1) Liberation and LExpress are not tabloids but both respected
publications.

2) The stories reported in the LExpress have all been verified by at
least five people.

3) G.C.Burger has admitted to and was found guilty of sex with minors
and sentenced to four years in jail in the seventies.

4) He has written a book that advocates that adults get actively
involved in childrens sex lives - with the poorest of all excuses to
make sure they mature emotionally and spiritually.

5) His son Christian was arrested earlier this year charged with having
sex with minors. NB! Virtually all sex offenders have been sexually
molested as children.

6) Former residents of Montrame are testifying against Burger and
seemingly none are standing by his side to defend him.

7) Only in the sick minds of a pedophiles do children initiate sexual
contacts or seek sexual intimacy with adults.

8) There has never been shown any connection between sexual perversions
and toxic levels of heavy metals like mercury. If this were the case
children of dentists would be at high risk of incest.  G.C. Burger
could have been born and raised on a dental dumpsite, it would never
have turned him into a child molester.

What more do we need? To see him caught in the act on CNN? Faced with
the above facts I fail to understand how anybody can doubt Burgers
guilt in these matters for one second. In my eyes any person doing so
looks more like a fanatic cultist in denial of the shortcomings of
his/her leader than the follower of a natural way of eating.  The
defense of G.C.Burger I have seen on this list the last couple of weeks
reminds me of how nazis to this day still deny that the holocaust ever
occurred and how they believe/claim that it is just propaganda put out
by the world Jewish conspiracy.  The big question is why has nobody
spoken up against Burger before now? What prevented them - fear? - or
did they decide to sacrifice the children to keep up the good name of
instincto? The future credibility of instincto is at stake if these
questions are not answered in full.

Kirt:
>If he can be so far off base in his actions and ideations, why should
>one trust his pronouncements on his infection which bloomed eating raw
>dairy, his rationalization of his wife's death, his stance that cooked
>foods have no taste change, his testing of ORKOS foods to declare
>their "originality", even his love of fresh peas.

We should not. Not because of the recent revalations but because we
should always remain skeptical every time we time we are presented with
claims that are poorly substantiated or inadequately backed up -
especially if we have little background or opportunity to be able to
evaluate the validity of them.

Like many diets instincto works really well for some but if instincto
is to gain credibility, it is has to start growing up and become more
accountable & credible by taking a closer look at itself and recognize
how easily the idea of eating instincto (prescripto) is mistaken for
eating truly instinctively.  By judging the stonewall of silence to
most of the excellent points recently raised on this list by Kirt, I do
not see any changes coming from members of the present instincto
community any time soon. Hopefully, I am wrong as I believe eating
instinctively still is one of the most powerful concepts any student of
natural health can come across but because of this it is also one of
the most seductive. For how can you argue against "instincts"? Nowhere
clearer is this than in the case of G.C.Burger when he argues that the
natural sexual instinct of the child if not repressed will naturally
focus itself on the adult. (I am assuming here for the sake of argument
that Burger actually believes in his own propaganda) So what false
assumptions might G.C.Burger and his followers have about diet?
Instinctos will often not admit to having any as this would be very
un-instinctive like but if instincto is a continuous process of
unraveling the neurotic part of our own cultural conditioning and
uncovering an original instinctive state, it is hardly an easy process
and cannot be done in a state of denial with a load of preconceived
ideas about what instinctive eating is supposed to be, and the question
is whether there really can be instinctive eating without instinctive
living? If G.C. Burger had lived instinctively, he would not see a sex
object when looking at a child, and I cannot help but wonder how
differently he would have viewed instincto? If he is friends with Alice
Miller as Ellie suggests, why he did not get some badly needed therapy
for himself? Now the only kind of instinctive therapy he might get is a
bit of his own medicine: being sexually violated by people stronger and
more powerful than himself. This is usually the fate of sex offenders
in prison as they are very despised by the rest of the prison
population, and as a result when they are released they come out even
more crazed than before. To free the sex offender and his victims from
this vicious cycle of abuse a few countries and a few states in the US
now have voluntary/mandatory treatment of sex offenders. If given this
possibility it will probably be G.C.Burger's last chance of redemption.

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]