Henry Makow on Ponerology

[Approaching Infinity]

Talk about not getting it.

Political Ponerology - A False Explanation for Evil

February 26, 2014

I'm posting this review even though I disagree with the premise
that our political leaders are psychopaths, and the way to save the world
is to diagnose and prevent psychopaths from holding power.
Author Andrew Lobaczewski completely overlooks the obvious, that
our "leaders" belong to a satanic cult, the Illuminati (Cabalist Judaism/ Freemasonry)
and are dedicated to enslaving and destroying humanity.

The secret government is Freemasonry! It's as obvious as the pyramid on the $USD yet we are blind.

This review appears on the book's web site. The pictures are my comment.

<snip copy and paste of the ponerology.com website with images of politicians in Masonic garb>
--
Thanks to Hans for sending me this link.
_http://henrymakow.com/2014/02/A-False-Explanation-for-Evil.html

 

[whitecoast]

The guy makes a lot of declarative statements, yet provides astonishingly little proof to back up a word of it. He also bolds everything he says... I guess because he thinks it makes the words more persuasive??

 

[Redrock12]

Talk about not getting it.

Political Ponerology - A False Explanation for Evil

February 26, 2014

I'm posting this review even though I disagree with the premise
that our political leaders are psychopaths, and the way to save the world
is to diagnose and prevent psychopaths from holding power.
Author Andrew Lobaczewski completely overlooks the obvious, that
our "leaders" belong to a satanic cult, the Illuminati (Cabalist Judaism/ Freemasonry)
and are dedicated to enslaving and destroying humanity.

The secret government is Freemasonry! It's as obvious as the pyramid on the $USD yet we are blind.

This review appears on the book's web site. The pictures are my comment.

<snip copy and paste of the ponerology.com website with images of politicians in Masonic garb>
--
Thanks to Hans for sending me this link.
_http://henrymakow.com/2014/02/A-False-Explanation-for-Evil.html

The guy makes a lot of declarative statements, yet provides astonishingly little proof to back up a word of it. He also bolds everything he says... I guess because he thinks it makes the words more persuasive??

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he an English professor at the University of Winnipeg? And isn't Bob Altemeyer a professor at the University of Manitoba? They both must live in the city of Winnipeg. So I would assume that he must have some awareness of Bob's studies in Authoritarianism. And Makow has a Phd in English from the University of Toronto, so he's certainly not stupid and he must know how to do objective research.
Think there might be a case made for him being a paid misinformation agent?
Anyone engaged in serious research will tell you that this Illuminati-is-going-to-take-over-the-world nonsense failed the smell test looong ago.

 

[herondancer]

Makow is an awful human being imo. He used to post the most misogynist stuff on rense. Here's his wikipedia thumnail"

"Henry Makow is a Canadian author, campaigner against homosexuality, public opponent of Zionism and Freemasonry, conspiracy theorist and the inventor of the boardgame Scruples"

He also runs a website called savethemales.com, and bragged about getting a mail-order bride from somewhere, the Philippines I think, because 'women there were brought up to treat men properly."

 

[jonspock]

Makow is an awful human being imo. He used to post the most misogynist stuff on rense. Here's his wikipedia thumnail"

"Henry Makow is a Canadian author, campaigner against homosexuality, public opponent of Zionism and Freemasonry, conspiracy theorist and the inventor of the boardgame Scruples"

He also runs a website called savethemales.com, and bragged about getting a mail-order bride from somewhere, the Philippines I think, because 'women there were brought up to treat men properly."

I'm not going to defend Henry, but it is sad to see another thread devolve into "the author's character is flawed", therefore let's dismiss any of the points he makes. I didn't read Henry's article, but i thought here at least I might find some reasons why what he wrote was incorrect rather than a character attack. Recently was on thread about Santos Bonacci which devolved to the same level. Cant we be better than this?

 

[whitecoast]

I'm not going to defend Henry, but it is sad to see another thread devolve into "the author's character is flawed", therefore let's dismiss any of the points he makes.

You may be interested in this link, which deconstructs what an ad hominem fallacy is. This isn't what is going on here.

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,30190.msg392415.html#msg392415

I didn't read Henry's article, but i thought here at least I might find some reasons why what he wrote was incorrect rather than a character attack. Recently was on thread about Santos Bonacci which devolved to the same level. Cant we be better than this?

