“Mark Twain” responds to Dan Mackler


I enjoy most things you have to say and I am forever grateful that I was sent to Alice Miller after watching your YouTube videos. I do however find most of your great work to [replicate] precisely that—Alice Miller’s. And those parts where you disagree you seem to be making broad over-generalizations and sticky conclusions.

The two reviews I have read on here also don’t give any substance to the books of which you reviewed. I think Cesar has a point. You seem to use this discussion to attack Miller, and not the points made in the book. You seem to be making a review on her integrity.

I also am unsure how you determine that you are completely enlightened. How can you know you are not making the same “hubris” assumption as Miller? Can anyone be fully enlightened? How can one determine when they are fully enlightened? And if you aren’t enlightened, then by your own words aren’t you abusing your readers? And did you abuse your past patients before your enlightenment?

As for the fact that Alice Miller has disclosed her whole life makes her easy to attack from someone that hasn’t… Also your attacks on procreation and whether or not parents can have children is rather mute, considering you don’t plan to have any and your stance on homosexuality.

Source: Amazon book reviews


Those who stayed behind


My parting word to Alice Miller’s fans

Any Miller fan who honestly faces my approach to psychohistory described in the fourth book of Whispering Leaves (WL), finds himself in the middle of a bridge. In fact, he’s between two completely different territories: the content of this blog (call it Country M for Miller) and the content of my other blog, The West’s Darkest Hour (call it Country N for nationalists).

Crossing over the suspension bridge, from the findings of Alice Miller and Lloyd deMause to defending the West against an ethnocidal war, is truly staggering. But precisely my fourth book of WL helps the adventurer to move from one country to the other while keeping some calm among the sides of the chasm. However, as this blog is basically for those who have already read my WL, I’ll refrain from further explanation and go straight to the point.

The fans of Miller and deMause trapped in Country M are contributing, through their ignorance of what’s happening in the world, to the escalation of child abuse due to massive non-Caucasian migration into the West and their astounding reproductive rates: ethnic groups that abuse their children more than us.

Anyone who’s trapped in Country M has no perspective to see what the treacherous elites, through their social engineering, are perpetrating in our nations. I shall mention the names of the Miller fans that stayed behind me:

Daniel Mackler. In mid-2006 I called the attention to this New Yorker, the victim of a Jewish mother, about Islam and the Muslim treatment of children. When, after long discussions in his forum Mackler didn’t answer honestly my points, in 2007 I became more impatient. But Mackler never faced the implications of psychohistory, in spite of the fact that deMause lives also in NY and despite my insistence that he should familiarize himself with psychohistorical literature. In 2008 I lost all patience and in early 2009 I exposed Mackler as a false follower of Miller. Note that originally I was courteous to Mackler, and only when he repeatedly ignored my arguments I exposed him.

Dennis Rodie. Rodie is a Dutchman I don’t hate as I hate the self-righteous Mackler. But Rodie is one of those typical ultra-liberal Europeans who pose as saints to be photographed next to black children (immigrants to Sweden, where he lives). Rodie is willfully ignorant that the immigrants are the main perpetrators of rapes on native Swedish women, as well as notorious abusers of children of color.

Like millions of European ultra-liberals, Rodie’s case is hopeless. The unconscious ideology that he and Mackler subscribe is not, as they claim, to protect children but liberalism (cf. this excellent article by Larry Auster about liberalism: the secular religion that is killing us).

Kerry Watson (also a deMause fan) has used several sockpuppets in Rodie’s forum, including “Bookish” and “Bernard.” The son of an Egyptian Muslim woman who abused him as a child and a native Englishman, Watson is a typical grumpy that gets upset about everything. He got pissed with me since I became critical of those who claim to be protectors of children—including CCHR, deMause, Breggin and others—when in reality all of them failed to side the child properly (remember my chapter critical of deMause in my book). Obviously, because of the Egyptian blood running in his veins, “Watson” will never agree with me that we have to expel thousands upon thousands of Muslims that have invaded the UK, where he lives.

