Daniel Mackler and Barbara Rogers came up in a very interesting conversation

Petra: Sylvie, I don't know if you already know this, but it's the translation of an interview that Martin Miller gave to the German magazine Der Spiegel

Sylvie: Yes, I read it... the issues between him and his mother are understandable, because his mother had not made her discoveries until he was an adult, so he was affected by his own childhood like the rest of us, but that does not take away from the discoveries Alice made later on and the great books she left for us to help us resolve our own repression. If you have read all of her books, you will see that she shares her pain of not being able to be there for her son when he was little, and she apologizes to him. Hopefully, one day he can resolve his own repression and be free, if he has not already.

I think he did a good job on the preface to his mother’s French edition book “L’essentiel d’Alice Miller,” but I still felt a little bit of residue left of unresolved feelings between him and his mother. Still, his unresolved feelings are between him and his mother and have nothing to do with us, but between them, our issues are with our own parents. 

Alice has never hurt us in any way. Still, Daniel Mackler and others like him are hurting the public by creating a smokescreen to hide the truth and facts from themselves and others, like Sigmund Freud did with their crazy theories to protect parents and hide behind, so they did not have to face and feel their own painful truths. 

Daniel Mackler and others like him work very hard to suppress Alice Miller's books from reaching more people because they are afraid of being exposed by her books. 

It makes me sad to see people exploiting Alice and her son and doing personal attacks towards Alice, making her their scapegoat for the wrongs done to them by their own parents. 

Our issues are with our parents, not with Alice. Alice was a human being like the rest of us and made mistakes in her personal life, as we all have, but she was an honest and sincere woman who focused on facts. Have you read the Preface to the Revised Edition of 1997 of the Book “Breaking Down the Wall of Silence”

P: No, I hadn't read that. Thanks a lot for sharing it.

Sylvie: From this preface, Daniel Mackler takes Alice Miller's words out of context and twists them to attack her in his critique of her work; he is a total psychopath. His limitations are so much bigger than Alice Miller’s, and I don’t think in his lifetime he will ever come close to the depths of Alice Miller. 

Alice Miller's behavior was not abusive towards her daughter. But I think Daniel was being extremely abusive to Alice Miller with his character assassination of her. Her daughter was not just a gift to Alice Miller for being the catalyst of her awakening, but a gift to all of us as well, because without her daughter, she probably would never have written her books in the way she did. I would still be living in isolation or dead. I don’t think I could have lived with my feelings and perceptions all alone much longer without her books, and for that, I am very grateful that her daughter was born. 

Alice Miller has been the most heroic pioneer person in our world, who stood for truth and facts, exposing the lies and hypocrisy of society; of course, she was human and made mistakes like the rest of us, but she was always honest, authentic, genuine and when she noticed a mistake of hers she was honest and sincere and she only deserves our compassion, understanding, gratitude and not our judgments, projections, and transferences; this guy is a perfectionist that lives in denial of his imperfections and limitations; projecting himself into Alice Miller and if someone is abusive is him. Enjoying a child’s affection and innocence is not abusive at all, unless we take advantage of those qualities for our own cruel and selfish reasons, and Alice Miller was far from being cruel and selfish in any way.

P: I completely share your views on Alice, she was not perfect of course, like the rest of us, and never pretended to be, simply because she was human and that is what makes her so credible and authentic to me, unlike those critics who are looking for flaws to prove her wrong and attack her...above all of them DM with his stupid perfectionism ....luckily he himself has been faithful to his own theory and does not have any children...I would feel really sorry for them!!!! I just listened to the 2nd part of his video criticizing Alice... easily summed up: BS...Alice always pointed out that she did not want to be considered an idol or a guru... if people do that, it's their problem, not hers...

Sylvie: Exactly! I could not have said it better myself. For that, Barbara Rogers, if she is "lost in a fog of admiration," is not Alice's fault that she lost herself admiring Alice Miller. Still, the reality is, she did not lose herself because she has never found herself. Once we truly see ourselves, we can never lose ourselves again. The little girl she once was was still lost in the fog of admiration with her own mother, now transferred into a substitute figure, Alice Miller. 

