Daniel Mackler -- Book Review

Hi Petra,
Thank you for your detailed review of Daniel Mackler’s book. I really enjoyed it and found it very engaging to read.  It is brilliant! You brought to my attention specific points that I had missed, like his gender role 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 that a fertilized egg is nothing but a fertilized egg (Zygotes).  Pro-lifers fight so hard for the unborn 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 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: I agree entirely; I couldn't have articulated it better myself. These are the same problems with many people calling themselves “experts” but, in fact, 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 very silently and covertly, which will be very hard for emotionally blind people to detect and become aware of. These people are perilous because they keep themselves and society stuck in a vicious circle. I call people like this parrots, with excellent memories and the ability to articulate, repeating words they heard elsewhere. Still, 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 for 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 themselves and others who are still emotionally blind.  He also says that an enlightened person can be mistaken or confused with a person from the far right, which is a bunch of BS. An enlightened person can never be confused with a person from the far right, because an enlightened person no longer relies on crutches like dogma, morality, religion, spirituality, ideologies, and theories to hide behind; thus, they do not have to face and feel their painful truths. I have not met one single person from the far right who 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.  Many people and parents claim to have the best interests of the children at heart. 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 who exploit emotionally blind people, and they only contribute to creating more confusion and keeping people in a state of confusion and trapped.  Did you read Alice Miller’s comment about DM, she calls him Mr. X
http://www.alice-miller.com/readersmail_en.php?lang=en&nid=1037
I also don’t like to mention his name because it gives him publicity he does not deserve. He only wants to create confusion, whether consciously or unconsciously.

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 who were perfectionists 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 commonplaces and platitudes (something that he criticises in other writers). When I read the book, especially the first part, I visualized a fanatic man preaching to a large 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 agree entirely 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 also do.

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 superfluous 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 type 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 does DM "take 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 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 commonplaces 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 pretty 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 superfluous 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 they make of it, whether they 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 book.

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. I even 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 blinds 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 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, 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.

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.

College Admissions Scam

Cheat. Bribe. Lie. Here's how the college admissions scam allegedly worked
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/12/us/college-admissions-scheme-how-it-worked/index.html

The college admissions scandal just proves what I have been saying for a very long time! And this is one of the reasons I'm hated by some "educated" and financially well off people at the gated community where I worked for nine and a half years --  because what I have – you can’t buy it, bribe, steal it or cheat your way to it!

If you can buy it or cheat to get it, it means it’s an illusion and sooner or later all illusions will burst.

It's sad to witness all the time people falling for the illusions that formal education, talents, money, and fame is the path to freedom. These things alone just reinforce people’s fears and the walls of their emotional prisons.

Having special talents is wonderful and it’s okay to cash in your talents for a living, but when people hide behind their talents, fame, and money to hide their own personal truth and keep themselves and others distracted from the truth and facts -- then you are misusing your talents -- and contributing for the lies to spread and silently or covertly you are part of all the violence and atrocities we are witnessing in our world. If people think they are superior to others, because they have special talents, they are being delusional.

At a University most a person gets is a bunch of abstract knowledge, but they don’t get any self-knowledge -- the most important knowledge of all --  because without self-knowledge -- we just deceive ourselves and others and with a degree from a University, it’s just like getting a ticket to go into the world to corrupt and be corrupted by spreading a psychological virus to the masses under the disguise of helping -- and this is why we live in a world with emotionally blind people with degrees in power positions making decisions that put all of us in danger. And this is why the world is such a mess. 

It’s sad to witness everyday people using their sharp intellect to run from looking at the facts and see fundamental psychological mechanisms. It takes courage to see fundamental psychological mechanisms, intelligence alone is not enough -- it rather helps create seductive lies and illusions 

Thanks to writing and publishing my book A Dance to Freedom I learned most people’s objective in life is not freedom for themselves and others. Most people’s objective is to one day own their own slaves.  And this is for what most people cheat, bribe, lie and work so hard for. They don’t understand that being a gatekeeper to prevent others from finding freedom – it keeps them also in an emotional prison. And is always the chance someone might come along and take them from the position of being a gatekeeper, gain power over them and put them in a cell. Once you have truly liberated yourself from lies and illusions -- you can never be taken back to a cell.  And this is why many people hate me. 

