Martin Miller book:
Here we have a translated review, on the BarbaraWerk:http://www.screamsfromchildhood.com/martin_miller.html
Of course I in no way shape or form support Schwere Barbara's endorsements of pedagogy.
I've told people that AM always reminded me of my mother. It's what comes across in the writings, and it's something that comes across in her pictures too. It's not so much how my mother actually is, it's more how she might have been if she had learned to speak some semblance of the truth.
I read the translated review and my blood boils. I can strongly identify the the demonization Martin was subjected to.
But what is needed is redress, response, response against both his parents, and doing it on this side of the grave instead of waiting for someone to die.
There should have been actions against both of his parents. I say this not because AM was not a "Good Mother". I don't support that sort of thinking. It's rousseauist, it's family worshiping, it's more liberal pedagogy. I agree with Martin that AM's first three books, those before Stettbacher, are still extremely relevant. In those books she was trying to take apart all mother worshiping, and all pedagogy. If her books only exposed the overtly violent and cruel pedagogy, the books would be worthless and I would not have continued reading them.
It is sad that some AM followers endorse liberal pedagogy, like what runs under the banners of Natural, Empathy, Attachment, Nurturing, and Communications Skills. They are missing all of the importance of AM.
The reason Martin should have sought redress against both is parents is not that his mother failed the liberal pedagogy test. Rather, its because his parents were operating in Bad Faith. They were not people from a preindustrial country who had grown up in a large extended and working class clan. These were educated and sophisticated people who had lived in capitals of Europe. They had choices. They are not admitting that they made choices. Instead they are trying to hide behind, "The Family". This means using children.
So there should have been intervention when Martin and the sister were young. Intervention should have occurred at the first signs of trouble.
The children should have been entitled to redress. What this should have meant was compensation and a public rebuke of his parents. The form which might have been best would have been placing all of their assets into a trust fund, administered by a receiver. So the parents might get some access if there is need, but otherwise it goes to the children.
If you don't seek and obtain redress, then you are living in the social space which is left, after you have been used.
I think back, Harriet Tubman was able to make repeated trips into Maryland and liberate 300 slaves. She said that she could have liberated more, if only they understood that they were slaves.
Well, those persons who have been used by the family system and still believe in it and it's liberal pedagogy, are like slaves who don't know that they are slaves.
Those who promote therapy instead of redress do so because they can't face the ways they were used and what the consequences have been, so they denigrate those who try to face it and try to redress it. They claim themselves to be morally superior to those who want to escalate conflict, inflict consequence, and perhaps to resort to violence. These persons are collaborators.
Tubman also used to carry a shotgun on her raids. It wasn't to use on the white slave catchers. She was way too smart for them. It was because some of her own would chicken out and want to return to slavery. She had to make them understand that that would endanger the entire party, and so she could not let them do that.
Oh well, AM did what she could. Now Martin has done what he could. He was a therapist, or at least he used to be one. The fundamental premise of therapy is no redress, and instead seeking nirvana. Maybe he is still in the grip of this. Or maybe with the sister with Down's Syndrome he figures it best to let money go to her.
I think in cases like this the strategy should be, to use "Redress Counselors", not recovery therapists, and make the complaint.
Then use advocates to try and get a settlement, rather like a collection agency. If it does not happen, then sue for about 5x what the senile suicidal parents could be worth. Then approach the siblings and tell them that if they side with the parents they get nothing. But if they join the suit, then they get an equal share after attorneys fees.
It's not that difficult of an idea really. Mostly its just saying that, we won't accept lectures about self-reliance, higher powers, personal responsibility, letting go, or forgiveness. The only course is to kick ass.
I've recently learned that many states allow Process Servers to be armed for their own protection. They say divorce cases are the most dangerous. In Colorado a Process Server was held captive, tortured, and killed.
Well I think armed process servers are an excellent idea. Even if there were only one state which allowed it, I say go to that state and start training teams of servers. Have police and military special ops do the training.
This is not like the actor Todd Bridges who say he "shot his father", buy firing weapons on a target range. That is just more pillow punching. This is people training with weapons because the will be going into situations where they might need to use them
I don't think what is being said about AM, or about her time with Stettbacher, should surprise anyone.
I never said that she sounded like a nice person. In personal conversations I always made it clear that she sounded like she would be about as nice as Sigmund and Anna.
But I still think the first 3 books, and her rejection of liberal pedagogy, All therapy, and All family and mother worshiping, are essential. And I mean all of it, right down the the baby animals painted on the walls of hospital maternity wards which she rights about.
The indictment against parents to claim redress is not that they failed to live up to the standards of liberal pedagogy. That would just be more positing of the Good Family. Rather its that they acted in Bad Faith, they did not live up to their own values, and hence they were exploiting a child.
Any approach to these issues which is not aimed toward redress is just masturbation.
Daniel Mackler's new site:http://wildtruth.net/
Exploited Children United, new portal page:http://theexploitedunited.onlinewebshop.net
Cannonball Adderly, 1958, Somethin' Elsehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Lc7OgIngE