>Charles Manson!

Why stop here.  I hear O.J is looking for something to represent after
his deal with NSA to promote Juice Plus fell through. :-/

>BTW, someone posted earlier about reprinting a review of your book
>from the SF Living Foods Group or something like that.

That was me. In a post about a month ago I asked the NFL folks whether
it was ok with them, if I posted on the list the review of their book
from the November issue of the newsletter of S.F.LIFE. I got no reply,
so I take that as they have no objections. Considering that S.F.LIFE
lives and breathes for T.C.Fry, which also seems to be NFL's main
inspiration, tbe review is pretty devasting. It would be like the
Vatican giving the Bible a bad review. :-/  One also gets an idea of
how intimidating the tone of the book can be by the disclaimer and fact
that the reviewer felt it necessary to remain anonymous. The
connotations of this truly gives me the chills. Anyway here goes:

"Nature's First Law", by Arlin, Dini, and Wolfe: A Book Review/Opnion
by Anonymous.------- legally important to label as opnion, as the
review is unfavorable.
The authors of this new book claim to have discovered that a raw foods
diet is "Nature's First Law", which is also the title of the their
book.  The authors advocate a primarily fruit diet, although eating
leaves and sprouts, in small quantities, is seen as acceptable also.
The authors advocate eating one food at a time and object to fruit
salad on the (bogus) claim that in nature, you will never find two
different types of fruit trees growing next to each other!  The claimed
objective of the book is to convert people who are eating cooked foods,
to a raw foods diet.  However, as discused below, it is unlikely that
the book will achieve that goal because of the negative, hostile tone
of the book.
This new raw food book can be described as a fundamentalist approach to
raw foods.  The book has a strident, negative tone; the approach is
narrow-minded, egotistical, macho, somewhat immature, and hostile to
other viewpoints. Those who are established in raw foods will find
little new factual information in the book.  Those who are not raw
fooders will likely be offended by the negative, judgemental tone.
Indeed, the book is a gold mine of quotes that an anti-raw-foods critic
could use, to support claims that raw fooders are crazy faddists.
Brief quotes from the book follow, with comments.
"Drug paraphernalis such as stoves, toasters, coffee machines,
refrigerators, and ovens are futile relics of a dead age.  Anyone who
continues to cling to them are like poisoned maggots clinging to a
cooked food corpse." (pg. 53)  Comment:  Comparing cooked food
consumers to "poisoned maggots" - will that inspire them to convert to
raw foods? Of course not!
"Raw-foodism...is an absolute prerequisite for any type of eugenics
program." (pg. 112)  Comment: eugenics was a major part of the Nazi
program to develop a master race.  Eugenics was a major part of the
Nazi program to develop a master race.  Eugenics, as applied to humans,
is a discredited science.
"...cooked-food morons similarly attack the sugar content of fruit."
(pg. 30)  Comment:  Brian Clement criticizes the high sugar content of
fruit (hybrid fruit has 30 times the sugar of wild fruit), based on
real experience with ill clients at Hippocrates Institute.  Clement is
certainly not a "cooked food moron", and his credibility is
considerably higher than that of the authors of this book!
"We give a clear signal to our enemies that we intend to be hostile.
We give no quarter and show no mercy."  (pg. 114)  Comment:  hostility
is negative and is a very unhealthy emotion.  What does this quote
suggests about the mental health of the authors?
In this reviewer's opinion, the negativity of the book may provide an
example of the phenomenon of raw fooders with clean bodies but toxic
minds.  Here clean refers to the physical purifying action of raw foods
diets, while toxic minds refers to the hostility, negativity and egoism
that are prevalent in the book.  In conclusion, my evaluation is that
this book is not worth your time or money.

>Kirt

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]