Andreas Wirsén (also a deMause fan). This young Swede hates me. He has hated me since I confronted him with his apathy about doing absolutely nothing to save the West, not even reading the literature I indicated him about the havoc produced in Sweden through the immigration engineered by his government.

Wirsén has appeared from time to time in my blog to insult me with the crassest vulgarisms because I crossed from Country M to Country N. He also hates me because he cannot explain to himself how I exchanged Miller for Hitler (see my blog The West’s Darkest Hour). And how will he explain it if, like the others, he never properly analyzes the content of The West’s Darkest Hour? In other words, Wirsén’s hatred against my ideas is purely visceral. No arguments.

José Luis Cano-Gil (though Miller was his mentor he has published a translation of deMause’s seminal paper in his website in Spanish). Apparently, in this case there was a misunderstanding. Before Cano-Gil moved the domain of his blog to a website, in one of the discussion threads a comment of mine disappeared, where I defended myself from the attack of a deranged woman. I assumed Cano-Gil had deleted it. Then I reacted with precipitation believing that he had censored me (sometimes the bugs at Blogspot do naughty thinks like disappear comments).

At any event, so far Cano-Gil hasn’t said a word about my “bridge” which, he told me, he would consider. The last time I looked at his blog he still hasn’t mentioned anything about the massive non-white immigration in his country, Spain. In other words, for a protector of children who has made the transition from Country M to N, the priority is to remove the millions of European immigrants who are coming with infinitely more primitive forms of childrearing than ours. We don’t have resources to educate them all: that’s deranged altruism, i.e., liberalism. Expelling them is the only rational way. Those who do not promote the expulsion of Moors and Jews à la 1492 have not crossed my bridge (see a Prologue in my blog about the Jewish Question).

Jeff. This man, who I guess lives in California, maintains a forum where he signs his posts under the penname of “Becoming Other.” Jeff was the last of the Miller fans I met online, and in this blog I’ve included some entries about his radical thought. Like me, something horrible happened to Jeff with his father. However, unlike me Jeff avoids to confess exactly what happened.

Because of this, and just like the deranged woman I mentioned above, Jeff has transferred all his rage against his father’s culture (see this article). He’s worse than Mackler in one sense. When arguing with Mackler, at least he made a timid attempt to answer the psychohistorical data through which I tried raising awareness about the Moors. Jeff on the other hand stonewalled me by ignoring everything I said about it without a single argument. It’s true that, with his radicalism, Jeff is much more courageous than the others mentioned above. But he’s too locked into his subjective world, to the extent of losing elemental empathy in his relationship with others. (For example, Jeff saturated Rodie’s forum this year with many soliloquies that nobody answered, and at the same time he was surprised when Rodie simply deleted them.) Like Teresa, the deranged woman, Jeff has no remedy. The last time I visited his forum—and after seeing what he wrote I won’t ever do it again—, I learnt that Jeff wants still lower rates of reproduction in Germany, one of the countries that’s suffering the worst demographic winter among Aryans!

Jeff / Becoming Other is a traitor to the West, and a traitor to his race. See for example this comment of mine about such treachery.

Conclusions about my former countrymen

It’s true that in Country N I’m the only fan of Miller. But the nationalists, my new buddies since I left Country M, are aware of the need to expel from our lands these various people that, if we allow their continuing reproduction while at the same time dwarfing our birth rates (Danny Mackler’s psychotic advice), we will arrive to neither country M nor N, but to Eurabia.

Translated and slightly edited from Spanish (here).

Did Mackler censor reviews of his book? (2)

On the basis of what Daniel Mackler (photo) wrote in his forum back in 2006-2007, I collected a few key sentences for my Amazon Books review. As stated in my previous post, this longer review got probably censored by Mackler but I reproduce it for this blog:

Unlike an academic book that Daniel Mackler coedited, and unlike another coauthored Mackler book with many authors, Toward Truth: A Psychological Guide to Enlightenment is Mackler’s most personal statement. Both in the book’s front cover picture and in its contents, Mackler’s “Enlightenment” concept is so central (“This is about my favorite subject, more precious to me than all the others, really”) that it merits an analysis of its own.

First question, is Daniel Mackler truly “enlightened”? As a child advocate, what strikes me the most about the books and writings of Mackler, including Toward Truth, is the fact that he gives no credit to Lloyd deMause, a well-known social thinker for his work in the field of psychohistory. DeMause lives in Mackler’s town and started to publish on abusive childrearing when Danny was a little kid. Of course, when one finds out that the ultimate conclusion of deMause’s psychohistory is that childrearing methods are even worse in non-western cultures, the reason for Mackler’s aprioristic dismissal of psychohistory becomes obvious.

Like most New York Jews of his age, Mackler is an extreme liberal who subscribes the post-modern fads of our suicidal Zeitgeist (of the books I’ve reviewed for Amazon, take a close look at my review of Preserving Western Civilization by Michael H. Hart). Mackler may not be fully aware but he unconsciously subscribes what anthropologists call cultural relativism. Mackler wrote:

This [deMause’s “psychoclass” concept], to me, accounts for the danger in just labeling another culture inferior, or labeling them totally “infanticidal.” It basically says that they are totally evil, vile, useless, and moronic—and that we have nothing to learn from them, whereas this might not always be the case. Likewise, it makes it too easy to idealize ourselves…

Of course, Mackler is ignorant of psychohistory. Neither deMause nor other psycho-historians say that the tribes are “totally evil” or “totally infanticidal”, and they never, ever idealize themselves.

When a New Age therapist like Mackler pursues “full internal connection” that purportedly culminates in “Enlightenment”, is he saying it’s possible to heal the real world through introspection without political action (yes: even war against inferior cultures, as the Romans erased notorious Carthage, which used to burn their children alive)? To put it bluntly, when confronted with conservative political thinking, Mackler distorts psychohistory and magically turns gruesome historical facts, like infanticide and child sacrifice among aboriginals, into navel gazing of his own body. Elsewhere Mackler wrote:

Chances are I’ll never make it to New Guinea [the home of a notorious infanticidal tribe], and they’ll never hear of me. My job—our job—as I see it, is to “reform the most regressive psychoclass” within ourselves, to heal within. Part of me is still primitive and regressed.

Mackler thus confuses the objective world where non-westerners abuse their children more than we do with his petty, New Age-ish subjective world. He is essentially saying that his job is to be free from his traumas within, as if such practice would put an end to the infanticidal behavior of New Guinea parents!

Infanticide at Oceania and in the surviving tribes of the world may not have a direct impact on our civilization. But since both women and children are badly mistreated in Islam, the ongoing massive migration of Muslims into Europe has become an issue.

This should be a no-brainer for genuine child advocates. But I am appalled by the fact that both Miller’s and deMause’s fans—including Mackler and even Mackler’s critics!—, are willfully ignorant of it. Here I cannot discuss the books by Bruce Bawer, Robert Spencer, Oriana Fallaci and many others. Suffice it to say that the collapsing demographics of white westerners are placing in great danger the child advocates’ cause and what deMause calls “helping mode” of childrearing. This is because, like Mackler himself, many potentially helping parents are refusing to breed. To boot, Muslim immigrants are breeding profusely, and they crave to impose Sharia Law in their adopted European countries—i.e., Koranic law, which mandates greater abuse on women and children than what we male westerners do.

A book written in… Mars?

It took Will Durant more than three decades to write the monumental The Story of Civilization. After finishing the ten volumes of the Story, it followed the essay The Lessons of History, which reflects both Durant’s erudition and his accumulated wisdom. I read The Lessons of History in 1996 and would like to quote some excerpts from one of the chapters, “Biology and History”. It resonates with the point I am trying to make against Mackler’s ethics (“My real point of view is about how horrible most [Western] parents are and why they shouldn’t have children, which I addressed in the Alice Miller paper”). Durant wrote:

So the first biological lesson of history is that life is competition. The second biological lesson of history is that life is selection. We are all born unfree and unequal. Nature loves difference. Inequality is not only natural and inborn, it grows with the complexity of civilization.

Nature smiles at the union of freedom and equality in our utopias. For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies. Leave man free, and their natural inequalities will multiply almost geometrically, as in England and America in the nineteen-century under laissez-faire […].

