When I discussed at Dan's (now closed) forum, we detected that this phobia of masturbation had probably to do with something in Dan's own autobiography that he wouldn't disclose in first person singular. You know: he advocates celibacy, which has been a real burden for, say, Catholic priests. One can only imagine how poor Dan struggled with his inner daimons after his vows of chastity (cf. Augustine's Confessions).
@ "War, substance abuse, workaholism, xenophobia, you name it: all comes down to the same source: child abuse."
Dan fell into the same psycho-reductionist error of Lloyd deMause, the founder of psychohistory. Since both Alice Miller and Lloyd deMause were my mentors, I struggled the last few years to get rid of this sort of reductionism.
@ "Mackler, to be clear, means `enlightenment' in neither a Buddhist nor a new age sense; rather, as he points out, when he says `enlightenment' what he means is `self-actualization'. Why he chooses to use a loaded word for a concept for which there's already a fine word isn't quite clear."
In his forum he once referred to himself as a "priest". I believe he chose the word because he fancies himself as a sort of "Buddha" in the sense of a purer-child-advocate version than Miller herself. See for example the image Dan chose for one of his CDs:
@ "And many enlightened people will choose not to reproduce. And within a generation or so a cascade of enlightenment will be upon us, everyone will be healthily living lovingly and communally with each other"
A fool's paradise of course! The problem with this, and Dan just ignored my argument, is that in the same proportion that Western people are choosing not to reproduce, the non-Western immigrants (e.g., the Arab Muslims in Europe) are filling, exponentially, the demographic gap. They chose to reproduce profusely, and THEY TREAT THEIR CHILDREN EVEN WORSE THAN US. This can only mean that, by the end of the century, child abuse will be far more endemic in "Eurabia" than today. Dan never, ever addressed my argument honestly when challenged. He just ignored me.
@ "Despite his arrogance, despite his almost complete lack of any kind of support for his assertions and arguments, Mackler provides plenty of food for thought, plenty of nuggets of wisdom..."
I disagree. The wisdom in his book IS NOT HIS. It's Alice Miller's. Miller is the real Galileo of psychology. Mackler just sat on her shoulders and now claims he's seeing far beyond her. He's utterly deluded of course.
@ "But I'm going to round up to 3 to counter the semi-intelligible review above by the white supremacist who seems to have had some kind of falling out with Mackler."
Nope my friend. I am no "white supremacist". No racially conscious person (e.g., those concerned of child abuse among Arab immigrants) would call himself "supremacist". This is the nasty little label from the Left to shut up those to their right who rebel against their gigantic social engineering of massive, non-white immigration into the West. Below you will see my reasons why I consider that Dan et al are committing a colossal blunder: