Those who stayed behind

November 10, 2011


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).


On Daniel Mackler

January 7, 2009

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.

A woman scolds Mackler

April 13, 2008

As will be shown in further entries, Daniel Mackler likes to censor criticism about him. In April 13, 2008 a woman, “Mimsy,” entered Mackler’s forum and took issue with Mackler’s essay “An Analysis of the Limits of Alice Miller.” Due to the fact that the same year Mackler closed his forum, I believe that Mimsy’s response to Mackler’s attack on Miller is worth reproducing here. Mimsy wrote:

New poster here.

Reading through I wanted to add some ideas that I didn’t see in other comments.

I mainly want to say that I think it’s totally reasonable of Alice Miller to be unresponsive to your [Daniel Mackler’s] essay and even dismissive.

Here is a woman who has spent much of her life swimming upstream, going against the flow, fighting against the going paradigm. Simultaneously, she is trying to heal her own wounds; she must feel awfully vulnerable much of the time. So here she is trying to stand up to constant criticism while at the same time carrying around all these unhealed wounds.

And here you come along and attack her, yet again. It’s true that you also say how much you have learned from her, how influential she has been for you. But your primary purpose with the essay seems to be to harp on how she’s NOT PERFECT.

Sorry for the all caps shouting, but I want to make a point that by writing your essay with this accusatory tone, you are practicing exactly the same sort of critical, judgmental behavior that you say is so damaging. Somehow you expect this wounded, damaged soul, Alice Miller, to be immune to your criticism; for her not to be sensitive to your attacks.

In my experience, people go deaf when they feel attacked. They don’t respond with an open-minded desire to learn. I imagine, given her life history and the fact that her theories are probably subject to constant criticism—at the same time that they are also praised by many—, she’s sensitive. Who wouldn’t be?

If I were you, I’d go back and try to read your essay with a mind to how it might feel to be Alice Miller and read your words.

Given the feelings that your essay might invoke in her, imagine her trying to remain detached and un-triggered by old wounds. No matter how successful you might be in remaining detached when people make comments, this doesn’t mean she should be able to be equally detached. She’s under constant fire, from all sides; she’s getting old, and probably worn out from the battle. Despite all her efforts, and all her insights, she hasn’t been able to truly get the healing she needs. She’s also a woman in a field where most of the heavy hitters have been men. Getting recognition and not being heard as “shrill” is a battle women have to face on top of everything else.

And you might think here about the fine line between detachment and dissociation, which you’ve mentioned elsewhere on other topics. I think there might be a little bit of a disconnect inside you about your ability to remain “dispassionate” and take on criticism, and recognizing that others (such as Alice Miller) may be still so painfully connected to the old wounds that they cannot be dispassionate.

Can you cut her some slack? Not be so hard on her? She’s done amazing things. No one is perfect. Life is a series of course corrections.

And perhaps you might even consider what parts of your own unhealed wounds you are projecting onto her in your demands for perfection. Are you insisting that she be the perfect mother you never had? I would perhaps question your motives in writing your essay as a “critique,” rather than simply saying “Here’s what I learned from Alice Miller’s amazing work. And here are some ways that I think maybe we could go even further.”

Can you imagine writing what you did, extending her theories, going beyond where she went without attacking her in the process? If you were able to do this, I think she would feel validated, appreciated. You would be building on what she did do, what she did accomplish, rather than focusing on the areas where she was human and failed to be perfect.

If you choose to re-read your essay with an eye toward greater compassion toward Alice Miller, you might notice that using “Limits” in the title started off on the wrong foot to get her to listen to you with an open mind. You might do some word counts to see how often you use language that most people would perceive as critical if they were on the receiving end. Try to put yourself in her shoes.

And I realize you didn’t write the essay as a direct letter to her, and maybe never thought about whether she’d ever read it. You were processing your own needs, which is cool.

I think it’d be an interesting, and revealing, exercise for you to try to say what you think about her in a non-judgmental way.


(After I congratulated her for her courage
in the forum she responded:)

Hi Cesar,

I just find it maddening that out of all the millions and billions of authors out there who write about “problem children” and ADD and ADHD and labeling this and that and blaming children for behaviors that are clearly results of how they were treated by their parents… out of all these screaming, howling voices blaming the least powerful people in the world for their own misery… one voice goes against the tide and says, “No. You’re wrong. The children are not to blame; it’s the parents who are at fault.” Finally, one lone voice in the wilderness, against the eons of shaming and humiliation! And not only does she speak out, but she manages to make herself heard! And have some influence! Hallelujah! And so I look around for people who are trying to put some of Alice Miller’s ideas to work, and I google around, and lo and behold, here’s a website that appears to be all about Alice Miller and her principles. Cool!

