Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

From Gnosticism to Marxism: The Spirit of Antichrist in Movement

In part one we defined Gnosticism. Part two demonstrated how the Big Bang Theory corresponds to general Occultism. Now we will show how modern evolutionary theory connects to each system.


H.P. Blavatsky believed that, allegorically, “the whole Darwinian theory of natural selection is included in the first six chapters of the book of Genesis,” and that the Serpent’s knowledge represents what she calls the Secret Doctrine: the “dual-evolution” and advancement of mankind. She also asserts that ancient Judaism merely copied the imagery from Eastern religion, perverted it, and made the Serpent’s knowledge out to be a negative thing. To her, the only Judaism that gets it right is Kabbalah.[1]

Carl Sagan had almost the exact same view. He saw the Fall as a “viable allegory for the evolution of man,” and that the Serpent’s knowledge was symbolic of fostering evolutionary development.[2] Elsewhere, he heralds “religions [like] Hinduism [and] Gnostic Christianity,” which teach, “as impious as it may sound,” that it is the “goal of humans to become gods.” He, too, links them to ideas of Jewish mysticism in the Talmud: that God “intentionally left the Universe unfinished,” and that it is “the responsibility of humans, over countless generations” [i.e. evolution] to “participate with God in a ‘glorious’ experiment––‘completing the Creation’.”[3]

Sagan, himself of Jewish lineage, found the ancient Egyptian city of Alexandria to be a kind of muse in his Cosmos series. For him, the city was a kind of ‘Paradise Lost,’ with its ‘fall’ due to the ‘Dark Ages’ of Christendom. Alexandria also happens to be the seat of ancient Gnosticism.[4]


The figure of Sophia in Gnosticism is a heralded heroine set against the God of Israel as her ‘accidental’ offspring. Although she is seen as having made a ‘mistake’ by coming into the realm of matter, she is nonetheless associated with the higher forces of divinity, and is the muse of those rebelling against the Demiurge’s matrix of false-reality.

Sophia is the Greek word for Wisdom; it is an essential theme in OT literature, especially for Catholicism. However, the Gnostic Sophia, despite developing from “Jewish Wisdom,” also has overlap with the “the Isis myths” of Egyptian religion; thus having its roots in the Jewish communities of ancient Alexandria, who were heavily Hellenized.[5]

The Diaspora plays a heavy role here. Quispel elaborates, and shows how the foundations for Gnosticism were already in place before the time of Christ,

The historical Diaspora was the basic presupposition for the philosophical tenet that nature is Spirit in exile, God is being in movement, and that matter and history are the result of dialectics. The latter in fact is an oriental myth. It would seem that only the Jewish Diaspora is the historical presupposition for this view. Only in this specific milieu could [this] awareness arise.

Nils Dahl has argued that the target of the Gnostic revolt is the creator of the world rather than the world itself. In fact the world is better than God (I add that in the same way their target was not the Jewish people, but the deficient Law of a tribal god). Dahl shows convincingly that the main claim of the arrogant demiurge…is only understandable as a protest within Judaism.[6]

Although many Gnostics viewed the world of matter as evil, the views spoken of here are a bit modified: it is merely the OT Creator who is the problem; the natural world is better than Him, albeit in need of some re-tooling due to a flawed designer, or at least a flawed conception of Him like Sagan proposes.

It’s important to highlight the fundamental “tenet” that developed: that the Sophianic Spirit was in movement through the dialectics of matter and history, and that rebellion against the God of Israel and His “deficient Law”––what we call ‘Judeo-Christian values’––is inseparable from this struggle.

Indeed, the Gnostic Sophia was in exile throughout the ‘Dark Ages’ of Christendom, waiting for the spark of divinity to shine forth and awaken the masses of Western Civilization; to liberate it from the horror of its Creator: the God of Israel and the Catholic Church. The means for escape, as we know, involves a kind of secret ‘gnosis’ as to the ‘true origins’ of man. Until such a time, religious wars fought in His Name are merely false-dialectical tensions, but ones that foster evolution toward the self-realization that the Judeo-Christian religion is merely an ‘opiate for the masses.’


In the search for origins beyond Judeo-Christianity, Darwin’s most famous work, On the Origin of Species (1859), presented a spark of illumination. However, his view of evolution left little room for “revolutionary” change. The distinct idea of movement and dialectics came later, particularly from the Marxist camp. Britannica tells us that Marx, adopting certain aspects of Hegel, believed that “history conforms to a ‘dialectical’ pattern,” where “contradictions” are to “overcome or transcended” in the next phase.

Another major proponent of adding the label “dialectical” to Darwin’s evolutionary “orientation” was Marxist professor Georgi Plekhanov (d. 1918). Dubbed the “father of Russian Marxism,” Plekhanov heralded Darwin’s contributions as a “triumph of a historical orientation in biology.” He wrote that “so long as biology adhered to a static view of nature, it relied on metaphysical styles of thought.”[7]

Plekhanov also praised the work of Dutch botanist Hugo de Vries (d. 1935) “whose mutation theory challenging the Darwinian commitment to gradualism, gave support to the idea of the dialectics of nature.” He called it “epoch-making” and viewed it as a “confirmation of Engel’s ‘dialectics of nature’.” Others like ‘anarchist prince’ Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin heralded the “new arrival of evolutionary thought,” believing that Russia was indebted to Darwin for its “awakening of naturalism,” which further demonstrates the ‘woke’ ideology of Nature in exile transcending Russian Christendom.[8]

Although Marx’s system is known for its focus on the material over the spiritual, it’s hard not to see the parallels with the Gnostic tenet Quispel described. In fact, the relationship forms a dialectic of its own: the Marxists put an emphasis on the material, but as we can see the system has hidden spiritual foundations; while the ancient Gnostics put an emphasis on the spirit, but were often accused of materialist behavior, as many Church Fathers denounced them for being unwilling to suffer persecution and martyrdom in the Name of Christ.[9]

In further irony, it seems that many Communist ‘materialists’ were more willing to suffer and die for their beliefs than the more ‘spiritual’ Gnostics of ancient times, particularly the Communists in China––the apparent origin of the Gnostic philosophic tenet.


Bolsheviks like Lenin were more partial to the evolutionary theories of Ernst Haeckel.[10] Haeckel was a great popularizer of Darwin, especially in Germany. He’s alleged to be a major source of inspiration for Nazi eugenicists, but this is hotly contested (for obvious reasons). What is not contested is Haeckel’s hatred of religion, particularly of the Roman Catholic variety, which isn’t surprising see as he was situated right in the middle of the German Kulturkampf.

Yet Haeckel “still thought of himself as a religious person,” but was more interested in a “monistic religion of humanity grounded in pantheism,” which is in lock-step with Blavatsky’s Theosophy.[11] In fact, Haeckel was copiously quoted by her as a ‘scientific’ authority to support her theories that mixed Darwinian evolution with Eastern pantheism and reincarnation.[12]

Haeckel also loathed the Jesuits as much as Blavatsky. In 1911 he formed a response to what he called “Jesuitic attacks” against his work.[13] The very first rebuttal Haeckel offered was “evidence of kinship” between an Irish prelate and an ape. By comparing their images, Haeckel deemed them to be two “primates” of close relation, facetiously suggesting that the Roman Catholic ‘species’ had not evolved much since mankind’s (alleged) apish-origins, putting his most ‘scientific’ rebuttal front and center.

Marx was no fan of the God of Israel either despite his Jewish lineage and Lutheran upbringing. Although the Nazis, who campaigned against Marxism and Bolshevism, are most famously known for their anti-Semitism, Marx’s rhetoric on ‘the God of the Jews’ is almost indistinguishable from theirs. Furthermore, many prominent Nazis were rebelling against their Catholic upbringing (e.g. Hitler, Himmler, etc.), like the Gnostics of old against orthodox Judaism.

The Catholic Church is often erroneously blamed for the anti-Semitism of the Nazis, yet the Nazis frequently lumped them into the same categories as the Jews, particularly the Jesuits of the time who were considered “a priori” enemies of the Reich.[14] In fact, the first group Adolf Hitler rails against in Mein Kampf was not the Jews, but rather the Habsburg dynasty: the last remaining bastion of the Holy Roman Empire’s temporal sword. Hitler, while railing against “Habsburg hypocrisy,” calls them a “rotten and degenerate dynasty,” which is ironic considering how Blessed Karl of Austria fathered eight children and Hitler had none.[15]

All this fit into the Nazi’s so-called ‘Positive Christianity’ schema that rejected the OT Yahweh and disconnected Him from the so-called ‘Aryan’ Christ––just as the primitive Gnostics did but without the Nordic tribalism attached. Here are some quotes extracted from both Marx and general Nazi propaganda; the reader can guess where each comes from (see notes for the answers),

[Our opponents are] the Jewish… among them the Jesuit-ultramontane.[16]

Jewish Jesuitism, the same practical Jesuitism… in the Talmud, is the relation of the world of self-interest to the laws governing that world, the chief art of which consists in the cunning circumvention of these laws.[17]

Such is laid down in the Talmud… a swindle…[the] Capitalist [system] is built up upon mass swindling and exploitation in great and small things. The Jew…placing…Jehovah at the centre of all things… thus creates a focal point for himself… The dismissal of this tyrant god would have been synonymous with the dethronement of his papal representative.[18]

What, in itself, was the basis of the Jewish religion? Practical need, egoism… Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man — and turns them into commodities.[19]

[We fight] the spirit of Jewish materialism within us and without us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery… can only take place from within, on the basis of the principle: public need comes before private greed.[20]

It seems very much a ‘familiar spirit’ at work here. The Gnosticism of Marxism and Nazism is evident. Maybe the Radical Left, who calls everyone who disagrees with them a Nazi, would do well to recognize its common ‘origin of species.’


