Demonic Nothingness: Gnostic Liberalism's Eternal 'Equality' in Hell

In his article, "How to Argue with (Guilty) Liberals," Carey Roberts wrote, "Like a demanding and ill-mannered child, liberals are used to getting their way. Whenever they lapse into the losing side of an argument, they reflexively resort to name-calling and mud-slinging. Epithets like "neo-Nazi," "crypto-fascist," and "imperialist stooge" buzz like mosquitoes hovering over a Potomac swamp. But how many conservatives who are targets of such slurs know these liberals are indulging in one of the greatest intellectual ruses in history? How many realize it's a matter of the red-faced pot calling the kettle black?" (http://www.chronwatch-america.com/5457/1/How-to-Argue-With-a-Guilty-Liberal/Page1.html)

In response to Carey's well-reasoned advice, Free Republic members possessed of a lot of first-hand experience with liberals responded with cogent observations such as: "It is a mental disease," "Liberals are not moved by facts and logic. So none of this will work," "Never attempt to analyze insanity. It is useless to argue with liberals," "I can't talk to them...all they do is yell 'Bush is stupid' and nothing else....to them thats the end of any discussion." (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2325537/posts)

Though liberals boast ad nauseum that as 'children of the Enlightenment' their beliefs are based purely in science and reason, nothing could be further from reality.

Researchers of the genesis of modern Progressive Liberalism say the movement first arose during the Renaissance as a rejection of the Church and the Biblical God paired to a turning back to the "old ways." The "old ways" were occult-magic pantheistic esoteric Cabbalism, Ancient Mystery Religions, Luciferian Gnosticism, Heremeticism, Theosophy, Roisicrucianism, Anthroposophy, alchemy, Tantric sex-magic, the Eternal Return, and more. With passage of time, a secularized version of the former would emerge. It would subdivide and be called positivist materialism and secular humanism. The 'old ways,' a type of Gnostic 'quietist pantheism,' would eventually take outward expression in a variety of political, philosophical, and scientistic systems such as Bolshevism, Marxist Communism, National Socialism, Fabianism, existentialism, empiricism, scientific socialism, Freudianism, Progressivism, Hegelianism, utopianism, Darwinism, Cultural Marxism, multiculturalism, and political correctness.

Modern liberalism then, is a continuation of the 20th century's totalitarian mass movements (i.e., Communism and National Socialism), which over time had gradually emerged out of Renaissance magic. It was Fyodor Dostoevsky who foretold both the rise of Marxist Communism in Russia and the murder of millions of people by Gnostic-Communists. Dostoevsky was among the first to understand that the modern mass political movements are devilish Gnostic irreligion's aping science and reason and demonically dedicated to the destruction of the idea of the living God and to total suppression of the knowledge that man is created in His spiritual image. At bottom modernity's Gnostic irreligion's are spiritually, morally, and intellectually bankrupt, concluded Dostoevsky.

Shortly before the French Revolution-Terror, the rebellion against the living Creator had become so all-encompassing that in the words of Lester Crocker, the rebels desired, "...a total integration of man in nature, with refusal of any transcendence....The important thing, as La Mettrie, d'Holbach, and others made clear, is that he is submitted to the same laws; everything is response to need — mechanically...like a tree or a machine. Man merely carries out natural forces — without any freedom whatsoever — in all he does, whether he loves or hates, helps or hurts, gives life or takes it." (Monsters From the Id, E. Michael Jones, p.5)

In short, occluded by hatred, the rebels were compelled by a spirit of madness to willfully choose to annihilate themselves by imagining they were soulless machines or plant-beings rather than created in the spiritual image of God. Nature, Gaia, Overmind, the Goddess of Historical Necessity, divinized dialectical matter — all of these irrational, nonliving Forces would eventually be touted as the magical 'un-creators,' and in time, come to be taught to Westerners as 'evolutionary science.' Unfettered from the Creator and His absolute morality, they could now freely act upon their basest passions — which they would trumpet as 'reason' — and be free of guilt, or so they hoped.

"Thus heaven I've forfeited...I know it full well...My soul, once true to God...Is chosen for hell." Karl Marx in his poem The Pale Maiden (Marx & Satan, Richard Wurmbrand, p. 22)

"I do not want him (Yahweh) to exist, because he would set limits to my greatness. " Dietrich Heimrich Kerler (The Drama of Atheist Humanism, Henri De Lubac, p. 58)

The Psalmist writes, 'the fool has said in his heart, there is no God." (Psalm 14) The ultimate cause of disorder, chaos, murder, tyranny, and all other evils is to forget God. This evil begets other evils, and from the time of the Enlightenment right up to our own time, a massive edifice of interlocking, tightly-woven lies has been spun by the Gnostics. Its' consuming darkness not only overshadows the West — all but obliterating the light of truth, reality, common sense and right and wrong — but under its' covering of darkness, has unleashed murder in numbers so vast that the word 'genocide' had to be invented in order to describe what took place in the USSR, Nazi Germany, and all other societies for whom the bell of death tolled when they fell into the hands of Gnostic irreligionists.

