Talk:Hate group/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Article is now in RfC

This article is already in Wikipedia:RfC. Let's wait and see what other editors have to say. Removing text from the article does not help, as editors will need to see the nature of the dispute. Richard, John: please refrain from adding or removing text for now. Thanks. --Zappaz 02:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Modemac, I would appreciate if you wait until we hear from other editors before unilateraly removing text. The article is in RfC --Zappaz 02:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another revert and this article will break the Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule and will need to go to dispute resolution. Please keep cool and wait to see what other editors have to say before deleting text. Thanks. --Zappaz 02:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Modemac for the NPOV attempt. I have made a small edit re:Inovigne. Hope it sticks. --Zappaz 20:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add my voice to the continuing comments about this article. First of all, let me introduce myself. I used to be a follower of Guru Maharaj Ji, who calls himself Prem Rawat these days. Followers of Guru Maharaj Ji were called premies, which makes me an ex-premie. I read the article on Prem Rawat and although I didn't agree with it's perspective, I don't really care that much about it one way or the other. But now I come to this article where I see that simply because I choose not to follow Guru Maharaj Ji anymore I am being considered part of a suspected hate group. How can this be possible? You can't just call people who stop practicing a religion a hate group.

As far as I know, there is no organised group of ex-premies. There is a website, ex-premie.org, which as far as I can tell is run by one or two people. There is also a forum on which all kinds of people post on. These people present a widely varying cross-section of society and have very differing views. I also post there on occasion. I want to state very clearly that I don't have anything against premies and would never do anything to prevent them from practicing their religion. I enjoy posting on the forum and appreciate ex-premie.org only because it helps me to understand more about a part of my past which I was troubled about and wanted to investigate further. What does this have to do in any way with hate groups?

I think I know what a hate group is. I have friends who ended up in the hospital at the hands of Nazi skinheads and very nearly was attacked myself on two occasions. By including ex-premies in this article, not only are you falsely demonizing anyone who decides not to follow Rawat, but you are making a joke out of a very serious topic.

I hope my words will bring some sensibility to the writers of this article. -- Drapadi

Drapadi, please note that this article does not state that the ex-premies are a hate group. What is stated is that the target of their criticism (the organizations that support PR and followers) label them as a hate group. It seems that other NRMs have felt the same level of intense criticism and have also labeled their critics a hate group. --Zappaz 22:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did note that. But I think you must be aware that the association still sticks in the mind of the reader. It's like if I say, "I can't believe that Tommy said that Mary is a slut!" I didn't say that Mary is a slut, but everyone knows that she is now. That is what you are doing. Most readers will even forget where they originally read that even, but will retain this association of ex-premies with hate groups.

Another problem I have with this is that you don't name a specific organisation. You can't just label all ex-members of something a hate group. There must be at least 50,000 ex-premies in the world. The majority of them probably don't even know of the existence of the ex-premie forum or this controversy. Now they are alleged to belong to a hate group according to your article. Just because an organisation like EV says something illogical in defense doesn't give it credibility. How can everyone who ever left their movement belong to a hate group?

You also have two sentences which make this claim, but no rebuttal from these so-called ex-premies. How is that a NPOV? Don't you have to present both sides? It isn't even possible to have a rebuttal, because there is no organisation of ex-premies. This is a fantasy of DLM. They have created a fantasy villain to demonize. Where have we seen that before? By repeating it here you only give it credibility. Is that what you want to do?

I am an ex-premie. I don't believe in their religion anymore, but I would defend their right to practice their beliefs as much as any other religion, as long as it isn't a hate group. By repeating the EV allegation uncritically in your article, you are aiding and abetting them in demonizing me for something I absolutely don't deserve. All of our time would be much better served in doing something to fight against real hate groups than persisting in this. I'll say something else. EV isn't a hate group, but they certainly seem to hate their ex-members. -- Drapadi

Zappaz, by mentioning Elan Vital's false allegation out of context, in an article that should be about genuine, universally recognised, hate groups, some readers will assume (without investigating further) that there is some truth to the allegation. There is of course no truth to the allegation, although the behaviour of some supporters of Prem Rawat on Wikipedia is increasingly leading to the conclsuion that they really are a hate group. Prem Rawat's supporters have made their allegation in the Prem Rawat Criticism article where the context is fully explained, and there it should stay. --John Brauns 23:18, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interesting that you are finally calling for contextualization :)

Please note that the context is given. Read Modemac's addition (2nd paragraph). That is IMO a well developed context for the rest of the section. --Zappaz 23:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, the paragraph is fine (assuming you mean the second paragraph in the "Hate groups and new religious movements" section), but you must weigh mentioning Elan Vital's false allegation as an example, against the hurt this causes former followers of Rawat. I and others consider Elan Vital's claim to be libellous, and I have been advised that I have good grounds for legal action against Elan Vital in the US, UK, and Australia. This article should be about genuine, universally recognised, hate groups. Why are you not focussing your attention on them? --John Brauns 00:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Drapadi, I think that there is a misunderstanding here. The article does not refers generically to ex-students or ex-followers of PR, but to a group of people that call themselves the "ex-premies". I understand from my research and from conversations that took place during the editing of the articles related to Prem Rawat, that many, if not most of ex-students do not share the feelings and the vitriolic criticism of the "ex-premies". I was myself taken aback by the ferocity of some the comments made in these pages, some very obscene and definitively hateful. You may want to read Criticism_of_Prem_Rawat#Sources_of_criticism in which the "ex-premies" are discussed.

I am done for today! ... Nothing like baking some good bread to uplift the spirit! --Zappaz 01:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I agree that the majority of former followers do not care so much. This was the case in my NRM too. Only people who believed in it too deeply, and had donated too much money, time, and were deeply devoted and had mentally surrendered to the guru, which he encouraged, and had unwavering faith in the guru generally have problems on leaving. They had invested too much of their life in him and their faith in him gave meaning to their life. It should be noted that they feel they have no choice but leaving because of the overwhelming evidence that something is very seriously wrong. Moreover current followers of Rawat deny important facts about the past, which is extremely insulting. And when former followers explain the reasons why they get disillusioned then they are branded as a "hate group". Can you imagine how unfair and how low that is? Can you imagine that they get angry with a person who defends this guru? I am aware I generalize a lot and that this comment may be a bit inappropriate for this talk page but I want people to understand the position of former followers of abusive NRMs like myself and the ex-premies. Andries 05:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I'm afraid that the misunderstanding is with you. Ex-premie means ex-follower of Guru Maharaj Ji. It is like using the terms ex-Catholic or ex-Jew. This is one of the main problems with your article. You can't blame the whole group of ex-followers based on the alleged actions of some individuals. You need to identify a specific organisation that promotes these actions.

I don't know if the allegations listed above are true. It wouldn't surprise me if at least some of them were. There has always been a fanatical faction of premies. I'm sure you are aware of the pie throwing incident, which involved high-ranking premies. That is an extreme example of a commonplace mentality. I could imagine that a few premies have taken their fanaticism with them when they became ex. But if so, these people are acting as individuals. What I can say definitely is that this kind of fanatical action has been taken against ex-premies. I have a friend, an ex-premie, whose bosses were contacted through anonymous letters to try and get him fired. I could use this to claim that EV is also a hate group. But I am not so low. I think that this was done by a fanatical premie acting on his own. At least I hope so. But you see, fanaticism is on both sides. I also think that the one-reality.net website qualifies as a hate site.

What your are saying is like calling all anti-abortionists terrorists because one fanatic decides to blow up an abortion clinic. -- Drapadi

It is amazing yo see the duplicity here. On one hand Andries feels comfortable to talk about "abusive NRMs" and Drapadi to talk about "fanatics" and then they cry foul when someone is of the opinion that the ex-premies are a hate group. ≈ jossi ≈ 18:40, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, there is no duplicity. Elan Vital and the Sai Baba group are recognised as cults that practice thought reform by all the leading experts in the field. Drapadi talked about fanatics on both sides, although from my perspective, having been on the receiving end of abuse by supporters of Rawat for the last few years, it appears there are more fanatics among current followers. Having said that, I repeat that in my belief the vast majority of current followers are good people who could not behave in this way. Regarding the 'hate group' allegation, no one, except a small minority of current followers of Rawat, shares that view. --John Brauns 19:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

experts in the field, Yeah right... Read: anti-cultist bigots. You receiving abuse?, yeah right... So maybe is just one or two people in your little group of 15 to 20 people? Maybe it is just Jim Heller?