The ignorance of the parents in this scandal brings to mind these words by Alice Miller: "I think that violent teenagers are demonstrating what happened to them emotionally when they were small. I have no doubt about that. It might not always be a harsh discipline but in most cases, there is emotional neglect, lack of authentic communication, of warm, friendly contact. If this lack is also covered by what is called "spoiling" (buying a lot of expensive objects to replace love), the child is often unable to detect the neglect and stays bound to denial. Anyway, every child must deny the pain in order to survive. Only in adulthood is it possible to realize the truth. But the more the childhood history is repressed, the more its cruelty denied, the less these young people are able to feel, to confront the actual reasons of their distress, the stronger they feel urged to act destructively. They have not always conscious memories of what happened in their childhood, especially in infancy, but this knowledge is stored up in their body's cells and, amazingly enough, they threaten others exactly the same way as they were threatened in the beginning of their life. Unfortunately, the common, ever-present avoidance of the issue "childhood" doesn't make things easier. I discuss this problem in my book Paths of Life, 1999, and The Truth Will Set You Free, 2002.

http://www.alice-miller.com/en/interview-given-to-ms-noreen-taylor-the-times-london-1999/

Also, these words by Alice Miller are so true:
“…society we live in continue to turn a blind eye to the facts of child abuse in all its forms. Among thousands of professors at hundreds of universities, there is not one single university chair for teaching about child abuse and cruelty to children. Why? Because that cruelty successfully masquerades as parenting and education” Alice Miller, taken from the book “The Truth Will Set you free” page, 101

Read my blog Experienced Knowledge about my experience with emotional harassment in the workplace.

Letter to College Students of all Nations

 Today, some best-selling books about child rearing pretend to be updated and to have integrated the new psychological knowledge, but they often look to provide parents with the same ways they themselves were brought up.

They give advice on how to control, reign, manipulate and humiliate children in the most effective and undetectable way.

Unfortunately, the readers often oversee the poison in this pedagogy because as children they were never allowed to see and name it.

If we are not looking for power, our children do want to cooperate with us, they are interested in cooperation as a way of communication. But for doing that, they need to trust us. We are by no means trustworthy, if we want to govern them, just to escape our helplessness.

http://www.alice-miller.com/en/letter-to-college-students-of-all-nations/

Hi P.,
Thank you for writing. Yes, I think we can be friends for sure. I always respected children and I knew the responsibility of bringing children into this world and that is why I never had children, because I felt I was not in a position to have children.

I always knew the reason everyone was sooo fxcked up was because of the way their parents treated them when they were very little, but I could not quite articulate it and I was alone until I read Alice Miller’s books and finally I gained the courage to face up and feel my own history and speak up.

Am amazed that I with 6-grade education that dropped out of school in the 7 grade can see this soooo clearly and all the so-called “educated” smart people in the world cannot understand and cowardly hide behind their "degrees" so they don’t have to face up and feel their own sad truth and go around spreading their psychological virus under the disguise of help, very sad.

Yes, I am an animal lover, animals were really my first love and if we really want to help animals in the long run it’s a must we become a strong children's rights advocate.

We cannot be for animals rights advocate without being for children’s rights advocate also, which most people trying to help animals seem not to care about children and unconsciously and compulsively are just using the animals to escape from facing and feeling their own sad truth and everything they do is just a temporary and superficial fix to make themselves feel better.

You said you are originally from Germany, how did you end up in Spain? Have you read Alice Miller’s books? If you did I assume you read them in the original language of German.

I read, of course, the English translation and sometimes I wonder if anything got lost in translation.

I find that when I read the only two books of Alice Miller translated into Portuguese a lot of the message got lost in translation and I prefer to read in English, it seems the message comes more clearly in the English language.

I find the Portuguese language very complex and abstract that uses a lot of words and one gets lost in it. Maybe this is one more reason why the Portuguese are so complex and clueless. I am looking forward to hearing more about yourself. Take care. sylvie

Comments on a Facebook Post About a Book on Oprah's Book Club

Sylvie Imelda Shene If Oprah notices them, it means they wrote books with old recycled half-truths and seductive lies and illusions. Oprah loves to promote half-truths that allures people in and seductive lies and illusions that make people feel good temporally and superficially. Oprah is a cult leader that promotes other cult leaders. She is a big illusion! http://sylvieshene.blogspot.com/2012/12/oprah-is-more-concerned-about-her-image.html


L. K.: Sylvie, while I agree with you about Oprah, you can't discount all of the books she has promoted. This is a lovely memoir written honestly with great courage.
Oprah is exploitive, self-absorbed, disingenuous, and over-rated. Some of the work she does makes the world a better place. I was horrified with Obama gave her a national award.


