To: "Those viewing 'their team' in any variant of Only One Organisation, international In 'scope', has 'withstood the test of time' advocates, believers, witch doctors, 'the curious'.

From: Anon

The great thing about critiques of Historicism is that when we find a good reason to reject it as self-contradictory, we don't even need to adopt or assume any 'worldview' as suggested or described or 'assumed' in the author's intent, or anyone else's intentions, about what humans are 'supposed' to do in order to act 'in accordance with' what the Historicist declares 'is' the 'correct' / 'inevitable' / 'true' course of history'.

One does not have to adopt or assume as true or view as a necessary implication any political views of Leo Strauss in order to have knowledge of a powerful refutation of "Historicism".

>"The historicist thesis is then exposed to a very obvious difficulty which cannot be solved but only evaded or obscured by considerations of a more subtle character. Historicism asserts that all human thoughts or beliefs are historical, and hence deservedly destined to perish; but historicism itself is a human thought; hence historicism can be of only temporary validity, or it cannot be simply true. To assert the historicist thesis means to doubt it and thus to transcend it. As a matter of fact, historicism claims to have brought to light a truth which has come to stay, a truth valid for all thought, for all time: however much thought has changed and will change, it will always remain historical. As regards the decisive insight into the essential character of all human thought and therewith into the essential character or limitation of humanity, history has reached its end. The historicist is not impressed by the prospect that historicism may be superseded in due time by the

denial of historicism. He is certain that such a change would amount to a relapse of human thought into its most powerful delusion. Historicism thrives on the fact that it inconsistently exempts itself from its own verdict about all human thought."

>"The historicist thesis is self-contradictory or absurd. We cannot see the historical character of "all " thought—that is, of all thought wit h the exception of the historicist insight and its implications—without transcending history, without grasping something trans-historical."

>"The radical historicist refuses to admit the trans-historical character of the historicist thesis. At the same time he recognizes the absurdity of unqualified historicism as a theoretical thesis. He denies, therefore, the possibility of a theoretical or objective analysis, which as such would be trans-historical, of the various comprehensive views or "historical worlds " or "cultures. "

TL;DR: The self-righteous gloating assertion by Satanists that "There has only been one organization international and scope that has withstood the test of time", when unpacked, is ultimately dependent on avoiding or presuming as true the internal self-contradiction of Historicism itself. A 'history' of Satanism does not justify itself. To claim having knowledge of history as a march towards one world Satanic organization controlling all governments and all peoples, requires one to transcend such a historical 'constraint' / 'determinism' / 'inevitability', which is a self-contradiction.

Sources:

.pdf: https://press.uchicago.edu/sites/strauss/natural_right/transcript_Strauss_six_lectures_1949.pdf

Article: https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/04/leo-strauss-escaping-the-stifling-clutches-of-historicism.html