Utopias of equality are biologically doomed.

The third biological lesson of history is that life must breed. Nature has no use of organisms, variations, or groups that cannot reproduce abundantly [like homosexuals, whom incidentally Daniel Mackler vehemently defends]. She has a passion for quantity as prerequisite to selection of quality. She does not care that a high rate has usually accompanied a culturally low civilization, and a low birth rate a civilization culturally high; and she sees that a nation with low birth rate shall be periodically chastened by some more virile and fertile group.

It is amusing to find Julius Caesar offering (59 B.C.) rewards to Romans who had many children, and forbidding childless women to ride litters or wear jewelry. In the United States the lower birth rate of the Anglo-Saxon has lessened their economic and political power. So the birth rate, like war, may determine the fate of theologies; just as the defeat of the Moslems at Tours (732) kept France and Spain from replacing the Bible with the Koran.

There is no humorist like history.

Compared to Durant’s Story, Mackler’s Toward Truth seems to have been written in Mars. The central problem is Mackler’s pet concept of “Enlightenment”, a state of mind that… Mackler himself defines! (“no dreams”, “no unconscious” and other similar stuff). Yes, it is Mackler the one who defines when a Caucasian person is enlightened enough and thus has the right to have children. Absurdly, Dan Mackler doesn’t preach to the Muslim immigrants to stop breeding; let alone has he suggested, like in some essays of Preserving Western Civilization, to expel them (and other Third World child abusers) from Europe and the U.S.

If Mackler’s “Enlightenment” or Thou Salt Not Reproduce ethic were just his personal decision for not getting married and having kids, I would not object. But Mackler is preaching to others: “they shouldn’t have children” (my emphasis). Yes, Mackler places his bar to get the right to breed so high that he believes that the Enlightened one, presumably the reproductive guy, will have no need to dream! Obviously if every westerner followed Daniel’s advice, both Western Civilization and the white race would go extinct. If psychohistory got its facts right, Mackler’s little utopia would leave the world’s children in far greater danger of being abused in the surviving non-white, non-western cultures.

How can we understand Mackler’s extraordinary mind? In Toward Truth: A Psychological Guide to Enlightenment, whenever Mackler speaks of the abused child he refers to him as “he”, while the abusive parent is a “she”. This makes me read his text between the lines.

Using his real name, Mackler has confessed in his YouTube videos that the perpetrator in his life was his mother. Curious… Couldn’t his distribution of gender roles suggest that the fuss he made on poor Alice Miller (presumably because her occasional sexual fantasy, not acts, toward her offspring) be Mackler’s own projection? What exactly his mother did to him when he was younger? Alas, Mackler has stated that he won’t publish his four-volume autobiography during our lifespan, where he discusses what happened to him. He wrote:

I have made certain decisions regarding keeping most aspects of my personal life personal […], so it might come across as hypocritical for me to pick apart the personal lives of others, and I sometimes feel a guilt about this. With [Ellie] Van Winkle, though, she has been dead for over five years, so I feel that is acceptable. Also, I have no intention of leaving my personal story untold forever. I have actually written a huge amount of it down, in excruciating detail, both in ways that tells the truth about my traumatizers and also tells the truth about the ways—both very healthy and very unhealthy—that I reacted to it. But I can’t see publishing it anytime soon—my thought is that it’s decades and decades away. Perhaps after I and many others have died. I don’t know.

Mackler is wrong. Toward Truth does not “take Alice Miller to the next level” as it says on the cover. It’s just the opposite. Unlike Mackler, Miller shared a lot about her intimate life. Andreas Wirsén has noted that statements such as the above are a step backwards from Miller’s soul-searching legacy. Don’t take my word for it. The proof in the pudding: just read Mackler’s books and compare them with Miller’s and see what do I mean.

I wanted to write a review debunking Mackler the very year that my beloved Alice Miller died. My conclusion is that child studies do indeed need to take her findings to the next level. But what we need is a saner turn, like merging Miller’s findings with psychohistory. I’ve written a book on this very subject (see sample chapter here), but the subject goes far beyond our present review.

Note of March 12, 2012:

And now, thanks to our complains, the reviews have been restored.

