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!