Sylvie Imelda Shene L, I am glad you can see Oprah is exploitive, congratulations! She was exploited as a child and now she has reenacted her childhood drama on the stage of the world by exploiting the whole world under the disguise of help. I don’t doubt this is a lovely memoir and written with courage, but the author must have fallen into the same illusions or traps that Oprah has fallen into that promise healing and salvation, but actually perpetuates our blindness, reinforces our repression and the fears of resolving it, if the author had become close to shattering Oprah’s illusions, she would not be promoting their book. Some of Oprah’s work all it does is a bandage, a temporary and superficially fix that blinds the public and reinforces the public’s repression that the future generation will have to pay the price for it. “I constantly witness many people going public with their sad, tragic stories in an effort to manipulate people into feeling sorry for them and feeding their adult compulsions and perversions. They don’t want the truth. They only wish to avoid their own pain. These people are exploiting the wounded children they once were, just like their parents or parent-substitutes exploited them when they were defenseless little children. They keep themselves and others endlessly stuck in their childhood dramas, where they play either the role of the victim or the perpetrator.” From my book A Dance to Freedom page, 174
Remember the book A Million Little Pieces by James Frey that was selling the same illusions Oprah also sales, but his story was not even based on real events and facts. Oprah only promotes authors selling the same old recycled illusions. When that book came out I was going through the channels and saw him on Oprah, I listen to him for a little bit and I could tell he was full of BS. If Oprah really had resolved her own repression, she too would have been able to see that he was full of BS. Oprah is passing to the world her psychological virus and the abuse she received in her childhood, but she is passing it in a converted way and under the disguise of help. All Oprah has done  in her life was to reverse the roles, now she is the all-powerful, just like her abusers were to her, she could not have confronted her abusers when she was little and now no one will be able to confront her either, because she has too much power. What is very sad is that her and people like her make a lots of money deceiving themselves and the whole world. It makes me sick to my stomach.


L.K.: I think Oprah's ego has much more to do with her faults than childhood abuse. The support of problematic influencers is required in most fields. Oprah is not someone mentioned on C's Facebook page. She was at a film festival. You are making too much of one photo.


Sylvie Imelda Shene The book was chosen by Oprah Winfrey for Oprah's Book club.
If the author had become close to shattering Oprah's and society's illusions, her book would never have been in Oprah’s book club, period. Oprah wants to keep her illusions and repression intact and for that, she needs to keep the public blind and will never promote a book that will truly enlighten the public.


L.K.: I don't think it's that complicated. Sometimes people act with little insight. She's more cluelessly and selfishly exploitive not excluding good things for people.


G.B.: It's so much simpler than that L. Oprah is a businesswoman who sells what people buy.


L. K.: That's true, but she puts peoples needs after her own ambition. She did an interview with a famous author who chose to marry a gay man that was so hurtful, the author whose name I can't remember talking about it on an NPR program. She infamously insisted on doing an interview with Jacee Duggard despite JD's objections. Sylvie, W had helped a lot of people and is a great work. Oprah might read the New York Times. It still stands alone. Isn't it possible that Oprah got it right? Not all of her books were poorly chosen.
Truthfully, I'm not crazy about some of Toni Morrison's work and she will always be revered. Traditionally thinking did not allow Toni to base her analysis on reason.


Sylvie Imelda Shene G., Oprah is a cult leader that promotes other cult leaders, period. Oprah like all cult leaders learned early on that the public loves very well-articulated half-baked concepts and very seductive lies and illusions that ring like truth, and they have exploited the public’s weakness to maximize their profits to feed their own addictions, especially the addiction to money and power. If their followers had not been deceived and exploited by their own parents or parents’ substitutes when they were defenseless little children, they would never fall for cult leaders symbolizing their parents deceiving them in the same way. People that are born from love and raised in truth will recognize the lies in our society. Everything we become and happens to us is connected to childhood. And this is a fact. Cult leaders have mastered the art of manipulation, so they can keep their own repressions intact and manage their own fears. I would love to be at Oprah’s deathbed because old age and death are the best triggers to awaken childhood repression and fears, and no matter how much money and power a person has will no longer work to keep their own repression intact, it will come up to the surface like a volcano. “Since the beginning of human history, priests, teachers, gurus, psychics, doctors, philosophers, and psychologists have all duped people into thinking they could provide real assistance, when it was never possible because the healers were also victims of their own childhoods.” From my book A Dance to Freedom: Your Guide to Liberation from Lies and Illusion, page 131. I am sure Oprah will never have my book in her book club because it exposes hers and her followers' very well-articulated seductive lies and shutters all their illusions and that’s the last thing in this world they want.