The Rise of the Secular Theocracy - Riding the Tiger

[Saif al-Malik]

Webster defines “theocracy” as the government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. Throughout high antiquity, theocracy, in one of many forms, was the standard, rather than the exception. The rulers of Rome were the embodiment of a regal spirituality; in Tibet under the Lamas, political power became concentrated in the priestly class, who functioned as much as religious leaders, as they did as political ones. Evola, in Revolt Against the Modern World idealizes the “Olympian ruler” or Chakravartin, as the wielder of power and one who is divinely inspired.

To be continued at:
http://www.ridingthetiger.org/2011/08/the-rise-of-the-secular-theocracy/

[nous]

"Secular theocracy" is a brilliant oxymoron.

I don't really understand this passage, though. Maybe you could clarify?

Whereas before Judaism was a rabbinical the rejection of Christian doctrine, formed after Christ, Judaism — including the Talmud and its brazen hostility towards gentiles — was now incorporated into the ordinary faith of Europeans.   Thus, as long as Europe was Christian, they were able to maintain a semblance of a traditional society.

[JewishPhysics]

"Secular theocracy" is a brilliant oxymoron.

In context, it really isn't even an oxymoron.  The rise of most self-proclaimed secular movements are really just liberal humanist movements.  Humanism is, and often self admittedly, a type of religion.  ...maybe more like a cult or something.

[Saif al-Malik]

"Secular theocracy" is a brilliant oxymoron.

I don't really understand this passage, though. Maybe you could clarify?

Whereas before Judaism was a rabbinical the rejection of Christian doctrine, formed after Christ, Judaism — including the Talmud and its brazen hostility towards gentiles — was now incorporated into the ordinary faith of Europeans.   Thus, as long as Europe was Christian, they were able to maintain a semblance of a traditional society.

It was removed, but I am not the author of that piece.  My articles are more encouraging in nature.  My assumption is that he was referring to many organizations being controlled by deviants and there followers often being rather "regular" people in some way, shape, or form.  There is also the reality of a small, vocal, and well-connected network effecting change in policy whether beneficial or suicidal.  PNAC anyone?