Daniel Mackler -- Book Review

Hi Petra,
Thank you for your detail review of Daniel Mackler’s book. I really liked it and I enjoyed reading very much.  It is brilliant! You brought to my attention certain points that I had missed, like his gender roles discrimination.

Petra:“By no means DM "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.”

Sylvie: Completely agree. I too disliked so much his views on sex, relationships, abortion, having children and keeping pets, even though a lot of people unconsciously and compulsively  recreate their childhood drama with their pets and cause much unnecessary suffering to the animals, just like they do to their children, but doing it with children affects the whole society and keeps the vicious circle going. He says having an abortion is murder and mutilates our soul, I see it the other way around: carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth to a new being that I am not able to take care of and protect, THAT, would be mutilating my soul and would be soul murdering, and would have robbed me the chance at freedom and I talk from experience, knowledge is experience, everything else is just information and experience has taught me that most information out there is misleading information and lies. I know without a doubt if I had carry a pregnancy to term when I was not ready, my soul would have been mutilated and would have been soul murder by bringing a new being into an abusive vicious circle and my soul would not have become whole and free like it is today, and I was able to liberate a soul instead of contributing two more mutilated lost and confused souls into this world and continue the painful vicious circle. Some people see a fertilized egg (Zygotes) as a person, but that is not reality. The reality is a fertilized egg is nothing but a fertilized egg (Zygotes).  Pro-lifers fight so hard for the un-born beings because unconsciously they want an endless supply of innocent powerless beings to use, exploit and project their disowned parts. Carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth to new being we are not ready to nurture, take care of and protect, THAT, is soul murdering and contributes to the destruction of the world, Just as Alice Miller says: “It is, in fact, not surprising to find that those who are both victims and apologist for the use of violence and severity against children are often those who most passionately proclaim their love of the unborn child, i.e., the kernel of life.  Abortion can, indeed, be seen as the most powerful symbol of the psychic annihilation and mutilation practiced since time immemorial on children.  But to combat this evil merely at the symbolic level deflects us from the reality we should not evade for a moment longer:  the reality of the abused and humiliated child, which, as a result of its disavowed and unresolved injuries, will insidiously become, either openly or aided by hypocrisy, a danger to society. It is above all the children already born that have a right to life - a right to coexistence with adults in a world in which, with or without the help of the church, violence against children has been unequivocally outlawed.  Until such legislation exists, talk of “the right to life” remains not only a mockery of humanity but a contribution to its destruction.”
http://www.sylvieshene.com/articles-protecting_life_after_birth.htm

Petra: “To me he seems a very frustrated person who has not overcome his own traumas as much as he thinks. 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.”

  Sylvie: Completely agree.

Petra: “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.”

Sylvie: Completely agree, I could not have articulated better myself. These are the same problems with many people calling themselves “experts” but in fact are just causing harm to the general public by creating a smoke screen and keeping people in the dark. They pass their psychological virus into others under the disguise of help vey silently and covertly, which will be very hard for emotionally blind people to detect and become aware of. These people are very dangerous, because they keep themselves and society stuck in the vicious circle. I call people like this parrots with very good memories and articulate repeating words they heard else where, but they have not fully understood and are disconnected from their own personal truths.

Petra: “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.”

Sylvie:  I agree, he says that a very disassociated person can mimic an enlightened person, to me it’s so easy to distinguish between the two; a very disassociated person can only fool himself and others that are still very emotionally blind.  He also says that an enlightened person can be mistaken or confused with a person from the far right, what a bunch of BS. An enlightened person can never be confused with a person from the far right, because an enlightened person no longer uses crutches like dogma, morality, religion, spirituality, ideologies and theories to hide behind, so he/she does not have to face and feel his painful truths. I have not met one single person from the far right that does not use one of these crutches.


Petra: “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.”

Sylvie: Having good intentions means nothing to me, the path to hell is full of good intentions, my older sisters had very good intentions, but they caused me much pain and unnecessary suffering for many, many years under the disguise of wanting to protect me.  A lot of people and parents out there proclaiming to have the best interests of the children at heart and with their best intentions unconsciously and very deceptively they continue the painful abusive circle. Anyone still vulnerable that goes to him for help will be emotionally abused all over again under the mask of help, he is silently and covertly passing the psychological virus or lies his parents passed on to him, but now these lies are coated with abstract knowledge, disconnected truths he has taken from Alice Miller  and others and with these lies coated with bits of truths serving as hooks to allure people to him, much like cult leaders do. I find people like that very dangerous and abusive that exploits emotionally blind people and they only contribute to creating more confusion and keeping people in the state of confusion and trapped.  Did you read Alice Miller’s comment about DM, she call him MR X
http://www.alice-miller.com/readersmail_en.php?lang=en&nid=1037
I too don’t like to mention his name because that is giving him publicity he does not deserve, because consciously or unconsciously only he wants to do is create confusion.

Petra: “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.”

Sylvie: Totally agree, while I was reading his book, it reminded me of my older sisters that were perfectionist and puritans.

petra: “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 ( p.e.: 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.”

Sylvie:  I completely agree with everything you say here, I would not be surprised if one of his parents is a preacher, children that are preached to, learn to preach, I mentioned it in one of my comments on the book discussion and when DM read my comments, he did not deny it, so provably was true otherwise he would have deny it.

