Munich Lecture – Follow Up Contact and Questions

I wish to thank the organizers and participants at my recent lecture and seminar at the Technical University of Munich. The event went well, by all measures, and some interesting discussion took place during the question periods. Below is a follow-up with added detail, on a few issues which either required some documentation sources, or for which time did not allow any full addressing.


4 April 2012

TO: Munich Lecture/Seminar Participants
FROM: James DeMeo

RE: Follow-Up Issues

During and after my recent lecture and one-day seminar in Munich, devoted to new research supporting the works of the late Dr. Wilhlem Reich, a number of questions came up and for which I promised specific individuals a reply once returning to the USA. Since these same questions may be of interest to the entire group of participants, I will make them more publicly available here.

I also wish to re-emphasize a point made at the beginning of the lecture, that in such a short time it was impossible to go into much detail on any one given point of Reich’s own research findings, or to give full details on the more recent experimental confirmations. Here I will also point to additional resources on that issue.

1. A summary article on my Saharasia findings is available, in German and English (plus other languages) for free download from this webpage:
The summary article provides basic details on the procedures out of which the World Behavior Map was developed. Even more exacting details are found in the larger 460+ page book, entitled Saharasia, now available also from and, which saves considerably on shipping costs to European destinations.

2. Regarding Reich’s orgone biophysical discoveries, my institute now has two interesting YouTube videos that should be of interest, along with a third one detailing some aspects of the work of the late Dr. John Ott, on low-level electromagnetic pollution, and the importance of full natural solar spectrum light. See here:
These are condensed for the general public, but cover many of the scientific issues with interesting graphics.

3. My various published scientific articles as appearing in both peer-reviewed research journals and more popular forums are listed here:
Especially I would recommend the article recently published in Water Journal:

"Water as a Resonant Medium for Unusual Environmental Factors"

Also these two controlled experimental studies confirming biological and physical-anomaly effects from the orgone energy accumulator.

4. Some of my most recent work, as regarding orgone accumulator influences upon water spectroscopy and/or GM counter rates, has only minimal publication. However, preliminary reports are found in back issues of the Newsletter of my institute, the Orgone Biophysical Research Lab (OBRL), available for free download from here:

At this same website, you can also add your email to one of the two OBRL Newsletters if you are not already on it. By adding your email to these lists you will be informed of new publications and conferences devoted to the subject of Wilhelm Reich and orgone biophysics.

5. A question came up regarding why in 1934 the International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA) decided to expel Wilhelm Reich as a member. There are a number of identifiable reasons why Reich became a "thorn in the side of Freud" and other highly-placed psychoanalysts.

Firstly I should note that Wilhelm Reich describes the events which led to his expulsion in the following article: "The Expulsion of Wilhelm Reich from the International Psychoanalytic Association", Annals of the Orgone Institute, I:114-126, 1947. Reprints of this journal are available from the Wilhelm Reich Museum bookstore: Reich also discusses the matter in his excellent book Reich Speaks of Freud, which is available from booksellers in both English and German-language editions.

My own review of the history of psychoanalysis, and its general trend of action and thinking during that period, fully supports Reich’s view, but also suggest a few additional aspects taken from materials not known or available during Reich’s time.

1932 marks the date of several important publications by Reich. Notably his pamphlet The Sexual Rights of Youth, and the first German edition of his Mass Psychology of Fascism appeared, eliciting positive reactions among some of the analysts, but negative reactions by others. His elucidation of the sexual pathology among the followers of Hitler in the National Socialist movement were seen as provocations by many Freudians, who felt they were still, at the end of the day, German citizens who had to "get along" with the dominant political entity, whatever it was. They had no clarity about the impending catastrophe as was apparent to many others, including Reich, who was put on Nazi death-lists for his sex-political and anti-Nazi activism. Reich was then active in the Marxist political parties, which was an offense in the eyes of the more conservative analysts, including Freud. Today we know that Freud was, around this same time, asking Jewish members of the IPA to quietly resign, so their names would not appear on the membership rosters, and thereby avoid problems with the Nazis. Freud was also relocating to Switzerland, and the entire structure of German psychoanalysis was handed over to non-Jewish leaders.

