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.

do you think this person would have any problem with that same atheist having an equal voice in setting public policy and making law?

Again, don't know the person. But if she's an advocate of good gov't she, of course, won't have a problem as long as the person continues to be an ally of the promotion of freedom.

Paine's support of the French Revolution and his aid to Napoleon in planning an attack on Britain showed that this wasn't the way he went.

Again, don't know the person. But if she's an advocate of good gov't she, of course, won't have a problem as long as the person continues to be an ally of the promotion of freedom.

The article appears to be an advocacy of good government only in the sense that the author advoctates a particular religion, and associates bad government with non-adherance to that religion.

But you're asking me what she would do in a particular situation. I can't tell since I don't know her. But christians who have harsh things to say about atheism do, in fact, make common cause with non-believers on political issues all the time.

My points were mostly about Paine...that the Founders did generally, in fact, denounce him based on his actions.

Seems like having harsh things to say about them in a political context (this is the News/Activism forum) isn't something someone looking to forge those alliances would be well advised to do.

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.

Spirited: The essay speaks of many things: the true meaning of liberty, the nature of man, the existence of the transcendent, the existence of a spirit theater, the existence of man’s soul and the truth that he is made in the spiritual image of his Creator, the real existence of both heaven and hell, the mystery of man’s will, the pathological lies of Marx, et al, and much more besides.

Yet you’ve reduced the many issues the essayist speaks of to one absolutely false conclusion. Yes, the writer mentions the Church in passing as one of the reasons behind the rebellion. It is you who have falsely elevated the ‘mere mention’ to the absolute ‘be-all-end-all.

snip: 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?

Spirited: Given that one of the profoundly important issues raised by the author is that of ‘moral imbecility and diabolical imbecility,’ I think it’s entirely safe to say that she would, in your words, ‘have problems’ with atheists-—and anyone else, for that matter-—who lies as easily as he breathes. Liars are treacherous; they cheat, steal, betray, and destroy. They do these things because they lack impulse-control, which takes us back to the true meaning of liberty, as defined by Augustine.

The article is rife with scriptural references presented as evidence to back up her arguments. The religiosity of the article involves a lot more than "mentioning the Church in passing".

OK. We got conflictiong opinions on what the author would do after a successful overthow of a totalitarian regime, and extablisment of a more amenable form of government.

How about the first part of the qustion? Do you thing the author would forge an alliance with atheists and work with them to overthrow such a regime?

isn't something someone looking to forge those alliances would be well advised to do.

We can probably assume that forging such alliances isn't her PRIMARY objective since atheists have a rich history in the last century or more of siding with the despots.

However, if an atheist is speaking up for liberty and going against a dictator, who's to say she wouldn't side with him/her politically?

However, if an atheist is speaking up for liberty and going against a dictator, who's to say she wouldn't side with him/her politically?

So she'd forge an alliance with an atheist fighting against a tyrannical government, and then assuming they both survived, tell them "Thanks. Now, get the hell out, we don't want you here."?

I think it’s entirely safe to say that she would, in your words, ‘have problems’ with atheists-—

In "my words" it was "would she have any problem with that same atheist (who fought along side her against the tyrannical government) having an equal voice in setting public policy and making law?"

If you think she'd have a problem with that, do you think she'd consider the US Constitution fundamentally flawed because it not only allows it, but protects that right?

"Thanks. Now, get the hell out, we don't want you here."?

Already answered this but you don't seem to get it. If she's really into freedom, she'd likely work with the person as far as he/she believed in furthering the cause. But if he/she turned out to be a Tom Paine and his/her beliefs were leading later toward despotism, she would be wise to say get the hell out.

Don't know the woman. Can't say for sure. But many christian believers would act according to the above scenario.

My apologies. That post was meant to go to Spirited Irish, who has a quite different opinion from yours on what the author would do under those circumstances.

We can probably assume that forging such alliances isn't her PRIMARY objective since atheists have a rich history in the last century or more of siding with the despots.

In Paine's day it was the Church of England that sided with the despot.

I notice that there's been a quiet transition from "Gnostics" to "atheists". I though gnostics, while not Christians, do belive in a supreme being/creator.

I notice that there's been a quiet transition from "Gnostics" to "atheists".

That's because Paine was brought into the discussion.

He went from siding against the English "chrisian" despots to siding with the French atheist despots.

who has a quite different opinion from yours on what the author would do

On the contrary. I never claimed to have an opinion on what the author might do, having mentioned several times I don't know her.

He went from siding against the English "chrisian" despots to siding with the French atheist despots.

He sided with the revolutionaries. How do you become a "despot" while under some else's rule?

He wrote The Rights of Man in 1792, in support of the revolution and against the hereditary monarchies. He felt the system of hereditary monarchy wrong, because it stood contrary to the idea that all men were equal before God. This does not sound like the works of an atheist

On the contrary. I never claimed to have an opinion on what the author might do, having mentioned several times I don't know her.

Then I have misunderstood your last few posts.

How do you become a "despot" while under some else's rule?

Not sure who you're referring to. Paine sided with the French revolutionaries. Are you talking about that?

Then I have misunderstood your last few posts.

Yes, apparently.

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.