," vs. "falling in Love/Infatuation,": People speak of falling in Love, with new people they meet. Falling in Love is not necessarly Love, but infatuation, e.g., strangers meet, they break down social walls between one another, they feel close/as one. This new experience, infatuation, Fromm describes as "one of the most exhilarating and most exciting experiences in life. However, Fromm argues astutely, that this initial infatuation feeling slowly and naturally loses its miraculous character more and more with time, as the two people get more acquainted and learn more and more about eachother - flaws, character defects, etc. Fromm says the problem all-to-often arises when people confuse infatuation feelings (exhilaration/excitement) for proof of the intensity of their Love. As the infatuation feelings naturally subside, it results in the wish for a new conquest, a new "Love," with a new stranger. Again the stranger is transformed into an "intimate" person, again the experience of falling in love is exhilarating and intense, and again it slowly becomes less and less, and ends in another wish for a new conquest - a new "Love," always with the illusion that the new "Love," will be different from the earlier ones. Fromm says this is not Love. These illusions are greatly helped by the deceptive character of sexual desires. Sexual desire aims at fusion, says Fromm. It can be stimulated by the anxiety of aloneness, by the wish to conquer, by vanity, by the wish to hurt or even to destroy, as much as it can be stimulated by Love. Because most people associate sexual desire with the idea of Love, says Fromm, they are easily misled to conclude that they Love each other only when they want each other physically. Fromm asserts this is not unlike a drug addiction, when people constantly seek out the exhilaration/excitement of infatuation. Fromm cautions that if the desire for physical union is not stimulated by Love, if romantic/erotic Love is not also coupled with other forms of Love, that it will never lead to union in more than an orgiastic, transitory sense.
An implication of this that when this happens, i.e., when one finds new infatuation, the other one on the losing end gets scarredm then after a few times of getting burnt will begin to actively destroy or sabotage Love in the nascent stage when it occurs in the future, in an effort to avoid the past painful feelings associated with Love gone wrong or to avoid feelings of vulnerability and/or to maintain control -- in essence to not surrender to Love.
Fromm describes what he calls the essential components that need to be mastered, for all forms of Love: Care (the active concern for the life and the growth of that which we love); Responsibility (to be able, willing and ready to respond to the psychic nneds of the other); Respect (concern that the other person should grow and unfold as he/she is on their own, to be aware of her unique individuality - freedom); and Knowledge(a desire to discover what makes the other "tick," an active penetration of the other person).
Fromm concludes that Love is not just a feeling, it is a decision, it is a judgment, it is a promise. To love means to surrender and commit without guarantees. Love is an act of utter faith says Fromm.


5.0 out of 5 stars This book will change your attitudes., August 22, 1999
By A Customer
This review is from: The Art of Loving (Paperback)
In a world of fuzzy love epitomised by trashy love songs whichbrainwash young people into thinking such things as 'I can't livewithout you' and 'I love you more than life itself', this book offers an invaluable perspective on just what it is you might be feeling when you 'fall in love' with someone. Indeed, Fromm questions the whole concept of 'falling in love'. One will conclude that there is more 'falling' than there is 'love' in the whole process. He argues that we are better served by 'standing' in love. And how true. While practice makes perfect, and no book can compensate for that, Fromm's enlightenment is sure to raise an eyebrow of awareness among anyone who has ever loved or been loved. While we older, and perhaps wiser, folk may say 'yes, indeed' to Fromm's lucid and thought-provoking work, surely it's the teenage generation which needs this map of the one emotion which is perhaps most prominent in their minds. If you have ever experienced the pain of love, this book will change your attitudes towards the whole emotion, for ultimately you will conclude that where there is love,ie. the real honest variety, there is no pain and there can be no pain. Excellently written, like all Fromm's work, you will want to read it in one sitting.