As a relevant aside on how far at least one of the former psychoanalysts would go to "get along" (or to become collaborators with the Nazi regime), the one-time psychoanalyst Karl Jung went on to form a decidedly anti-Jewish analytical organization with the cousin of the Reichsmarshal Goering. He became editor of the Zentralblat (Journal) of a Nazified psychology organization, in which his first-issue editorial made back-handed statements about "Jewish psychology". At their first official Conference, introduced by Jung was a Nazi speaker who arrived in full black SS uniform, giving a big Sieg Heil to the audience during his talk! The one-time analyst and director of the Freud Archives, Jeffrey Masson, wrote about this ugly history in a chapter "Jung Among the Nazis", in his book Against Therapy, which is essential reading for its insights into the censored history of psychoanalysis. Masson did not address Reich’s conflict with Freud, however, but by c.1932, Freud considered Reich to be a troublesome "Bolshevik". This was an angry exaggeration on Freud’s part, but nevertheless was a widely held opinion given Reich’s passionate opposition to Nazism and support for sexual reform legislation.

Most all the psychoanalysts in the IPA were un-sympathetic to National Socialism. But they were nevertheless hostile to Reich for his Marxist views, and for his "provocative" and openly-expressed anti-Nazi position, as well as for his modifications of traditional psychoanalytical concepts. Reich came to reject the biological nature of the Oedipus complex, considering it to be socially determined. The Oedipal complex was not present in the sex-positive cultures as per the findings of Bronislaw Malinowski, for example, as presented in the books Sexual Life of Savages and Sex and Repression in Savage Society. And while Reich’s work Character Analysis became a widely-celebrated psychoanalytic textbook, his later changes to psychoanalytic therapeutic methods upset the more rigid analysts. He initiated a more direct eye-to-eye discussion with the patient, as well encouraging patients to increase their breathing to help bring up buried emotions. He began touching the patient’s body, using methods of compressing specific muscle groups to elicit emotional release. Added to this was Reich’s alliances with the German Communist Party (KPD) towards advancing of his Sex-Pol ideas, which included his determination that sexual relations between young lovers and the unmarried (ie, Romeo and Juliet) was healthy and natural. All of this was perceived as extreme irritation to the more dogmatic psychoanalysts.

While Reich was exposing the sex-pathos of the Nazi movement and considered himself to be a committed Marxist, on many occasions he also dared to write and speak critically of the KPD and Soviet leadership, including the High Saints of Soviet Communism such as Lenin. This was just before the period of the Moscow show trials, when criticism of central party decisions would bring death sentences. So it is not surprising that Wilhelm Reich’s name and statements quickly came to the attention of the party bosses. He was thrown out of the KPD in 1932, and increasingly became critically outspoken against Communist Party authoritarian methods. By 1936 or earlier, Reich’s name was included on a Top Secret NKVD death-list as a much-hated "Trotskyist" (which was not accurate, Reich was no Trotsky-ite), something which even Reich did not know about. This death-list document only saw the light of day in recent years, when internal Soviet archives were opened up following the collapse of the USSR. I have already given some discussion on this amazing document, with citations, in a section "New Information on the Persecution and Death of Wilhelm Reich", reprinted in the revised 2010 edition of my Orgone Accumulator Handbook. That section is also available on-line at this weblink:

