The YouTuber TIK has recently done a video on Gnosticism. TIK is a frustrating YouTuber, he says some things I agree with and has provided me with lots of useful information, I like that he acknowledges the differences between Fascism and Nazism. But he is also clearly a weird type of Classical Liberal and that renders incomprehensible his understanding of what Socialism is.
In this case he's correct that certain Nazis had ideas related to Ancient Gnosticism, but Hitler himself didn't take that stuff seriously and even found Himmler's obsessions kind of annoying. And I agree that Gnostic or at least Platonist ideas have become a part of Mainstream Christianity, but I wouldn't frame how that happened in such Conspiratorial terms.
The idea that Revelation specifically is a Gnostic text, especially the way TIK is defining Gnosticism, is absurd. There is no conventional conception of the Afterlife in Revelation, the Utopia we are looking forward to is this world perfected, and it anticipates a literal Bodily Resurrection of The Dead.
The truth is many Gnostics, especially Marcionites, eventually become hostile to Revelation. You see once you fall for a Marcionite rejection of the Old Testament you will eventually realize that, in terms how we often use the term colloquially, Revelation is more Old Testament then the Old Testament. For a contemporary example of that see the Good God YouTube channel.
It is true that some rejectors of Revelation propose that it was written by Cerinthus or someone with similar ideas and that Cerinthus is sometimes labeled a Gnostic by websites like Wikipedia However the main Gnostic like belief associated with Cerinthus is believing the material world was created by a lesser Angel not the Supreme God and that that lesser Angel was the YWHW who wrote The Torah. But he didn't believe that Creator was Evil and thus didn't view the physical world as evil and was in fact the exact opposite of Marcion in his view of the Old Testament, he actually felt Christians should continue keeping The Torah. Now I don't believe Revelation agrees with Cerinthian theology either, but the point is most Anti-Revelation people see it as having the opposite problem to Gnosticism.
There is a Podcast on YouTube of some modern Gnostics talking about Revelation with a title that may imply they're going to argue it is Gnostic, but in fact they agree on everything I just explained about how materialist and Anti-Gnostic it is, though will try to from their POV find positive traits within it.
TIK uses Augustine as one of his sources talking about Augustine as a former Gnostic. But the thing is Augustine was a former Gnostic who brought Gnostic baggage with him, He was a Gnostic first because he was uncomfortable with the Old Testament's depiction of an Emotional Changeable God, he didn't leave Gnosticism for the mainstream Church because he rejected that hostility but because Ambrose convinced him all that stuff could be allegorized away. Augustine's hostility towards Revelation, or at least to interpreting Revelation literally/Premillennially was a product of how still Gnostic he was. Augustine openly defended taking ideas from Plato, Gnosticism is really just Hyper Platonism.
TIK goes on to claim that the "Dialectical Materialism" of Marxists and other Leftists isn't real Materialism because they use terms that sound weird to him. I also feel that Leftist Dialectal Materialism should separate itself from Hegelian terms, but everything that sounds Mystical or whatever in Hegel is an allegory, it's still meant to be Materialist.
Another part of the problem is how Immanuel Kant kind of changed what it means to be an "Idealist" because for him the Ideas came from the Mind. Kantian Idealism would have been considered at least Semi-Materialist in the Ancient Greek world because they considered part of the material world even Supernatural things like Spirits and lower case g gods. And that goes even more so for how Kantianism evolved in different directions under Schopenhauer and Hegel.
But also Marx is someone who changed over the source of his life, some of his very early stuff was Hegelian before Marxism was actually a thing, but many have argued he was effectively Anti-Hegelian by the end.
