Accordingly, readers are warned that this section will not appeal to those who prefer the myth of raw diets to the reality. There is a huge gulf between the "party line" of raw vegan diets and the reality. The behavior of extremists discussed here, e.g., hostility, threats, attacks, plagiarism, "dietary racism," etc., is not a positive or pleasant topic. (Names are omitted here for the obvious reasons.)

Thus if a frank discussion of the irrational, negative behavior of certain raw gurus offends you, then you might prefer to skip this section. However, the purpose behind it is that the material which follows may help you avoid needless grief, wasted time, or compromised health from learning the hard way. In that spirit, let's take a look at the darker side of involvement with some of the gurus of rawism.

Extremists may become socially disabled by their "ideal" dietary dogma. What does chronic hostility suggest about the credibility of such individuals? If they frequently react to challenges to their dogma with hateful personal attacks, extreme anger, threats, plagiarism, copyright infringement, character assassination by quoting others out of context, and/or dishonesty (all of which are discussed herein)--then the obvious implication is that the "expert" may be emotionally impaired or disabled by his/her "lunch philosophy." Certainly it is reasonable to check for the presence or absence of emotional balance in such dietary advocates. Can a dietary proponent who is emotionally disabled by dogma have much credibility? Would it be a good idea for you to adopt the dietary dogma of such an "expert"?

The fact that a number of raw/fruitarian extremists have been thrown off (multiple) email lists on Internet for hostile behavior provides evidence for the hypothesis that at least some of these dietary prophets are unable to function socially, i.e., are at least partially socially impaired by their "ideal" dietary dogma. Perhaps certain extremists are proud of being thrown off email lists; they may see it as proof that they are "radical." However, in reality it simply reflects how hateful and foolish their behavior is.

It's worth pointing out that at least two of the extant raw email lists exist because their owners, moderators, or founders were thrown off other email lists (for cause), and had no other choice but to form their own separate lists. Of course, such individuals often cry "censorship" when they are booted from email lists for repeated disregard of the charters that govern list conduct. Such claims are bogus, of course, as censorship is a government function, and the email lists are privately owned--their members residing on the email list at the grace and generosity of the list-owner and moderator.

• This writer was the target of what could have been interpreted as an implicit death threat from a raw/fruitarian group widely considered (opinion) to behave at times in ways similar to a hate group (time period here was Summer 1997). While the implied threat was couched in hypothetical terms, and could also have been easily interpreted as mere bluster, an individual from the same group did eventually threaten actual physical harm at a later date. (See "1998 Raw Expo" below.)

• One vegan extremist, widely regarded as a "kook" on Internet, is notorious for threatening people with libel lawsuits. Although most people don't pay serious attention to the individual, the individual may be an example of another socially disabled dietary fanatic.

• Threats surrounding 1998 Raw Expo (San Francisco). At the request of the organizer of a Raw Expo in 1998 (San Francisco), this writer did not attend because the raw/fruitarian group mentioned above was reportedly threatening to disrupt the event and/or possibly physically assault this writer, if he appeared at the Expo. This "Expo affair" provides an interesting view into the warped thinking and behavior that is condoned in some raw circles.

  Consider the situation: a raw/fruitarian group threatened possible violence if this writer, a critic of fruitarianism (and a former long-time fruitarian), attended the event. They used such threats to intimidate the Expo organizer into requesting I not attend. Then, in response, instead of taking simple security measures or simply advising the raw/fruitarian group they were not welcome to attend the Expo themselves given such threats, the organizer chose to ask the target of the threats (this writer) not to attend. The rationalization offered was that the raw/fruitarian group had already reserved their booth and was to give a lecture at the Expo--and the importance of such economic interests was emphasized by the organizer. I eventually acceded to the Expo organizer's request as a gesture of courtesy to them.

  The moral issues illuminated by this event are crystal clear: Some true-believing dietary promoters are so hostile and mentally deranged as to resort to threats of violence when their simplistic dietary philosophy is challenged. Further, some other rawists, e.g., those who continue to ally themselves with such extremists--either in spirit, or who cooperate with them simply out of financial interests--appear to be willing to tolerate those who use threats of violence and bullying as tools to promote the "compassionate"(?) raw vegan diet. In summary, what transpired in this situation illustrates clearly that some rawists believe the raw vegan diet is far more important than honesty and decency.

Dietary racism: A form of bigotry that is the analogue, in dietary terms, of racism; i.e., the hatred of other groups of people because their diet is different from your diet or a hypothetical "ideal" diet, and/or feeling superior to other people because your diet is different.

• You are "inferior" unless you follow the advocated diet. Some raw/fruitarian proponents like to insinuate that unless you have a 100% raw vegan and/or fruitarian diet, then you are "inferior" and/or your DNA "mutates," and you become something less than fully human (i.e., like an animal).

