My definition is along the lines of someone's who's working towards governance by religious leaders & law. If a theocrat can only be a theocrat when they've taken control (and thus it's too late), than language has failed.
Either you're talking past me or you misunderstood. Regardless, you aren't even using your own personal definition consistently.
It's just a few more steps in that direction. They already have their pseudo state religion, at this point the goal is just entrenching it and disseminating diktats.
Who's "they"? 'Cause frankly, this can apply to both sides of the aisle, as long as you're willing to stretch the definition of "religion" a bit. And one certainly has greater political, cultural, and economic influence than the other as of late…
I don't really need to allege these elements working together, when it's admitted so blatantly.
I'm not actually sure if he said that; the best sources I can find are 1) an untranslated Youtube video of him giving a speech in Hungarian, 2) a random blog post with no sources, and 3) fucking Infowars.
How about some actual connections or parallels; cases where his policies actually end up being used as blueprints by others.
There's a reason I bring up Orban so much, the American Right & other guests consider Hungary a model.
Ah, so he is to you as Chávez and Maduro are to many others: an example of a negative end-state of a particular ideology. One that's not necessarily applicable in every case, but still gives interesting insight into what may happen and why. But just as important as analyzing the end result is analyzing why people may support the inciting policies or individuals in the first place.
In the case of Hungary, much of it seems to be a long-term reaction to decades spent under the communist boot breeding a desire to not only pivot to the opposite of atheistic left-wing rule, but also a desire to be unshackled to the whims of unaccountable bureaucrats thousands of miles away.
In the case of Venezuela, initial support for Chavez and his "revolution" was born from a history of ineffective governance and economic crises, compounded by the country's relative lack of experience with autocratic rule. Support was then amplified and locked down by the government providing extensive social programs, bankrolled almost entirely by oil.
We can learn a lot from both of these, and others, too, as long as we actually know what's going on, how things got to be this way, and why. Simply blindly going "muh vuvuzela" or "muh hungry" any time anything remotely similar happens doesn't help anything.
Though I guess if you want a more direct look into what could be in store for eg. the United States in regards to the excesses and hubris of modern progressivism, it might be more relevant to look at the bullshit happening in, like, Canada or Scotland.