In today's psychological terminology, cognitive dissonance is the term used to describe what is in essence, the morally diseased condition so aptly dubbed liberal 'insanity' by one Free Republic member. Cognitive dissonance, also known as moral imbecility, means that two opposing ideas or truth-claims — one true and one false — are held within one's mind at the same time. As pride is offended by truth, it selectively rejects truth and reality and instead, willfully embraces falsehood and surrealism, which it then insists is true. In short, the unreal becomes real, evil becomes good, lie becomes truth, abnormal becomes normal, and the guilty become the innocent. Acts 28:26-27 calls this condition 'willful ignorance.' From the highest corridors of power to the lowest levels of society, moral imbecility is reaching critical mass in America.

Boastfully calling itself scientific, enlightened, and reasoned, the spirit of Progressivism is a deceiver, for in reality its politics are the politics of fools and the wicked. Though it brags it is forward-thinking, this spirit has in reality, cast the West back into the darkness of mythos, moral relativism, polytheism, superstition, and unfettered envy that characterized the Roman Empire as it slowly died. Its' much-vaunted 'change' has resulted in the unmaking of the true spiritual progress of Jesus Christ and his many disciples, one of whom was St. Augustine.

It was as Rome was dying that St. Augustine both revolutionized and brought to a close antiquity's idea of freedom by connecting it with morals. "Thus," he writes in the City of God, "a good man, though a slave (of Christ Jesus), is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but, what is worse, as many masters as he has vices." Augustine revolutionized the concept of freedom by connecting it to morals, or as our Founders said, to Virtues. Man, said Augustine, was not a slave to nature (or nature's 'gods') or to nature's laws, as Aristotle claimed. His freedom was a function of both will and moral state. Thus man's will is free to turn to his Creator and seek Truth and liberty, or conversely, to turn away from his Creator into the consuming darkness of willful ignorance and amorality, thus enslaving itself to pride and other vices. (Libido Dominandi, E. Michael Jones, p. 57)

After the manner of St. Augustine, President Andrew Jackson's Secretary of War, Lewis Cass, would much later write:

"....the fate of republican government is indissolubly bound up with the fate of the Christian religion, and a people who reject its' holy faith will find themselves the slaves of their own evil passions and of arbitrary power." (quoted from www.earstohear.net/)

First man is progressively enslaved by his evil passions, then he falls head-first into diabolicism. St. Augustine called this pneumopathology 'Libido Dominandi.' Thus it is Libido Dominandi — moral imbecility and diabolical moral imbecility — that possesses the souls and minds of both Progressive Left insiders and their rabidly zealous camp followers.

In a treatise titled, "Leftism as Psychopathy,' John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) writes, "...there (is) a core leftist type — seen at its clearest among Leftist academics and intellectuals. Although such people form only a small fraction of the total population, their influence and their grasp on the levers of power in the media...bureaucracy...universities, and, at times, in politics, makes what they think, say and do very important indeed." It is Ray's contention that this type of person falls within the category of psychopath and sub-clinical psychopath.

The most striking characteristic of the psychopath, notes Ray, is his "moral imbecility" — his breathtaking lack of feeling for other people and his disregard for the rules they live by. They are famous for their utter amorality, lack of remorse, willingness to lie, cheat, steal and kill.

In his analysis of the Progressive Left, Jamie Glazov author of United in Hate writes, " The Left habitually attempts to distance itself from its own history and to obfuscate any straightforward analysis of its political motives, goals, and allegiances. In doing so, the Left intentionally blurs its own complicity in the greatest crimes of the twentieth century." In other words, the Progressive Left speaks with forked tongues and pretends not to know truth. They are double speakers; the evil men of Psalm 140 whose tongues are sharp and poison is under their lips....they set snares for the morally righteous and compass them about with deception. Snares, lies, and deceptions — these are the evil essence of Saul Alinskys' Rules for Radicals among whose adherents are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. (United in Hate, p.1)

Glazov observes that the Progressive Left dedicates "their lives to erasing individuality — including their own — and becoming part of a group from whose party line they cannot waiver..." In other words, they seek escape from their Creator through creation of what Eric Voegelin termed a 'second reality,' an illusion of annihilation of self through absorption into nature. Hence they are "motivated by the Marxist dream of destroying the world as it is and building a utopia on its ashes..." ( United in Hate, p. 2)

In short, with their greed, malice, hatred, and envy superheated by will-to-power, they seek not only the death of the Immortal, but the destruction of the Created Order so they can build a New World Order. This is Libido Dominandi inflated to the critical stage of the demonic. The Gnostics now tread the same highway to hell taken by Nimrod (Genesis 10-8) who rebelled against God, then declared himself both god-man and messiah, and with his adherents — who likewise embraced 'self as god' — attempted to bring heaven to earth (a New World Order) in Babylon.