Did Mackler censor reviews of his book? (1)

I have read the September 17, 2010 book-review in Amazon of the book by Mackler Toward Truth: A Psychological Guide to Enlightenment. The very title is imbued with the entrapments of the New Age. Below I quote part of the book-review I’ve just read in epistle form:

Hi Sylvie,

How are you? I finished reading the book and I agree with you to a great extent. By no means DM [Daniel Mackler] “takes Alice Miller to the next level” as it says on the cover and as he seems to see himself. There is nothing much new in this book that Alice Miller hasn’t already said, but in a much better, clearer and more convincing way. He has no real arguments to prove what he says and just repeats what he has read or heard elsewhere and adds some of his own personal points of view, which he has a right to of course, but which he shouldn’t present as general truths, for example his views on sex, relationships, abortion and having children or even keeping pets.

To me he seems a very frustrated person who has not overcome his own traumas as much as he thinks [my emphasis]. The whole book seems more like a personal diary, which may help him in his own personal quest to find himself, but I don’t find it very helpful for someone who is looking for a way out of his or her childhood trauma.

Before he works as a therapist or gives advice to others, he should get a lot of more things settled for himself, in my opinion. He touches a lot of general subjects and truths without getting deeper into any of them, unlike Alice Miller who concentrates on concrete cases and uses them to explain the general mechanism of how mistreatment affects the individual and the society.

Apart from that, I don’t really understand his criteria for enlightenment. Who defines when a person is fully, partially or not at all enlightened and thus has the right to have children for example? I think he generalizes far too much without giving convincing explanations for his opinions, which is ok, as long as it is just his opinion and not an expectation to others.

In general I don’t disagree with what he writes, because it’s obvious that his intentions are good and he wants to defend children. Maybe I wouldn’t go as far as you to call him abusive, I think it’s a question of definition, but I also found him confusing and not very precise, especially for people who read this book without knowing Alice Miller. I think he will rather confirm the negative options of people who reject or minimize the idea of the importance of childhood traumas than convince them. To me he seems to be a perfectionist and a puritan.

As to his language I found it simply horrible, hammering the same phrases over and over again into the reader’s mind, using anaphors (all the sentences starting with the same words) all the time (e.g., it comes as no surprise… if he is fortunate… he conceives… he imagines… etc.). This is the typical stylistic device used by a preacher or a politician who wants to convince his audience of something he has not completely understood himself, trying to give power to his words and to make up for the lack of genuine meaning. His style is demagogic, polemic and fanatic and he states a lot of common places and platitudes (something that he criticises in other writers). When I was reading the book, especially the first part, I visualized a fanatic man preaching to a big crowd. Besides I don’t like his distribution of gender roles, whenever he speaks of the abused child he refers to HIM as HE, while the abusive parent is always a SHE, the same when he speaks of the therapist: the (enlightened) therapist is always a HE while the patient is a SHE. I think this is just discriminating and sexist use of language, even if it is exchangeable, it’s quite significant.

[Paragraph unrelated to Mackler omitted. Note that Mackler himself has confessed in YouTube that his mother was the perpetrator in his childhood—cf. Wirsén’s point about post-Miller entrapments. Search for the phrase: “the author secretly smuggling out and reworking, often lying about and numbing, their abusive emotional childhood…”]

Back to DM I think his book is definitely not a great work of art, but whoever writes a book writes it from his or her own point of view, and it’s up to the readers what we make of it: if we like it or if we consider it worthwhile. Every attempt to make people aware of the connection between childhood dramas and the state of our world is good.

Conclusion: let’s write a better book, a more practical one that might really appeal to people who usually don’t read this kind of books.

Hope to hear from you soon.




Note of October 9, 2011:

The above review is gone! It looks like Mackler asked Amazon Books to censor this review from their site.

My own review was deleted from Amazon too, on the excuse that I quoted Mackler violating his copyright. Actually my review was removed twice! But then I re-submitted it without the quotations and, at least for the moment, this shorter version of my review can be read at Amazon.

Note of March 12, 2012:

And now, thanks to our complains, the reviews have been restored.