A.I. quoted what Henry said in its entirety in the article. Even without clicking on the link to see the pictures of political and religious leaders giving eachother handshakes, you pretty much saw all he had to offer. What A.I. and I both said (his missing the point, plus zero evidence) is all that really needs to be said in response. I don't blame people if they're not up to spending a good twenty minutes analyzing and rebuffing every word of that pseudo-logical reverse blockade.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I'm not going to defend Henry, but it is sad to see another thread devolve into "the author's character is flawed", therefore let's dismiss any of the points he makes. I didn't read Henry's article, but i thought here at least I might find some reasons why what he wrote was incorrect rather than a character attack. Recently was on thread about Santos Bonacci which devolved to the same level. Cant we be better than this?

Being that Makow has pathological beliefs about homosexuals and women, it's understandable that he would reject ponerology, which places the blame for the world's problems on people who share his beliefs. That's actually one of the main points in the book: like attracts like, ponerogenically.

As to why he's incorrect, that should be pretty obvious if you read Ponerology. It is a person's character that determines their place in a pathocratic hierarchy. Freemasonry, as well as any other group membership, is an ideological front. It only serves to mask pathology.

So no, I disagree - character is very important when it comes to studying people and societies from a ponerological perspective, which we take here. The fact that Makow is a nasty piece of work may not refute his argument, but it explains it. You may want to read the section in Ponerology on the "egotism of the natural worldview", because your post has that flavor.

 

[jonspock]

I'm not going to defend Henry, but it is sad to see another thread devolve into "the author's character is flawed", therefore let's dismiss any of the points he makes.

You may be interested in this link, which deconstructs what an ad hominem fallacy is. This isn't what is going on here.

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,30190.msg392415.html#msg392415

The link doesn't work. I do know what an ad hominem fallacy is. Any why isn't herondancer's post ad hominen? Please educate me?

 

[mkrnhr]

The link doesn't work. I do know what an ad hominem fallacy is. Any why isn't herondancer's post ad hominen? Please educate me?

Strange, the link works just fine for me. Here it is:

Just saw on Facebook that BB is still harping on 'ad hominem'. He should actually read up on it.

First, from wikipedia:

Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[10] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism.[11]

Olavo de Carvalho, Brazilian philosopher, has argued that ad hominem reasoning not only has rhetorical, but also logical value. As an example, he cites Karl Marx's idea that only the proletariat has an objective view of history. If that were to be taken rigorously, an ad hominem argument would effectively render Marx's general theory as incoherent: as Marx was not a proletarian, his own view of history couldn't be objective.

Then there's this one, which is pretty funny and spot on:

_http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument. {Sound like someone we know?}

But enough vagueness. The point of this article is to bury the reader under an avalanche of examples of correct and incorrect usage of ad hominem, in the hope that once the avalanche has passed, the term will never be used incorrectly again.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. By your own argument, the set of rodents is a subset of the set of mammals; and therefore, a weasel can be outside the set of rodents and still be in the set of mammals."

Hopefully it should be clear that neither A's argument nor B's argument is ad hominem. Perhaps there are some people who think that any disagreement is an ad hominem argument, but these people shouldn't be allowed out of fairyland.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow."

B's argument is less comprehensive, but still not ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. You evidently know nothing about logic."

B's argument is still not ad hominem. Note that B directly engages A's argument: he is not attacking the person A instead of his argument. There is no indication that B thinks his subsequent attack on A strengthens his argument, or is a substitute for engaging with A's argument. Unless we have a good reason for thinking otherwise, we should assume it is just a sarcastic flourish.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic. This does not logically follow."

B's argument is still not ad hominem. B does not imply that A's sentence does not logically follow because A knows nothing about logic. B is still addressing the substance of A's argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic."

B's argument is, most probably, still not ad hominem. The word "evidently" indicates that B is basing his opinion of A's logical skills on the evidence of A's statement. Therefore, B's sentence is a sarcastic way of saying that A's argument is logically unsound: B is attacking A's argument. He is not attacking the person instead of the argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You know nothing about logic."

Even now, we can't conclude that B's reply is ad hominem. It could well be, and probably is, the case that B is basing his reply on A's argument. He is not saying that A's argument is flawed because A knows nothing about logic; instead, he is using A's fallacious argument as evidence to present a new argument: that A knows nothing about logic.

Put briefly, ad hominem is "You are an ignorant person, therefore your arguments are wrong", and not "Your arguments are wrong, therefore you are an ignorant person." The latter statement may be fallacious, but it's not an ad hominem fallacy.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "This does not logically follow. And you're an -bad person-."

B is abusive, but his argument is still not ad hominem. He engages with A's argument. There is no reason to conclude that the personal abuse of A is part of B's argument, or that B thinks it undermines A's argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You're an -bad person-."

