Andrew Willard Jones' book made me reconsider a lot of my views about the absolutism of the NRX/neoabsolutism variety. Modern secular thinkers who are trying to come up with a prescriptive model of absolutism as an alternative to Democratic politics tend to apply a Weberian model
-
-
Religion allows a weak state to extract a high degree of control as long as the state is perceived as being aligned with the faith
Show this thread -
I think Spandrell is probably the NRX thinker who's thought the most in this direction. But I'm not up to date on the latest nrx stuff so maybe there are others who have given this some thought
Show this thread -
My experience interacting with the neoabsolutists on Twitter is that they tend to see religion as merely a set of social norms imposed on a top down basis to serve the interests of the elite
Show this thread -
But I think they get this backwards, since in a Muslim country an elite that tried to do this will eventually lose legitimacy (as you see in the case of Turkey)
Show this thread -
This explains why the secular pseudoreligion of liberalism is simultaneously powerful and fragile. It's powerful because its imperatives are constantly changing to serve the class interests of the elite. It's fragile, because adherence to it (unlike a true religion) is shallow.
Show this thread -
And as its religious imperatives become increasingly absurd, its self serving nature becomes increasingly obvious and its hold over the general public weakens
Show this thread -
However, without a genuine alternative religion, populist revolts against this secular pseudoreligion will always be incoherent and weak
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.