In raw food
circles, recently there has come a new raw diet approach called Instinctotherapy,
created by Guy-Claude Burger, wherein a reasonably-sounding analysis of
human instincts is given and a resulting dietary discipline resting on
same is produced. Although most of the claims are rational,
a disturbing perversion of logic is systematically applied that asserts
the human consumption of raw animal flesh and other raw animal items is
The purpose of this page is to demonstrate
the systematized errors that lead to this, and other, false conclusions,
so only the questionable passages are quoted and responded to here. The
source of Burger's text cited
here, although other copies of his work are posted on the web.
Apparently, Burger was recently sentenced
to 15 years imprisonment as an "unamendable" sex-offender
of children in France, and previously in Switzerland. One wonders
if the animal hormones consumed in raw animal flesh, fish, and eggs were
contributory to this behavior. This behavior demonstrates GCB's
remarkable ability to justify behavior that is clearly not instinctual.
are from an interview with GCB, and for organizational convenience are
rearranged by topic.
This is the
fundamental precept of Instinctotherapy:
GCB: "A food is said to be original
if it is not modified by any artifice of conceptual intelligence: an aliment
as it is directly given by nature, for example as an animal can obtain
it in its natural habitat."
Guns, knives, and intentional putrefaction
of one's food before eating, as is recommended for Instincto flesh-eating,
is obviously quite different than food "directly given by nature"
as humans could "obtain it in its natural habitat".
GCB: "Whenever a food no longer
comes in the same form as our ancestors found it in the wild, thereís
no reason why our instincts should operate properly."
This seems reasonable,
since our digestive biochemistry has not had time to 'adapt' to any foods
not in our evolutionary past, and there is no known mechanism by which
such 'adaptation' could occur; however, the fatal flaw in this concept
is ignoring the fact that NONE of present day commercial foods are the
same species or varieties as those existing in the African jungle where
our ancestors are alleged to have evolved. All present day
agricultural products have been substantially modified by human selection,
and intentional breeding experiments, for hundreds to thousands of years;
way before the present dangerous transgenic/genetically modified organisms
have been forced on an unknowing public. If GCB's statement
is true, then Instinctotherapy is invalid, by definition.
GCB: "One manís meat is
another manís poison. For some people, some so-called poisonous berries
can be useful, while theyíll be harmful for other people. Itís quite plausible
that in some cases, the body needs a small amount of poison. Thatís even
a pharmaceutical principle: in small doses, poison becomes a remedy."
This old superstition
is patently false. In Nature, we see all adults of a species
eating exactly the same items, except when said items are eaten due to
cultural processes, not nutritional needs, like isolated chimp flesh-eating
that is social in
character. It is absurd to believe that one human's biochemistry
is so different than another's that a 'food' beneficial for one would
be "poison" to another. Here, GCB buy's into the
medical dogma that one can poison oneself to health; the current failure
of modern pharmaceutical medicine is evidence that this belief is false. The
body is able to heal itself, and certainly does not need any exogenous
poison to assist it. In fact, GCB developed his Instinctotherapy
specifically because pharmaceutical medicine has failed.
GCB: "Instincts, on the other hand,
have millions of years of experience behind them_all of which has accumulated
in our genetic memory."
It is not the
'experiences' that have accumulated in our 'genetic memory', but rather
the sequences of genes that have manifested the most successful progeny.
GCB: "Natural selection ensures that
weaker individuals and their descendants are killed off to the benefit
of the better endowed ones, in order for the species always to be perfecting
current Theory of Evolution claims that those individuals who are 'more
fit' have an unclearly-defined 'reproductive advantage' such that their
variation overtakes the entire population over large amounts of time. A
major problem I see with the Theory
of Evolution is that mechanisms of "natural selection" supposedly
responsibly for these changes, and speciation itself, are never clearly
GCB: "Moreover, yew trees may not
have been part of horsesí natural habitat where they evolved their genetic
background_which would account for the disruption_unless it is simply
a chink in natureís armour."
His whole theory
is based on the infallibility of Natural Law, yet he postulates a "chink
in nature's armour". This seems contradictory; many more
self-contradictions will be shown.
GCB: "That would entail an impressive
number of books_approximately the equivalent of a library that housed
1,000 large volumes of 3,000 pages each, with 5,000 letters per page,
or 50 hefty encyclopedias, that is, 50 times as much as all of Western
All of Western
culture fits in one encyclopedia? What
are all those other books in libraries?
GCB: "Hyperacidity is very likely
the leading cause of ulcer, since ulcers typically heal after a few months
news is that most ulcers are caused by an infection with the bacterium,
Helicobacter pylori, and can be cured in about two weeks with antibiotics."
GCB: "A living complex is necessarily
subservient to laws of balance, selection, rejection, preference, and
exchange. The need to survive at the expense of the outside world requires
an economic scenario, even on the level of microscopic entities. It is,
therefore, hardly surprising, that the very same laws of economy apply
whether one is dealing with a country, an individual, or a simple cell."
Drawing an equivalence
between natural laws, which are constant, and human affairs, which are
driven by irrationalities and not bounded by any laws, shows a lack of
understanding of General Systems Theory and analytical skills. One
does not see "laws of balance, selection, rejection, preference,
and exchange" mentioned is scientific texts.
GCB: "When one is crammed full of
grains and one never eats fruit, eating a single banana is enough to set
off a minor explosion in the body."
Why would that
be? Bananas and grains are mostly starch. Has anyone
else ever seen this? Perhaps, combining sweet, sugary fruit and
concentrated starch might cause indigestion and internal fermentation,
but is not the fault of the fruit, but the combination.
GCB: "A few world records held by
the pioneers of instinctotherapy. The following foods were eaten raw,
without bringing out any digestive distress, direct or otherwise. 52 egg
yolks at a single sitting + 151 egg yolks over two days, 156 oysters at
a single meal, 48 bananas at a single meal, 67 bananas in a single day,
120 passion fruits at a single meal, 210 passion fruits in a single day,
7 cucumbers at a single dinner, 16 melons (approximately weighing a pound
apiece) at a single meal (a twelve year-old girl), 16 cassias in a single
day, 1.35 kilos (approximately 3 pounds) of honey as a dessert, 7 liters
of water in a single day
Most would interpret
this type of behavior as a profound eating disorder.
GCB: "Obeying oneís instincts is,
thus, synonymous with freedom."
True, but see
how human instincts are systematically perverted to 'allow' the eating
of raw flesh in the "Flesh-eating humans?" section, below.
GCB: "It has even been shown that
instinctual cravings reflect bodily needs on an hourly basis. A chicken
who lays her daily egg changes her diet depending on her needs. She feels
like high-protein foods while producing the egg white, is then attracted
to water to help the egg build up its moisture, and later to ground oyster
powder high in calcium when she makes the shell. From one minute to the
next, she knows how to make up for her metabolic deficiencies, without
even having studied dietetics."
would the chicken in Nature have access to "ground oyster powder"
such as to be able to develop an "instinct" to eat it?
_Some people make it to 90, eating like
everybody else. Do cooked foods happen to be better suited to them?
