One shouldn't imagine that religious politics
And political religion are identical!
They appertain to different
Spectra of ideological evolution,
The one ... tail-ending a democratic spectrum,
The other ... at the inception
Of a truly theocratic one.
Religious politics is still political,
Whereas the essence of political religion
Is of course religious.
We are dealing, then, with a distinction between
Fundamentalist socialism, or Soviet Communism,
And Social Transcendentalism, or theocratic Centrism,
And while fundamentalist socialism
Is fundamentally autocratic (if somewhat theocratically so,
to the extent that it derives from Marx), it is
Pseudo-democratic in that it champions
A People's Democracy from a totalitarian base
In which, as in liberal republicanism, both
Prime ministers and presidents fulfil
Their 'democratic' offices of state.
By contrast, Social Transcendentalism
Would be 'democratic' to the extent
That it upheld a bureaucracy,
But theocratic in everything else,
Not least of all in its adherence to
The Leader-principle and consequent avoidance of
Prime ministerial and/or presidential associations.
The President of a People's Republic signifies the Antichrist,
The Leader of a Social Transcendental Centre
Will signify the Second Coming.
There lies the principal distinction between
Religious politics and political religion!