It is no secret that evolutionary theory was at the heart of both Nazi Communist ideology. But perhaps the true ‘secret knowledge’ hidden from the somnambulant masses is that each corresponded to certain fundamental tenets of ancient Gnosticism, albeit in different ways and for different reasons. In further irony, it would appear that Darwinian dialectics and evolutionary theories are just as much an opiate of the masses and just as religious in nature as anything the ‘archons’ of Judeo-Christianity or the Catholic Church could muster up in the 2,000 years of its existence, and caused far more wars and genocide in just one century compared to 2,000 years; it’s just that adherents of the former have not achieved ‘gnosis’ of this fact.

Marxist-Darwinian dialectics appear to be nothing more than Lucifer’s inversion of the Holy Spirit, Who moves through the Church and synthesizes the various conflicts in Christendom into dogmas. The anti-Spirit does precisely the opposite: it causes conflict and chaos and false-dialectics that synthesize in a destruction of Christendom, moving each new reincarnation further from it; and any new ‘dogmas’ it declares are subjective ‘truths’ that mutate and evolves to suit the same end. Such ‘gnosis’ could potentially liberate adherents of Gnostic-tenets of any sort from their true oppressor––the Adversary and his minions––illuminating them to the horror that their rule has kept them trapped and bound in the temporal realm for centuries, all under the illusion of ‘Enlightenment’––which is nothing less than the lie in the Garden.

Aside from the basic premise of evolution of species, little else was unified among its proponents.[21] It seems as if multiple factions were fighting to become the ‘pope’ of evolutionary theory, desiring the power to infallibly interpret its meaning and formulate their own views into ‘eternal truths.’ It is therefore ironic that so much of its development was fostered in direct opposition to the Church, and is perhaps similar to how many Protestant’s ran with Luther’s foundations of Faith and Scripture alone, yet ended up with radically different views from his: from 1517 (Protestantism) to 1717 (Freemasonry) to 1917 (Communism).

Darwin, like Luther, opened the flood-gate; it could not be put back in place, and each would likely have been horrified at their progeny. Although many would argue that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with Protestantism, which believes in the God of Israel, they did share the same mortal enemy: the Jesuits and the ‘Romish’ Church; perhaps that is the only dialectical synthesis that matters, and shows where true transcendence lies.


[1] Blavatsky, Isis Unveiled, vol. i, 303, 575, vol. ii, 267-277; The Secret Doctrine, vol. ii, 202-219. These pages, more or less, detail all the general views mentioned here.

[2] Sagan, Dragons of Eden, 93, 127, 141.

[3] Sagan, Pale Blue Dot, 314.

[4] Sagan, Cosmos, Ep. 13, “Who Speaks for Earth” – He promotes the same propaganda against the Church and St. Cyril of Alexandria on the murder of Hypatia that is found in the literature of Theosophy and Freemasonry.

[5] Yeo, Rhetorical Interaction in Corinthians 8 & 10, 130 – Brill academic work.

[6] Quispel, Gnostica, Judaica, Catholica.

[7] Vucinich, Darwin in Russian Thought, 358-360.

[8] Ibid., 16, 94, 347, 358-360.

[9] Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, pp. 88-92 – She tells us that “martyrdom did occur rarely among the gnostic Christians.”

[10] Vucinich, Darwin in Russian Thought, p. 365.

[11] University of Chicago, Robert J. Richards, “Ernst Haeckel and the Struggles over Evolution and Religion.”

[12] Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, vol. ii, 87, 154, 58, 164, 185, 187, 193, 258, 261, 295, 327, 348, 490, 645, 648, 659, 673, 679, 685, 711, 729, 734, 779, 789 – Blavatsky’s numerous citations and references to Ernst Haeckel. I’ve not found a polemical word towards him thus far.

[13] Haeckel, The Answer of Ernst Haeckel to the Falsehoods of the Jesuits – To be fair, he does provide his scientific evidence later, it is just ironic that the first thing he presents are brazen and emotionally charged ad hominems.

[14] Conway,  The Nazi Persecution of the Churches 1933-1945, 290 – See index on “Jesuits” for a multitude of examples.

[15] Hitler, Mein Kampf (Manheim), 15, 512 – Chapter one mentions the Habsburgs, while he doesn’t get into Judaism until chapter two. Fittingly, he describes Germany as a “slumbered” state under Habsburg rule, like the Gnostics under the Demiurge’s tyranny.

[16] Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich, 57 – Protestant League meeting with Nazi speech.

[17] Marx, On the Jewish Question, 32.

[18] Rosenberg, The Myth of the 20th Century, 120, 194, 460.

[19] Marx, On the Jewish Question, 31

[20] Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich, 14 – NSDAP Party Program of 1920.

[21] Vucinich, Darwin in Russian Thought – Professor Vucinich deliberates the various battles within the revolutionary circles of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Plekhanov and others as it pertains to evolutionary thinking.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...