B's reply is not necessarily ad hominem. There is no evidence that's his abusive statement is intended as a counter-argument. If it's not an argument, it's not an ad hominem argument.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "You evidently know nothing about logic. And you're an -bad person-."

Again, B's reply is not necessarily ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "-flick- you."

Not ad hominem. B's abuse is not a counter-argument, but a request for A to cease the discussion.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you've never had a good grasp of logic, so this can't be true."

B's argument here is ad hominem. He concludes that A is wrong not by addressing A's argument, but by appealing to the negative image of A the person.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you're a moron and an -bad person-, so there goes your argument."

B's reply here is ad hominem and abusive.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Well, you're a rodent and a weasel, so there goes your argument."

B's argument here might appear on superficial inspection to be sound, but it is in fact ad hominem. He is using the terms "rodent" and "weasel" in different senses to those used by A. Although he tries to make it appear that he is countering A's argument by invalidating one of the premises, he is in fact trying to counter A's argument by heaping abuse on A. (This might also be an example of an ad homonym argument.)

A: "All murderers are criminals, but a thief isn't a murderer, and so can't be a criminal."
B: "Well, you're a thief and a criminal, so there goes your argument."

Harder to call this one. B is addressing A's argument, but perhaps unwittingly.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Wrong! If a weasel isn't a rodent, then it must be an insectivore! What an -bad person-!"

B's argument is logically fallacious, and he concludes with some gratuitous abuse, but nothing here is ad hominem.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "I'm sorry, but I'd prefer to trust the opinion of a trained zoologist on this one."

B's argument is ad hominem: he is attempting to counter A not by addressing his argument, but by casting doubt on A's credentials. Note that B is polite and not at all insulting. {Weidner and gang are a fan of this one!}

A: "Listen up, -bad person-. All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A is abusive, and his argument is fallacious, but it's not ad hominem. B's reply, ironically, is ad hominem; while he pretends to deal with A's argument, in using the term "ad hominem" incorrectly, B is in fact trying to dismiss the argument by imputing that A is resorting to personal attacks. {BB's a fan of this one.}

A: "Listen up, -bad person-. All rodents are mammals, and a lizard isn't a mammal, so it can't be a rodent."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A's argument is sound, and not ad hominem. B's reply is again ad hominem.

A: "B is a convicted criminal and his arguments are not to be trusted."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks."

A's argument is ad hominem, since it attempts to undermine all of B's (hypothetical) arguments by a personal attack. B's reply is not ad hominem, since it directly addresses A's argument (correctly characterising it as ad hominem).

A: "All politicians are -bad people-, and you're just another politician. Therefore, you're an -bad person-."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument."

If you accept the premises, A's argument is sound. Either way, from the given context, we cannot conclude that it is ad hominem: it's not an attempt to undermine B's (hypothetical) arguments by abusing him, but instead an attempt to establish that B is an -bad person-. B's reply is ad hominem, since by incorrectly using the term "ad hominem", he is trying to undermine A's argument by claiming that A is resorting to personal attacks.

A: "All politicians are liars, and you're just another politician. Therefore, you're a liar and your arguments are not to be trusted."
B: "Yet another ad hominem argument."

If you accept the premises, A's argument is sound; but I think most of us would sympathise with B and class it as fallacious, and ad hominem. This is because we do not accept the premise that all politicians are liars. There is a false premise that lies behind all ad hominem arguments: the notion that all people of type X make bad arguments. A has just made this premise explicit.

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."
B: "That does not logically follow."
A: "*Sigh* Do I have to spell it out for you? All rodents are mammals, right, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal! What's so hard to understand???!?"
B: "I'm afraid you're mistaken. Look at it logically. If p implies q, then it does not follow that not-p implies not-q."
A: "I don't care about so-called logic and Ps and Qs and that stuff, I'm talking COMMON SENSE. A weasel ISN'T a mammal."
B: "Okay, this guy's an idiot. Ignore this one, folks."
A: "AD HOMINEM!!!! I WIN!!!!!"

Although the last line of B, taken out of context, might look ad hominem (and was seized upon as such by A), it should be clear that taken as a whole, B's argument is not ad hominem. B engaged thoroughly with A's argument. He is not countering A's argument by saying A is an idiot; on the contrary, having logically countered A's argument, and having seen A's reaction, he is arguing that A is an idiot.

 

[jonspock]

Thanks for posting the content. TL;DR but what i did read wasn't very impressive. I guess what 'whitecoast' is saying based on this is that it's OK to attack the author that it's not really an ad hominem attack. Still didn't get a reply as to why herondancer's reply was not ad hominem.