"The mystery religion of Babylon," notes Tal Brooke, "is the root of all mystery religions, the secret initiations, the exalted priesthoods, and....secret knowledge (gnosis). It has fermented over the centuries into a refined wine...." In short, modernity's Gnostic irreligion's are Christian heresy syncretized with all of the 'secret knowledge' of the world's religions — both past and present — and its' taproot is the 'refined wine' of ancient Babylon. (The Great Lie, Tal Brooke, p. 11, SCP Journal, Vol. 29:2-29: 3, 2005)

Envy, said St. Gregory of Nyssa, is, "The passion which causes evil, the father of death, the first entrance for sin, the root of wickedness, the birth of sorrow, the mother of misfortune, the basis of disobedience, the beginning of shame. Envy banishes us from paradise....Envy made Joseph a slave. Envy is the death-dealing sting, the hidden weapon, the sickness of nature, the bitter poison, the self-willed emaciation, the bitter dart, the nail of the soul, the fire in the heart, the flame burning on the inside..." (Life of Moses, quoted in Death by Envy, Fr. George RA Aquaro, p. 74)

"Scripture combines envy with jealousy, covetousness and stinginess, into a single concept that is a manifestation of idolatry (narcissism) of self and belief that there is a limited supply of good," writes Fr. George R. A. Aquaro. If we move aside and dig beneath the rationalizations proffered by Transnational Progressives and their media-mouthpieces calling for hate crime laws, redistribution of wealth, universal healthcare, UNESCO's call for teaching grade-school kids to masturbate, and population control schemes outwardly manifested in abortion (choice), eugenics, and multiple sustainable-growth schemes, we'll find diabolical envy — that Hideous Strength — squatting there at bottom.

In the final analysis, malice and envy towards God compels man to destroy creation and to annihilate his God-given soul by imagining himself as 'one' with nature. This is the definition of damnation, said Fr. Aquaro. Hell is not a punishment meted out by a hateful God as some would think, but an absolute refusal of a pardon granted all mankind. It is impossible to receive good from a person one envies, and so it is that one cannot be saved if one resents God. This is the message of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11-32 when the elder brother refused to enter the house upon his brother's return. It is also the underlying meaning of CS Lewis's pointed observation that the door to hell will be slammed and locked from inside.

"Come Satan...God is evil..." Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Philosophie de la Misere, pp.200, 201

"...I go sometimes go...To the oak of Wotan....To make a pact with dark forces..." Adolph Hitler, The Solution of the Riddle, Mullern-Schonhausen

"The Evil One is the satanic revolt against divine authority...Satan (is) the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds..." Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State, p. 112

If you've not read Bill Wiese's chilling account of how he spent 23 minutes in hell — the molten pit of raining fire and burning rock freely chosen by Marx, Hitler, and so many others of both that generation and our own — then read the brief account at this link: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:mQkoNZ1yx5IJ:www.examiner.com/x-11731-Boise-Christian-Living-Examiner~y2009m7d29-Spend-23-minutes-in-hell+23+minutes+in+hell&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

Wiese reports his stay in hell lasted exactly 23 minutes. "He woke at 3:00 in the morning, feeling as if he had just been "catapulted" from his bed. He fell thousands of feet in darkness until he hit the cold, stone floor of a prison cell — a temporary holding area in the pit of hell where he was tortured by demons before witnessing the destiny of the damned."

"It was raining fire and burning rock, similar to the way lava falls from the sky when a volcano explodes. The smoke from the flames was very thick, allowing visibility for only a short distance, but what I could see was horrifying. I saw many people reaching out of the pit of fire, desperately trying to claw their way out. But there was no escape," explains Wiese."

Slaves of that Hideous Strength — demonic malice and envy — Progressive insiders are driven to seek something they outwardly call 'equality,' but which is in fact, annihilation of their God-given souls. Strange isn't it, that the 'equality' they crave and the one place that offers it for eternity is Hell.

Evil never dies, it just changes its face. Once upon a time, the democrats, FDR on down, fought the evil that was the Nazis and was the communists...now they have become or are becoming the new face of that evil, trying to do many of the same things the Nazis and communists tried to do.

How do you reconcile the assertion that Franklin "counted him as a friend" in the context of defending the claim that "a majority of the founders turned against him"?

Again, we're talking about personal diagreements over religion vs political philosophy.

