I'm not sure that Lindsey's establishes an especially convincing connection between ancient Gnostic beliefs and Marxism.
Many parallels can be found certainly, but you can find some of those same underlying themes in examples such as Buddhism and the French revolution.
Those themes largely stemming from, guess what? Someone who thinks they have the right idea on how to address how much it sucks for people who are poor, and taking extra steps into moralizing it and "addressing" it. Sometime it's a coping mechanism adopted by the poor. Sometimes it's a subversive idea introduced by the upper classes to manipulate or quell rebellion. Other times it's just some ambitious activists who wants to flip the tables of power to their way of thinking.
And as for specific case examples where individuality, free speech, freedom to make your own decisions, freedom to own private property, etc? Those aren't just ideologically zany ideas from a bunch of cultists from thousands of years ago. They're measures commonly employed by those currently in power in order to get things to go their way with minimal resistance. It's always about power, manipulation, and control. And a whole lot of narcissism and ego.
Step 1. Eat the Rich
Step 2. Smash the State
Step 3. ???
Step 4. Utopia
It turns out that Step 3 always seems to be "Centralize power and establish authoritarian rule of terror"; At which point Step 4 never seems to arrive.
But it doesn't stop useful idiots buying this simple 4 step plan and assuming Step 3 will just "work itself out".
Most of their attitudes derived from Rousseau and were enacted by the Jacobins. Both Rousseau and the Jacobins are well respected within Leftism to this very day.
They are also the originators of the term "Leftist".
Similarly, "Rightists" were simply Rousseauian Revolutionaries that were anti-Jacobin. The purging of the Jacobin's was the Thermidorian Reaction, who were still aligned ideologically with them, but needed to stop the wholesale mass slaughter.
Modern historians like to pretend that the Thermidorian Reaction ended the French revolution because the Thermidorians were somehow anti-Liberal and *anti-*Revolution; despite not a single soul in France believing that. While all of this was happening, Napoleon was cannonading monarchists. Anti-Liberal factions were still explicitly killed in France, and Napoleon seized enough power to be the avatar of the Revolution. Historians like to pretend that Napoleon and the Thermidorians aren't Liberal, are in line with the monarchists, and that "Rightism" was illiberal; that way they can preserve this narrative that the Jacobins were the only true Liberals and Napoleonic France had nothing to do with Revolutionary France.
Meanwhile, Rousseau is a "Liberal" in the most vague sense of the word, and actual Liberals like Laffayette and Jefferson had abandoned the French Revolution, or were otherwise forced out of it to save their own lives very early into the reign of the Jacobins.
That is all very interesting, but what do Liberal and illiberal mean here? Are we saying that "Rightists are the true liberals!" ? What distinguished Lafayette and Jefferson from the faux-Liberal?
The French Revolution was driven heavily by secret societies. This is where "the illuminatti" starts becoming very relevant. You can see the "all seeing eye" right on their Declaration of the Rights of Man. There's a reason that when Hitler invaded France one of their main jobs to prevent rebellion was capture all of the masonic temples. Asha Logos has a great episode on the French revolution.
I'm not sure that Lindsey's establishes an especially convincing connection between ancient Gnostic beliefs and Marxism.
Many parallels can be found certainly, but you can find some of those same underlying themes in examples such as Buddhism and the French revolution.
Those themes largely stemming from, guess what? Someone who thinks they have the right idea on how to address how much it sucks for people who are poor, and taking extra steps into moralizing it and "addressing" it. Sometime it's a coping mechanism adopted by the poor. Sometimes it's a subversive idea introduced by the upper classes to manipulate or quell rebellion. Other times it's just some ambitious activists who wants to flip the tables of power to their way of thinking.
And as for specific case examples where individuality, free speech, freedom to make your own decisions, freedom to own private property, etc? Those aren't just ideologically zany ideas from a bunch of cultists from thousands of years ago. They're measures commonly employed by those currently in power in order to get things to go their way with minimal resistance. It's always about power, manipulation, and control. And a whole lot of narcissism and ego.
The French Revolution absolutely was a proto communist movement. Complete with pogroms and state media.
The parallels are uncanny.
Step 1. Eat the Rich Step 2. Smash the State Step 3. ??? Step 4. Utopia
It turns out that Step 3 always seems to be "Centralize power and establish authoritarian rule of terror"; At which point Step 4 never seems to arrive.
But it doesn't stop useful idiots buying this simple 4 step plan and assuming Step 3 will just "work itself out".
Correct. Leftism is underpants gnomes of politics.
Most of their attitudes derived from Rousseau and were enacted by the Jacobins. Both Rousseau and the Jacobins are well respected within Leftism to this very day.
They are also the originators of the term "Leftist".
Similarly, "Rightists" were simply Rousseauian Revolutionaries that were anti-Jacobin. The purging of the Jacobin's was the Thermidorian Reaction, who were still aligned ideologically with them, but needed to stop the wholesale mass slaughter.
Modern historians like to pretend that the Thermidorian Reaction ended the French revolution because the Thermidorians were somehow anti-Liberal and *anti-*Revolution; despite not a single soul in France believing that. While all of this was happening, Napoleon was cannonading monarchists. Anti-Liberal factions were still explicitly killed in France, and Napoleon seized enough power to be the avatar of the Revolution. Historians like to pretend that Napoleon and the Thermidorians aren't Liberal, are in line with the monarchists, and that "Rightism" was illiberal; that way they can preserve this narrative that the Jacobins were the only true Liberals and Napoleonic France had nothing to do with Revolutionary France.
Meanwhile, Rousseau is a "Liberal" in the most vague sense of the word, and actual Liberals like Laffayette and Jefferson had abandoned the French Revolution, or were otherwise forced out of it to save their own lives very early into the reign of the Jacobins.
That is all very interesting, but what do Liberal and illiberal mean here? Are we saying that "Rightists are the true liberals!" ? What distinguished Lafayette and Jefferson from the faux-Liberal?
The French Revolution was driven heavily by secret societies. This is where "the illuminatti" starts becoming very relevant. You can see the "all seeing eye" right on their Declaration of the Rights of Man. There's a reason that when Hitler invaded France one of their main jobs to prevent rebellion was capture all of the masonic temples. Asha Logos has a great episode on the French revolution.
Which takes us right back to the esoteric/secret cults originating from Gnosticism.