It’s her problem if she is still a lost little girl and loses herself in admiration over others, she is another malignant narcissist that has memorized good knowledge hijacked from Alice, but has not experienced it at a personal level and now is trying to cast herself in the role of parent figure over others and misuses this good knowledge to manipulate and use others to distract herself, so she does not have to face and feel the repressed excruciating emotions of the child she once was; reenacting her childhood drama all over again with the people she is trying to help, but now she playing the role of her mother and the people she is trying to help, playing the role of the child she and they once were and they all remain lost in a maze with no way out, staying prisoners of childhood for eternity.

Me too; I would feel sorry for DM’s children if he had any. Still, maybe if he had his own children to use as his scapegoat or poisonous container, he would not need to make Alice and others his scapegoat or poisonous container, like Hitler, if he had his own children to use as his scapegoat, maybe he would not have to take it out on the Jews and other minority groups making them his scapegoat for the wrongs done to him by his own father.

P: Yes...that's true.

Comments I made in the book discussion of Daniel Mackler
Sylvie: Even though I agree with everything said in this excerpt. I just started reading the book and find his choice of words to be highly confusing, even abusive, and I can’t recommend this book. Alice Miller is the only person I encounter on this planet with whom I agree 100%. The words below written by Alice Miller to me, when I asked her to comment on letters I received from one of her readers, came to mind: “AM: I have learned over the years of my work on the internet that there are readers who SEEM to understand SOME of what I have written, at least intellectually, but they are still so afraid of their very cruel parents and of their repressed FEELINGS of rage towards them that they are constantly looking for scapegoats. 
They thus live in continual confusion, pretending that they are healed and even offering help and empathy to others. But eventually, they unconsciously use other people (even the ones who are quite friendly to them) as poisonous containers, as their parents did to them. If the offended people begin to defend themselves, they can become very mean. I can only urge you to trust your feelings and NOT to offer your empathy and interest to everybody just because they say they read and understood everything I have written.
In most cases, it is a lie. To understand my books means to overcome the fear of one's parents, to honestly feel the justified rage TOWARD THEM, and to no longer use others to get free from the accumulated rage.” Alice Miller wrote this message 
Sylvie: Alice Miller’s criticism is not the only thing I am concerned about, there is more, like for example his views on abortion and sex, his choice of words can be very confusing and guilt-inducing to his readers that still are emotionally blind and take his words for face value and not see he might be unconsciously telling his true story of what happened to him and how he was treated as a child by using harsh words. When it comes to abortion, no one says it better than Alice Miller: “Not everyone is capable of thinking in real, concrete terms. Many seek refuge in religious beliefs. In their weakness, they place their trust in 'relics,' awaiting salvation at the hands of one stronger than themselves. Anyone who claims to be a strong and knowledgeable authority for such people, and to be acting on their behalf, has the duty to be conscious of the appropriateaware thatf they aren’t, if they ignore or neglect that duty, claiming instead that their palpable lack of information and their abstract conceptions of “life” are sanctioned by God and practiced in the name of humanity, they are acting against life by misusing the weakness and trust of the faithful and dangerously confusing them. The injunction against abortion goes even further: Consciously or unconsciously, it represents support for cruelty against children and active complicity in the creation of unwanted existences. These existences can easily become a liability for the community at large. 
… It is, in fact, not surprising to find that those who are both victims and apologists 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.” 