Ungrateful “followers” of Alice Miller

In memory of Alice Miller


Only thanks to you

Could I finally see
What was done to me

Below I translate today’s short obituary of a grateful follower of Alice Miller, the Spanish psychologist José Luis Cano-Gil. It contrasts dramatically with the ungrateful “followers” of Miller such as Daniel Mackler, whose website contains as to date no obituary about her decease.

Though this was expected from someone as egocentric as Mackler, something similar could be said of some ex friends of mine. They show no gratitude to Miller even after her decease. Unlike these ungrateful “sons” of Miller, here there are Cano-Gil’s touching words:

I just received an email with horrible news: Alice Miller IS DEAD. I am shocked. My mind is empty… The tears rise to my eyes… She is dead. Alice Miller. My spiritual mother. The spiritual mother of my work, my website, this blog… Of all of us.

Thank you, Mrs. Miller, for your tremendous courage and humanity… For your great wisdom, born—alas—from your own suffering… Thank you for the lighting guide, example and freedom experience you have given to all of us…

Admirable Alice Miller, courageous explorer of pain and truth, discoverer of routes beyond human shadows with our perpetual remembrance and gratitude: THANK YOU!

Rest, at last, in peace.

On Daniel Mackler

Daniel Mackler (click on the pic) is Jewish from his mother’s side, plays a guitar and used to practice psycho-therapy in New York. Amateurishly, he has also filmed an anti-psychiatric documentary.

An enlightened pal or a stupid man crush?

Dan Mackler used to be my best internet friend. Now I have distanced myself from him. In this post I will mention some of the reasons that moved me to part ways from Mackler and Dennis Rodie, another Alice Miller fan and critic.

In July 10, 2006 I received a wonderful email from an unknown person telling me that he loved my critical book-review of Peter Breggin’s Toxic Psychiatry in Amazon Books. The email made me feel immensely validated. More than two years earlier the “Breggin affair” had left me extremely upset and disappointed, as explained below.

In 2003 I submitted a paper for publication in the journal Ethical Human Sciences and Services, now renamed Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, Breggin’s journal. My paper debunked biological psychiatry from the perspective of non-falsifiable hypotheses. It also mentioned in passing the trauma model of mental disorders, including the work of pioneers Theodore Lidz, Silvano Arieti, Ronald Laing and, of course, the more emotionally mature work by Alice Miller. What a shock for me was to learn that Lawrence Simon, Breggin’s editor, would accept the paper only if I eliminated the section concerning the trauma model. I conceded to remove mention of the late researchers Lidz, Laing and Arieti. But even after submitting this modified version the editor demanded that I removed all reference to the trauma model, including Miller and other 21st century authors. I refused. Since Breggin had written favorably about Miller in Toxic Psychiatry, I could not believe my eyes: that his editor abhorred the trauma model as much as the medical model of mental disorders (the journal specializes in debunking biopsychiatry). Even more shocking was that, after complaining to Breggin himself through various emails and printed letters—I even sent one of them thru FedEx to make sure he would receive it—, he hided himself behind a wall of silence.

You can imagine how vindicated I must have felt when, out of the blue, I got that Daniel email telling me that he admired my courage in exposing this scandalous situation in my book-review of Breggin’s. When in July 2006 I learnt that this unknown person who just contacted me, Mackler, happened to be a big Miller fan, I felt that I had met a sort of ideological twin, even though we never met personally.

Alas, the illusion did not last long… In those early days Mackler was anxious that I commented on his online essay “An analysis of the limits of Alice Miller”. I read it, but since I didn’t want to place our online friendship on peril, I emailed him my critique to his critique in a most gentle way.

As weeks passed on I started to realize that Mackler was not exactly the ideological soulmate I believed him to be. What by then I didn’t tell him is that after reading his Miller essay I felt uncomfortable. It seemed unfair that he wrote of how Miller presumably treated her son and daughter long before Miller reached her present state of maturity. It just didn’t seem right to focus on purported character flaws instead of the positive aspects of a living person who, with Lloyd deMause, are the discoverers of profound psychology. As I said, I repressed this feeling in order to maintain the online friendship. After some minor quibbles in Mackler’s forum I still thought that Mackler—who once advised a poster never to have sex with her partner!—could be a best friend. He actually signed all his very warm emails with the phrase “Your friend, Daniel.”

