I grew up in the foothills of the Smokies and genuinely think that experience helped me contextualize the militia folks I interviewed and did ethnography with.

BUT. This kind of economic reductionism is profoundly unhelpful. https://twitter.com/WalkerBragman/status/1314343175960567808

There are many factors that go into radicalization, and frankly the suggestion that poverty -> violence is not only wrong, but just plain offensive.

(and if you read the whole thread, I don't think that's *exactly* what the author was going for here, but this first post particular feels like nothing more than poverty porn)

There is evidence connecting deprivation to radicalization, but deprivation doesn't always mean economic deprivation.

And it doesn't always mean objective deprivation, people can *believe* that they are deprived on some dimension even if they're actually, objectively doing okay korbeven better off) in a way that is much more connected to action

Many more impoverished people than not are Not radicalized to violence. Many more "inner city" people (see original thread) than not are Not radicalized to violence

That alone means we have to account for other variables here.

I may make this into a longer post later, but some variables that are relevant for militia members who become radicalized (usually properly categorized as millenarians) include:

hegemonic masculinity, strong nationalism, niche religious beliefs, racism, and even overly strong family connections within the military unit itself

(and to be perfectly clear, poverty, regardless of where it exists, is something that we should take seriously and address, but that's not the same thing as pathologizing it)