Why are you suddenly defending this theory from the perspective of the cult itself?  That's not how Barker explained it. She said that:

the antagonists on each side behave rather badly, and that gives permission for the other side to behave more badly, so you get this spiral and increasing polarisation with each side ...

That was an unreasonable thing to say.  So now, to defend it, you pretend that she was merely conveying what the cult members itself were saying. 

This isn't the first time you've done this either.  Anything but admit how flawed these NRM arguments are, eh Andries?