 

[mkrnhr]

Simply because herondancer does not use what is known about this Makow character as an argument against what he said, it is just an additional information about him.
Simply put:
- Markov is wrong about the nature of evil, and by the way he's a bad person (not ad hominen reasoning), which is the case here.
- Markov is a bad person, therefore he is wrong about the nature of evil (ad hominem reasoning), which is not the case here.

 

[jonspock]

Simply because herondancer does not use what is known about this Makow character as an argument against what he said, it is just an additional information about him.
Simply put:
- Markov is wrong about the nature of evil, and by the way he's a bad person (not ad hominen reasoning), which is the case here.
- Markov is a bad person, therefore he is wrong about the nature of evil (ad hominem reasoning), which is not the case here.

Thanks for the explanation.
That sounds like a very weak argument. Although it's not explicitly stated that Henry is wrong, it definitely comes across that way rather than simply here's some nice additional information about Henry, by the way.

 

[whitecoast]

Simply because herondancer does not use what is known about this Makow character as an argument against what he said, it is just an additional information about him.
Simply put:
- Markov is wrong about the nature of evil, and by the way he's a bad person (not ad hominen reasoning), which is the case here.
- Markov is a bad person, therefore he is wrong about the nature of evil (ad hominem reasoning), which is not the case here.

Thanks for the explanation.
That sounds like a very weak argument. Although it's not explicitly stated that Henry is wrong, it definitely comes across that way rather than simply here's some nice additional information about Henry, by the way.

My understanding is, it's about connecting the dots. People do not say or think things in isolation from one another, and someone's worldview is a product of their experience and acquired or inherited emotional/instinctive qualities. I think Herondancer was simply bringing his above writing into context by comparing to similar paramoralistic or ponerized views of his. That all is related because it all reflects on who he is as a person. Many of the things that could be inferred about Henry could be gleaned from the writing itself, but the biographical information of Redrock12 and Herondancer all bring the image of this person into sharp relief. Hope that helps. :)

 

[obyvatel]

Simply because herondancer does not use what is known about this Makow character as an argument against what he said, it is just an additional information about him.
Simply put:
- Markov is wrong about the nature of evil, and by the way he's a bad person (not ad hominen reasoning), which is the case here.
- Markov is a bad person, therefore he is wrong about the nature of evil (ad hominem reasoning), which is not the case here.

Thanks for the explanation.
That sounds like a very weak argument. Although it's not explicitly stated that Henry is wrong, it definitely comes across that way rather than simply here's some nice additional information about Henry, by the way.

The idea here is not to construct air-tight indisputable arguments following the rules of debate. Rather it is about getting a better understanding of reality. To do that, it is not enough to simply take the various pieces of relevant data and treat them as independent and uncorrelated. That is just one mode of thinking , useful in certain contexts. Another way to is to evaluate the totality of available information and draw inference taking into account the whole picture. This is quite useful in certain contexts - like the one under discussion here imo.

The person concerned holds biased views about gender roles as well as sexuality. He paints a picture with a wide brush, grouping zionism, communism and satanism together and believes that "communist takeover of US began long ago". He writes that the "illuminati use women to destroy men" and considers Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. He also writes other stuff where it seems that he takes some truth and spins an eye catching sensationalistic yarn around it - which is characteristic of disinformation. I have not done a detailed research on his writings - but a cursory look (_http://henrymakow.com/archives.html) does not make him appear as a credible source. So I am not inclined to take what he writes seriously. Is that ad-hominem? If it is - so be it. Can he be right about some of the things that he writes? Yes, it is possible. That does not imply I will take him seriously. Unless someone comes along and shows me how he is a generally credible source of information, I am inclined to discount his views. I will go to other more credible sources to learn about the same issues rather than reading Makow.

Jonspock writes

I'm not going to defend Henry, but it is sad to see another thread devolve into "the author's character is flawed", therefore let's dismiss any of the points he makes. I didn't read Henry's article, but i thought here at least I might find some reasons why what he wrote was incorrect rather than a character attack.

So you have not read the article under question. Have you read ponerology - the book about which Makow is writing his article? If yes, what are your views about ponerology? Are they in line with the Makow quotes provided in this thread?

 

[clerck de bonk]

Thanks for the explanation.
That sounds like a very weak argument.

How so, have you read the book Henry is "reviewing"?

Although it's not explicitly stated that Henry is wrong, it definitely comes across that way rather than simply here's some nice additional information about Henry, by the way.

If you have read the book (Political Ponerology) you should be able to form an accurate view (IMO) of what Henry is based on his "review" alone , instead of nitpicking about ad hominem attacks...
Henry's so off that he isn't even wrong (about aforementioned book).