Think about it this way:
Suppose the book was about the types of individuals sexually molesting children and an analysis of the character traits they have in common. Then, along comes a child molester and declares the book to be wrong because it puts the blame on child molesters instead of on the children who are bad because they attract the molesters.
That is exactly what we see here.
There is something schizoidal about the mind that cannot get to the crux of a matter and that is what Makow appears to demonstrate here. (IMO) He says: "Lobaczewski completely overlooks the obvious, that "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 is almost irrelevant which club any of those "leaders" belongs to and Makow appears to lump them all together without distinction of time or place. When you study history as long as I have, you see clearly that
the same dynamics that are playing out in our world today have played out before, again and again, and there was no such thing as "Illuminati" or "Freemasons" in those times. It is purely and simply psychopathology. THAT is the crux of the matter.
Now, whether or not some psychopaths have infiltrated the Masons, Cabalists, whether or not such as the Illuminati exist, is pretty much irrelevant to the main issue: that
it is psychopaths who have twisted and perverted the stated ideologies of said groups. The same is true for Christianity. Because, remember, Illuminati is supposed to be a CHRISTIAN based "club". So, what could Christian Illuminati and Jewish Cabalists and Freemasons, who can include both, have in common? Psychopaths that have infiltrated and use the ideology for their own purposes.
Now, as to Makow's own character, his apparently twisted, misogynistic world view is siggested to anyone who reads his works, which we have done rather extensively. As AI points out:
AI said:
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.
What we seem to see in Makow is rather similar to the mentality of, for example, Mignini, the prosecutor of the "Monster of Florence" and Amanda Knox murder cases. Both of them demonstrate something that Niccolo Capponi calls Dietrologia: (See Preston and Spezi's book on "The Monster of Florence").
"Dietrologia,” said Count Niccolo. “That is the only Italian word you need to know to understand the Monster of Florence investigation.” ...
“Dietro—behind. Logia—the study of. ... Dietrologia is the idea that the obvious thing cannot be the truth. There is always something hidden behind, dietro. It isn’t quite what you Americans call conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory implies theory, something uncertain, a possibility. The dietrologist deals only in fact. This is how it really is. Aside from football, dietrologia is the national sport in Italy. Everyone is an expert at what's really going on, even . . . how do you Americans say it? . . . even if they don’t know jack -shite-.”
“Why?” I asked.
"Because it gives them a feeling of importance! This importance may only be confined to a small circle of idiotic friends, but at least they are in the know. Potere, power, is that I know what you do not know. Dietrologia is tied to the Italian mentality of power. You must appear to be in the know about all things.” ...
"At all costs, they have to find something behind the apparent reality. There cannot not be something. Why? Because it is not possible that the thing you see is the truth. Nothing is simple, nothing is as it seems. Does it look like a suicide? Yes? Well then it must be murder. Somebody went out for coffee? Aha! He went out for coffee . . . But what was he really doing?” ...
“In Italy,” he continued, “there is a permanent climate of witch-hunting. You see, Italians are fundamentally envious. If somebody makes money, there must be a fiddle there somewhere. Of course he was in cahoots with someone else. Because of the cult of materialism here, Italians envy the rich and powerful. They’re suspicious of them and at the same time want to be them. They have a love-hate relationship with them. Berlusconi is a classic example.”
'And that’s why the investigators are looking for a satanic sect of the rich and powerful?”...
“In Italy, the hatred of your enemy is such that he has to be built up, made into the ultimate adversary, responsible for all evil. The investigators in the Monster case know that behind the simple facts hides a satanic cult, its tentacles reaching into the highest levels of society. This is what they will prove, no matter what. Woe to the person”—he eyed me significantly—“who disputes their theory because that makes him an accomplice. The more vehemently he denies being involved, the stronger is the proof.”...
....an Italian must always appear to be furbo. You don't have an English equivalent for that marvelous word. It means a person who is wily and cunning, who knows which way the wind is blowing, who can fool you but never be fooled himself. Everyone in Italy wants to believe the worst of others so they don't end up looking gullible. Above all, they want to be seen as furbo."
So, this "lust to power," so to say, combined with endemic envy and over-weening self-importance appears to be the psychological state behind Makow's writings. I would even suggest that he has this "lust to power" because inside, he feels powerless.
