Current Moral Hysteria & Alternative Religion: What does old Modelling Say

The link between sectarian membership and deprivation has been an important and enduring aspect of the study of sects.  As we have seen, in such works as that of Troeltsch and Niebuhr, deprivation is usually given to mean material poverty and social marginalization. For those who have little stake in society the sect brings a new status. Often, through millenarian themes which stress the immanent arrival of the kingdom of God, it constructs a new set of values that are in conflict with the world, frequently attacking injustices and the sources of poverty and alienation. (Hunt, 2003, p. 37)

In the 1960's, as part of the wider picture of profound religious and social change, sects appeared to be proliferating.  In the USA, at least, the growth seemed to be more obviously linked to the recruitment of marginalized and disadvantaged groups.  For instance, the Black Muslim movement provided for the needs of many poor blacks.  Although it started in the 1930's among Afro-Americans the movement proliferated at a time of pressure for civil rights from the 1960's onwards and began to also attract middle-class adherents.  In time-honoured tradition, the movement has since splintered into various factions.  Some have returned to Sunni Islamic orthodoxy while others continue to be politically motivated, advancing black rights in what is perceived to be a white-dominated society. (Hunt, 2003, p. 38)

In explaining the rise of sectarian type groups, Glock (1958) expanded the notion of deprivation. This was in order to understand how sects, in numerous ways, provide a channel through which their members are able to transcend their feelings of deprivation by replacing them within a sense of religious privilege.  This privilege comes through sectarianism, with its emphasis on belonging to an 'elite'.  Thus we can understand how adherents to sects may be drawn from a variety of social background. Here, sect members no longer compare themselves tin terms of their relatively lower economic position, but by way of their superior spiritual status....Religious solutions to this range of deprivations are more likely to occur where the nature of the deprivation is inaccurately perceived or where those experiencing the deprivation are not well placed to work directly at eliminating the causes.  Conversely the resolution is likely to be secular, without reference to the supernatural, in  a situation where deprivation is correctly assessed by those experiencing it and they have the power to overcome its causes directly. (Hunt, 2003, p. 38)

Hunt, J. (2003).  Alternative Religions: A Sociological Introduction. Ashgate, England.

Are We the Good Guys?

At some point you have to take a look at your movement from the outside. If multiple slices of your movement is functionally indistinguishable from the mafia, maybe, just maybe, some deep introspection and deprogramming is in order.

Shuford’s Smoke House says leftists threatened to burn down their business after the accepted an order from “Back the Blue” police supporters.

This type of action is very similar to the American War of Independence. Loyalist businesses were threatened by ruffians, then they were burned out, then recalcitrants were tarred and feathered, then forcibly expelled. Each step ratcheted up things just a little bit. But, of course, it was deserved because those Loyalists just weren't getting the message.

Of course Loyalist strongholds did the same thing to Patriots. They just had the force of law behind them. This slowed down their response rate. It also forced more consensus among Loyalists and the law, resulting in clearer thresholds for action. Of course, that ultimately cost them the revolution.

I don't remember similar things happening during the Civil War. Nor do I remember this type of targeting during the 1890's - 1910's labour (progressive) insurrection. During the Civil Rights era, these types of actions were limited to Jim Crow rednecks trying to enforce segregation. I'm not sure that puts modern radicals among good company.

Maybe, just maybe, that means taking a hard look at the dynamics of the movement and thinking about where things have gone wrong. Because, I doubt very much it's as simple as "those Antifa just co-opted things because they're just a bit too excitable and over zealous". Chances are, there's a thread of much deeper insidiousness happening. Are we really the good guys?

Revelations

Now that twitter's monopoly is in free fall due to their banning conservatives left right and center, a new player has come to take its place - Parler.

What's interesting about this from a group dynamics perspective, is that it looks like you're starting to see the critical mass for new narratives and new adaptive (viritual) groups developing.  Twitter had this potential, but node disruptions and throttling never gave it the sense that it was sustainable and people could be themselves on the conservative side (for better or worse).

For example, I doubt you'd see this on twitter

And while you'd probably see this "hot take", it would probably be limited to reactionary network clusters

Once these things get approved by a majority of people on a platform, the dynamics change. Twitter, facebook and others were rightly worried about that. It's the "silence is violence" trope that is as true as the Overton window. Gab got sucked into that and I doubt will ever get out of 4-chan hell.

But, the most important point is that 1st ammenders are organizing. And while most every social institution and governing caste is against them, I suspect when the conservative ramp-up comes, it will have a quality clearly different from current agitations.

That's why I worry so much about Nov election. A "stolen" election, and the placement of leadership who hates their very identity will energize some very pronounced movements of this congealing group agent.