Alice Millerīs psychoanalytic genosuicide
by Peter Klevius
Psycho-timeline, Childless childpsychoanalysts, Sex segregation, World Values Survey etc.
Definition of religion
Sex segregation from Freud to bin Ladin
Angels of Antichrist - Kinship vs state
Graphics & photo: P. Klevius
KLEVIUS' NEWS DESK: Sudan genocide, gang rape cultures, Rapetivism etc.
The secular trend against religion in its most primordial sense (religare = tie back, ancestor worship) is perhaps best exemplified through the writings of Alice Miller. Although the notion of "the child itself" seems philosophically unintelligible, it reveals the myths and inconsistencies of what is believed to be the modern individual. Alice Miller's inner desperate longing for parenthood lost in modernity.

Lack of deep (not superficial) and lasting attachment (family, kin and friendship ties) is, together with cultural/political segregation (sex, race, etnicity etc), the social cancer of today. In this respect A. Miller's family hatred/jealousy constitutes a weapon directed against the very core of human society, i.e. it's the most lethal and massive form of genosuicide and the basis for the new human being Homo Filius Nullius!
In psychoanalysis a person tells a story she did not know about and the psychoanalyst is a person who lets her be "such as she is right now" says Alice Miller (1980:74), one of the most ardent, psychoanalytic proponents for connecting personal difficulties at adult age, on parental deviance. "My patients", she continues, lack a "genuine emotional understanding" for the course of their own childhood, and they express "complete unsuspecting? for ?the real needs of their own". Miller refers to the works of M. Mahler, D. Winnicott and H. Kohut (A. Miller 1980:12-13).
Little is available from general resources as to Alice Miller?s personal circumstances and she is known for not revealing her private life. But she writes: "I was a stranger to everybody in my family. Today, I know for sure that I was unwanted, rejected from the conception on, never loved, emotionally completely neglected, and used for the needs of others. But above all I was lied to, I grew up with a perfect hypocrisy. My parents, both absolutely unconscious of their true feelings, pretended to love me very much, and I believed this (because I so much needed this illusion) for more than 40 years of my life until I started to suspect the truth hidden behind their pretensions, hidden probably to them too. Suspecting is not yet as much as knowing for sure but it was the start. It took me 20 years more to get rid of my denial because I was so alone with the knowledge of my body and my dreams, and a wall of denial surrounded me wherever I opened my mouth. Writing and painting were the only ways to continue with my search without being offended and "punished" for being the troublemaker"[1] (Miller 2001).
According to Alice Miller, "any person who abuses his children has himself been severely traumatized in his childhood in some form or another. This statement applies without exception since it is absolutely impossible for someone who has grown up in an environment of honesty, respect, and affection ever to feel driven to torment a weaker person in such a way as to inflict lifelong damage. He has learned very early on that it is right and proper to provide the small, helpless creature with protection and guidance; this knowledge, stored at that early age in his mind and body, will remain effective for the rest of his life (A. Miller 1990:190).
Parenting seems an almost impossible task when looked upon through the writings of Alice Miller. Furthermore she does not serve us with more precise advices about the alternatives. Only generalized expressions, such as ?seeing the child?, are given. Instead Alice Miller asks herself if we ever are going to conceive the extent of the loneliness and abandonment that we have been exposed to as a child. The ?very huge number? of people suffering from narcissistic disorders ?very often? have had ?discerning?, ?ambitious? and ?supporting? parents. Often they have received praise for their talents and achievements. According to Miller, almost all of the individuals attending her for analysis have become dry already during their first year (sic). They tell her that their parents have been empathetic and they have no compassion for the child they were themselves (A. Miller 1980:12-13).
According to Miller there is an ?original narcissistic need? in the child to be ?as it is?. ?As it is? has to be understood as M. Mahler?s[2] notion that the infant?s inner sensations constitute the core of the self. These sensations ?seem? to remain the point of crystallization on which the sense of identity is built (1980:14). But, says Miller, if the patient through the analysis, ?consciously has experienced? how he has been ?manipulated? in his childhood by his parents and which ?wishes for retribution? this has created in him, then he is going to be less manipulative himself (ibid).
This is, concludes Alice Miller, based on my own experiences (A. Miller 1980:103). She gives an example of how remaining ?Oedipal pain? can be delegated to the child through parenting. One day she walked behind a young and ?tall of stature? (sic) parental couple and their whining two-year-old son. Alice Miller, contrary to the parents, understood that the boy wanted an ice cream stick of his own instead of licking the tip of those of his parents. Why, asks Miller, did not the parents understand the boy and why did not they give half of their ice cream to him? It could only be explained if we look upon the parents as children who now have got a weaker individual on whom they can feel powerful (1980:63-65). An alternative view, as out-lined above, could interpret this as ?psychic energy? of Sigmund Freud, that talks through a disappointed adult in search for a suitable explanation that could help her clarify her own life.
But the final question remains: Why do so many assign Miller with such an important role and how do we get back on the old tracks again without fundamentalist degeneracy? 
[1] Alice Miller was obviously not a child when she discovered the ?child? in herself. But the question is whether that child would have recognized itself ? If not, unrecognizable parts would then belong entirely and only to the already grown up Alice Miller!
[2] In M. Mahler 1972:17.