Mackler fancying himself the Enlightened Buddha. (In his forum Mackler acknowledged about becoming Enlightened: “This is about my favorite subject, more precious to me than all the others, really.”)

Then it came out our dispute about the Muslim world in one of the threads. For all Miller’s and deMause’s readers this ought to be a no-brainer; and I am appalled by the fact that, with the exception of psychohistorian Robert Godwin, both Miller’s and deMause’s fans are willfully ignorant of it. Here I cannot discuss the work of Bruce Bawer, Robert Spencer, Oriana Fallaci and others. Suffice it to say that current demographics of native Europeans are placing in great danger the child advocates’ cause and what deMause calls “helping mode” families. This is because, like Mackler himself, many helping parents are refusing to have kids in the Western world. To boot, the European Muslims are breeding profusely, and they crave to impose Sharia Law in their adopted countries once they reach numerical majority. Take a look at the grim stats in Mark Steyn’s America Alone. As stipulated in the Koran, Sharia law means treating women and children as they are being treated in theocratic nations such as Saudi Arabia or Iran. Besides Steyn’s, Bawer’s While Europe Slept is must reading to see my point. Bawer, a gay author who escaped the U.S. and fundamentalist Christianity only found far, far more abuse on women, children and homosexuals in Muslim enclaves, thereby demonstrating the reality of what deMause calls “psychoclasses”: some cultures are still more pathological than our culture.

The importance of this subject is paramount. But in his forum Mackler never got it, and in one of his web essays Mackler even blamed, to a certain extent, his country for the 9/11 Islamic attacks on New York. “How was it possible that I, who am not an American, felt more outraged about it than this New Yorker?”, I thought. But in the forum this “helping mode” man who refuses to have even a single kid thought I was some sort of islamophobic bigot. “Why pick on Muslims?” I was told, as if being concerned about how Islam treats women and children was an irrational phobia. I thought that after replying to his criticism by posting statistics of genital mutilation of millions of pubescent girls in the Muslim world, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, Dan would have second thoughts. But he continued to be soft on such practices.

By then I had posted in another threads of Mackler’s forum that I felt hate about the barbarous childrearing practices in ancient Tibet. It struck me that, although Dan said favorable things about my passion, he never shared an iota of my hate toward the perpetrators. Gradually, but unmistakably, every new thread and discussion in Dan’s forum revealed the gulf between two very distinct frames of mind. Dan is such a gentleman that it may be worth mentioning that Dennis Rodie complains that Mackler refuses to confront abusive parents in his therapy office.

Then it came the issue that I am a “total autobiographer” who has devoted his adult life writing about the pains that my parents inflicted on me and how, thanks to my enlightened witness Alice Miller I could heal the wounds. (Dan’s writings on the other hand could never be “witness” since, unlike Miller, he does not share his gut feelings about his parents.) In my writing I expose my brother’s vile negation of the abuse, and I sent emails of my exposé to my other siblings and some of my first-hand cousins. In his personal communications Mackler seemed to praise my courage somehow, but in his forum he labeled my autobiographical passion as “acting out.” How can a healthy speaking out be an unhealthy acting out, he did not explain. Moreover, Mackler seemed to contradict himself regarding the pivotal point in his essay on Miller. I am referring to his remarks on a phrase by Miller in the 1997 edition of The Drama of the Gifted Child where she called “hubris” further exploration of the self through autobiographical writing. Ironically, despite that phrase Miller has revealed infinitely much more about her tormented soul than Dan. This contradiction turned out to be the tip of the iceberg of a massive difference between Mackler and me. If Miller has taught us something it is that pure intellectual dissertation only represses the wounds we received as children. It goes without saying that every “enlightened” Miller fan, to use Dan’s pet word, speaks out publicly about his or her parents. But Dan Mackler never published specific anecdotes about his parents; and he has not explained us why.