• The rhetoric of bigotry. Some raw/fruitarian advocates refer to those who eat cooked foods as "cooked-food morons," "cooked-food addicts," or say they are "failures" or "degenerates."

• Extremist view: crank science good, "cooked science" bad. Very common is for raw or fruitarian promoters of crackpot crank science theories to reject conventional, legitimate science that debunks their dietary dogma, on the grounds that the scientists involved eat cooked foods, hence their work is unreliable and cannot be trusted. This may be expressed in other terms, e.g., saying the scientists have "damaged brains," they deal in "cooked science," and so on. If the bigotry in such assertions is not clear to you, consider Hitler denouncing "Jewish science," and the analogy should then be readily apparent.

• Pride in compassion = self-righteousness = feelings of superiority. Veg*ns who actively claim they are more "compassionate" individuals may come to express outright disdain for, and implicitly behave as if they feel they are superior to, those people who eat meat.

• Veg*ns may claim that those who eat meat are "murderers," because "meat is murder." (This specific claim is not very common.)

Assessing diet gurus who display dietary racist behavior. If you find significant and long-term evidence of such "dietary racism," you should consider the impact that has on credibility, and whether you really want to have such a person as your "diet guru." Does the hatred and bigotry implicit in dietary racism reflect your personal views and values? If you would not follow a regular racist, why would you follow a dietary racist? Do you seriously think dietary racism, as a tactic, will help make the world a better place?

Finally, the use of the term "dietary racism" here is meant to clearly illuminate the bigotry and hatred of others that, sadly, is close to the heart of the message promoted by certain raw/veg*n extremists. (The intent is not to diminish or slight the tragedy that regular racism represents.)

Plagiarism is a form of theft, as it comprises the use (and, in this case, the sale) of the intellectual property of another, all done without proper attribution. Further, presenting oneself as the author of plagiarized material is misrepresentation (i.e., lying).

If the plagiarism, which so far has been limited to one small extremist raw/fruitarian group, were widely condemned by most other raw/fruitarian "experts," then there would be little reason to discuss the matter. However, that is not what has happened as news of the plagiarism has become widely known. Instead, many raw/fruitarian "experts" have rationalized the plagiarism, and have either sided with the plagiarists or expressed tolerance for (i.e., condoned) the plagiarism. (Note: Isn't it surprising that some raw and fruitarian "experts" who are trying to sell books and tapes--ones they are authors of--would closely ally themselves with plagiarists?)

Direct effect: can you really put much stock in anything a plagiarist, or one who defends a plagiarist, claims? The alleged raw/fruitarian "experts" who present themselves as "authors" of plagiarized material, and other alleged raw "experts" who are closely allied with, or actively support the plagiarists, are implicitly establishing a very important principle with moral implications: that it is acceptable and legitimate to engage in plagiarism and misrepresentation, if the end result of such efforts is that you persuade others to adopt a fruitarian/raw vegan diet. More explicitly, the principle and its ramifications are:

• Extremist Principle: Misrepresentation is, or at least can be tolerated as, a promotional tool if it serves a "larger good"--that is, convincing people to adopt a fruitarian or raw vegan diet. Once this code of behavior is accepted, one has to conclude that every claim made by such extremists (plagiarists as well as allies of plagiarists) is suspect, and nothing they say can be completely trusted. After all, if the "expert" thinks it's permissible to engage in misrepresentation, how can you assess whether they are telling the truth when they claim they follow a 100% raw/fruitarian diet, that their diet is so great, and so on?

• Indirect effect: Selling one's virtue for a raw lunch. The acceptance of misrepresentation--which constitutes complicity by those who either side with, or in some manner defend or actively publish the message of such plagiarists--establishes yet another moral principle (which logically follows from the above). In outline form, the elements of it are:
  1. Principle #1: Misrepresentation is okay if it promotes raw diets.

  2. Misrepresentation = dishonesty = giving up virtue.

  A and B together, comprise a restatement to the effect that:
  3. Giving up virtue is OK if it promotes raw diets.

  We also have:
  4. Giving up virtue = exchanging virtue = selling virtue.

  Note that the word selling here is quite appropriate because an exchange, in figurative terms, has been made: the extremist exchanges his or her honesty and integrity (i.e., virtue) for an increase in the ability to convince others to adopt the 100% raw/fruitarian diet. This brings us to:

  Principle #2: Selling your virtue is legitimate, if the price you charge is that more people eat a raw vegan diet.

  The point of the above exercise is simply to show that even extremists who do not plagiarize, but who merely condone it, are still, in effect, selling out their own virtue too (i.e., their own honesty and credibility) for the power to recruit more people to their diets (by recommending the works of plagiarists to others, or helping to spread word about the authors or "their" works, etc.). In selling out their virtue, then, people are, in a sense, "prostituting" themselves for the sake of promoting their "ideal" diet at the price of integrity and honest representation of facts.

• Ends do not justify the means. The two principles discussed above could be seen as versions of the tired old "the ends justify the means" excuse, which might theoretically be used in an attempt to justify any deviant behavior, from petty theft to murder. Be aware of this, should "the ends justify the means" argument actually be brought up as an explicit defense by overzealous diet promoters.

• "Refusal to judge" where plagiarism is concerned is hypocritical and simply a cover-up for denial. One of the common excuses raised by rawists or fruitarians who have elected to refrain from comment, or to take a stance, with regard to the plagiarism mentioned above has been to assert that they are simply being "neutral" when they "refuse to judge" the plagiarists. However, this is really an attempt (albeit a mostly subconscious one, probably) to divert attention from the important issues involved. Basically, the "refusal to judge" excuse fails for the following reasons:
  • The decision to eat a raw diet is, obviously, in itself an instance of judgment. Those who use the "refusal to judge" excuse are simply being silly. Judgments are necessary in life, and we make them all the time. Here, however, a double standard is promoted that one should engage in making judgments when selecting a diet to follow, but should not judge relevant behavior of one's erstwhile "diet guru." What this really indicates is a (perhaps subconscious) refusal to be honest with oneself about the fact that we make judgments all the time; and of course, such a double standard is hypocritical.

  • Here, "remaining neutral" is simply a "cop-out." Additionally, the refusal to judge when there is clear evidence of plagiarism or other dishonest behavior is simply a form of denial of reality. In a way, this is not surprising, as (far too) many raw diet gurus appear to be in varying stages of denial of reality themselves.

• Short-term gains at the expense of long-term growth/credibility. A very important underlying issue here is whether plagiarized writings (or any that may be misrepresented in other ways, for that matter) form a solid basis for the long-term growth of the raw/fruitarian community, or whether plagiarism marginalizes the community and sharply limits growth. One would expect a credible raw advocate to oppose plagiarism on the grounds--ethical considerations completely aside--that it is harmful, in the long run, to the entire raw community in terms of credibility. Because of this, those who make excuses and ally themselves with plagiarists are in effect relinquishing their own credibility as well.

• If you follow the advice of a particular dietary guru, where do they stand on the issue? Because it has significant bearing on the credibility of your diet guru, you may find it relevant to determine if they side with those have plagiarized, or have engaged in such behavior themselves. This is primarily of relevance to those in the raw/fruitarian community; it is not relevant at present to the conventional veg*n community. Note here, of course, that it's possible you might not get an honest answer if you directly question your diet guru on this issue. Thus, you may need to ask around the raw community for information. With a bit of searching and detective work, you will find out what is going on.

In fact, for the record, we ought to 'fess up here that one of the Beyond Veg site editors was once suspended from an email listgroup briefly for an egregious practical joke that got out of hand, causing others on the list considerable anguish. As was the case in that particular situation, however, one needs to examine whether regret is expressed, a genuine apology made and accepted and something learned from the situation, and the behavior rectified.

It is not the intention here to promote intolerance for human errors in judgment, or emotions getting out of hand on occasion. Nor should people get too bent out of shape about the occasional flame (so long as they remain occasional), become oversensitive about a few sporadic heated exchanges, or be unable to take things in stride and so forth on email listgroups or elsewhere. If we couldn't, then it would be a world of impossibly inhuman expectations few could live up to.

How does one distinguish between actual bad faith or lack of credibility, and simple human mistakes? There is an important key by which one can assess if a particular behavior is coming out of extremism and lack of credibility or not. Very simply, it is when the person regrets what they have done and has the character to offer a genuine apology when having "crossed the line," and gives some indication of having learned something, in that their behavior thereafter changes.

With regard to extremist behavior, what distinguishes bad-faith tactics is that this almost never happens. At least to date, it's not something that's been in evidence with the fanatical types of behavior under discussion here. (Also, extremists rarely ever will admit they were wrong about anything when information and evidence are at issue either. Here, admissions of error in owning up to having missed the mark are very similar in their psychology to admissions of apology for errant behavior.)

Rationalizations rather than apologies or admission of error indicate extremism. Why the unwillingness to apologize? Here, what is probably even more interesting is that you will find when extremists are asked about the kind of behaviors that have been discussed here, they generally simply do not see them as a problem--or at least not much of one--even in the face of feedback from numerous others that they are. An additional key here, then, is: not only do such inflexible absolutists not apologize, they don't see any problem with such behavior in the first place. That is, the behavior is simply rationalized: i.e., it's "radical," "passionate," "raw courage"; plagiarism may be "proactive marketing," etc.; but rarely ever is it a mistake that is admitted, regretted, or apologized for. And, sadly, apology itself may even be labeled a sign of weakness, rather than the sign of character strength and credibility it actually is.

GO TO NEXT PART OF ARTICLE

(In Bad Faith: Dishonest Information and Debate Tactics in Raw Foods--Personal Experiences)

Back to Frank Talk by Long-Time Insiders
Back to Psychology of Idealistic Diets