Tuesday, March 11, 2014

New Book By James DeMeo

Here is some of the promotional material for the most recent book by James DeMeo, with my commentary interspersed between the lines in red.

In Defense of Wilhelm Reich:  Opposing the 80-Years' War of Sander and Distortion Against One of the 20th Century's Most Innovative Physicians and Natural Scientists.
by James DeMeo

This book will give a timeline summary of Reich's work and discoveries, with a side-by-side discussion of the malicious and sometimes deadly attacks which came as a consequence.  It will cover both the period of Reich's lifetime, as well as the period after Reich's death into recent years.  Important information will also be included on the primary scientific replications and experimental verifications of Reich's science over the years.  It will cover the attacks against him by the Nazis, by the German and Soviet Communist Parties,

This is highly dubious, amounting to a slander of the Communists. The German Communist Party ceased to exist after the Nazi take-over in Germany, and at the time, Reich was still a member in good standing, though the Party leadership had refused to publish his book aimed at youth under their imprint. He never tried to join the Communist parties in Denmark or Norway and there is no evidence that the Soviet Union ever paid any attention to him.

Dr DeMeo is very hard-right in his politics, and spreads the slander that there was some sort of communist plot against Reich. There was not any such thing. After Reich left Germany, he simply never had any dealings with the communist circles again and in America, where there was effectively zero communist influence, he never had any problems with them. But Dr. DeMeo, for political reasons of his own, and without the slightest evidence, blames communists for the media campaign against Reich.

by the Psychoanalysts, by Mildred Brady and Martin Gardner, the FDA attacks, the CSICOP attacks, the Makavejev film slanders, the recent slanders in Christopher Turner's "Orgasmatron" book, and those within a recent "documentary" film from the UK, with a mention of the many lesser villains in the cast of ugly characters who organized over 80 years to destroy Reich's life and his research legacy. It really is a motley crew of bad actors, who by their very persistence and extreme maliciousness demand an understanding of their motivations, beyond simple "disagreements".  And that also is discussed in the book.

I am sure I will be mentioned in it. That alone should be cause to doubt the rest of the book, since Dr. DeMeo consistantly accuses me of things I did not do and ignores my track record of work in orgonomy and support for the science of orgonomy over more than 40 years. He tries to discredit me because in his mind, orgonomy is not a field of endevor, but an organization and anyone who does not belong to his organization is not a part of orgonomy. He thinks it is possible to excommunicate someone from orgonomy, an administrative procedure which is not possible in the case of a field of natural science.

Aside from the questionable reliability of the information included, there is a larger question: Why should a self-proclaimed "scientific researcher" spend so much of his time over the course of a year writing a book of this nature anyway? What drives Dr. DeMeo and so many of his associates to devote so much of their lives to trying to rehabilitate the reputation of a dead man? Reich has been dead for more than two generations now. It is long past time for the science of orgonomy which he founded to move on and do new work in orgonomy instead of constantly harping on the unfortunate events of long ago. If an equal amount of effort were put into actual WORK in orgonomy instead of concentrating on it's history and biography, maybe it would have gotten someplace by now instead of still being largely as Reich left it.

Keep alert for future announcements.

In addition to the above publishing activity, research at OBRL has continued.  Mostly this has been directed towards a better understanding of the reactions of water to charging within an orgone accumulator.  Spectroscopy, water surface tension, and seed-growth responses have been the major methods for documentation, which has led to some rather interesting new findings. 

It is rare for any actual new experiments to be done in orgonomy. Most of what passes for experimental work in orgonomic journals is really replications of work done by Reich decades ago. The major focus is on gathering statistics and trying to prove Reich was right, not on doing something original. This is one very important reason most mainstream journals will not publish articles by Dr. DeMeo and his cohort: Credit in science is given for NEW and ORIGINAL work, not for replicating something previously done by someone else in an effort to convert unbelievers. Winning converts is not part of the job description of a scientist, who should ignore what anyone says and continue with his work, not dedicate most of his time to trying to convince skeptics of a theory. In science, the arguing is done by the evidence, not by polemics. Dr. DeMeo, by spending so must effort to convince the world Reich was right, often comes across as a missionary for orgonomy, trying to save souls for Reich.

Usually this kind of research and publishing is undertaken within the well-financed umbrella of a major university or research institution.  But as you will all know, the 80-Years War of slander against Reich's name and work - which resulted in the most outrageous example of government book-burning in American history and Reich's death in prison for daring to stand up for his research findings - has made that kind of open support nearly impossible.  So the research activities at OBRL are fully dependent upon our own resources, and the generosity of our supporters.

Maybe if more work had been put into orgone experimenting and less into polemical writings trying convince skeptics, some new and marketable orgonomic technology would have been developed in the more than half a century since Reich died. If orgonomy is ever to have any practical value, surely there must be some potentially marketable product or process that could have been invented by this time. The field will become self-supporting when--and only when--it can provide something of value that people are willing to pay for instead of constantly running around with a hand out asking for donations.

No comments:

Post a Comment