Michael:
>Personally I was highly offended by much of what Ric wrote but wasn't sure
>what type of response was appropriate, especially since Peter asked that
>we end the thread. Also I had very little interest in getting into a
>dialogue with him.
>
>IMO Ric is more of a zealot than NFL. Trying to convince him of their
>zealotry was hence pretty much a waste of time.
<snip rest of interesting post including conspiracy stuff>
Yes, it was probably a waste of time. :(
Nevertheless, it is nice to know others see what is offensive there
(besides what _I_ wrote, I mean ;)).
Denis (from an earlier post):
>I read with some interest the description you gave of the Living Food/ Raw
>food battlefield in California. Never heard about NFL before so let me react
>with my candor and ingenuity
>
>I'M FLABBERGASTED. You guys are talking as if you had been offered the post
>of Prime Minister and were currently reviewing the pros and cons of letting
>your former NFL allies get one or two minor positions in your governemnt.
>Wake up guys. You are far away from the promised land. Is the issue really
>worth all that scribbling ?
I can imagine to some degree how it might look to you, but you are ignorant
of the central facet of the debate: NFL, the book. Most people I know who
read it are twice as FLABERGASTED as you may be about our recent waste of
time.
>I fully appreciate the fact that RAFers have a hard time trying to put their
>case in the face of vegan criticism in the US.[ We do not have this problem
>in France since vegetarianism has never gained a foothold, not to mention
>Veganism. I would not be surprised if there were more Instinctos than
>militant vegetarians in France. As for vegans, I came across one or two of
>them years ago on stage for a TV show but I would not be able to tell you if
>they still exist or not...]
It sounds like the USA is a quite different scene than Europe as regards
militant vegans. Several popular books promote the nutritional, ethical,
and spiritual superiority of veganism, and a cult has grown up around the
ideation, which at times seems to be of such a size as to be almost
"mainstream". For many (perhaps most), it is a fad like tofu or cigars, but
for those who get into it and keep prostelytizing...wow, it becomes a
really tightly zipped bag. Since militant vegans are so ethically superior
and so much gentler than the unconverted, they can define cruelty and
violence in anyway they care to and then apply it to others while ignoring
critics of their own behavior, or calling them clouded/perveted from
cooked/animal foods, and charging them as violent and unethical. While I
appreciate and agree with your basic premise of leaving them be, it may be
that you don't "fully appreciate" how it is in the USA. If you did read NFL
you might still think it is best to leave them be, but there is a fair
chance you would go on record against it...
>But I think you guys have better things to do
>than pick a quarrel with vegan groups. To think that these guys could
>steal away some of the potential audience of INstinctive nutrition is a
>nonsense :
Nobody was quarreling for those reasons (though I sometimes get the
impression that the militant vegans are woe to watch their "ranks" thin as
more people experiment with RAF for themselves, or simply give up their
all-raw aspirations). Indeed, I was the only instincto quarreling with
them. Tom is not an instincto and has never promoted RAF to any real
degree. Peter is, it seems, approaching RAF from a view which has included
careful (and rational) study and not much actual eating of RAF to this
point.
>Firstly because people tend to move freely from one group to another,
>according to their passing mood and fancies, spreading around the good
>things they 've learned from you, seeding the seeds of change amongst the
>vegans, the vegetarians, JUST WHEN you are deploring their departure from
>your group.
I know several long-time vegans who do NOT feel free to experiment with RAF
because of the attacks they get from their vegan friends, so it may be done
in secret. It is too easy to say: well they should wise up and get some new
friends. The RAF "message" (including, but not limited to, instincto's
version of it) is _very_ fringe in the USA. The info isn't widely known at
all. And further, there are more than a few walking-wounded of the
raw-vegan zealotry around who may find RAF info useful and encouraging to
their own efforts at a balanced diet, but are battered from NFL's (and it
ilk's) quarters about their inferiority and perversion if the eat cooked
and/or RAF. The people who have stood up publically against NFL-like
zealotry are likely speaking for many others who remain silent for valid
reasons.
