Hard to know in a networked world. Of course the Phynance centers exist as a collective and as local finance as well. I tend to think the system is de-centralized but not Balkanized.
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.
I am not convinced PCR grasps the game. He is an old Cold Warrior. The idea that beyond the nation state are forces able to bend the nation state - says USA, say Russia-and these forces arrange the wars and the policy he refuses to grant. This despite Anthony Sutton and Carroll Quigley among others proving the contrary. I think Russia being a WEF satrapy is quite real.
VP did not need a war with the West. Nor did he want to annex any other parts of the Ukraine but Crimea and minor areas. In part the analysis I hold is based on my view of Russia. Putin doesn't want people who say Nyet. Donbass too independent until recently. Next my thought is cash flows. Money from the West was good. Germany a reliable trading partner. China was a distant customer. Westernizing Russian elites were happy. China though was always there in the public mind as having too much sway in the Kremlin even before SMO. Lastly my thought is communism never died but changed names and shape. Surely Western Eurocrats of the Left are Marxists in a way more akin to the Soviet than the new Russia. However the network of agents in the West remained to be used. So the SMO was created at the end of Covid lockdowns to benefit the Great Reset. Not being an insider I only guess. However since Russia is an important part of WHO - as is China - and since the head of WHO is an Ethiopian communist-Russia is all in on Covid fakery. So if then the world plays war but remains agreed Covid is real they play the WEF game.
VP wins if he can defang Ukraine this winter. Or maybe better said Great Reset is still on. Ukraine is a PR disaster and possibly a marginal political one but Russia is no worse off for the West's vitrol.
Ironic -December 11th 1941; Germany and Italy have announced they are at war with the United States. America immediately responded by declaring war on the two Axis powers. Three days before, US President Franklin Roosevelt announced America was at war with Japan, the third Axis power, following the surprise attack on its naval base at Pearl Harbor. Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini, made his declaration first - from the balcony over the Piazza Venezia in Rome - pledging the "powers of the pact of steel" were determined to win. https://www.ovimagazine.com/art/8030
Funded Hitler as well to hedge bets. Who exactly did Churchill mean by "the high cabal?"
Hard to know in a networked world. Of course the Phynance centers exist as a collective and as local finance as well. I tend to think the system is de-centralized but not Balkanized.
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.
I am not convinced PCR grasps the game. He is an old Cold Warrior. The idea that beyond the nation state are forces able to bend the nation state - says USA, say Russia-and these forces arrange the wars and the policy he refuses to grant. This despite Anthony Sutton and Carroll Quigley among others proving the contrary. I think Russia being a WEF satrapy is quite real.
VP did not need a war with the West. Nor did he want to annex any other parts of the Ukraine but Crimea and minor areas. In part the analysis I hold is based on my view of Russia. Putin doesn't want people who say Nyet. Donbass too independent until recently. Next my thought is cash flows. Money from the West was good. Germany a reliable trading partner. China was a distant customer. Westernizing Russian elites were happy. China though was always there in the public mind as having too much sway in the Kremlin even before SMO. Lastly my thought is communism never died but changed names and shape. Surely Western Eurocrats of the Left are Marxists in a way more akin to the Soviet than the new Russia. However the network of agents in the West remained to be used. So the SMO was created at the end of Covid lockdowns to benefit the Great Reset. Not being an insider I only guess. However since Russia is an important part of WHO - as is China - and since the head of WHO is an Ethiopian communist-Russia is all in on Covid fakery. So if then the world plays war but remains agreed Covid is real they play the WEF game.
VP wins if he can defang Ukraine this winter. Or maybe better said Great Reset is still on. Ukraine is a PR disaster and possibly a marginal political one but Russia is no worse off for the West's vitrol.
This is pretty much my own humble opinion...
Ironic -December 11th 1941; Germany and Italy have announced they are at war with the United States. America immediately responded by declaring war on the two Axis powers. Three days before, US President Franklin Roosevelt announced America was at war with Japan, the third Axis power, following the surprise attack on its naval base at Pearl Harbor. Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini, made his declaration first - from the balcony over the Piazza Venezia in Rome - pledging the "powers of the pact of steel" were determined to win. https://www.ovimagazine.com/art/8030
https://salvage.zone/agambens-polemic-on-biopolitics-state-and-capital/
All this.