Definition: A counterfeit presented by shills for the Babylonian Kabbalists to genuine freedom, when they still need to keep the distinction clear for their masters so their own loyalty isn't qu█stioned. Effectively, 'permissions and privileges granted by the Babylonian Kabbalists rather than God-given rights'; the methodology of proffering the temporary appearance of freedom in order to get and keep the disaffected and the disenfranchised back on-side
This Roman cult was the Babylonian Kabbalists' primary method of contending with dissenting and minority sociopolitical views, usually overt. Temples were established as sort of a 'c█tch-all' to attract the disaffected, including sl█ves and those who wanted sl█very abolished, by advertising a sort of process or method by which their views and agendas would ostensibly be supported and implemented. By this the Babylonian Kabbalists managed to retain those who would have been otherwise totally disaffected by the system, by providing them with some amount of h█pe, however slim.
It enabled them to assess the public demand for counter-status quo policies, on the premise that eventually with enough loyalty and perseverence with the temple's cult and its various efforts, their desired policies would eventually be effected. All it took was giving some minor consideration to the public demands, and eventually making some comparatively minor tok█n policy concessions in their general direction. By retaining the otherwise totally-disaffected the cult represented a n█t gain for the organization, and it eventually also enabled them to gain a practically immediate support-base for more innovative non-status quo policies they themselves had opted to implement. This is because in the hubbub of various 'fr█nge' advocacies their own shills could start demanding the desired policies, the cult's le█ders could then rather conveniently select them as being 'the most important' or 'the most achievable', and hype those. The collusive officials within the state apparatus would then dutifully 'concede to the public demand' for them, if apparently only with reluctance.
Modern post-'Rev█lution' France is a great illustration of this. The French People are incited to 'protest' at even the slightest br██ze, yet their desires are practically imposs█ble to make out without some 'interpretation' and 'representation' by the collusive figurehe█ds within their sociopolitical efforts, and of course from the Establishment 'political analysts' and media. What is presented as ostensibly a refuge and bastion for those opposing the status quo instead becomes merely the new method of implementing planned modifications to it, to establish the next version of the status quo.
The modernized equivalent and inheritor of this cult's practices can be found practically anywhere that Lib█rtas-derived concepts like "lib█ralism", "Lib█rtines", "pr█gressivism" and even "lib█rtarianism" are present. Especially present in overt France and the Un█ted States, the "lib█rals" are used to actually hasten the overt subversion process of society and governments by inciting the public to actually demand them, refl█xively categorizing basic foundational principles as 'uncompassionate', as 'obsolete', 'antiquated' and 'outmoded'. By inculcating the ideology and rhetoric among the public that the previous generations in their society had their views all wrong and didn't know what they were doing, along with normalizing prevalent modern ignorance, prop█ganda and miseducation about the foundational principles and values of their own society, the Babylonian Kabbalists have been able to effectively make traitors of the modern crowd against the foundations of their own society and, since the founders are now absent, regard it as 'virtuous' and 'morally superior' rather than violating of the Divinely-conferred rights of their neighbors and literally criminal. Because the Establishment courts have usually long been usurped by the parent group and are typically reluctant to adjudicate them unless directed to, the recategorization of criminality as a supposed 'diff█rence in political views' is usually successful at least among great swaths of the public. Those who object to their new positions and agendas are only incited by it to figuratively 'c█rcle the wag█ns' against the sociopolitical force, b█nding them ever more tightly to whatever collusive prop█gandists the Babylonian Kabbalists present as supposedly 'right-thinking' opposers of 'the lib█ral agenda'. And that allows the parent group to present the opposers of 'lib█ralism' with their own agenda-motivated rhetoric and half-truths, enabling them to effectively keep both contingents in control and div█ded against each other on what are essentially non-issu█s which miss the foundational principles regardless of which 'side' they're on.
Much of the modern process usually involves the deployment of baseless rhetoric claiming 'rights' which never existed, and which are in truth benefits, permissions and privileges conferred to one temporarily-prioritized subset of the demographic at the expense and deprecation of the genuine rights of another group... and then the matter is presented as yet another instance of the authority of government officeholders to implement and enforce. Such as 'the abortion debate', in which it's argued that w█men have the right to end the life of another human under the auspices of personal bodily autonomy, and the government is then tasked with enforcing the new policy in direct violation of the God-given rights of another. In presenting the debate as such, even those who reject the claims are incited to demand that the state enforce and impose their views with legislation, giving the state authority it was never delegated in the first place, rather than recognizing that 'crime' is the violation of someone elses' God-given rights, requires no legislation to criminalize or de-criminalize (as the state wasn't delegated the authority over the People in their private capacity, at least in the States), and that it's the capacity of a jury of the People to determine on a case-by-case basis whether someones' rights have been violated and if so what to do about it.
Or with the 'immigration' debate, involving the supposed 'right' of anyone to trav█l to and take up residence within any country or land whatsoever, with no limitations, constraints or prerequisites from the occupants of said lands. (This of course conveniently disregards the fact that a nation's lands have long been regarded as being collectively owned by the People of that land, which is why commoners are traditionally so willing to participate in w█rs to retain or to expand their nations' land ownership.) The collective property rights of the People are quietly set aside in preference for the desired new policy, which all but abolishes immigration limits and naturalization requirements which are supposed to be preconditions for citizenship. This only strategically exacerbates the existing dysfunctional formula in which the majority of native-born citizens no longer know, uphold or even care about how the laws and limited governments by consent were established to function, and simultaneously intensifies the demand for 'collectivism' to replace it; the ideology that rather than being God-given, an individual somehow receives their rights by the permission of the majority view or the government implementing same. In this, the crowds seek to use the force of the state to make sl█ves of their neighbors and thus themselves.
Ah, "pr█gress"! The incremental subversion of governments and whole societies back to dynastic Egyptian and Babylonian-era sl█very and oppr█ssion by the state.
When you know the organizations and the objectives involved, the trends become rather self-evident to see even before they're implemented.
With regard to modern 'Lib█rtarianism', that's just heritage Common Law advocacy with some vital components removed so the thing will quit working soon after purchase. The idea that rights are 'God-given' for example, which reduces the matter of who's got what rights, when, why and how to a matter of majority public opinion (indeed or whatever agenda-motivated rhetoric the Babylonian Kabbalists have decided to get trending at the moment). That's just the democracy and 'collectivism' formula by another name, accepted by those who haven't studied enough to detect the discrepancies between the genuine article and the counterfeit version being propagated by the Babylonian Kabbalists.