there is a lot, a lot, that could eventually go up but this is more an incubation stage for Wenatchee The Hatchet. Weaving together social science observations from Zimbardo, Baumeister and some folks from ribbon farm is time-consuming. Throw in Hanna Rosin's "The End of Men" and some thematically pertinent ideas from that side and here's a question, if you have a generation or two of males who are educated in a globalized post-industrial economic scene in which they are more able than ever to realize how disposable they are; and if in the midst of that you have someone whose sales pitch is "legacy" and who promises explicitly or at least implicitly that if you join the cause you will contribute to and positively benefit from said legacy; wouldn't you by definition have a cult on your hands?
Isn't a culture, in that kind of way, simply a successful cult? Evangelicals have been so busy defining cultic dynamics in pejorative terms, usually terms that construe doctrinal error, that they fail to grasp that successful cult formation is the essence of all human social activity.
While some in the press still talk about Driscoll's alleged testoserone gospel, it's important to get some sense of what the buyers of that Gospel thought they were being sold and what they would say the bought into. Progressives have fallen short here because they focused more on the "what" of what Mark seemed to be selling than on the "how" of how he got it to work as long as he did.
He functionally promised young guys who may ahve come from fraught economic and social backgroudns a legacy if they hitched their wagons to his star.
There's far more that could be written on this matter but that may have to wait fo