Wall St funded Trotskyite/Leninist communism never went away, for instance the revolutionary Trotkyites became neocons in the US. Stalin was unpopular among the Trotskyites because he was more of a nationalist less revolutionary. Gorbechev along with Rockefeller and Maurice Strong pushed the Earth Charter/ Club of Rome "Limits to Growth" ideology into the UN and the Fabian form of international communism took on it's latest iteration as the Green movement. Gobechev also founded the Green Cross. You can see the similaraties when you consider the religious nature of both Marxism and Green/woke ideology. For international communists such as our own WEF puppet Jacinda Ardern the revolution must progress slowly, cautiously, democratically and irreversibly. The frogs must not notice until too late that the water is cooking them. Woke ideology is really just the visible layer of the power structure of bioleninism.
My last contribution to Ovi magazine ended with a reference to the Christian concept of the end days, or the end of history. Of course I was not referring to Fukuiama’s End of History but rather to St. Augustine’s concept of history in his City of God. However, it is generally agreed among scholars that the father of modern historicism philosophically speaking is Giambattista Vico who published the Scienza Nuova in 1725. Another great political philosopher and historicist who came to the fore in the mid-19th century within the American academic world is Eric Voegelin. We have already looked at him briefly in another article (see http://www.ovimagazine.com/art/7374 ) where I compared his political philosophy to that of Leo Strauss and took a look at the divergence of their respective interpretation of Vico’s opus. I’d like to return to Voegelin as a genuine interpreter of Vico’s historicism.
In 1952 Eric Voegelin published the first volume of the scholarly work for which he has became justifiably famous in the world of scholarship: The New Science of Politics. It contained a whole chapter dedicated to Vico’s historicism. Soon afterward, some scholars began talking of Voegelin’s work as another unique way of looking at history or a hitherto non-existing way of knowledge similar to Vico’s New Science. But that is misleading, for unlike Vico, Voegelin did not intend to convey that he himself had founded a new science, but rather that he had pulled together the widely scattered results of a “process of re-theoretization” that had been going on in different sciences since the beginning of the 20th century. He was searching for a theoretically intelligible order of history into which these variegated phenomena could be organized.
This general achievement can be represented best by the two concepts: “Order,” and “History.” Voegelin assigns the crowning rank to a construction of history. He defined the nature of this construction thus: “The order of history is the history of order.” In constructing history, he first had to re-create a suitable concept of order. That concept of order is a far cry from that of most contemporary political scientists, not excluding that of Leo Strauss, as we have already seen in the above mentioned article. For him, as for Vico too, this means that the problems of political order can be rightly understood only as one adopts the position of the self-interpreting man, looking out on life, as it were, from the inside, trying to illumine from within the reality of self and of the larger manifestations of being.
The perspective is that of man participating in a whole in which he knows himself embedded without, however, being able to look on it from the vantage point of a completely detached outsider. Man thus explores himself, but he does so necessarily in a setting of larger realities that transcend his person, his community, and even the race as such. Political order inevitably involves symbolizations, mythologies and speculations concerning these transcending realities. As man relates his own fleeting existence to something that he experiences as foundation, he finds meaningful orientation possible. There is, in other words, a return to origins and without it man dehumanizes himself. This echoes Vico’s concept of self-knowledge.
Funded Hitler as well to hedge bets. Who exactly did Churchill mean by "the high cabal?"
Wall St funded Trotskyite/Leninist communism never went away, for instance the revolutionary Trotkyites became neocons in the US. Stalin was unpopular among the Trotskyites because he was more of a nationalist less revolutionary. Gorbechev along with Rockefeller and Maurice Strong pushed the Earth Charter/ Club of Rome "Limits to Growth" ideology into the UN and the Fabian form of international communism took on it's latest iteration as the Green movement. Gobechev also founded the Green Cross. You can see the similaraties when you consider the religious nature of both Marxism and Green/woke ideology. For international communists such as our own WEF puppet Jacinda Ardern the revolution must progress slowly, cautiously, democratically and irreversibly. The frogs must not notice until too late that the water is cooking them. Woke ideology is really just the visible layer of the power structure of bioleninism.
Funny too Stalin relied on England for information about the Reich. Despite or maybe because of his intel assets working for England.
https://www.ovimagazine.com/art/7476
My last contribution to Ovi magazine ended with a reference to the Christian concept of the end days, or the end of history. Of course I was not referring to Fukuiama’s End of History but rather to St. Augustine’s concept of history in his City of God. However, it is generally agreed among scholars that the father of modern historicism philosophically speaking is Giambattista Vico who published the Scienza Nuova in 1725. Another great political philosopher and historicist who came to the fore in the mid-19th century within the American academic world is Eric Voegelin. We have already looked at him briefly in another article (see http://www.ovimagazine.com/art/7374 ) where I compared his political philosophy to that of Leo Strauss and took a look at the divergence of their respective interpretation of Vico’s opus. I’d like to return to Voegelin as a genuine interpreter of Vico’s historicism.
In 1952 Eric Voegelin published the first volume of the scholarly work for which he has became justifiably famous in the world of scholarship: The New Science of Politics. It contained a whole chapter dedicated to Vico’s historicism. Soon afterward, some scholars began talking of Voegelin’s work as another unique way of looking at history or a hitherto non-existing way of knowledge similar to Vico’s New Science. But that is misleading, for unlike Vico, Voegelin did not intend to convey that he himself had founded a new science, but rather that he had pulled together the widely scattered results of a “process of re-theoretization” that had been going on in different sciences since the beginning of the 20th century. He was searching for a theoretically intelligible order of history into which these variegated phenomena could be organized.
This general achievement can be represented best by the two concepts: “Order,” and “History.” Voegelin assigns the crowning rank to a construction of history. He defined the nature of this construction thus: “The order of history is the history of order.” In constructing history, he first had to re-create a suitable concept of order. That concept of order is a far cry from that of most contemporary political scientists, not excluding that of Leo Strauss, as we have already seen in the above mentioned article. For him, as for Vico too, this means that the problems of political order can be rightly understood only as one adopts the position of the self-interpreting man, looking out on life, as it were, from the inside, trying to illumine from within the reality of self and of the larger manifestations of being.
The perspective is that of man participating in a whole in which he knows himself embedded without, however, being able to look on it from the vantage point of a completely detached outsider. Man thus explores himself, but he does so necessarily in a setting of larger realities that transcend his person, his community, and even the race as such. Political order inevitably involves symbolizations, mythologies and speculations concerning these transcending realities. As man relates his own fleeting existence to something that he experiences as foundation, he finds meaningful orientation possible. There is, in other words, a return to origins and without it man dehumanizes himself. This echoes Vico’s concept of self-knowledge.