I had to look up the definition of the word “Demagogic” the dictionary definition is: “making an appeal to people's emotions, instincts, and prejudices in a way that is considered to be politically manipulative and dangerous” So true and this is why he can be abusive to a person that still is emotionally blind and vulnerable.  This is what cult leaders do also.

Petra: “To his defense I must say, that I liked what he says about the environment that favours the way to enlightenment, living a  simple life in a healthy environment helps a lot to focus on the essentials without being distracted by consumerism and superflous things as I am lucky enough to know from my own experience.”

Sylvie: I too also know from experience that a simple life favors the way to enlightenment, I intuitively knew that material goods would not be a long term solutions to the painful feelings I was feeling and I needed to explore and find out the real causes of my pain and I did not distracted myself with consumerism and superfluous things, but unfortunately some people are not as fortunate to find a true enlightened witness  to help them understand the roots of their painful feelings or lack courage to face and feel  their painful truth and they distract themselves with all kind of things or become addictive to all kind of things and it seems DM is running, distracting himself from facing and feeling his repressed painful feelings  by becoming fanatic or addicted to spirituality, morality and his own ideologies. 

Petra:  “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.”

Sylvie: Yes, is up to the reader to decide if the book is worthwhile and I definitely  have made the decision that is not a worthwhile book and I have the responsibility to warn people that might still emotionally blind of all the red flags and dangers I see in it, When I was still emotionally blind I wished I had someone warming and explaining to me of the dangers of some people’s  Ideologies and theories, and how illusory they can be, but I had to go by touch for many, many years and sometimes I got really burned by people that are very articulate and say very convincing and seductive pretty lies  coated with a little bits of truth that ring like authentic truths, it would have prevented me unnecessary suffering for so many years.  Yes every attempt to make people aware of the connection between childhood dramas and the state of our world is good, but if a person is not genuine, all it does is reenacting the illusions we lived with as a children,  he has not faced and felt his own repression, but instead turns around and unconsciously passes the same lies passed on to him into others, but now coated with abstract knowledge or  bits of disconnected truths under the disguise of help and that only makes him another emotional abuser, preacher, phony and a hypocrite person trying to manipulate people.
We both see and feel things very similar, I just might be more blunt and direct and you are more sophisticated and a diplomat, maybe the difference is because I am self educated with only six grade education that drop out of school in the seven grade and you have a formal education from an University, and like the French say: vive la difference! Maybe together we can help balance each other out.
Again thank you for your time and thoughts.
Love, Sylvie

Hi Sylvie,

How are you? I finished reading the book and I agree with you to a great extent. By no means DM "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. 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 ( p.e.: 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.

To his defense I must say, that I liked what he says about the environment that favours the way to enlightenment, living a  simple life in a healthy environment helps a lot to focus on the essentials without being distracted by consumerism and superflous things as I am lucky enough to know from my own experience. I'm in the fortunate situation to live in such an environment (because I chose to, I'll tell you about myself in another mail, it would lead too far here and now), in a very small village of only 30 inhabitants, the nearest bigger village has about 2,500 and is 10 km away. That's where I work and where you can get everything you need to live a comfortable life but without the excess of consumerism of a bigger town or city. I personally don't need much but I do appreciate some of the commodities of modern life like household machines that help you have more time for more pleasant things or the internet for example, because if you can handle it in a reasonable way it's a great way to exchange ideas with people you had never met otherwise. I love the simple life, but I'm not one of those "alternative" people whose aim it is to live self-sufficiently working as slaves in their vegetable gardens in order not to starve.

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 Love, Petra

 

by Schiavonne: I know who you two are talking about. (I'll call him Mr. Mackler.) While Mr. Mackler does have good intentions, he does come off as a bit of a zealot. Even I got a little sucked in by his messages.

"Besides I don't like hi...s 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." (In this passage he probably is unconsciously depicting his own childhood and reversing the role to blind other victims.)

Since I have been a bit confused by what he says, this is a sign that I need to do some more emotional work. I have to admit that I sometimes get carried away by some ideologies, but thankfully they're short-lived. He seems kind of arrogant, too, the way he preaches and all. (At least I'm honest about my tendency to be misled sometimes and not like him who thinks he's perfect or something.)

I also find it weird that he seems to praise Ms. Miller, yet he bashes her, too. How can you admire and harshly criticize a person? You and XX are correct that he needs to do some more emotional work before he blind people with his illusions.

Posted by Schiavonne on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 7:14 AM

Sylvie Imelda Shene: “Since I have been a bit confused by what he says, this is a sign that I need to do some more emotional work. I have to admit that I sometimes get carried away by some ideologies, but thankfully they're short-lived. He seems kind of arrog...ant, too, the way he preaches and all. (At least I'm honest about my tendency to be misled sometimes and not like him who thinks he's perfect or something.)”

I too still sometimes get confused by what some so called “experts” say, but like you not for long.

“I also find it weird that he seems to praise Ms. Miller, yet he bashes her, too. How can you admire and harshly criticize a person? "

He praises Alice Miller and then bashes her, because he is trying to make a name for himself by stepping on her. I find it very disturbing.

Posted by sylvieshene.com on Friday, October 08, 2010 - 1:07 PM

Raymond Lambert: Thank you Sylvie and XX for your comments. I think they will do for a LIFE-TIME and maybe we can let him drift into obscure neighbourhoods where I will not venture or stray.