• Rawat's like an old, old, old stripper, perhaps in her 80's, with a small, loyal following of degenerate losers who are willing to keep showing up, paying their two bucks and masturbating at her "timeless" fan show. If you squint hard enough ... well, it sure helps if your eyesights failing to begin with." - Jim Heller, September 29, 2004

• I hate premies -- and why not? Look at them. 'Hate' is such a funny word these days. Some PC policy wonks decided that after centuries of meaning simply a strong dislike or aversion to something or someone, 'hate' should now be reserved for crimes of racial bias or other such prejudice. Well fuck that. 'Hate' works perfectly fine the old way and that's how I'm using it. -- Jim Heller

• Quite often in April and September Ivory's Rock Conference centre is overrun by feral animals which need to be driven out! These are the Brown Rat from India and the smelly white mole from the USA. Both of these beasts befoul the area, gather all resources they can get their claws on and distress the locals.

Let me go vomit. --Seth

Seth, I have a collection of quotes from followers of Prem Rawat far worse than these. Does that prove that followers of Prem Rawat are a hate group? --John Brauns 00:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The big difference is that the site you allude to, which existed briefly, was run by a handful of renegade premies somewhere in the South Pacific and in no way represented the views of the premies and especially of Maharaji and the organizations that support his work.

Maharaji and the organizations that support his work have always indicated to not engage the ex-premies.

The overwhelming majority of premies was violently opposed to this very small site when it was run, again, by very few people.

By contrast, the ex-premie.org and forums are THE official sites of the ex-premie movement, and represents itself as such ("The ex-premie movement") with the media and authorities with which it regularly files complaints against Maharaji. Whatever is posted and archived there represents the views of the ex-premie leaders. Some of the most hateful postings come from the ex-premie leaders themselves. Hence the hateful postings on ex-premie.org can legitimately be considered the official expression of the ex-premie movement. I want to compile a list of these expressions but I worry about my stomach. -- Seth

Seth, which site are you refering to, and how do you know the "overwhelming majority of premies was violently opposed to this very small site when it was run, again, by very few people"? Was it widely advertised? Was a survey carried out of current followers? If so, how was it done as Elan Vital has no membership? Also, how do you know that "Maharaji and the organizations that support his work have always indicated to not engage the ex-premies"? Was an official announcement made? If so, when? And if this is true, why not? Are they afraid of honest debate? Many of the quotes I'm refering to were made by premies on the ex-premie forums, which, within limits, allow expression of a wide range of views, unlike any pro-Maharaji site. Oh, and there is no official ex-premie site, as there is no "official" ex-premie organisation. --John Brauns 07:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not official? So what is this on your website WHOIS record?
R25954080-NSI
Ex-Premie Organization POB 3024
2075 W. Stadium Blvd.
Ann Arbor
MI, 48106-3024
US
+1.72053373

Will be interesting tou read your excuses. - Seth

Seth, the registration for ex-premie.org has now been changed to that of ex-premie2.org, ex-premie3.org, and ex-premie4.org. The MI details were because the domain name was still held by the original webmaster, Scott Perry, who has now relinquished control over the name. There is no ex-premie organisation. --John Brauns 01:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seth, I'll answer your question if you answer the questions I asked above. --John Brauns 19:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maharaji and the organizations that support his work have always indicated to not engage the ex-premies.

Seth!The information you have about this, does not seem reliable. The articles Prem Rawat and Criticism of Prem Rawat for example were made by intense collaboration of Premies ,Ex-Premies and Others , whith Photo-material provided by Elan Vital, having at least one contributor with constant contact to the Organization.Thomas h 11:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Verbal violence by former members of NRMs, please provide references

Jossi, in the section Hate_group#Hate_groups_and_new_religious_movements I changed verbal violence into verbally abusive. Please provide references if you want to revert it. Andries

Splitting hairs, uh Andries? What is the differece, if I may ask, between verbally abusive and verbally violent? IMO these are one and the same.--Zappaz 23:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Abusive is calling somebody a a son of a bitch, which is different from saying, somebody should give you a beating, at least according to Dr. Ehud Sprinzak to whom Jossi wikilinked the term verbal violence. Verbal violence is according to Sprinzak, "the use of extreme language against an individual or a group that either implies a direct threat that physical force will be used against them, or is seen as an indirect call for others to use it." Calling a cult leader a son of a bitch is not verbal violence according to Sprinzaks's definition. And if you consider this hair splitting then why do you bother to comment? Andries 05:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These discussions here are very strange: You don't know who you are dealing with. These are violent (and I am not meaning verbally only) people with a sustained agenda of harassment and hate. And to see that some editors here approve of them. my god! I had no choice but to compile that list. It felt sickening and disgusting reading all that stuff, but had to be done. I you don't want to lose your appetite, don't read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hate_group/ex-premies -Seth

I forgot to mention that the examples at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hate_group/ex-premies are just a small sample. There is plenty more from were that comes from. The ex-premies, and by that I mean the 20 or so people that pride themselves in being called ex-premies, demonstrate their obsession by posting more than 30,000 messages in their forum just in a few years. These days they have moderators that quickly delete these expressions of hate as soon as posted. That does not mean that they have given up on that hate, its just that now their hate is cloaked and even more dangerous than before. This is a common tactic of hate-groups: wanting to be seen (quote) "[as keeping] the high ground through quality, honesty, decency and value, which infalliby moves the readers" (endquote). Hate-mongers trying to look like "Mr. Nice Guy" is pretty disgusting and outright dangerous. -Seth

Actually, Seth, very few "hate groups", in the sense that the term originated and in the sense where it is easy to determine membership in such a group, bother trying to spin their public reputation as "[keeping] the high ground through quality, honesty, decency and value, which infalliby moves the readers". I mean, can you imagine the Aryan Nations spending a lot of time saying "Well, yes, we are advocating violent overthrow so that we can form a white-only government, but let's take care to portray ourselves as supporting quality, honesty, decency and value while we do it"?

You say that "wanting to be seen" as keeping the moral high ground is a common tactic of hate groups, but you never state how one should be able to distinguish between those wonderful groups like wonderful new religious movements who try to keep the moral high ground through quality, honesty, decency and value because that's the right thing to do, and those who only want to be seen as possessing all those qualities. Instead, it's far more likely that if you already believe the group is good and wonderful, you'll view any such statements as proof of their goodness; if you already believe the group is a hate group, you'll interpret those statements as the wolf trying to put on sheep's clothing. I find it telling that while you're claiming to expose the dishonesty of the "ex-premies" by quoting from them, the 'wanting to be seen' part is not a quote from them but your invention. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are wrong about your first statement. Hate groups today try to bee seen as owning the moral high ground. That is their new strategy. Ask anyone that studies these and they will tell you. Read for example: http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/online_hate/deconst_online_hate.cfm

I do not understad why you defend these people after reading their own words. What kind of proof you need of their ill intentions? Blood? Have you wondered what makes you side with these very ugly people? Surely it makes me wonder why. -Seth

So, suggesting that it might not be easy to distinguish between vicious hatemongers and groups being painted by their enemies as vicious hatemongers, is automatically the same thing as "defending hatemongers"?

I can tell you what makes me "side" with these "very ugly people" -- if by "side" you mean "give their point of view a fair examination", which you seem to. It's people like you. You know nothing about me except that I pointed out it may be hard to distinguish between true and false allegations of being a hate group -- and from that you not only leapt to the conclusion that I "side" with "hatemongers", but personally insulted me by insinuating that something wrong or defective about me explains why I would do so. So that is why I "side with hatemongers" -- which is your terminology for "examining the evidence with an open mind." The more rabid vituperation you spew, the more sure I am that you have certainly not done so. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, of course if you defend a witch you must be a witch yourself. How do you tell if someone is a witch? Why you tie a rock to her and throw her in the water. If she floats she is a witch. If she sinks and drowns she isn't. But yes you are right Seth. Anyone and everyone who has been blessed with the gift of Knowledge from the living Perfect Master and avatar of God and then decides to leave him him cannot help but lose every inch of humanity in them and become totally under the influence of the dreadful evil of maya. The empire of evil is growing Seth, you must stop them and save the blessed ones before it is too late. -- Drapadi

You certainly have a sharp pen, Mr. Antaeus Feldspar. Nevertheless, you fail to address the question: have you or have you not read the what these ex-premies write, talk and obsess about? And if you have, how it happens that you still have doubts about these people being hatemongers? Anyone: give me a proof to the contrary. Give me a proof that can counteract their own words and actions. Then if you want, we can have a debate about making distinctions between between "obvious" and "not so obvious" cases of hate-mongering.

As for Drapadi's words, I have no clue what he is talking about. Sorry. Please note that I am not making a case for Knowledge or for Maharaji. Neither need my help. I am just putting the lightspot on the hatemongering conducted by this small group of ex-followers called "ex-premies", As per their own words and actions. I have not said any of that, they have.

I am compiling another list of hate and verbal violence by the ex-premie group, including plans for an Antrax scare at events, poisoing the drinking water at a resort in Australia, a post by John Brauns (the ex-premie writing in this page about not being a hate person) organising hate-group activities, and more, just in case that there are people like Antaeus that need more evidence.

-Seth

Here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hate_group/Ex-PremiesPart2

See, here's the problem, Seth. In order for those "quotes" to convince me that the ex-premies really are a horrible group of violent hatemongers, I have to be able to trust the collator of those quotes: you. I have to trust that you haven't taken things out of context; I have to trust that you haven't gotten so convinced that you're on the side of the truth that you don't have to tell the truth (I've known some police officers who engaged in 'testilying because they "knew" that the people they were lying about were bad people, and they didn't feel that the defendants deserved to keep their liberty just because they, the police, couldn't find any actual proof of their guilt.)

Now, when I ask a simple question -- how are you distinguishing between good groups which are concerned with honesty, decency and fairness, and "hate groups" which are only pretending to be concerned with those things? -- what is your answer? Your answer is "have you wondered what makes you side with these very ugly people? Surely it makes me wonder why." Right then and there, you've leapt from a tiny piece of evidence -- that I question your assertions and how you came by them -- to the conclusion that I not only "side with" the ex-premies, but that you can start speculating on what is wrong with me that causes me to "side with" them.

That tells me a lot about how much trust I can place in your own words. (-- Antaeus Feldspar 01:59, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC))

I don't want to take the time to check on all of Seth's quotes, but the last one about Jim Heller embezzling interested me, because it has been repeatedly used by premies to defame Jim Heller and by association all ex-premies. The allegation is even included on the official Elan Vital website, despite the fact that Jim Heller has said many times since then that it was a joke. So I checked in the forum archives on ex-premie.org. I found the post and some others after it which clearly show that Mr. Heller was joking. This is a clear case of quote mining on the part of Seth. I've included the additional quotes after the original one on the page created by Seth. I also reinserted the original post as Seth's version had some typos --Drapadi

I did check some of Seth's quotes, and apart from Jim's 'hatred' post, which was only an extract taken out of context, the others I checked weren't in the archives. I surmise this is because if they were made, the ex-premie community at the time rejected the sentiments, and the posts were deleted. I am amused by ther post from me, allegedly "organising hate group activities". I had been contacted by some ex-premies in Miami who wanted to get in touch with other ex-premies. I know premies monitor the forums hence my joke about Prem Rawat's paranoia. Any premie would believe that Prem Rawat is incapable of feeling paranoia, because of this perfect 'Knowledge' that Prem Rawat is a 'Master' of, so how could his paranoia be increased? Of course, if Prem Rawat really was paranoid, then there is no reason for anyone to follow his teachings. --John Brauns 20:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Defining "hate group"

Now, so that this will actually be about the subject of the article -- which is Hate group, not the ex-premies -- I'd like to ask the question more generally: what objective criteria distinguish a legitimate (if disliked) protest group from a hate group? How does one eliminate "false positives", so that "hate group" does not become merely a label that parties with agendas slap on their enemies to discredit them (the way, for instance, that some people are accused of using the word "cult"?) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:59, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Antaeus: I would try to respond as best as possible. Webster's dictionary defines "To Hate" as: "To have a great aversion to, with a strong desire that evil should befall the person toward whom the feeling is directed; to dislike intensely; to detest; as, to hate one's enemies; to hate hypocrisy."