Sylvie: Sabina, I agree with most of what you are saying about sex, and when a person becomes fully conscious, they naturally become abstinent from sex, but not by choice, but because it’s nearly impossible to find another conscious partner at the same level. Telling unconscious people not to have sex is not realistic and does not work, and the author of this book seems to have a problem even with masturbation! Why should a person not enjoy their body? Was he not allowed to enjoy his own body as a little boy? The purpose of life is to have fun in balance without hurting ourselves or others, to be enjoyed and shared. To become free to enjoy life in the present moment, we must face our history and feel our repressed feelings, at our own pace. We must face the pain in our lives. The only way out is through it. Nothing in the external world- no religion, no job, no geographical travel or move, no relationship, and no amount of money can save us from the pain of our past. Until we walk through our pain, we will keep reenacting, repeating, and recreating our past in the present moment. Dr. Alice Miller, in her book, The Truth Will Set You Free: Overcoming Emotional Blindness and Finding Your True Adult Self, says: “The past always catches up with us, in our relationships with other people and especially with our children.” The only way to release the pain is to face it, articulate it, and feel it as it arises. If we can feel it, we can heal it. I know sometimes the pain can be overwhelming, and we need to take a break from it by going to work, taking care of ourselves, and some distractions of safe fun, but we must take time to face, be, and articulate our pain and feel it as it arises until it is gone. Because pretty much every person on the planet has been abused and traumatized to a degree by parental and societal ignorance, pain comes into everyone’s life.
The suffering comes because we run, avoid, repress, and deny our pain. If we don’t acknowledge and take responsibility for our wounds, but instead deny and repress them- the wounds inflicted on us- we will inflict those same wounds on others and the next generation. I wonder if the author was extremely sexually abused as a child and now wants to repress his sexuality and that of his readers – what we repress will find expression in a very dysfunctional way and will harm us, others or both. All religions have been trying to repress people’s sexuality. The author sounds preachy, like the very extreme religious people that use strong, harsh language that is guilt-inducing, and we have seen that religion’s guilt-inducing has gotten us. I wonder if one of his parents was a preacher—children who are preached to learn to preach. Maybe his parents were highly critical of him, used strong, harsh language, and made him feel guilty, and now, unconsciously, he is extremely critical and passing this guilt to his readers.
 Sylvie: I also stand by my words that this book is confusing, and if something is confusing, it is also abusive to me. Saying that this book is the continuation of Alice Miller’s work is a big lie, even if people are not aware and can’t see the hidden lie. Alice Miller’s work is so much ahead of this book. DM’s book is so tinted with morality and so manipulative that it brings back old memories in my mind when I was living with my religious fanatic and manipulative older sisters, who tried so hard to push their beliefs and morality down my throat. The letter written to Alice Miller, linked below, articulates what I believe Daniel Mackler's book aims to do for its readers. 
http://www.alice-miller.com/readersmail_en.php?lang=en&nid=2371&grp=1108
 Sylvie: I am very aware that I cannot open the eyes of people who don’t want to see and feel, and if people choose to believe in lies, it is their problem. Just like Alice Miller confirmed in her answer to my letter in the link below:  
From Alice Miller am@.com> Subject: Re: Saying the truth or being loyal To: s@.com Date: Sunday, November 9, 2008, 1:21 AM  
AM: Thank you for your letter. I am sorry that my answer to your previous letter didn't appear on the website under your text. I wrote: "Congratulations on your understanding. You are right; you can't make someone see who DOESN'T WANT to see." Alice Miller wrote this message 
http://www.alice-miller.com/readersmail_en.php?lang=en&nid=2337&grp=1108
Sylvie, I am not going to comment here anymore, because I am very awarethat I cannot make people see and feel what they are not ready to see and feel, and if they would rather believe in lies, there is nothing I can do but walk away. When someone is trying to confuse you consciously or unconsciously, it is abuse, even if people can’t see it as such.   
Sylvie: I have to clarify the phrase that seems to have created confusion “'I f something is confusing to me it is abusive to me' I should have said if someone is telling me a lie consciously or unconsciously it’s abusive to me, because lies are always confusing and abusive, of course, there are a lot of things in this world that I don’t understand and are not abusive, but lies are always abusive no matter who says them and how nice they sound. 
 S’s Letter
S, I think it's important that I mention what I witnessed happening at the DM's book discussion.
You were agreeing with me, but the moment Daniel Mackler showed up and shared his opinion, which, of course, he had the right to do, you moved right to his side and apologized to him for disagreeing with him. Your misunderstanding and my question were: Why does she need to do that? Maybe she still carries the fear of her parents. 