And then what do I see? Criticism. The same shit (forgive me) that poisoned our childhoods that we’re all struggling so mightily to overcome, is being used against the very woman who has tried so hard to raise our awareness on the subject in the first place.

Gah! It makes me want to tear my hair out at the injustice of it. And your analogy of Newton [Newton’s genius despite his character flaws] is good, that’s a useful way to think of it.

Anyway, I don’t want to be all ranty. I just have been reading a lot of blogs in the last year or so (had never really known about them before that) and am getting really, really tired of the whole idea that criticism is necessary and a good thing.

And of course this is my own personal soapbox because criticism is my very own personal pet demon that tortures me every minute of my damn life. So I have strong feelings about it, which others may not share.


(On April 23 of the same year another
woman replied in Mackler’s forum:)

Cesar wrote: “I totally lost interest to defend Dennis’ book from being removed in the Wikipedia article because I changed my mind.”

Daniel Mackler and Dennis Rodie have really got it in for Alice Miller—like a couple of baying hounds snapping at her heels—but your position is ambiguous, Cesar. I think you would be wise to distance yourself from the fruitcakes unequivocally.


(I responded [edited]):

Hi Danielle,

My position was indeed ambiguous in the past, but not in the present. What I said above is true: in my book Whispering Leaves, which I’d like to publish in Spain, there’s no critique of Alice Miller. She and deMause are my two intellectual and emotional guides. But I do criticize deMause for reasons that I already explained in Dennis’ forum ad nauseam, and in the Wikipedia talk page (Satanic Ritual Abuse and other deMausean lunacies, like believing in 9/11 conspiracy theories).

In the past I desperately needed communication with people on many subjects. You can see that I almost have 400 posts in this forum. Alas, one of the terrible realities I have come up in life is that you cannot compel anyone to make a jump to a superior psychoclass.

Most people are totally stagnated in their psychoclasses: be it an almost psychotic one, a neurotic, a cultish or living with blind spots due to cognitive resistances—like those child advocates who don’t want to look into the sane side of deMause’s data because they are postmodern cultural relativists. For Dan and Dennis child abuse in the Third World, like bringing here millions of homeless kids, is a subject they will never see with due guts; I mean, by taking tough political action. At the bottom line they are de facto siding Third World parents and they will continue to do so until they die.

It is not that I’ll distance myself from Dan and Dennis but that, using a metaphor I’ve used before in this forum, we as “amphibians” have reached the shore thanks to the leading efforts of the first mutant, Miller (psychogenically, most humans are still navigating their passage in the Ocean). Unfortunately, most Miller readers stay near the beach and are afraid to explore the inland (psychohistory).

So I don’t plan to distance myself from them. We are already distanced by space: I left the shore when I learnt about psychohistory back in 2006. They will remain there until they die. Here, way above inland, I shall deal only with those who have the nerve to reach this stage.

Note of 2 November 2011:

Daniel Mackler never responded to Mimsy, Danielle or me. And that was my last post in his forum.

Wirsén on Miller’s fans

December 18, 2007

Note of 2018: This post has been slightly edited:

That the author is secretly smuggling out and reworking, often lying about and numbing, their abusive emotional childhood is something Alice Miller tends to imply when dealing with works of art: a mode of thinking we as her readers easily slip into, isn’t it? That Kafka’s work is basically explainable as an artistic dramatization of a child’s insecurity about his parents’ true agenda, that the vampiric women of Baudelaire’s poems are in fact his emotionally unavailable and seductive mother… —this is still the only opening to Baudelaire’s work I can stand, the only way in which I can read his work with interest.

In this way, artistic work after Alice Miller demands a new openness and consciousness in the producer. We can’t only chew and chew the unworked-through emotions from our childhood and find creative ways of repackaging them, then call it Art. It’s a new game now. All bets are off… Which brings us to the subject of this post: C.T.’s criticism of Dennis Rodie’s novel The Curse of the Third Rate Artist. Discussing this opens the larger subject of the differences in worldview and even temperament between the two writers.