My view is that the intensity of the opposition of the ex-premies sets them apart from a legitimate protest group and characterizes them as a hate group.

The level of intensity together with the desire for evil befalling the person is the objective/acknowledged criteria for diagnosing hate groups,

I have identified six dimensions under which these two criteria manifests, often in a combined manner:

• Compulsion/obsession in the oppositional behavior (some of the leaders of the site have already posted more than 5,000 postings each on the net and some post up to 10 times a day 7 days a week, year after year)

Is taking part in discussions that interest a person obessional, or is counting how many posts someone else makes?--John Brauns 15:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Extreme violence: professing death threats, enticing people to assassinate, poison, kidnap, harm, maim Maharaji or his students...

No plausible threats of violence have been made by ex-premies, and certainly no actual acts of violence have occurred to my knowledge. Certainly not by any of the regular posters on the ex-premie forums.--John Brauns 15:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Breaking the law, in terms of the threats professed (see above) and of the actions (John Macgregor, one of the ex-premie leaders, is a fugitive of justice with an arrest warrant), including by people who otherwise are law abiding citizens.

John Macgregor has contributed several articles for ex-premie.org out of over 750 English language pages, and has had a couple of articles on Rawat published in the Australian press. He also leaked a few trivial documents about Ivory's Rock Conference Centre. These few actions do not make him a 'leader' of ex-premies, and it is absurd to suggest they do! --John Brauns 15:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Extending their hate to unknown, uninvolved, innocent individuals not engaged in any activity against the ex-premies, solely on the basis of the fact that they follow a certain teaching (in this case, we have ex-premies contacting the employers of premies they don't know just because these people are students of Maharaji) As you saw, Jim Heller writes that he hates premies. not premies that oppose him, premies period.

If this has happened I condemn it, and I know other prominent ex-premies agree with me. No evidence for this allegation has been produced. I do know of one ex-premie who lost her job as a result of letters from premies. Regarding Jim's post on hatred, I looked up the original post in the forum archives, and it is clear his strong dislike was directed at those premies who post on the forums and deny our past.--John Brauns 15:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Longevity of the oppositional behavior: some of these people have left Maharaji twenty or thirty years ago and only followed his teachings for a few weeks or months, still they call themselves ex-premies and engage actively in such behaviors.

Most currently posting ex-premies left Maharaji within the last six years. Many formerly active ex-premies have moved on, including two of the orginal founders of ex-premie.org, all the previous webmasters, and the majority of posters on the forums. --John Brauns 15:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Lack of a supporting rationale: as said, some of the most active ex-premies from their own admission, followed Maharaji's teachings only for a few weeks or months decades ago and still hate him. When asked they they hate Rawat, in some cases, they say they don't know, they just hate him.

The only regular posting ex-premie who followed Maharaji for such a short time is Gerry who was a premie for a few months. For the record, here are the number of years some of the more prominent ex-premies believed in Maharaji:- Anth Ginn (25), Jim (7), Cynthia (22), Jean-Michel (25), John Macgregor (28), Marianne (4), Mike Finch (31), Joe (10), myself (25). No ex-premie I know says they hate Rawat, and we have very good reasons for wanting to warn others about him. Read ex-premie.org if you are unclear about our rationale. --John Brauns 15:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

oh my oh my! Here we have people that were in this for 20 or more years! Muts be a good reaason to stay for so long on something likes this! what makes their testimonoies reliable now? is leaving a "cult" an automatic generation of crediblility actvivity? I would argue the opossite. And it is mots disingenuous to see them trying top build crdibility here. They have absolutelky none.--Phat grrl 19:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Phat grrl, to learn more about the phenomenon of apostasy in NRMs you may want to read "The Role of Anecdotal Atrocities in the Social Construction of Evil," by Bromley, Shupe & Ventimiglia. An excerpt follows. --Zappaz 18:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One of the most common reasons skewing occurs when apostates tell their stories is that they must somehow explain to their listeners how they—presumably intelligent, discerning people—could have joined such a "despicable" group in the first place. For many apostates, saying that maybe the group wasn't that despicable after all is not an option (even if it is the truth), given their anger towards the group. (Consider how much easier it is for an ex-partner, divorcing in anger, to blame the partner and paint horrific pictures of them, rather than acknowledging that maybe they both were well-meaning but just couldn't get it to work out.) And certainly saying that they themselves were stupid and easily duped is not an option. That leaves only one way out: to paint the group as so diabolical, so monstrous, that even intelligent, discerning people (like the apostate, of course) are easily and helplessly "sucked in" and "manipulated". Others may ask, if the group is as transparently evil as he now contends, why did he espouse its cause in the first place? In the process of trying to explain his own seduction and to confirm the worst fears about the group, the apostate is likely to paint a caricature of the group that is shaped more by his current role as apostate than by his actual experience in the group.

I have a hard time imagining how a legitimate protest group could rate in such manner along the six above dimensions and still be called a legitimate protest group.

-Seth

Seth, your six 'dimensions' are so inaccurate as I have explained, that maybe you can now imagine ex-premies as a legitimate protest group. --John Brauns 15:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a specific authoritative definition to back this up, but judging from the places and manner in which the term "hate group" has normally been used, I would argue that a defining characteristic of a hate group is that it hates its target based on the target's "status characteristics" rather than the target's behavior, or in other words, based on what the target people are rather than what the target people do. By "status characteristics," I refer to things about the targets that can't or can't easily be changed: race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, etc. I would thus exclude from the conventional definition of "hate group" those groups that attack a target due to something that the target actually did or was perceived to do, either generally or toward the attacking group specifically; by contrast, a hate group hates those that "never did nothin' to them." --Gary D 08:21, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

That is an interesting proposition, Gary. But from my studies I gather than hate in the context of religion or belief requires a generalization on the part of the hater to include everyone that follows that religion, regardless if they did, or "never did nothin' to them", and aything related to that religion, including their leaders, beliefs, and practices. In the case of apostasy, the hateful and vehement animosity against the former object of the apostate's devotion is a well researched subject. As if to call such apostates a hate group or not, that will depend IMO on the activities of these apostates. The concern that I have after studying this subject is that one of the first steps toward hate crime and violence (that will be the undeniable proof of a hate group being such) is verbal violence. Thanks to the Internet and the pervasiveness of USENET, forums, and chatrooms, there are more venues open for the expression of verbal violence than even before, with the additional incentive of anonymity. That combination is an extraordinarily potent cocktail that if left un-cheked and un-challenged has the potential to help foster a new era of anti tolerance and bigotry of proportions never seen before. --Zappaz 00:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that a hate group would hate all and everything about a religion as a blanket package, and without reference to any particular behavior by any member of that religion. My reference to "never did nothin' to them" was in fact to emphasize that the hate of a hate group is not precipitated by any behavior of or offense by the target. And while a hate group member might say, "I hate those Mennonites, they're just a bunch of litterers," the hater is not so much concerned about littering as using a justification for hating Mennonites. --Gary D 03:32, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

A note to Seth

Hello Seth , Gerry Lyng has responded to one of your postings at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hate_group/ex-premies , i guess he wants to talk to you, he seems pretty angry and your anonymity here might be the only reason for not being sued. If you and the cult are really serious with your allegations, i wonder why nobody has taken legal action against Jim Heller ,who is openly posting with his real identity on forum8, although you declared him as one of the "leaders" of the so called Ex-Premie group. Thomas h 08:14, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nation of Islam is an NRM so it should be mentioned in the NRM section

The Nation of Islam should be mentioned there. I admit that the way I had inserted was a bit clumsy. Andries 07:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)