JL:
>I don't know if it is worth talking about that here, since it doesn't
>deal with nutrition, but rather with "meta".
IMO it positively is worth talking about here, along with TC Fry's
financial balderdash and Shelton's childrearing idiocies. These folks set
themselves up as know-it-alls and pontificate on far more than nutritional
matters (which is often cleverly developed hearsay anyway).
Peter may worry that this issue may get too much list space, I don't know,
but I congragulate him in bringing the matter to fore! I for one hope this
issue gets a full airing here (where else?)...if not, might it have a
parallel in the fruitarian community's nearly non-reaction to (and at
times: further deification of!) TC Fry's health troubles and shenanigans.
In the end, we have to take a look at how Burger's "limits" have affected
his pronouncements of nutritional stuff--but in order to do that, the air
has to be cleared. For myself, I have been in "Burger limbo" for over eight
years: not knowing the extent of his personal neurosis, not wanting to
denigrate him until I knew what was up for sure, not wanting to glorify him
for the same (and other) reasons.
>Since I don't know anything
>about the latter theory, I don't know to what extent the article is
>accurate, but given the other assumptions, I think the journalists
>took the worst parts and patched them together. Maybe you should be
>aware that in France, one of the subjects that are most often dealt
>with is pedophilia. And another one is sects. So, when the title of an
>article reads "Exclusif: le gourou de la pedophilie", you can bet that
>it will attract many readers...
There's a reason that the article attracts many readers: the characters
defaulted on the norms! Not just the norms of neurotic western civilization
but of most culture throughout history, and probably much of prehistory as
well. Will he get away with it? (Will OJ?) What does that mean for me? What
were the details? These may be the questions a social animal with language
and transferable culture are evolved to ponder, no?
>especially when you see the photo of
>a man with long hair smelling a durian, with the comment quoted from
>Burger "L'amour avec un enfant, c'est une magie ou le corps n'est pas
>exclu" (love with children is something magic, and doesn't exclude
>the body).
Oh great!! Even the mighty durian takes a beating, eh? ;)
>Here are the main ideas of the article:
>
>1) People working at Orkos or at Montrame, including children are exploited.
>they work between 8 and 10 jours a day, for 30 F/hr (5$/hour). Given the
>high price of the food, I guess that beyond working, eating and
>@#$%ing, they don't have much money to spend. However, the financial status
>of Orkos is quite surprising (they are highly indebted, etc).
Is the implication that there is embezelment? A friend used to work at
ORKOS years ago and thought it was great to be able to eat over-ripe
durian, live minimally, and hang out with the instinctos--and break even
financially in the process. Anyway, if the workers are not indentured, I
personally have no problem with this at all.
>2) Many children coming at Montrame, of various ages (boys and girls)
>have undergone sexual practices of various kinds (I am reluctant to
>translate the details).
I wish you would. It's kinda hard to know how disgusted to be. I'm
especially curious about the ages of the children.
>The article summarizes the contents of the "meta" seminars:
>Meta 1: the failure of the relationship in couples; necessity to have
>triangular relationships"
>Meta 2: The sole homosexual relationship is able to produce energy
>Meta 3: Sexual intercourse with children are recommended
>Meta 4: Sodomy is a sacred act.
>[I don't know if all of that is accurate]
_Somebody_ on this list must have taken the meta courses! It's time to get
this out in the open... Bruno?
It was explained to me second hand, briefly, that Burger thought the role
of woman was to act as a bridge between two men--and this was couched in
spurious, and sometimes radical (but more interesting) re-evaluations of
philosphy, society, etc. Still, those re-evaluations all seemed to lead to
the same end: justification of Burger's pycho-sexual neurosis. This, as I
said, was second-hand info and I never felt very comfortable with sharing
it because of that. But when it is reinforced by the tabloid article, it
rings more true to me. I'm embarrassed all over again. I guess Burger
couldn't exactly dispense with women altogether and remain a Darwinist, eh?
>Then, they quote his book "les enfants du crime". The basic idea is that
>children, having incestuous pulsions during their oedipian period, are
>frustrated by the taboos of our society. He proposes to let children
>express these pulsions.
I can't remember having a incestuous pulsion myself, but if you're going to
have an oedipian a priori as the basis of your philosphy/sexuality you
could end up most anywhere. IMO, the real lack of info concerns Burger's
own childhood.
>So, nothing explicit (you of course won't expect him to publish
>something explicit). And Burger denies that there could be any
>sexual aggression at Montrame, says: "Personally, I am against pedophilia.
>The need for love of children has nothing to do with the deeds of a
>pedophile. The difference between those is the same as between a rape
>and a response to love. Only 200 years ago, people were absolutely
>free to perform those things. The need for love of children is something
>magical, which doesn't exclude the body. The choice is up to the child, and
>the adult is at first passive and open to the child. That's the
>difficult part.
I, for one, sure appreciate you taking the time to quote at length.
>My $0.02 worth interpretation: Burger wants to change the sexual conventions
>of society, so that sexual practices with children will no longer be
>forbidden, will be natural. The sexual instinct of children shouldn't
>be repressed, and having sexual intercourse with children is not
>harmful if the child demands it. On the contrary, not doing so only
>traumatizes the child. That shouldn't be compared with pedophilia,
>because a pedophile acts egoistically (thus traumatizes the child),
>whereas Burger (and others) have sexual contacts only when the
>partner consents.
And your $0.02 worth!
>My opinion: Burger goes too far. He tries to justify his homosexual and
>pedolhiliac pulsions with scientific theories. Those theories may
>be interesting, but you cannot change society like that... Maybe
>creating an instincto-land around Montrame, with its own laws, could
>work, I don't know, but it would definitely look like a sect...
That's what it is now, no? Yes, I agree that he has gone too far and that
it is a justification of his own homosexual and pedophiliac pulsions.
>And in fact, it would probably fail. The foundation of instincto-nutrition
>was evolution. Civilizations are also subject to evolution. If
>their rules don't work, they degenerate and disappear. And Burger
>wants to create a society where there are no frustrations? That would
>be the ideal society, but so far, the "natural" mechanism of selection
>hasn't produced any society close to that ideal... So I doubt that
>a single man, were he a genius (and I don't think it is the case of
>Burger), can create the ideal society.
But he can creat plenty of frustration ;)
>Anyway, some kinds of frustrations exist among animals too. Many animals,
>like chimps or bonobos, are social beings, they have a hierarchy, etc...
>and relations of power exist. And even among non-social animals, not
>finding food is a kind of frustration too. A reasonable objective is
>to keep frustrations at a reasonable level. And you don't necessarily
>have to sodomize boys for that.
Righto. Show me a boy that demands Burger sodomize him and I'll show you a
vulnerable kid who fell for a cult. Show me a boy who doesn't demand
Burger's sodomization and I'll show you one of Burger's frustrations.
Stefan:
>>The facts were hold back a considerable time since there are photos of
>>Nicole Burger who died last year.
JL:
>Yes, but they say, p. 51, 2nd column: "Guy-Claude Burger's wife
>had been beaten, humiliated for years by her husband until she
>died of a cancer, in 1994, far away from the Chateau, so not to cast
>any doubt on instinctotherapy".
Wow. Is this how carefully Stefan read the article before he gives us his
own version of the facts? Hopefully it is a language problem, but if so,
how can he be so cavalier in his impressions of the article. Anyway, thanks
for clearing that up Mr. Tu.
JL:
>I translate here the first sentence of the article:
>"Provins, Thursday, May 22nd, 11 p.m. Alain Peyrefitte was about to leave
>a meeting of the RPR [note: the political party of the current president]
>when a young, strange looking man, with a marked foreign accent, stood up
>and yelled: 'Why not cope with the sect of pedophiles in the Chateau
>de Montrame?'"
>Thus, it is something rather recent. The reason is that the media (and
>the police) have been talking a lot about pedophilia in the last
>few weeks.
It's about time. Having lived in Bangkok for four years, the reports of
European pedophilia in southeast Asia was a constant feature in the press.
Only in the last few years has attention focused on this incredible
passtime. Granted, Thai culture is ripe for exploitation and certainly no
model of purity. Like female circumcision (probably a bad example),
pedophilia is an issue due for its day in the sun, so to speak. Hopefully,
though, it won't take on witchhunt proportions, but it doesn't sound like
Burger is unjustly accused...
Stefan:
>>Despite all this I think Burger and the residents of Montrame have
>>exceeded the limits of what society tolerates considerably. Not very
>>wise to do so.
JL:
>Yeah. And it is bad for the reputation of instincto-nutrition too.
Horrible. But perhaps a new beginning can come of it--if Burger would
censured by instinctos instead of still being venerated.
Stefan:
>>I hope, that psychologists, experienced in children psychology, will
>>prove, that the children were n o t abused. Abused children show
>>behavioral differences that are clearly to recognize. What I heard from
>>people having worked at Montrame is, that even the worst cooked
>>children were becoming lucky and loving beings after some months.
JL:
>Maybe most were not abused, but what if they want to come back
>to ordinary society, and however keep their sexual practices?
The level of abuse is not clear without details. But if they were putting
the tenets of meta into practice with vulnerable children, I would consider
it abusive, very much so. With vulnerable adults, it is still abuse I
guess, but of a different and lessor level.
As for coming back to ordinary society, I seem to have that problem with
simply the nutrition part ;)
>And, given the "harmony" between Burger and his wife, my guess is that
>there did were a few abuses. Burger himself admits (I quote) "The adult
>is at first passive and open to the child. That's the difficult part".
>And if it's difficult, and the adult makes "mistakes"? If the
>adults takes advantage of the relation of power, to act egoistically,
>only to satisfy his own fantasms?
Then they should be in prison. Let's call a spade a spade.
Am I the only one on the list disgusted by the tenets of meta being thrust
upon vulnerable children? Doubly so since they purport to be
"instinctive"...
Cheers,
Kirt
|