That feeling of inner powerlessness has to be compensated and that results in the typical hubris of the pathological or pathologized individual. I actually think it rather relates to hystericization of society which is a consequence of habitual psychological selection and substitution exactly as described in
Political Ponerology.
When the First World War broke out, young officers danced and sang on the streets of Vienna: “Krieg, Krieg, Krieg! Es wird ein schoener Krieg ...”. While visiting Upper Austria in 1978, I decided to drop in on the local parson, who was in his seventies by then. When I told him about myself, I suddenly realized he thought I was lying and inventing pretty stories. He subjected my statements to psychological analysis, based on this unassailable assumption and attempted to convince me that his morals were lofty. When I complained to a friend of mine about this, he was amused: “As a psychologist, you were extremely lucky to catch the survival of authentic Austrian talk (die oesterreichische Rede). We young ones have been incapable of demonstrating it to you even if we wanted to simulate it.”
In the European languages, “Austrian talk” has become the common descriptive term for paralogistic discourse. Many people using this term nowadays are unaware of its origin. Within the context of maximum hysterical intensity in Europe at the time, the authentic article represented a typical product of conversive thinking: subconscious selection and substitution of data leading to chronic avoidance of the crux of the matter. In the same manner, the reflex assumption that every speaker is lying is an indication of the hysterical anti-culture of mendacity, within which telling the truth becomes “immoral”.
Regarding the issue of habitual Selection and Substitution which appears to be (IMO) at the root of Makow's problems, as evidenced in his writings, Lobaczewski explains:
Information selection and substitution: ... Unconscious psychological processes outstrip conscious reasoning, both in time and in scope, which makes many psychological phenomena possible: including those generally described as conversive, such as subconscious blocking out of conclusions, the selection, and, also, substitution of seemingly uncomfortable premises.
We speak of blocking out conclusions if the inferential process was proper in principle and has almost arrived at a conclusion and final comprehension within the act of internal projection, but becomes stymied by a preceding directive from the subconscious, which considers it inexpedient or disturbing. This is primitive prevention of personality disintegration, which may seem advantageous; however, it also prevents all the advantages which could be derived from consciously elaborated conclusion and reintegration. A conclusion thus rejected remains in our subconscious and in a more unconscious way causes the next blocking and selection of this kind. This can be extremely harmful, progressively enslaving a person to his own subconscious, and is often accompanied by a feeling of tension and bitterness.
We speak of selection of premises whenever the feedback goes deeper into the resulting reasoning and from its database thus deletes and represses into the subconscious just that piece of information which was responsible for arriving at the uncomfortable conclusion. Our subconscious then permits further logical reasoning, except that the outcome will be erroneous in direct proportion to the actual significance of the repressed data. An ever-greater number of such repressed information is collected in our subconscious memory. Finally, a kind of habit seems to take over: similar material is treated the same way even if reasoning would have reached an outcome quite advantageous to the person.
The most complex process of this type is substitution of premises thus eliminated by other data, ensuring an ostensibly more comfortable conclusion. Our associative ability rapidly elaborates a new item to replace the removed one, but it is one leading to a comfortable conclusion. This operation takes the most time, and it is unlikely to be exclusively subconscious. Such substitutions are often effected collectively, in certain groups of people, through the use of verbal communication. That is why they best qualify for the moralizing epithet “hypocrisy” than either of the above-mentioned processes.
PP goes into character disorders and how they interact on the social scale. In the case of Makow, as mentioned already, taking a look at Schizoidal psychopathy is worthwhile:
Schizoidia: Schizoidia, or schizoidal psychopathy, was isolated by the very first of the famous creators of modern psychiatry. From the beginning, it was treated as a lighter form of the same hereditary taint which is the cause of susceptibility to schizophrenia. However, this latter connection could neither be confirmed nor denied with the help of statistical analysis, and no biological test was then found which would have been able to solve this dilemma. For practical reasons, we shall discuss schizoidia with no further reference to this traditional relationship.
Literature provides us with descriptions of several varieties of this anomaly, whose existence can be attributed either to changes in the genetic factor or to differences in other individual characteristics of a non-pathological nature. Let us thus sketch these sub-species’ common features.
Carriers of this anomaly are hypersensitive and distrustful, while, at the same time, pay little attention to the feelings of others. They tend to assume extreme positions, and are eager to retaliate for minor offenses. Sometimes they are eccentric and odd. Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations upon other people’s intentions.
They easily become involved in activities which are ostensibly moral, but which actually inflict damage upon themselves and others. Their impoverished psychological worldview makes them typically pessimistic regarding human nature. We frequently find expressions of their characteristic attitudes in their statements and writings: “Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.” Let us call this typical expression the “schizoid declaration”.
...When they become wrapped up in situations of serious stress, however, the schizoid’s failings cause them to collapse easily. The capacity for thought is thereupon characteristically stifled, and frequently the schizoids fall into reactive psychotic states so similar in appearance to schizophrenia that they lead to misdiagnoses.
The common factor in the varieties of this anomaly is a dull pallor of emotion and lack of feeling for the psychological realities, an essential factor in basic intelligence. This can be attributed to some incomplete quality of the instinctive substratum, which works as though founded on shifting sand. Low emotional pressure enables them to develop proper speculative reasoning, which is useful in non-humanistic spheres of activity, but because of their one-sidedness, they tend to consider themselves intellectually superior to “ordinary” people.
The quantitative frequency of this anomaly varies among races and nations: low among Blacks, the highest among Jews. Estimates of this frequency range from negligible up to 3 %. In Poland it may be estimated as 0.7 % of population. My observations suggest this anomaly is autosomally hereditary.
A schizoid’s ponerological activity should be evaluated in two aspects. On the small scale, such people cause their families trouble, easily turn into tools of intrigue in the hands of clever and unscrupulous individuals, and generally do a poor job of raising children.
Their tendency to see human reality in the doctrinaire and simplistic manner they consider “proper” – i.e. “black or white” - transforms their frequently good intentions into bad results. However, their ponerogenic role can have macrosocial implications if their attitude toward human reality and their tendency to invent great doctrines are put to paper and duplicated in large editions.
In spite of their typical deficits, or even an openly schizoidal declaration, their readers do not realize what the authors’ characters are really like. Ignorant of the true condition of the author, such uninformed readers thed to interpret such works in a manner corresponding to their own nature. The minds of normal people tend toward corrective interpretation due to the participation of their own richer, psychological world view. ...
{Schizoidal psychopaths as} doctrinaire people believe they have found a simple solution to fix the world. ...These doctrinaire individuals characteristically manifest a certain contempt with regard to... the need to rediscover lost human values and to develop a richer, more appropriate psychological world view.
Schizoid characters aim to impose their own conceptual world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able to overpower another individual’s personality, which causes the latter’s behavior to turn desperately illogical. They may also exert a similar influence upon the group of people they have joined. They are psychological loners who then begin to feel better in some human organization, wherein they become zealots for some ideology, religious bigots, materialists, or adherents of an ideology with satanic features. If their activities consist of direct contact on a small social scale, their acquaintances generally just consider them to be eccentric, which limits their ponerogenic role. However, if they manage to hide their own personality behind the written word, their influence may poison the minds of society on a wide scale and for a long time.
As to Makow's audience:
Societal interpretation of such writings and doctrinaire declarations breaks down into main trifurcations, engendering divisiveness and conflict.
The first branch is the path of aversion, based on rejection of the contents of the work due to personal motivations, differing convictions, or moral revulsion. These reactions contain the component of a moralistic interpretation of pathological phenomena.
The second and third branches relate to two distinctly different apperception types among those persons who accept the contents of such works: the critically-corrective and the pathological.
The critically-corrective approach is taken by people whose feel for psychological reality is normal and they tend to incorporate the more valuable elements of the work. They then trivialize the obvious errors and fill in the missing elements of the schizoid deficiencies by means of their own richer world view. This gives rise to a more sensible, measured, and thus creative interpretation, but is cannot be completely free from the influence of the error frequently adduced above.
Pathological acceptance is manifested by individuals with psychological deficiencies of their own: diversiform deviations, whether inherited or acquired, as well as by many people bearing personality malformations or who have been injured by social injustice. That explains why this scope is wider than the circle drawn by direct action of pathological factors. Pathological acceptance of schizoidal writings or declarations by other deviants often brutalizes the authors’ concepts and promotes ideas of force and revolutionary means.
So, as noted, we have read plenty of Makow's work and also have heard from others who have had personal interactions with him and the above is just my opinion based on years of collecting data. He has been discussed among members of this forum and so herondancer gave the shorthand version of all of the above when she wrote:
herondancer said:
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."