GCB: "Their genetic background may
have partly adapted and be protecting them. However, that makes no difference
to the fact that you canít pick and choose at birth, when it comes to
being among the better adapted. "
GCB rests his
whole theory on his belief that no adaptation to faulty diet is possible,
yet there is this contradiction.
GCB: "Wasnít it Francis Blanche who
said: ďMadame, donít wait for your breasts to droop, let them down.Ē I
think it wiser to say: ďEat raw food!Ē That will most assuredly firm up
Breasts are fat,
_Chickens peck sand.
GCB: " ... to produce a shell, not
to grow nice teeth, so far as I know.
Sand is silicon
dioxide, there is NO calcium from which to "produce a shell". Chickens
eat small pebbles and keep them in their 'crop' such as to be able to
grind grain; as an animal husbandman, GCB should know this. Just
what we need -- another dietary guru totally ignorant of chemistry.
GCB: "My wife immediately got up to
swaddle the child, as is usual in instincto deliveries."
a practice of imprisoning a baby in tight wraps to immobilize it and keep
it quiet. It certainly is not the least bit natural, nor is
clothing instinctual, unless one has moved out of the tropical human ecological
niche and is freezing to death. Swaddling inhibits movement
and insulates the child from all human contact. It is brutal
GCB: "The greatest possible choice
makes it easier to retrain one's instincts."
Isn't the idea
to develop awareness of and follow one's instincts; NOT "retrain"
them. Isn't retraining them to the perversions of cooking the
GCB: "But don't escape instinctos'
sharp noses, since years later they filter out concentrated in feces,
urine, perspiration, and excretions of all kinds."
Here, the claim
is made that previous toxins take "years" to eliminate, yet
most raw fooders notice the lack of odors in a much shorter period than
that; is this because the instincto diet is not particularly healthy because
of the raw meat? And, that it produces its own smelly toxins
because the raw, putrefying flesh is not properly digested?
GCB: "As the substances remain in
the bowels for 2 or 3 days..."
Most raw fooders
experience multiple bowel movements a day; so Instinctos must be really
constipated from the raw meat.
GCB: "Easy [bowel] movements (one
to two a day, well-formed and that rarely require toilet paper)
a concept borrowed from medical texts referring to average, low-fiber,
meat-eaters, indicates constipation and dehydration. Notice
the contradiction to the "2 or 3 days" above.
GCB: "In respect of human food, the
first basic notions pertaining to cooking go back some two millions years
(when the first tools came into being), the use of fire goes back 400,000
years and maybe as far back as a million years, and cooking proper, coupled
with the use and production of cereal grains and animal milk, goes back
tens of millions of years."
This is apparently
a severe typographical error, agriculture is about 10,000 years old.
GCB: "Have just two meals a day,
around noon and 6 pm. Lunch should include two sequences: one with fresh
fruits and another with nuts and oil-bearing seeds. Dinner may have four
or five sequences : (1) animal proteins, (2) vegetables and sprouted cereals,
(3) fresh fruits if desired, (4) nuts and oil-bearing seeds, and finally
(5) dried fruits and honey. Never soak your dried fruits in water
This is complete
lunacy. The concept of "meals" is an industrial artifact; all
the other apes and other species with a plant-based diet nibble all day
long. IF GCB was respecting his "instincts" as he
claims, the advice would be to eat only when hungry, because hunger is
an instinct. Here, he lapses into insupportable dogma, just
as he does with the egg, fish, and flesh dogma.
People with knowledge of food combining
for optimum digestion will immediately recognize the horrific combinations
being recommended here: animal flesh, vegs, starchy grains, fruits, nuts
(impossible to digest even on their own), and dried fruit and honey on
top of that mess.
There is no wonder Instinctos do not experience
cleansing reactions eating indigestible combinations like this.
Note: elsewhere, he rightfully claims grains/cereals
are a recent human invention and should not be eaten, now he recommends
to eat 'sprouted cereals'.
GCB: "Eat nothing between meals; this
only makes digestion more difficult and opens the door to bulimia (compulsive
All the other
apes nibble all day long; none eats two "meals" a day. Why
don't they develop bulimia?
GCB: "Casse [a
variety of cinnamon] is essential because it eases the process
of detoxination and exerts a regulatory effect on the system."
One's body regulates
detox and regulates itself; this is in absolute opposition to Instincto
principles! This is the taking of toxic drugs to interfere
with normal biochemistry.
GCB: "It is necessary to distinguish
the upkeep, or "maintenance", ration from the "elimination" ration. The
former represents the energy supply and the necessary material to maintain
the body's status quo; for maintenance the calorie requirement is less
than in ordinary eating thanks to better metabolic efficiency. The latter,
by contrast, represents seemingly enormous quantities whose effect
is to provoke the breakdown of toxic substance that have been accumulated
in the cells (instinctual bulimia). Detoxination is then stimulated (and
paradoxically, weight loss as well) by eating a lot; whereas in ordinary
eating it is just the other way round."
It is generally
agreed and experienced by dietary explorers that less food, not more,
will accelerate cleansing processes; that is why a "fast" is
not called a "slow". Similarly, when the body initiates
a vigorous cleansing process, such as a "cold/flu", then one
loses one's appetite: proof that the body wants less, not more,
food during such cleansing episodes. Perhaps the toxic spice
[casse] and various putrefying raw animal proteins consumed by Instinctos
have disturbed normal biochemistry sufficiently to create these bizarre
anomalies? Our biochemistry does the detox work; most certainly,
no "enormous quantities" of food is necessary "to provoke"
detox, as is claimed.
_No wine, though?
GCB: "There are better things than
that. Fermented coconut milk, for instance; itís light, sweet, pungent,
and pleasantly alcoholic. It tastes better than champagne when instincts
feel like it."
is alcohol, and is the result of fermentation of sugars. Actually,
alcohol has a really unpleasant taste; if you want to taste pure alcohol,
try gin or vodka. Whatever pleasantness in alcoholic drinks
is the result of sugars and the fruity tastes of the original source of
And then the
GCB: "Instincts protect one
from natural alcohols. Alcoholism wouldnít exist if people drank wine
in the form of fermented grapes. Theyíre delicious and one stops spontaneously
when oneís on the verge of euphoria.
GCB: "The same thing holds good for
the flavor and smell of cigarettes. At first, one is turned off by the
acridness, and then smoking becomes appealing owing to the euphoric effect
of nicotine. Once smokers have been weaned, they are surprised at having
been able to stomach substances that are revolting to them in a normal
Perhaps the same
may be said of the acid attacks of pineapple, or the nausea and vomiting
created by eating putrefying raw meat?
_Have you ever tried out natural drugs?
GCB: "Not personally. Several of my
colleagues had a go at raw Indian hemp (cannabis). One of them chanced
to end up at a Spaniardís place whose garden was overrun with it. He tried
a few leaves and finding them tasty, he went on eating, as he would have
eaten lambís lettuce. The owner of the garden went from mild concern to
downright panic, because my friend had eaten far beyond the lethal dose.