Now, someone symbolizing her parents, in this case, Daniel Mackler, and like when she was a little girl would not dare to rebel against her parents for fear of punishment and repressed her true feelingstoo please her parents and be the "good girl" her parents desired, now, in her adult life this internalized fear of her parents is still keeping her from staying true to herself. You know, this happened to me also on a discussion board a year or so ago at amazon.com on the topic of whether spanking was harmful to children. 
Most people there were pro-spanking, and I felt the need to comment and expose their ignorance, and of course, these very unconscious people started to attack me right away; personally, they called me the B word, radical, and all kinds of things, you name it! One poster who identified himself as a Psychiatric doctor took my side at first, and of course, temporarily I felt better that I was not alone anymore against those very mean unconscious people, but the moment the pro-spanking people started to direct their anger at him, accusing him of being radical and a lunatic because only a lunatic would be at Sylvie's side! The next day, he took the pro-spanking side, agreeing with them that my comment was too radical. 
Below is the comment I used to repost over and over again, which they thought was too radical and could not stand, triggering them the most. I now understand and see very well these psychological mechanisms, and it did not affect me much that this doctor, one day, was on my side and the next day, like a scared little boy, took the abuser's side. A professional doctor should have dealt with his own fear and learned how to handle transference. I thought of the little child going to his office with his parents, and one day he takes the child's side. Still, in the moment, the parent starts transferring their anger onto him, and he leaves the child alone. He takes the parents' side, causing much damage to a child, who, one day, feels like somebody is on his side, but a day later, finds himself again abandoned on an emotional desert island all alone. Children have no way of understanding that the reason this person abandoned them was also because of his internalized fears of his own parents. This is why people who go out offering help to others without experiencing, understanding, and walking through their own fears first will unconsciously and compulsively pass their psychological virus into others under the disguise of help, and this is very damaging to people who are still wounded, especially to children. 
Amazon.com post: These people are so "SMART" that they don't see that the more they mention my name and project themselves into me, the more they make themselves look bad. Keep making yourself look bad, ignorant, and very dark people.
People who idealize their childhood and parents will keep having limitless cravings for scapegoats on whom they can avenge themselves for the fears and anxieties of childhood without having to re-experience those fears. DEFENSELESS LITTLE CHILDREN MAKE PERFECT SCAPEGOATS FOR THEM, COWARDS. Pro-spanking people suffer and secretly enjoy seeing others suffer too; otherwise, why would they fight so hard for the parents' right to spank their innocent children, when children misbehaving is never the child's fault, but the parents' fault, and if someone needs a spanking, it would be the parents. Children are like sponges or antennas that absorb everything their parents repress. What parents repress, children express. So, if you don't like what you see in your children, look within yourself and take responsibility for all that is repressed in you. Your children will change without you having to do much. And what is so sad for me is that most of these pro-spanking hypocrites and cowards hide behind "God" to do their evil work. Read the article "How Evil is Born anew with every new generation" at the link below:
http://www.alice-miller.com/articles_en.php?lan noticeg=en&nid=47&grp=11 
 It's so sad that in the 21st century, people are still debating if it's ok to spank a child. In the 21st century, everyone should know the dangers of spanking children, and every person in power should be doing everything to make sure every child is protected from harm. Would we be debating today iwhetherslavery of black people or any other race is ok? Fortunately, it is common knowledge that slavery of another race is cruel and ignorant. Why can human beings see that doing it to children is even more cruel, ignorant, and very dangerous? 
Most people's objective is not freedom for themselves and others. Most people's objective is to one day have their own slaves. The easiest way to have your own slaves is to give birth to them because our society does nothing to protect children in the first years of life, the most critical years of a person's life." Poisonous Pedagogy:The pedagogical conviction that one must bring a child into line from the outset has its origin in the need to split off the disquieting parts of the inner self and project them onto an available object. The child's great plasticity, flexibility, defenselessness, and availability made it the ideal object for this projection. The enemy within can, at last, be hunted down on the outside. 
Peace advocates are becoming increasingly aware of the role these mechanisms play, but until it is clearly recognized that they can be traced back to methods of child-rearing, little can be done to oppose them. Children who have grown up being assailed for qualities the parents hate in themselves can hardly wait to assign these qualities to someone else so they can once again regard themselves as good, "moral," noble, and altruistic. Such projections can easily become part of any Weltanschauung." Alice Miller: "THE CHILD AS POISON CONTAINER. The main psychological mechanism that operates in all child abuse involves using children as what I have termed poison containers--receptacles into which adults project disowned parts of their psyches so that they can control these feelings in another body without danger to themselves. In good parenting, the child uses