First I must clarify that I think César is a very promising and interesting writer who in his work is attempting to take on very large themes, which are important to me also. As mentioned briefly above, I believe artists working after Alice Miller have a new responsibility to be conscious. To this, I will add the meta-perspective on history developed by Lloyd deMause, which says that the whole of human history, in particular its destructive aspects, is based on childhood abuse.

“The history of childhood is a nightmare from which we have only recently begun to awaken…” begins his most important work. Miller says as much, but not as systematically and not as clearly as to the development that has, despite everything, taken place. Put in this perspective, the emotional abuses and the stressful life situation that Martin Maag, the narrator of Dennis’ novel, was put through was just as destructive as it was, but less destructive and less producing of the kind of howling-at-the-moon stressful psychosis and magical thinking that the childrearing of the European Middle Ages produced.

The criticism of your novel which César wrote in the context of polemics around the subject of Satanic Ritual Abuse elsewhere in this forum must be read in this context. Dennis Rodie’s novel does not have the same meta-perspective as C.T.’s has, something which Mr. Tort from his perspective must see as weaknesses. Since I, myself, am interested in the approach to writing and the expansion of consciousness of which his writing is the physical trace, created for communication that C.T. is developing, I share in part his criticism. Let me, to make writing this post quicker and easier, quote the relevant part from a review-letter I wrote recently to Dennis Rodie after having read his novel The Curse of the Third Rate Artist.

[Note of the Ed.: Wirsén’s review of Dennis’ unpublished novel, a novel that by the way I printed and leather-bounded for my personal library, can be read in Dennis’ own forum. Daniel Mackler✡ on the other hand never shared his huge autobiography with anyone.]

Allow me to get personal for a while. For what I intend, and for the kind of writing I myself aim to produce, a perspective the world needs, I think César is a pioneer developing a new sport. His successes are mine, and even his failures will be valuable lessons. The way he dares to be expressively angry is inspiring to me, though for my own part I am unsure of the outcome. Perhaps by temperament (which can’t be helped), perhaps by lack of courage (which, if true, must be conquered) I cannot be that clear about my anger. On the other hand not anger, but sensitivity, seems to be the guiding star of Dennis Rodie’s novel. For me, the jury is still out and César’s, as well as Dennis’ future developments as a human being and an artist will give me the information I need as to whether this is the road I want to pursue.

César’s five-book work Hojas Susurrantes expands from angry letter to mother, through anti-psychiatric tractate to brutally honest (so I’m told, have not taken it on yet) autobiography, over to family history, to the chronicle of the bloody past of his nation into an assessment of the human race and where we are now, which is an expansion in a new direction of deMausian thought: the quick eradication of those who abuse and hurt children, thus stopping humanity from evolving into the best we can be. How César brings this off in his last book will be very exciting indeed to take part off. That much I know. Whether or not and to what degree I will agree is another of those questions where the jury is still out. On the negative part, he might be steering dangerously close to a new motivation for genocide, a new ideological twist on the old Nazi game.

Daniel Mackler, in his writing, seems to imply that there is a lack of what he calls “enlightenment” in C.T.’s exposing of his emotional life and his family’s. That this is unhealthy exhibitionism, and an unfortunate development of a tortured soul, rather than the pearl the clam produces because a grain of sand is torturing, cutting and carving at, its vulnerable pink flesh. To stop the hurt.

I lean toward César’s side in this conflict. I, myself, have ambitions as a major writer and find that, after assimilating the thinking of Alice Miller, works of art that are not intensely personal and honest to be unrewarding. Is Mackler suggesting that we keep our stories to ourselves and sit around healed in a lonely buddhistic state, when instead we could let our stories go out and make changes in the consciousnesses of the real world? As I said, I lean toward Tort’s interpretation, but as always the jury is still out. And I believe even Mackler can’t avoid looking at Tort’s work, like he has before with the psychological case studies or autobiographies—the motivation for writing which he finds emotionally doubtful—; can’t avoid looking at them as at a beautiful car crash, provided as entertainment for the Buddha from others’ flesh and blood. The Buddha floats around in the suffering of the world with a distanced face.

Everything I have written above must be read in the perspective that I found reading the writings of Daniel Mackler, C.T. and Dennis Rodie as a revelation and breathing with the life of a new integrated consciousness, pulsating with a true emotionality, which I have before found in the work of Alice Miller and Lloyd deMause and to which, once I’d tasted it, nothing else compares. This is the reason I care strongly enough about them to read and reflect on them, as well as writing this text.