Finally, the owner of the garden ran off his herbivorous predator_not
so much for fear of what was happening to his garden, as that this strange
visitor would kick the bucket from an overdose. However, nothing happened.
No hallucination, no arousal, no laughing fits, nor any of the symptoms
common on marijuana.
_And what if heíd had a similar intake in
tokes or brownies?
GCB: "In that case, I expect he would
have been in for trouble. Once a molecule has been damaged by heat, it
doesnít produce the same impact on the body. The latter reacts against
a natural plant either because our instincts place a limit on the amount
we can eat or because the enzymes in our body are able to break down toxic
molecules in their initial state. The alteration caused by heating screws
up both defense mechanisms."
is ignorant of the fact that the form of THC in raw cannabis is a different
isomer than the delta-9 THC that has specific receptors in the human brain. This
is the reason that smoking or cooking is necessary to produce the altered
state of consciousness; the high temperature changes the inactive form
into the active form. This is totally unrelated to GCB's hypothesis
about "toxic molecules" and "enzymes". A
more interesting question is why are there specific receptors for delta-9
THC and the real psychedelics already evolved in the human brain?
_And what of opium?
GCB: "Try poppy seeds; they taste prohibitively
bitter. Without smoking them or without heroin processing techniques,
no one would have gone and driven themselves loopy with the calyxes of
those hapless flowers that canít have been intended to wreck human lives.
seeds have a rather pleasant nutty taste - does this mean we are supposed
to eat them?? Opium comes from the sap, not the seeds. Plants
do not wreck human lives, humans do!
Here are some
of the more bizarre claims made by GCB. Frequent statements
are made that the body has an instinctual "aversion threshold"
that will provide a strong, unmistakable signal, this being a rapid and
intense change of taste of an item as it is being eaten, when the body
has consumed 'enough' of that 'food' for the present time.
In my ~ 33 years of experimenting with
various plant-based diets, and in talking with innumerable other people
experimenting with diets, and reading various vegetarian/vegan and raw diet-oriented
Internet newsgroups and mailing lists for over a decade, I have never
experienced, or heard of anyone else experiencing, any such rapid onset
Yes, as one's body detoxes, it is common
for people to gradually come to reject 'foods' that they previously 'liked',
but this is strictly a function of the enhanced sensitivity of taste,
or the realization of some digestive difficulty, as the body gets healthier
and better able to respond to lesser and lesser insults. But,
this is entirely different than the taste of any food suddenly
changing to being unpalatable while eating it, and for it to return to
a pleasant taste the next day.
GCB: "A useful food can become unnecessary
or even downright harmful when it is being eaten, once the bodily needs
have been catered to. Flavor abruptly changes and unpleasant cues make
it aversive (tartness, acridness, astringency, sharpness, one mouthís
on fire, bitterness; the texture feels granular, dry, tacky, etc...).
Nudging the limits of pleasurable palatability is what we call reaching
oneís aversion threshold."
Strange -- this
alleged aversion threshold is not mentioned in conventional raw fooder
communications. Does this happen only when one is poisoned
by raw flesh??
GCB: "In one of my recent experiences,
shepherdís purse tasted to me surprisingly like Hungarian goulash. I sucked
on a few stems for two or three minutes and they tasted like a kind of
roasted meat sauce, before taking on an unpleasant grasslike taste_meaning,
that my need had been met.
A useful food sometimes incites a reaction,
suggesting that the body is making the most of more relevant incoming
substances to clear previously accumulated abnormal, toxic substances.
Usually, people donít understand that to be a healthy reaction. They think
theyíve been poisoned or that their instincts are ineffectual or even
non-existent, whereas, in fact, theyíre experiencing the backlash of previously
stored cooked molecules."
Here, GCB confuses
a toxic poisoning effect, which is instantaneous, and a normal biochemical
detox process, which progresses at a rather constant pace, unless provoked
into a more intense level of activity, such as a "cold/flu". Most
poisons provoke an immediate response of the body, normal biochemistry
is not turned on or off by external substances. Real foods
do not provoke any reaction, except pleasure, and they may be eaten in
a monodiet for weeks with no unpleasant effects. Toxic plants,
such as 'herbs' DO provoke immediate unpleasant reactions, and those immediate
reactions are the reason that 'herbs' were chosen out of the local plants
and called 'medicines'. Eat a pound of fruit, and then eat
a pound of your favorite 'curative herb' and see if you survive the experiment. From
the point of view of the plants, there is not such thing as 'food', 'herb',
'spice', 'poison', 'medicine', etc., they are just plants. Those
names were invented by humans to describe their chosen cultural application;
such categorization is false.
GCB: "Instinctotherapy is the acme
of anti-dietetics, since it is based on pleasure rather than on applying
more or less frustrating rules. It is at loggerheads with slimming diets
or fasts, which always involve punishing oneself somewhat. All it takes
is eating a single type of cooked food to trigger off a general overload
in several nutrients whose amounts instincts werenít able to gauge properly.
The following day, any raw food will taste less appealing."
GCB refers to
many mysterious, instantaneous and overnight, 'taste changes', such as
these, that are apparently unknown in the general raw food experience. Further,
instincts are not able to measure the amounts of "several" different
specific nutrients, as stated. There is no evidence that instincts
can measure the amount of protein, fat, carbohydrate, vitamins, minerals,
_I would now like to know why the pineapple
suddenly turned prohibitively abrasive.
GCB: "Pineapple contains an enzyme,
bromelaine, that dissolves protein and corrodes mucus membranes in the
_But how is it that you werenít feeling
GCB: "You didnít either, until after
a few mouthfuls. The body will only take pineapple so long as it can produce
enzymes that neutralize bromelaine. After that, when the body draws the
line, which you may realize when the taste of the fruit turns sharp_there
are no buffer enzymes left in your saliva so that pineapple starts digesting
Let's see, the
human ape, evolving in the African forest, where there is no modern-day
pineapple, and specifically no horrifically unripe, highly acidic, modern-day
pineapple, developed a specific enzyme to "neutralize bromelaine"
in anticipation of humans cultivating it and eating it excessively unripe
in a completely different ecosystem, tens of thousands of years later? It
is far more likely that the high acid content of always-unripe commercial
pineapples is the source of pain when eating them. GCB has
eaten many, many pineapples, so may have destroyed his own alarm signals,
or has caused extensive scarring and desensitized the tissues so assaulted,
similarly to one who persists with tobacco smoking until the pain disappears.
Or the Instincto that keeps eating raw flesh until the nausea and
GCB: "Now, you know what I mean when
I speak of aversion threshold. The same thing holds true for a great many
fruits, and especially with wild fruits which are virtually impossible
to overeat. Taking a look at facts, for one and the same person, the amount
of a food they can eat before it turns aversive varies greatly from one
day to the next. Very often, one witnesses very decrepit people eating
heaps of passion fruits with unflagging relish that other guests, who
are in far better health, find dreadfully tart."
of a rapid change of taste of a single food, which is not known by mainstream
raw food enthusiasts. "Very decrepit people" may not have a
functioning taste ability. When I moved to Florida and 'discovered'
papayas, I ate a monodiet of them for several weeks on end, and never
got to any "aversion threshold". Unfortunately, shortly
thereafter, climactic changes have rendered them susceptible to a virus,
and they have not ripened to the point of being edible for many years.
Wild fruits, not having been cultivated
to increase their sugar content for thousands of years, like the mango,
are generally highly acidic. That is the reason for the intense
cultivation and crossbreeding history of all commercial fruits and vegetables;
to make them edible, and larger, and more shippable to produce more profit.
GCB: "Another proof that oneís enjoyment
can turn sour occurs with foods that donít corrode mucus membranes. For
instance, egg yolk takes on a straw-like taste verging on that of chicken
droppings_which is absolutely unbearable. Still another proof that aversion
threshold does function is that the unpleasantness in taste crops up right
at the moment when the amount of food taken up provides the best possible
is this mythical "balance" measured and then
shown to occur at that exact moment? There is no way to support this always-unsubstantiated
Since animal protein is not one of the human
ape's natural foods, GCB's often repeated but totally unsubstantiated
claims to the contrary, it is highly likely that partially digested animal
proteins get into the bloodstream by "gut leakage" and thus
cause an allergic reaction that GCB is misinterpreting as the "satisfaction"
of some non-existing, unproven "need" for animal protein.
GCB: "There are all kinds of criteria
that account for balance_for instance, digestive well-being. It only takes
going slightly beyond aversion threshold, in terms of taste and feeling
full, for digestive potential to be lessened. If one forces oneself to
eat two or three spoonfuls of egg yolk too many or if one mashes a banana
because itís easier to eat that way, well, then, one rediscovers very
quickly that one has a stomach."
Here, the bizarre
claim is that by only mashing a banana, one experiences indigestion. Has
anyone else ever experienced that?
GCB: "As it happens, crudivorians
[raw fooders] experience very
many bouts of detoxification that sometimes spell untoward consequences.
When things have gone too far for the body to react, no detoxification
symptom is touched off and this ought to give us cause for concern. But,
given that there is no understanding of some symptoms betokening useful
processes inside the body, people reason the other way around and believe
they're in sound health. I grant you that when instinctotherapy is deftly
applied, detoxification symptoms remain virtually in abeyance. However,
if you take yourself over into an imbalance during a cathartic clearance,
that clearance is likely to run away with itself and take on the guise
of a varyingly definite illness."
I find this paragraph
particularly incomprehensible; but, apparently, Instinctos do not experience
the cleansing processes and obvious detox common to real raw fooders. Again,
is this the result of the body being poisoned by raw animal flesh and
indigestible combinations to the extent that it can not cleanse/heal itself? Is
there a damaging effect of the animal hormones, including the 'fight or
flight' hormones, on human biochemistry?
It is simple to control the intensity of
these cleansing reactions by varying what one eats on a daily basis, but
apparently GCB is unaware of this.
_Is that why crudivorism has a reputation
for being rather risky?
GCB:" When one eats bowl after bowl
of grated carrots or fresh spinach with oil and vinegar dressing, it doesnít
make dietary sense. Eating raw foods sets in motion various cleansing
processes within the body, which, in themselves, are healthy, but eating
too much can cause things to get out of hand_hence, the sometimes distressing
symptoms that occur when one hasnít fully mastered the situation. With
instinctotherapy, proper intake takes care of itself if one applies the
Raw food has
a reputation of being "rather risky"? That's news
to me, especially since our species, as did all species, evolved on totally
raw food, but GCB does tend to just make things up.
If he is complaining about a monodiet making
no sense, most chimps will fill up on whatever local fruit is available
and then go on to the next food source; that is, they generally eat mono
meals. "Proper" administration of a raw food transitional
diet is possible, but GCB denies this.
Who's kidding whom?
the whole Instinctotherapy theory degenerates into bizarre illogic, self-contradiction,
and absolutely insupportable dogma. Remember how the whole essence
of Instinctotherapy is allegedly based on the pleasurable taste and odor
of the target food? This shibboleth is abandoned completely
and a convoluted, self-contradictory exercise in self-deception is substituted
for logic and consistency in order to justify eating animal flesh.
Insightfully, GCB provides a useful analysis
of how cultural conditioning and subconscious processes control our thinking
without our knowledge, then he allows these same subconscious, culturally-conditioned
processes to undermine his alleged "love" for "logic".
GCB: "I always loved formal logic."
Yet, logic is
rapidly abandoned to justify, allow, and even encourage the eating of
raw animal flesh.
GCB: "We would do well to become aware
that healthwise we're all tied down to a system from the outset and are
caught in a web of thought and taboos that reach deep into our subconscious
Yep, but this
admitted web of subconscious thoughts is the source of GCB's irrational
embracing of deeply culturally-conditioned animal flesh eating, not logic
and not instincts, as we shall see.
GCB: "For instance, the mere fact
of knowing that one falls victim to one's subconscious mind and that the
subconscious mind, in turn, falls victim to all kinds of obsessions relating
to eating pleasure, all that enables one to step back from oneself a bit,
stay the course, and resist fleeting temptation."
"We control ourselves much less than
we believe. Making a decision on a conscious level doesn't necessarily
entail the subconscious mind going along with it. Now, the subconscious
has a far greater pull than the conscious mind. The former bears the full
weight of all the experiences and education acquired from infancy: anxiety,
gratification, frustration, etc... integrated into the irrational and
pre-critical mind. Morover, those subconscious constructs that cling to
us are in keeping with the basic premises of our environment; they make
us open to outward agression or pressure. So, we typically remain unable
to keep to the behavior that we view as being sensible and that we have
decided to conform to for any great length of time. Some preposterous
idea arises out of a leaning towards anxiety or a subconscious dilemma
and we feel caught off our guard and thrown out of gear. We felt so sure
of our position, and overnight, we find ourselves back to our pots and
pans, our minds having already worked out a complete array of justifications
that buffer us utterly against our own contradictions. One has to be wary
of oneself if one wants to manage such a change in diet in the long term.
Nothing is as hard as recovering from cooking.
recognizes the illogical cultural programming at the subconscious level
and how it perverts what seems to be rational thought; however, his endlessly
self-contradictory, irrational, counter-instinctual, logical perversions
absolutely necessary to justify Instincto eating of rotting flesh is not
seen to be the product of just such a process. That is, he sees
the problem, yet stays ensnared by it.
_And so, is one protected from contamined
GCB: "People are often poisoned by
shellfish. I think that, in a great many cases, the effect of a germ toxin,
supposedly present in shellfish that has gone bad, is confused with the
clean-out process that is triggered when one eats the shellfish."
_You mean, the clean-out is triggered when
one absorbs the toxin?
GCB: "The shellfish, rather, triggers
it, since the same reactions following absorption occur with shellfish,
fish, or other animal protein that is perfectly fresh. The same thing
has even occurred after the absorption of vegetable protein. The presence
of germs in a food only serves to stimulate the reaction. I would even
go so far as to say that the body possibly uses the germ to help carry
out the cleansing process."
Again, gut leakage
of partially-digested foreign animal proteins, in addition to bacteriological
toxins, triggering an immunological response is the more likely cause. The
bizarre, unsupported hypothesis that "germs" "help carry
out the cleansing process" is given; however, the body's biochemistry
is quite capable of cleansing itself (within limits) and does not "need"
any exogenous beings to carry out its functions.
At least, he admits that people are often
poisoned by shellfish; of course, the fact that there are NO shellfish,
or any fish, in the Tropical jungle where we evolved is conveniently ignored.
And next, he admits that raw herbivore flesh poisoned his disciples.
GCB: "My instinct initiates, who numbered
but a few in those days, and myself had divided up among us a roebuck
[A small European and Asiatic deer]
we had purchased from a hunter. This wild venison tasted heavenly to most
of us, in spite of ever so slight a feeling of revulsion. The following
day, my phone rang incessantly: Some of the roebuck enthusiasts had brought
up their dinner during the night. My first thought was that the meat must
have been contaminated and that their digestive systems had been ridding
them of the toxins through vomiting. Another conjecture was that eating
such a wild ďinitialĒ food set off reactions that were intricately bound
up with previous poisoning resulting from cooking_the most logical interpretation
being that the body was undergoing some rather unpleasant upheaval in
order to cleanse itself."
The central Instincto
concept of "initial food", that to which we have genetically
adapted in our deep evolutionary past, is conveniently abandoned here:
European and Asiatic deer do NOT live in the tropical forest where our
species evolved. So again, logic and Instincto principles give way
to blood lust; this will be a recurring theme. This abandonment of GCB's
"love" of "logic" and the convenient, repeated relinquishment
of Instincto principles in favor of consuming animal products is a result
of that previously admitted web of subconscious thoughts, no doubt. Yet,
even knowing that he controlled by this web, GCB fails to break free.
Note, also, that the principle of eating
only what is pleasurable falls by the wayside, in favor of eating that
which produces a "feeling of revulsion". And, further,
the body's vomiting up the flesh meal is obviously a clear statement that
it is NOT a food fit for our species; yet this specific vomiting is conveniently,
and irrationally, blamed on previous "cooking"; the indigestible
flesh is, of course, blameless. Again, GCB intentionally confuses
an immediate poisoning response with normal detox, and only to support
his irrational fixation on animal flesh.
GCB: "The overwhelming majority of
such reactions never get beyond a feeling of slight nausea_meaning that
something is happening deep within the body, even if there are no other
clearly perceived ill effects. Obviously, such reactions are responsible
for the disgust people generally feel when they start eating raw food_especially
for raw meat and raw fish. It would be highly instructive to know why
the body reacts, in such a way, to foods which, by the looks of them,
are not toxic.
What a heroic
effort to avoid the obvious: the human has NO physiological equipment
(sharp claws, fangs, beak, talons, ...) that ALL the other natural flesh-eaters
do. We are too slow to run down and catch any animal, and the Instincto
certainly does NOT kill his fleshy prey with his bare hands (HINT: natural
equipment) and eat his flesh, through the skin and fur with just his teeth,
as ALL the other natural flesh-eaters do. The macho Instincto
eats only cleanly filleted slices of muscle meat of the body of one conveniently
killed and dressed by another.
And where's the "disgust people generally
feel when they start eating raw food_especially for raw meat and raw fish."? That's
a lie, too. People do not feel "disgust" when eating
raw fruits or vegetables. The do feel disgust when eating raw
flesh and fish simply because they are being poisoned by same, and further,
humans have a strong anti-instinct when it comes to killing and
eating animals, whole and raw.
No human has any "go out and kill an
animal with one's bare hands and then start chewing on it instinct";
the whole Instincto theory is simply a lie when applied to animals.
We are told that we should eat that which
smells and tastes good, and I agree; however, the fatal flaw in contrived
Instincto flesh-eating becomes clearly evident when one realizes the obvious:
one can NOT smell and/or taste raw animal flesh in an intact animal several
yards away THROUGH ITS HAIR AND SKIN.
Further, if you give an infant, who is still
in touch with its instincts, a kitten and banana, it will play with the
kitten and eat the banana, certainly not the opposite, as it would IF
humans had any flesh-eating "instinct".
GCB: "Cooked foods, on the contrary,
contain refractory molecules that normally have no place in the digestive
tract; the gastric mucus has to secrete an inordinate amount of gastric
juices to handle the situation, and the stomach produces so much acid
that acid belching results_otherwise, the stomach would turn against itself."
profound ignorance of simple digestive chemistry. The gastric
mucosa secretes the digestive chemicals. Further, the stomach
produces large amounts of acid only when the person mistakenly
eats protein that is too concentrated
to be digested properly. Excessive digestive acid is produced only
when far too much protein is eaten, such as raw animal flesh, eggs, and
nuts/seeds; it is not a consequence of "cooked foods". "Acid
belching", whatever that is, does not prevent the stomach from "turning
against itself", whatever that means. The walls of the stomach
are protected from proteolytic enzymes by a layer of mucus.
GCB: "But, letís go back to our roebuck.
To interpret those reactions that occurred the first time a raw food was
eaten, there was only one possible explanation: The reaction was a clean-out.
The cells, receiving for the first time the ďinitialĒ molecules that suited
them, promptly cast off the old unserviceable molecules that they had
been saddled with on traditional food; all these unwanted substances,
released into the bloodstream, induced a kind of self-poisoning, with
the same symptoms as extraneous poisoning_which state is typified by a
feeling of nausea. More scientifically, I ought to be saying that the
uptake of new molecules lowers the bodyís threshold of tolerance and it
begins to flush out unwanted molecules it had put up with before."
Why does GCB
intentionally ignore the most obvious reason for the nausea and vomiting
reactions the eating raw animal flesh produced; that of food poisoning,
and that the human ape has no inherent physiology or biochemistry to consume
raw animal flesh, so it is expelled to protect the body proper from being
poisoned? Nausea and vomiting are, indeed, instincts to protect
Detox or "clean out" proceeds
on a continuing basis, 24 hours a day; it certainly does not require episodes
of nausea and vomiting because the great majority of wastes are regularly
excreted thorough the obvious channels: urine and feces. Food
poisoning, however, does produce nausea and vomiting.
Of course, the claim that raw animal flesh
[in this case small European and Asiatic deer which most certainly do
not exist in our natural tropical ecological niche] is "initial food"
for our tropical ape species while simultaneously ignoring the blatant
facts that we have absolutely no physiological or biochemical equipment
to either catch, tear asunder, and successfully eat and digest, raw animal
flesh is transparently false. He also ignores the fact that
the body does the biochemistry; the food, "new molecules" or
not, has no ability to "flush out unwanted molecules it had put up
GCB: "Given appropriate conditions,
your internal organs remain silent. One shouldnít feel any heaviness,
queasiness, rumbling, or drowsiness during digestion."
Yet, the nausea
and vomiting of indigestible, putrefying animal flesh is welcomed as somehow
_How is it, then, that youíre not against
eggs? Eggs are laid to turn into chicks.
GCB: "Intelligence isnít necessary
to find eggs in nature. All sorts of animals include eggs in their diet,
i.e. field mice, squirrels, monkeys, etc. Our genetic code has had millions
of years to adapt to them; whereas, to get milk, one has had to devise
no end of contrivances. Nobody has ever seen a gorilla milk a buffalo
in a primeval forest."
One also does
not see lots of eggs lying on the ground for the human to just find. Buffalo
live in grasslands, not primeval forests.
However, this "intelligence isn't necessary"
criteria is totally and conveniently abandoned when it comes to Instincto
fish and flesh-eating, where the use of intelligence, i.e. tools -- knives,
is absolutely necessary. Instinctos do NOT outrun an
animal or outswim a fish, and eat it whole and raw, with their natural
equipment as ALL other carnivores, omnivores, or pescadores do. This
is a fundamental flaw in Instincto dogma.
_That bamboozles your instincts. I get
the message. But how can you uphold that meat was one of manís initial
foods? Primates are declaredly vegetarians.
GCB: "Here we go again, back to vegetarian
doctrine. Monkeys were long believed to scorn flesh since they feed on
fruit and wild plants. They had never been caught in the act of meat-eating.
Accordingly, they werenít assumed to be meat-eaters: That would have required
conjuring them up eating raw meat given that they didnít come up with
cooking. Whichever way you look at it, raw meat is taboo as I was privileged
to find out when I included it in raw-instinct eating.
Humans are apes,
not monkeys; the smaller primates do eat significant amounts of animal
flesh due to their inherently higher metabolic turnover, the largest do
not. Further, flesh-eating among chimps and other apes is rare,
nutritionally insignificant, and used for social/cultural
purposes. If it was a nutritional imperative, then all the
adults would eat it all the time, however only fruit and leaves are eaten
_Had you initially banned eating meat?
GCB: "Almost every diet-conscious person
comes within the undertow of vegetarianism. I was no exception at first.
True enough, eating meat and flesh generally warrants due caution. Nourishing
a body with alien proteins is quite dangerous. I believe that vegetarianism
reflects some truth. It is an experience man had a very long time ago_that
is, when he started eating meat without keeping to the laws of instinct.
Nourishing the body with a food that the body wants and will be able to
metabolize properly is quite different from nourishing the body with the
same food when the body doesnít want it. In the second instance, all kinds
of molecules could slip though the grinding mill of dietary enzymes and
trigger off devastation, the extent of which no one can as yet accurately
Is this not
a clear admission that animal flesh is NOT a part of our evolutionary
He admits that eating these "alien
proteins is quite dangerous", yet encourages people to consume
them in spite of this warning, even when they vomit them up in self-defense. GCB's
claim: "I always loved formal logic." is again seen to be false,
as he readily abandons logic to support the consumption of animal proteins
and fats. He then goes on to admit "man...started eating
meat without keeping to the laws of instinct"; thus, he once
again, admits that eating animals is NOT "keeping to the laws of
instinct"! The result is claimed to be "devastation,
the extent of which no one can as yet accurately assess". I'd
claim the extent is already accurately assessed by the huge "health
care" costs and pandemic suffering of "degenerative diseases"
and shortened lifespans.
GCB: "One thing is for sure: Itís
not by viewing the issue ideologically or hot-headedly that weíll understand
anything. Getting back to our monkeys, I think we have to stick to the
facts. The English ethnologist, Jane van Lawick Goodall, who lived with
chimpanzees for twenty years, witnessed, apparently, a whole troop of
them dismember a young wild boar. The best hunters in the troop knew how
to catch it without having learnt archery. Primates have the instinct
to hunt and eat their prey; it can be assumed, therefore, that animal
protein is part or their natural diet. And as our genetic code is still
We are apes,
not monkeys. IF GCB actually had respect for the "facts",
he would conclude from them that chimp flesh-eating is rare, used for
and is nutritionally insignificant for the whole troop.
GCB: "True enough, thereís something
shocking about killing anything. It jars with our concepts of spirituality.
Could that be
a manifestation of our anti-instinct against killing animals
with our bare hands and eating them raw and whole?? Even the
most committed Instincto does not eat his animals as ALL natural flesh-eaters
do; they conveniently distance themselves from the inherent horror of
their actions by using knives instead of their teeth. Predictably,
GCB ignores our nonviolent instincts to support flesh-eating.
GCB: "Mind you, Hitler and his henchmen
were card-carrying vegetarians. But they didnít shrink from mass murder.
Perhaps one day neurophysiological disorders will be meaningfully correlated
with adulterated foods and the rise of major political trends."
however, demonstrate the opposite. Anxiety
and depression is, however, associated with the consumption of animal
GCB: "Thatís one of the battle cries
of vegetarianism. One is rightly told that one is eating ďcarrion.Ē
dead and putrefying body or flesh of an animal; flesh so corrupted as
to be unfit for food. At least he is now admitting it! Further,
you will see that he recommends intentionally letting the raw flesh putrefy
before eating it!!
GCB: "What better way to get you
off your T-bone once and for all, as if you had a cube of human flesh
on the tines of your fork.
In fact, the
chemical composition of all animal flesh is quite similar, given the close
genetic relationship between all animals and the evolutionary claim that
all animals evolved from a common ancestor. Yes, eating animal
flesh is functionally and chemically equivalent to cannibalism.
GCB: "In actual fact, meat only looks
dead; itís teeming with life. Think of all the live yeasts thriving on
Yes, the meat
itself is quite dead, the cells are not receiving any nutrition,
and cellular wastes are not being removed by blood flow, therefore each
individual cell dies a horrible death caused by simultaneous starvation
and internal buildup of toxic wastes -- those wastes would result in feces
and urine if the cell were to live. Thus, "meat"
and "fish" contain concentrated urine and fecal material. In
addition, the animal knows it is being killed and generates "flight
or fight hormones" that affect the human so foolish as to consume
same. At death, cells start decomposing in preparation for
the recycling of their chemicals, so these decomposition products, certainly
not intended for human consumption, are unavoidable contaminants in dead
animal flesh. And don't forget the bacterial contamination
and parasites. Yes, dead meat is teeming with other
life, the function of which is recycling the chemicals, NOT providing
human nutrition. In the real world, a dead carcass is quickly
inoculated with fly eggs, which quickly hatch into maggots that consume
the corpse; should we eat the maggots simply because, as GCB states, they
are "teeming with life"?
GCB: "Carrion has been around in nature
for a long time. And that the smell should repel us proves that man is
by no means a scavenger. Man isnít a carnivorous animal either. Instincts
clearly donít allow us to eat fresh meat; an animal thatís been recently
slain gives off an extremely disgusting smell. Iím not in favor of meat;
the less one eats of it, the better one feels in every way In some cases,
meat can prove extremely useful therapeutically. What one has to know
is when and how much of it one can eat, and we have the answer to that
one_that is, we can trust to our instincts, which, to my mind, are more
reliable than any theoretical, ethical, or other consideration.
exercise in illogic and self-contradiction.