That they had held varying religious views, and had personal disagreements over them is not in question. What is in question is the assertion that thier religious beliefs were basis of their political philosophy (and implicitly, that the author's religious beliefs convey to them and others of similar belief some authenticity that people who do not share those beliefs cannot claim).

A source is easily enough provided. Yet the problem for you is that you have very obviously been taking on ‘absolute faith’ the claims made by fallible men, so very many of whom have dark motives. Perhaps because, like Paine, their claims appeal to pride.

Having provided no source, you appear to be asking me to take your arguments on absolute faith. Piety and pride are not mutuallly exclusive.

snip: Having provided no source

Spirited: Are you helpless? Are you incapable of seeking truth? No, you’re not. Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus even did your work for you, yet by the very fact that your chosen ‘tactics’ are to ignore Cincinnatus’s response and to fall back on uncouth quibbling reveals that truth is offensive to you.

You make wholly unsupported assertions, and the fault is mine for not researching them? The assertion is that "a majority of the founders turned on him". You'll need references to writings from a majority of the founders to support that. That's a long way from what TQC posted, and even that doesn't leave the impression that Franklin had "turned on him".

Your arguments seem to suggest that the Founders considered Paine no friend or ally because of his religious beliefs. If that's the case then what they did was cynically accept his support and the public support for the revolution that his writings invoked among the populace, and the "threw him under the bus" once the obejctive had been obtained.

and the "threw him under the bus" once the obejctive had been obtained.

That's because Paine got weirder and weirder as time went on. The Fathers were embarrassed by his outspoken support of the French Revolution and the way he spoke out against Washington.

John Adams never liked Paine. He always considered him too radical and called "Common Sense" a "crapulous mess".

That's because Paine got weirder and weirder as time went on. The Fathers were embarrassed by his outspoken support of the French Revolution and the way he spoke out against Washington.

Paine appears to have made his religious leanings well known before the revolution, and it is submitted that "a majority of the founders turned on him" because of those beliefs. Thomas Jefferson was president at the time, and appears to have publicly supported it, so Paine wasn't alone in that regard.

and it is submitted that "a majority of the founders turned on him" because of those beliefs

And for the radicalism which came from them. His behavior became more that way as time went on; of course his sniping at Washington the hero would result in a loss of friends...why wouldn't it? Also as I said, his overt support of the French Revolution embarrassed most. Jefferson also was famously in favor of the French Revolution so he was probably closest to Paine in his more radical beliefs.

Only 6 people attended Paine's funeral. He was obviously no longer as popular as he had been because his behavior and indiscretions had gotten worse over time.

Why didn't they turn on him as soon as those beliefs were known? Did they just use him to marshall public support, and consider him disposable once the shooting was over with?

The Founder' don't appear to have usesd their religious beliefs as the litmus test of who was with them or against them during the revolution. Why do you think we ought to do it now?

You never heard of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

The US was friends with Stalin during WWII also in order to defeat the overwhelming evil of the time. But we dropped him like a hot potato when more of his intentions became known later.

You seem to assume the Founders had some kind of all-seeing power to know what Paine would do and say in coming decades.

I don't think his religion is the litmus. It's what he did as a result of his beliefs that tell the story.

If you're saying the result is an unavoidable consequence of the belief, then the belief is the test. The consequence is just the justification for having the test.

You seem to assume the Founders had some kind of all-seeing power to know what Paine would do and say in coming decades.

The assertion seems to be that it's an inevitable consequence of his religious beliefs. If you do not hold the correct religious beliefs, you either are or will inevitably become hostile to the cause of preservation of the republic.

If you do not hold the correct religious beliefs, you either are or will inevitably become hostile to the cause of preservation of the republic.

Not necessarily. If an atheist (example Boris Pasternak in Russia) speaks out against Stalin then he's an ally for those agitating for freedom.

However, you are correct that the Founding Fathers DID generally believe that religious beliefs will result in a better society than atheism. Even Jefferson espoused this. But Paine was condemned on his later actions, not his beliefs. Why wouldn't he have been condemned? He acted stupidly.

Not necessarily. If an atheist (example Boris Pasternak in Russia) speaks out against Stalin then he's an ally for those agitating for freedom.

Then the premise of the article seems to be in error.

No, if people are turning right they are turning against the dynamics spoken of negatively in the article. Thus, freedom-lovers will make allies of these folks.

The basic premise of the article, repeated multiple times, is that the root causes is the rejection of the authority of the traditional Church, and adherance to it's teachings.

Yes, the author is talking philosophy (beliefs).

And then the political realisms were brought up in the thread. Don't know the author, but I suspect that even she likely doesn't have a problem with cobbling together a political alliance with an atheist who's working against a totalitarian regime.

Once that regime is overthrown, and a governmet that operates by "consent of the governed" established, do you think this person would have any problem with that same atheist having an equal voice in setting public policy and making law?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.