It seems like both sides are anxious to demonize the other and associate them with Satan with the strange exception of Bannon who is embracing the dark side? This smacks of more "Greed is good" Gordon Gekkoism which I trace back to Nietzsche and Beyond Good and Evil in which:

Religion and the master and slave moralities feature prominently as Nietzsche re-evaluates deeply held humanistic beliefs, portraying even domination, appropriation and injury to the weak as not universally objectionable.

from Wiki, but it'll do.

And then there is the substrain of Ayn Rands ripoff objectivism which also promotes the myth of a Supermen who live only for themselves, outside of any ethical constraints of civilization:

Rand's explanation of values presents the view that an individual's primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well-being—it is for his life and his self-interest that an individual ought to adhere to a moral code.[56] Ethical egoism is a corollary of setting man's life as the moral standard.[57] Rand believed that rational egoism is the logical consequence of humans following evidence wherever it leads them. The only alternative would be that they live without orientation to reality.

A corollary to Rand's endorsement of self-interest is her rejection of the ethical doctrine of altruism—which she defined in the sense of Auguste Comte's altruism (he coined the term), as a moral obligation to live for the sake of others. Rand also rejected subjectivism. A "whim-worshiper" or "hedonist," according to Rand, is not motivated by a desire to live his own human life, but by a wish to live on a sub-human level. Instead of using "that which promotes my (human) life" as his standard of value, he mistakes "that which I (mindlessly happen to) value" for a standard of value, in contradiction of the fact that, existentially, he is a human and therefore rational organism. The "I value" in whim-worship or hedonism can be replaced with "we value," "he values," "they value," or "God values," and still it would remain dissociated from reality. Rand repudiated the equation of rational selfishness with hedonistic or whim-worshiping "selfishness-without-a-self." She held that the former is good, and the latter evil, and that there is a fundamental difference between them.[58]

For Rand, all of the principal virtues are applications of the role of reason as man's basic tool of survival: rationality, honesty, justice, independence, integrity, productiveness, and pride—each of which she explains in some detail in "The Objectivist Ethics."[59] The essence of Objectivist ethics is summarized by the oath her Atlas Shrugged character John Galt adhered to: "I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."[60]

The moment I found out that Paul Ryan is an Ayn Rand fan and gave out copies of Atlas Shrugged to his staff, I knew he was a complete fraud and I laugh my head off at the idea that he is the "brains" of the Republican Party.

But where we go in the future with all this demonization based on accusations of fraternizing with the devil is hard to say, when increasing segments of the population deny the existence of any such entity in the first place:

The World's Newest Major Religion: No Religion

The religiously unaffiliated, called "nones," are growing significantly. They’re the second largest religious group in North America and most of Europe. In the United States, nones make up almost a quarter of the population. In the past decade, U.S. nones have overtaken Catholics, mainline protestants, and all followers of non-Christian faiths.

I grew up in a secular household and even back then, most of my friends did too. I had three close girlfriends and only one came from a family who regularly attended church on Sunday and we had to await for her return in order to restore the fourth side to our square. The other families, slept in, made waffles, read the paper, etc. This was in Southern California in the sixties.

An oft repeated family anecdote recounts me at the age of three or so, turning on the TV on a Sunday morning in search of Crusader Rabbit and then turning it off in disgust and announcing "Nothing on but God- singing!"

My father for a few years took me to church on Easter as some kind of symbolic reaffirmation of his lapsed Catholisicm, and for a couple years I was excited about my payoff for accompanying him - the traditional Easter get-up of the fussy dress with the scratchy tulle underskirt, little white gloves, a stiff straw hat, a ridiculous little handbag, white ankle socks and black Mary Janes. I must have finally seen myself in a mirror at some point because the Easter ensemble lost its allure and my father gave up his token attendance.

My formal religious training was mostly through watching episodes of Davy and Goliath, supplemented by Bible Story coloring books at the dentists office. BUT, I did have stringent moral training about one's duty to be moral and honorable and to care for one's fellow man. My father took me aside one day when I guess he may have become slightly concerned about raising a child without inculcating concerns or constraints about the wrath of God, and we discussed the 10 Commandments which he summarized for me as one general sin - to never hurt another consciously, which if you think about it pretty much covers all evil, immoral or unethical acts.

IMO, the glue of society is the belief that there are rules and there are laws that govern our behavior, whether they are religious or civil. There is a great imbalance in our moral universe because many of are realizing that the laws of man are applied unjustly or not at all, often depending on one's class or race. We find ourselves in a world and country of Calvinball - the rules are changing constantly and only to the advantage of people who are already advantaged. I can completely understand people who turn to religion in order to obtain some comfort and sense that there is some kind of moral order to the universe when we fail to find it in a secular world.

[video:https://youtu.be/q-PX2Z4r-e4]

Too hard a job.

Just dropping off a little classic Twain, which was the main piece of an OT I put together a couple of weeks ago.

[The following letter, signed by Satan and purporting to come from him, we have reason to believe was not written by him, but by Mark Twain. --EDITOR.]

To the Editor of Harper's Weekly:

Dear Sir and Kinsman,--Let us have done with this frivolous talk.
The American Board accepts contributions from me every year: then why shouldn't it from Mr. Rockefeller? In all the ages, three-fourths of the support of the great charities has been conscience-money, as my books will show: then what becomes of the sting when that term is applied to Mr. Rockefeller's gift? The American Board's trade is financed mainly from the graveyards. Bequests, you understand. Conscience-money. Confession of an old crime and deliberate perpetration of a new one; for deceased's contribution is a robbery of his heirs. Shall the Board decline bequests because they stand for one of these offenses every time and generally for both?

Allow me to continue. The charge must persistently and resentfully and remorselessly dwelt upon is that Mr. Rockefeller's contribution is incurably tainted by perjury--perjury proved against him in the courts. It makes us smile -- down in my place! Because there isn't a rich man in your vast city who doesn't perjure himself every year before the tax board. They are all caked with perjury, many layers thick. Iron-clad, so to speak. If there is one that isn't, I desire to acquire him for my museum, and will pay Dinosaur rates. Will you say it isn't infraction of the law, but only annual evasion of it? Comfort yourselves with that nice distinction if you like -- for the present. But by and by, when you arrive, I will show you something interesting: a whole hell-full of evaders! Sometimes a frank law-breaker turns up elsewhere, but I get those others every time.

To return to my muttons. I wish you to remember that my rich perjurers are contributing to the American Board with frequency: it is money filched from the sworn-off personal tax; therefore it is the wages of sin; therefore it is my money; therefore it is I that contribute it; and, finally, it is therefore as I have said: since the Board daily accepts contributions from me, why should it decline them from Mr. Rockefeller, who is as good as I am, let the courts say what they may?

Satan.

If you really want to read one of the most scathing things he wrote about the human race, you have to read his "Letters From The Earth."

It's written from the view of Satan, who is visiting the earth and writing back to his fellow archangels Gabriel and Michael about what he sees. It's blistering with venom for Man's self-satisfaction, immorality and hypocrisy.

It should be noted, he spewed tons of likewise invective, that even today are not well known to the greater public, because he specified it not come out until years after his death, like his autobiography which only came out a few years ago, 100 years after his death.

There's a treasure trove to be sought out of essays and short stories in this vein.