Yes, the offensive, bacterially-produced
amine-based odors of a putrefying corpse are clear indications that we
are not carrion-eaters, as some armchair anthropologists foolishly claim. The
internal putrefaction of undigested animal protein is a similar process
that creates the offensive fecal, urine, menstrual, and body odors of
the human flesh-eater.
GCB then admits "Man isn't a carnivorous
animal either. Instincts clearly donít allow us to eat fresh meat; an
animal thatís been recently slain gives off an extremely disgusting smell";
well, there's the instinctive evidence that clearly proves we are
NOT flesh-eaters, but let's see the perversion of logic that allows GCB
to personally consume, and recommend the consumption of, raw animal flesh.
GCB says: "Iím not in favor of meat;
the less one eats of it, the better one feels in every way";
isn't that conclusive instinctive and experiential evidence against human
Admitting that humans are NOT natural flesh-eaters,
he then goes on to make up a totally irrational excuse for eating it:
"meat can prove extremely useful therapeutically". This
is totally insane, and based on the false, and unsupportable, assumption
that somehow the body 'needs' specific chemicals when it is not well,
that it doesn't need when it is well -- that, somehow, there are specific
biochemical pathways not used when well, yet demand a repulsive, clearly
counter-instinctive non-food item when not well. This is the
same corrupt, deadly, and absolutely unproven philosophy supporting the
ingestion of poisonous substances by the sick person as seen in the failed
"medical systems": allopathy, homeopathy, and herbalism. Clearly,
when a person is suffering from a body load of toxic substances created
by the ingestion of an improper cultural diet, the response should be
consuming less toxic substances, certainly not more, as
GCB and conventional "medical systems" demand.
GCB: "Of course, taste alone isnít
enough to prove that meat is beneficial to us. We have to try and see
the long-term effects of meat on human health. With hindsight, I have
the feeling that results, on the whole, have been quite encouraging_provided
one respects instinctive ďcuesĒ and that one avoids eating meat too frequently
with other foods."
self-contradiction from the one who "always loved formal logic";
the most fundamental tenet of Instinctotherapy is that "initial"
foods always smell and taste best. How can one eat a beneficial
food "too frequently"; can one eat mangos too frequently?
Note, GCB's last
phrase completely contradicts the above-recommended meal: "Dinner
may have four or five sequences : (1) animal proteins, (2) vegetables
and sprouted cereals, (3) fresh fruits if desired, (4) nuts and oil-bearing
seeds, and finally (5) dried fruits and honey."
GCB: "With our method, weíve been
afforded further insight_that is, instincts sometimes make meat appealing,
especially meat left out in the open for a while, exactly as instincts
do with any natural food. Raw meat seems wonderfully enjoyable and fragrant
if one needs it, when it has matured just enough. Man probably belongs
to the intermediary category of carnivorous animals, somewhere between
carnivorous animals and scavengers. Itís not by chance if butchers allow
meat to stand for a few weeks before selling it."
Now, it gets
really bizarre. Previously admitting "Instincts clearly
donít allow us to eat fresh meat; an animal thatís been recently slain
gives off an extremely disgusting smell.", we find that meat gets
yet another special exemption from the principles of logic, Instinctotherapy,
in addition to normal hygienic practices, and he recommends letting the
meat putrefy considerably "out in the open" at room temperature,
for a "few weeks" so the contaminating
bacteria thrive and multiply without bounds, prior to consuming it. Apparently,
these pathological, corpse-eating bacteria and their toxic waste products,
in addition to the rotting meat itself, is the true source of the "good"
taste so produced?
In contradiction to GCB's fantasy, we do
not instinctually let fruits or vegetables sit out in the open until they
rot prior to consuming them.
There is no "intermediate" class
of animals between carnivore and scavenger.
GCB: "I do admit, however, that, in
practice, carnivorous animals have been superseded by butchers."
canines, reptiles, amphibians, etc. would be shocked to learn they have
GCB: "In the beginning, I had hoped
that we could live on milk and not have to kill, but the facts made me
change my mind."
Yet, GCB can
present NO facts to support his case, nor logic, either. He
previously admitted that humans are not flesh-eaters. His boundless
capacity for self-contradiction far exceeds his "love" for "formal
GCB: "Sacrificing an animal because
one knows that its flesh will enable our children to build up their bodies
in accordance with natural laws_that hardly seems criminal to me."
But, he previously
admitted that humans are not natural flesh-eaters and that flesh is repulsive,
has a "disgusting smell", and produces vomiting.
GCB: "Tigers donít normally attack
people. They have to have already eaten a human being once. After that,
they do it again and again unrelentingly and become known as man-eating
tigers. But that can be easily accounted for: That flesh is undoubtedly
the most highly seasoned meat that a tiger can ever hope to eat! The tiger
himself gets entangled in the fine web of cooking; just think of all those
remnants of tasty sauces and spicy dishes that must make the normal human
beingís muscles reek_not to mention their guts!"
Tigers, as all
wild animals, tend to avoid humans and feed on their natural prey. If
a tiger gets old and/or crippled, it may learn that humans are very slow
and easy to catch, and they conveniently live in the same place, rather
than continually moving like most animals. His attempt at mind-reading
tigers is as unsupportable as his claim to "love" logic.
GCB: "All in all, it seems to me that
by prohibiting animal protein, one is going against the laws of nature."
Yet, where are
these "laws of nature" when he has repeatedly admitted humans
are not natural flesh-eaters, flesh smells repulsive, produces nausea
and vomiting, needs knives, etc.?
GCB: "...bow and arrow, a gun, or
a knife. Those weapons are intelligent contrivances as well that werenít
part of the ďinitialĒ background."
animal milk as an "initial food" because intelligence must be
used to gather it. Here, he admits that "intelligent contrivances";
specifically killing weapons and knives are NOT allowed to be used in
preparing the Instincto meal, yet how do his fleshy animals meet their
deaths and land on his plate, neatly filleted? They are killed by
weapons and cut up by knives! Again, proof that animals are
NOT "initial food".
GCB: "Be careful, youíre lapsing into
philosophy. Itís not because I need some contrivance to capture or kill
an animal that its meat wonít constitute an ďinitialĒ food as far as my
metabolism is concerned.
Yet, he disqualifies
animal milk because it requires "intelligence" to gather and
consume. In the previous paragraph, he admitted that "intelligent
contrivances" disqualified any 'food' that required them. GCB
is a master at self-contradiction.
GCB: "Do we know anything about the
running techniques of our pre-intelligent ancestors, or what their strength
was based on, "
We know they
were not fleet of foot enough to run down, catch, kill with their bare
hands, and eat with their unaided teeth, any game.
GCB: "...if not the fact that they
used stones, sticks, and tricks as some predators do?" Some
carnivores use "stones and sticks"?? Which ones? He
previously disqualified 'foods' that require intelligence to obtain as
GCB: "We have no training in the matter,
our bodies have been built up on the basis of degenerate food; we canít
take ourselves as a reference. Maybe our physical strength has declined
because our intelligence has taken over: skulduggery has overtaken strength.
Yet, we can use
the other apes as a reference, and they do not consume flesh for nutritional
purposes. When it comes to Instincto flesh-eating, skullduggery,
and self-contradiction, has indeed overtaken logic, facts, and intelligent
GCB: "To reiterate what Iíve said
before, our genetic code is what matters: Are we equipped with the teeth,
the digestive organs and, above all, the enzymes and the necessary means
of clearance to break down meat without causing harm to ourselves?"
do not, and GCB presents no evidence to the contrary.
GCB: "Human canines have what it takes,
and to spare, to bite into a whole leg of lamb or into a chicken drumstick."
are canine in name only, and this is a severe misnomer.
Looking at the canine teeth in the canines, we see a totally
different shape, and different function. We also see side teeth
adapted for shearing flesh, and NO such teeth occur in the human. Instinctos
do not chew chunks of flesh off a whole leg of lamb, GCB frequently references
"strips" of flesh, meaning preparation with knives. They
do NOT get to their flesh by chewing through the fur and hide as real
GCB: "Why should there be any difference
between one meat and another?"
There is probably
very little difference, chemically; thus the parallel with cannibalism.
GCB: "It appears that we are even
more suited for the flesh of fowl than that of mammals_possibly because
itís easier to find injured birds in nature."
Why would humans
get to these mythical injured birds first? How many injured birds
have you ever seen while walking in the woods?
GCB: "The day raw turkey grabs you,
or duck, left out in the open for a while, appeals to you more than the
best prepared duck in orange sauce, youíll see all your preconceptions
disappear into thin air."
Does GCB and
the Instinctos chew through the feathers as all the real carnivores do,
or do they skin it and slice it with knives? Again, the "preconception"
of letting the flesh putrefy and bacteria accumulate before eating, as
NO other animal does, is recommended.
GCB: "They are exactly 6.15 meters
long (15.52 feet) and have everything it takes to digest what your palate
control allows to get in."
Here, the false
claim is made that everything is perfectly digested. If that
were true, there would be no food poisoning and no diet-induced disease.
GCB: "We are reduced to endless dietary
conjecture that is either dubious or contradictory and, in any case, so
involved as to defy being put into practice."
A perfect analysis
of the Instincto dogma.
GCB: "In point of fact, the issue
of meat-eating would have never arisen, had it not been for cooking."
that animal flesh is not "initial food". So, raw flesh
is seen to be a "therapy" to counter the effects of (cooked)
flesh that never should have been eaten? Bizarre.
GCB: "If, like our fellow primates,
we went in for insects a little more, we might be able to dispense with
is nutritionally insignificant.
GCB: "After all, we must be better
adapted to eating insects than elephant meat."
Be my guest,
but I'll pass.
GCB: "Iím not against contrivances,
so long as they are genuinely ingenious."
of a self-serving, self-contradiction to support his flesh-eating. We
were previously told, in a dodge necessary to support egg-eating: "Intelligence
isnít necessary to find eggs in nature." So, one minute
we are supposed to eat "initial foods"; those that require no
preparation, and now, tools, such as knives which Instinctos need to hack
up their corpses, are acceptable.
Elsewhere, we are told: "Maybe our
physical strength has declined because our intelligence has taken over:
skulduggery has overtaken strength." This equates intelligence
and tool use with the unacceptable, such as agriculture, cooking, and
fish nets. Uniformly, Instincto theory goes out the window
when it is time to eat intentionally putrefying, bacterially-contaminated,
Previously, "...whereas, to get milk,
one has had to devise no end of contrivances. Nobody has ever seen a gorilla
milk a buffalo in a primeval forest." Similarly, nobody
has ever seen a gorilla use a gun to kill "game", nor a knife
to cut meat or fish.
So, depending on the particular dogma of
the moment, "contrivances" are either rejected or accepted. GCB
is a master of self-contradiction, and this alone completely negates Instincto
GCB fed his
newborn, even before it had its first collostrum or any nursing at all:
banana, papaya, avocado mango, and raw tuna, all in one meal! I
wonder if chimps would be so irrational? It would seem to be
counter-instinctive to feed an infant solid food before it had teeth to
deal with it; it would seem rational to feed breast milk up to that point. And
HOW "instinctive" is feeding raw tuna, an ocean fish, to a suckling
ape that lives in the jungle and not in the ocean?
GCB: "Commerically sold meat is unfortunately
very rarely palatable to an instincto's taste buds."
flesh, left to rot at room temperature and the resulting toxic substances
and bacterial contamination is? Remember how cooking and spices
caused perverted tastes that led the cooked-fooder astray; how is this
intentional perversion of the "repulsive" taste of raw flesh
GCB: "On first showing, I think we'd
come out on top, especially in the realm of proteins, where the biggest
threat of shortage looms large.
There is no threat
of protein shortage.
GCB: "Huge surfaces of land could
be salvaged for breeding, since all kinds of animals can very well be
left to graze under trees: chickens, sheep, pigs, geese, rabbits, and
even cattle as was common in orchards of former times."
efficiency from plant protein to animal protein is about 5-10%, so converting
plant protein into animal protein throws 90-95% of it away.
GCB: "I have seen a profound change
at work in myself and in everyone who has taken up an "initial" diet;
love of the fruit revives a love of life. One feels an upsurge of respect
for natural values. Cutting a tree feels like inflicting a wound; bulldozers
and combine harvesters take on the appearance of devilish fiends. If everyone
could find within themselves a little more sensitivity for and thoughtfulness
towards nature, I don't believe that the planet would be marred the way
it is at present.
"love of life" does not extend to the animals he kills and eats?
GCB: "Of course; the problem of allergies
to milk is well known, especially in the case of babies. Those allergies
don't necessarily last very long. After some time, the body gives up reacting.
The immune system enters a state known to specialists as a state of "breach
of immunological surveillance." That's the time when mothers jump for
joy proclaiming: "Ah, now, my baby is at last getting used to milk." In
fact, that's when danger shows up: The body gives up defending itself,
and from then on, the foreign protein can infiltrate through and through
without being prevented by anything. It can dissolve in fat, stick to
cell membranes, enter the plasma, and go and disrupt DNA in the nucleus."
GCB does not recognize that exactly this process is that which allows
the Instincto to overcome his initial "revulsion", nausea, and
vomiting of animal flesh.
GCB: "The aim is simply to do away
with an artifice likely to play instinctive mechanisms foul or set up
artifices of guns, knives, and the intentionally putrefying of flesh to
overcome the instinctive "revulsion" before eating, are those
which make Instincto flesh eating possible.
GCB: "Minute amounts of non-conformable
substances are enough to induce serious symptoms."
Yet, he advises
eating major amounts of them in the form of rotting flesh and eggs.
GCB: "A food is said to be original
if it is not modified by any artifice of conceptual intelligence : an
aliment as it is directly given by nature, for example as an animal can
obtain it in its natural habitat."
and intentional putrefaction of one's food before eating is obviously
quite different than food "directly given by nature" as humans
could "obtain it in its natural habitat".