None of which means that I didn't have better things to do than transcribe
NFL's radio show, but you might respect that the situation and my (and
others) response is not as simple as you make it out to be.
>Secondly because you seem not to have understood that the basis for all
>"conversion" whether to Instincto or Veganism or whatever.... is love and
>passion, and not rationalizing. You may debunk NFL dogmas for hours in front
>of an audience , people who have not opened their heart to you will surely
>not open their hears to what you are saying. "They listened to him but they
>did not hear what he said " (Bible) People sense very much your power to
>love and to live, and they react instinctively to that sensation .
The basis for all conversion is clearly not devoid of rational thought. If
it were so, I would never have started eating instincto (or later
recognizing it's bottlenecks). Severen writes a fine book but he ain't much
of a personal inspiration of love and passion, and we didn't meet him until
later on anyway. Our time spent at the Chateau in 1998 was cut short, in
part because of what we remember as the cultish aspects of the people
residing there.
Besides, I have NO DESIRE to convert anyone to anything. But few seem to be
able to accept this. ("They listened to him but they did not hear what he
said " ;))
>Negative
>energies towards anybody is just countereffective.
Come on, Denis. You are quite negative in your energies towards GC Burger,
and it is very effective! ;) I wish there was no role for "negativity" but
from most any perspective one looks at it (except one which romanticizes
gentleness above all else) negativity can be a proper response to Bad
Things. I'm all for turning the other cheek and have done so (to the horror
and amusement of my fellow high schoolers a couple times when I was popped
in the face), but IMO there is a line one must draw in the sand of human
behavior. NFL crosses and continues to cross my line. It's an old story
that our ancestors probably played out a million times as our brain evolved
its capabilities. I have seen other instinctos romanticize and/or formalize
the "never be aggressive/all forms of violence are evil" kind of
ideations, and find in it shortcomings similar to vegan philosophies. What
is the point of denying one's anger (even, and especially, if it is in
opposition to one's "gentle philosophy")? I prefer to experience it, and
then act on it after consideration.
Since everyone seems to be throwing up some history lately ;), there is the
famous example of Einstein setting aside his pacifism to join the fight
against Hitler with his considerable contribution. Since my pacifist
ideological days are part of my romantic past (and I am a gentler person as
a result)--and since NFL claims no political/military aspirations yet) I am
drawing no tight parallels to the situation with NFL's "style". Yet, there
is a role for standing up, and even for the dreaded negativity, in this
world. The question in my mind remains, how much? and when? as opposed to
"if". As regards those later questions, I agree that I spent to much time
on it.
>Similarly, TOM, saying
>there are more weirdos amongst rawers than in any other group doesn't push
>forward the debate. It might reassure the author of the sentence that he is
>not one of these weirdos, but aren't we all weird, in some sense ? And
>isn't our peculiar "weirdness" what makes each of us so love-able ?
Ha! This is clever. ;) Saying so might reassure the author of the sentence
that he is not only "not one of those weirdos", but even more so, above
calling other people weirdos like those other weirdos do! ;) Seriously,
you'll search hard to find a bigger fan of the utility, playfulness,
beauty, and loveliness of weirdness than I, but the NFL debate is not about
them being weird, but about them being false-to-facts and dangerous. As for
my personal impression of the "raw food scene" I'm afraid it continues to
take an unwelcome step down daily it seems. But that is just my weird
opinion so you'll no doubt consider me all the more love-able! ;)
Lovingly,
Kirt (who, thanks to Denis, is in possession of a photocopy of the
newspaper story regarding GC Burger's son's arrest for sexual
misconduct--in French. Though I can make out some stuff--like that the
sentencing or part of the judgement was due March 6th, I think--are there
any French/English reading listers willing to translate a faxed copy of the
article? ...And a public thanks to Denis for his kindness in mailing it to
me. Thanks!)
Kirt Nieft / Melisa Secola
[log in to unmask]
|