At first I speculated in my silent self-conversations that he might depend economically from his parents. Did they pay Danny’s therapy office? I really don’t know. And how could I? Dan didn’t tell anybody anything really relevant about himself. He kept to himself to such extent that he even was reluctant to give his friend Rodie his New York address when Rodie self-published Dan’s essay on Miller (the former complained to me that he could not even forward copies of the book to Dan, the real author!). When several posters of his forum started to speak frankly about their sexual preferences, Dan did not say a peep about himself. We surmised he was gay only when he lost his temper after a provocative post of mine about “ugly males” kissing each other on the streets. The point is that, had I known that Dan was probably gay I wouldn’t have become so provocative.

To be honest I don’t know for sure if Dan is gay because he simply won’t tell. And why would Dan, like so many religionists, recommend celibacy as the way to spiritual “enlightenment”? What could have happened in his past sexual life to reach such extreme view? Also, why did he take issue with Miller because of her atheism and anti-therapy stance in a 2000 Amazon book review? Nobody knows. But the fact is that besides sex Mackler keeps most of his life to himself, especially what happened in his early youth. This strikes me not only as a contradiction for someone who picks on Miller for not exploring herself further through autobiographical writing, but a literary regression when compared to her. By definition, those who shy away from public confessions cannot be as integrated psychologically as they could if they dared to tell it all.

Why? In a long post a young Swede, Andreas Wirsén, explained it beautifully. He took issue with both Mackler and Rodie on this subject and I cannot match his words (see an edited version of Wirsen’s essay here).


I could easily expand this post to become as long as Mackler’s character-assassination essay on Miller. But I don’t have the time nor the motivation to do it. Presently I only want to find an editor for my book about a subject that is the most potent taboo in our society. Far much safer it’s to publish mere academic papers as Mackler did this very year with his psychology colleagues (books mentioned in Mackler’s website).

Since Mackler closed down his forum last month, perhaps out of his inner drive to censor all criticism about him, this article might fill a void. Though not overtly, Mackler and Rodie reject de facto psychohistory. These guys are not siding the child in a truly integrated way. They are actually siding the parents of the Third World and primitive cultures.

As I said, Rodie self-published Dan’s essay. He did it under the title Alice Miller: Discoveries and Contradictions, copyrighted in 2008 by Mackler with an ISBN (Stenungsund, Sweden: Annosidus Independent Press). In the preface of the book Rodie wrote:

“An Analysis of The Limits of Alice Miller” by Daniel Mackler is the first serious critique I’ve read on her. I admire Daniel’s courage to have written down the contradictions and shortcomings in her writings, without ever leaving the side of the child… Maybe in the future someone else will write “An Analysis of The Limits of Daniel Mackler”. That would be great.

Well my friend, I’ve just done that. And by not accepting psychohistory you guys have inadvertently left the side of the child. Everything Dan says in his terrible essay on Miller is irrelevant if compared to what millions of parents are doing in Third World countries, such as the one in which I was born.

Postscript of December 1, 2009:
A Prophet for a dying planet or an evil guru?

(revised in 2010):

A drawing that strongly reminds me the drawings of Silvano Arieti’s patients in the book Interpretation of Schizophrenia (note Dan’s name in it).

It’s about a year since I exchanged the last couple of e-mails with Mackler. In my soliloquies I have told myself hundreds of times how on Earth could I had taken someone like Mackler seriously. The guy is really singing songs from a locked ward. Just one example: During the present demographic Winter for the westerners in general and Caucasians in particular, homosexual Mackler recommends his hetero friends and acquaintances to have zero kids. That is: no more population replacement, only self-extinction, for the white people (i.e., the less abusive psycho-class in the entire world).

This Mackler stance is, of course, not only psycho. It is pure evil as explained by Scott Peck’s definition of evil.

If antinatalist ideologues like Mackler get their way in the next decades Europe will become Eurabia, conquered by the hordes of Muslims who are migrating into our soil. This means that child abuse will be infinitely worse in the future than in the present. It also means that Mackler, who fancies himself as “a Prophet for a dying planet” is part of the problem of child abuse, not part of its solution. Fortunately, Danny Mackler’s influence on society is about zilch.


Originally published at Blogspot.