While Freud and the conservative analysts increasingly distanced themself from Reich for the reasons of their objections to Marxism and "provoking the Nazis", Reich’s growing criticisms of Communism and the KPD leadership affected his relationship with the Marxist psychoanalysts. One of Reich’s closest friends and associate co-workers of that time was the psychoanalyst Otto Fenichel, a dedicated Marxist who bitterly turned against Reich for such ideological impurity. Fenichel was instrumental in getting Reich expelled from the IPA in 1934, through spreading of ugly rumors against Reich, and other connivances particularly leading up to the Lucerne psychoanalytic conference. Fenichel remained a committed Marxist and psychoanalyst, and so had several reasons to hate Reich. Fenichel’s biography suggests he was a "organization man", a social climber who constantly curried favor within the IPA, tempering his Marxism when necessary, but who had nothing of essential criticism to say about Soviet communism. After psychoanalysis was compromised and disrupted in Europe due to growing Nazi power, Fenichel fled Germany and began writing a series of "Rundbriefs" (round-letters) which were sent around to the remaining core membership of psychoanalysis, who also had by this time also fled to nations outside the reach of the Nazis, in a disorganized diaspora. Fenichel eventually wrote over 100 of such lengthy Rundbriefs, spreading news of about the work and publications of various analysts, and about the larger psychoanalytic movement, adding his own commentary. This commentary frequently included defamatory statements against Reich. Other psychoanalysts repeated Fenichel’s lies via spoken rumor and gossip. When temporarily residing in the USA, Fenichel filled the ears of the influential Karl Menninger with the same anti-Reich poison, after which Menninger helped spread the defamatory gossip and inuendo further by reprinting a major smear article against Reich in his Menninger Clinic Journal, authored by the Communist writer Mildred Brady. Menninger himself had a well-concealed but now documented leftist sympathy, and there’s evidence indicating connections from Menninger and Brady directly into the FDA, which eventually brought Reich down via a phony "investigation" and legal actions. Fenichel’s Rundbriefs are today considered important history by psychoanalysts, and so are republished in a two-volume set of books in the original German language – but with significant English-language passages from Fenichel’s American period. They are still occasionally available in used bookstores:

As a final note, in historical retrospect it is clear that Reich’s entire sex-economic theory was to clash mightily with the elder Freud’s own views. While the young Freud emphasized the real and damaging nature of sexual violence and early childhood trauma, and spoke out against it, exposing the extreme damage done to children by incest and rape, the elder Freud compromised such socially-alarming findings, watering them down so as to curry favor with the upper-class medical authorities of his day. His original lectures on these subjects, of incest by "proper, upstanding gentlemen" of high Viennese society were unpopular, leading to his marginalization within professional medical circles. Over a few years time, however, he changed his views so as to de-emphasize the issues of real trauma in favor of early childhood fantasies and wishes. Severely traumatic events such as forced incest (child rape!) and circumcision (genital mutilations!) became subjects within psychoanalysis for purely intellectualized discussions, as merely curious aspects of the netherworldly realm of the unconscious. One did not any more try to end them, to object publicly to such things, but merely to "understand" and "explain" them in "scientific" papers. Young girls reporting being raped by older male family members were, by the late-Freudian re-interpretations, "analyzed" to have been merely confusing their own unconscious wishes for sexual intercourse with their fathers. Little boys didn’t suffer from sexual problems later in life due to genital mutilations, or other sexual abuses, but instead experienced circumcision as something "spiritual" or" transformative", and not as a pain-filled torture of sensitive parts of their sexual organ.

In contrast to the elder Freud, Reich always emphasized the damaging nature of real early childhood traumas and repressions, and the need to protect children from barbaric acts of sexual sadism by adults, as parents, physicians or teachers. Reich acknowledged early childhood sexuality, but highlighted how under conditions of prolonged trauma and repression, sexual feelings became distorted within loveless compulsive marriages, where adults suffered immense sexual dissatisfaction and frustration, and where adolescents were forbidden to live out their attractions and romances with other youth of the opposing sex. Incest, child rape, and later homoeroticism was the consequence, and all of this flew in the face of the elder Freud’s stultified and intellectualized psychoanalysis. In my view, Reich had only a partial appreciation of how far the elder Freud had strayed from his own earlier work, and which for the young Reich had been his main attraction to psychoanalysis. The book Assault on Truth: Freud’s Suppression of the Incest Theory, by the same Jeffrey Masson as mentioned above, is necessary reading on these issue, and provides many details and references from the Freud archives which previously never saw the light of day. Not surprisingly, Masson is today no longer working in the Freud Archives, being persona-non-grata, and his writings, like those of Reich, appearing on the psychoanalytic Index Expurgatorius.

All of these factors came into play in the 1930s, where Reich was eventually expelled from the IPA. With no support from the IPA, and being hunted and hounded by both the Nazis and Communists in Europe, from this same time after c.1932, Reich fled to Scandinavia, and thereafter to the USA. After arriving in the USA in 1939, and after the defeat of Nazism in the 1940s, Reich continued to be slandered in publications written or edited by the Communist Party and its operatives in the American media. The socialist-oriented "do-good" "anti-corporation" FDA, fully in alliance with the same old Marxist analysts and psychiatrists who had slandered him in Europe, later launched a faux-investigation which lead to Reich’s death and the burning of his books. This is so, even while members of the modern New Left created a cover-story based upon very slim evidence, that Reich had been destroyed by "right wing Christians" and "McCarthyites". Factually, the American conservative movement had little to do with Reich’s demise, as he simply was not an issue for them. Reich had become decidedly anti-Communist during his American period of work, based upon his direct experiences with the sneaky, deceitful and cut-throat nature of the Leftist parties in Europe. For details on this subject, review my article on "New Information on the Persecution and Death of Wilhelm Reich" as weblinked above.

6. A question was also asked, if anyone had replicated Reich’s bioelectrical experiments, and I replied that I did not recall any such replications. However, I have since been reminded about this paper:

Braid, Byron & Dew, Robert: "Reich’s Bioelectric Experiments: A Review With Recent Data", Annals, Institute for Orgonomic Science 5(1):1-18, September 1988.

I also recently learned of a doctoral dissertation from the University of Vienna, where just such a replication had been made. Here is the citation and a download weblink:

Günter Andreas Hebenstreit: "Die Elektrophysiologie erogener und nicht-erogener Hautzonen in Verbindung mit der Spannungs-Ladungs-Formel Wilhelm Reichs. Eine experimentelle Untersuchung." (The Electrical Physiology of Erogenous and Non-Erogenous Skin Zones in Connection with the Tension-Charge-Formula of Wilhelm Reich. An experimental Investigation.) Wien, im September 2010.

Both of these studies provide positive evidence in favor of Reich’s original findings.

7. At the end of the seminar the subject of "chemtrails" came up. I would recommend to review the various entries at this website for a good overview of the subject from a mainstream science perspective:
Given how Reich’s name and the subject of the cloudbuster has been dragged into the "chemtrail" claims, I have posted my own review of the situation, which adds an orgonomic perspective, as well as one drawn from classical weather science. Here:

8. Finally, I was asked by several persons for suggestions on internet news sources which would allow for timely reports on Islamic violence around the world, about the modern alliances between the political Left-fascists and Islam-fascists, and also for more honest reporting than is available from most European left-politic news sources. Here is a short list of recommendations, to gain an appreciation for what you are very likely not being told (WARNING: These are not for the "politically corrected", weak-minded or lotus-eaters):

The Religion of Peace – Terror Monitoring

Atlas Shrugs Blog: Pamela Geller

JihadWatch: Robert Spencer

Frontpage Magazine: David Horowitz

MEMRI: Middle East Media Research Institute

Also this list of YouTube presentations on the lesser-known history of the Islamic Crusades:

Each of these web sources also has their own email notification list, giving only the headlines after which you can bring up whatever is of interest. They are highly recommended. Unfortunately I do not know of any comparable ones in the German language, but would welcome suggestions along those lines.

That’s all, and thanks once again for your interest in my work, and participation at the lecture and seminar. Be sure to get on the OBRL Newsletter email list, for future notifications of lectures, seminars, conferences, and new publications on the subject of Wilhelm Reich and Orgonomy.

James DeMeo, PhD
Director, Orgone Biophysical Research Lab
Ashland, Oregon, USA

PS. For those in a position to do so, please consider making a donation to our institute and research. Contact me for details on how best to do this: demeo (at) mind (dot) net

One Response to “Munich Lecture – Follow Up Contact and Questions”

  1. edmalek Says:

    While your analysis of Reich’s formative years and his relationship with both the IPA and the KPD are important reading, there is a serious disservice done to Freud, the history of psychoanalysis, and psychotherapy in general if one follows Masson’s thesis with regard to Freud’s retreat from childhood sexual abuse (the “seduction theory”).

    Freud’s psychoanalytic theories were never static and changed whenever he felt they no longer were valid (in my opinion, this was both good and bad). It was originally Freud’s belief that the origins of hysteria were due to repressed sexual memories and he worked to uncover this amnesia with a modified form of hypnosis, while actively pressing his clients to remember their trauma. Only later did it dawn on him (and partly through his self-analysis) that it was simply impossible that all his clients were sexually abused, and thus sought to understand his earlier observations. Because of his unrelenting search for an answer, he abandoned the seduction theory in favor of sexual phantasy/wish. This most important shift led to the discovery of the Oedipus complex and later to childhood sexuality. At this early juncture (before he had a following), Freud is a functionalist and in agreement with Reich—except for the biological universality of the Oedipus complex. Reich never dismissed the complex and its importance in neurosis; it is still a force to be reckoned with in an armored world, and in all intents and purposes it is universal.

    If one follows Masson’s false interpretation of history and his complaints, and somehow could have “forced” Freud to stick firm with his seduction theory—this is how psychoanalysis would have ended up: As a therapy of the unconscious working to uncover sexual trauma. Period. No childhood sexuality whatsoever! If this were the case, one can doubt that Reich would have been so drawn to Freud, and further, the discovery of the orgone would not have occurred. This is how important Freud’s modification of his earlier theory was, and Reich was always grateful for loyally following the libido theory for so many years.

    To show how false Masson’s black and white thinking is, here is a quote from Freud’s “Further Remarks on the Neuro-Psychosis of Defence” (1896):
    “This section [seduction theory] was written while I was under the ascendancy of an error which I have since then repeatedly acknowledged and corrected. I had not yet found out how to distinguish between patients’ phantasies about their own childhood and real memories. I consequently ascribed to the aetological factor of seduction an importance and general validity which it does not posses. When this error was overcome, the door was opened to an insight into the spontaneous manifestations of infantile sexuality [emphasis added] which I described in my “Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality”. Nevertheless, there is no need to reject the whole of what appears in the text above [emphasis added]; seduction still retains a certain aetological importance, and I still consider that some of the psychological views expressed in this section meet the case. In summary, because of Freud’s revision of the mistaken seduction theory, he progressed along the correct path of the psychosexual stages of infancy and acknowledged an inborn libido in humans. He even argued for the acceptance and less-cruel treatment of children regarding their instinctual urges. This is in complete alignment with the latter Reich’s sex-economy, and the major point of difference between the two is that Reich felt that sexual repression is harmful for development, while Freud-although agreeing that this causes neurosis-felt that it was necessary for civilization.

    As a therapist practicing orgone therapy, I do not ascribe to Freud’s later views (e.g. death instinct and parts of ego-psychology, etc.); I feel he lost sight of clinical observations and was no longer a functional thinker. But every time there is a wholesale attack on Freud, it damages psychotherapy in the public’s mind. In my opinion, the real reason the guardians of science and the masses hate Freud is because of his theories on childhood sexuality and the libido. The damage is already done, psychotherapy is almost where it was before psychoanalysis began (and in many ways worse), in that the various materials of the mind are conscribed in driving human nature, and the unconscious either does not exist or is unimportant. Maybe this is where Masson feels the best.

    Perhaps we should look at Masson’s later works to get a glimpse of his feelings and motivations towards psychotherapy. After the “Assault on Truth” in 1984, he was fired as the director of the Freud archives in a maelstrom of controversy. In 1989, he wrote “Against Therapy”, where his contempt for psychotherapy leads to a conclusion that therapy is inherently unjust, corrupt, and unusable, and instead recommends mutual self-analysis by lay people. Masson’s critique of therapy’s “authoritarian inequality” shows his own dislike for authority, and this can be seen in his next book, “Final Analysis” (1990). Here he describes his sadistic mistreatment at the hands of his training analysts, and most probably there is some truth to this. But his rational dislike of coercive authority intermingles with his dislike of the necessary authority inherent in the patient-doctor relationship. As many well-intentioned parents found out later, a parent cannot be a friend to their child. He is certainly a product of the 1960’s sexual revolution, where society was transformed into an anti-authoritarian one (see Konia, “The Emotional Plague”), where even rational and necessary authority are attacked.

    Masson has been fully critiqued by an abundance of scholars and here is a link to one of them:

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: