Wikipedia Slanders and Disinformation About Wilhelm Reich and Orgonomy *

Vatic Note:   This was a very good analysis of the slander and disinformation about Wilhelm Reich and Orgonomy.  Notice the offender in this particular article was Wikipedia, that is controlled by the Khazars, as many of us have read over these many years.

That speaks volumes about the effectiveness of this process, or else they would not have slandered it so badly.  Remember, these are the people that did the Georgia Guidestones and have promoted depopulation to such a high degree, in order to achieve their objectives, which is a one world government, run by them, and everyone else relegated to Zombie status, so there will be no resistance to their NWO..

This author has put in an enormous amount of time researching and experimenting with Orgonomy and has written volumns on it.  Thank goodness for scientists like him with his commitment to the subject, or the information and studies would have been lost a long time ago.  Pay attention to what he says, its definitely a must read.

My question is "what is so important about Reich's work that generates such attention from so many, and what about his work is so dangerous to their agenda?   Is it the roll the Love energy plays in this theory?  Think and ponder on that for a moment. 

Wikipedia Slanders and Disinformation
About Wilhelm Reich and Orgonomy *
By James DeMeo, PhD

* This article is posted to internet as a public service. It is a chapter section extracted from the following book:  James DeMeo: In Defense of Wilhelm Reich: Opposing the 80-Years' War of Mainstream Defamatory Slander Against One of the 20th Century's Most Brilliant Physicians and Natural Scientists, Natural Energy Works, Ashland 2013. Also available internationally from Amazon and other bookstores.   The reader is encouraged to obtain that book for the more detailed version with citation references, and other chapters including an accurate Timeline history of Wilhelm Reich's life and discoveries. Citations to published books and articles in scientific journals, peer-reviewed studies by MD and PhD scientists supporting Reich's controversial discoveries are also provided

"Love, Work and Knowledge are the Wellsprings of Life.
They should also govern it."

Wilhelm Reich

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth
has a chance to get its pants on."

Winston Churchill

Wikipedia website entries are popular, but can be altered by virtually any anonymous person who desires to scribble some unsubstantiated personal opinion, gossip or deliberate deceit into their pages, or to erase legitimate and accurate materials which they object to. Over the years, the Wikipedia entries on "Wilhelm Reich", "orgone energy", "orgonomy", "orgone accumulator", "cloudbusting", and so forth, have occasionally shown some allegiance to facts, but typically degenerate after being invaded by Reich-hating vandals.

Important factual materials then get erased, and substantial falsehood and even slander is inserted -- usually by suspected professional "skeptic clubbers" and other "activists" with a personal grudge against Reich's ideas and discoveries.

None of the revisionist scribblers use their real names when doing this, of course, and so the whole thing boils down to some foul "consensus", enforced by a slanderous cadre of angry anons who declare what is "truth" or "fact", based upon personal or political agendas. Those with real knowledge, with real jobs limiting how much time they can devote to daily monitoring of Wiki pages, are thereby silenced and censored out of the discussion.

Around the year 2000, I spent many hours correcting false statements and adding numerous documentary citations onto the Wilhelm Reich Wikipedia page,33 detailing new scientific papers, academic dissertations, published articles in peer-reviewed journals and new books which supported Reich's biophysics. All the studies corroborating Reich, as found in the aforementioned Nature rebuttal article,32 for example, were also added to the Wikipedia webpage on Reich.

Within a few months, all my entries, as well as additional factual materials provided by other authentic scholars with a good knowledge of Reich, were erased and deleted by some malcontent, replaced by words declaring that no such independent scientific verifications of Reich existed. Instead, additional libelous fabricated material was added in, so the falsehood of "Reich the crackpot" could be claimed without opposition.

Several times, I and others made new corrections to the Wikipedia entries, only to have them repeatedly vanish shortly thereafter. The facts about Reich's life and work, his findings and those of his associates, his larger orgonomic theory, all the newer scientific evidence validating his findings and indicating their importance for psychology, biology, physics, cosmology and atmospheric science, etc., all of it was fully and repeatedly deleted from the Reich-related entries on Wikipedia.

By contrast, nearly every published item carrying foul lies and bad words about Reich continues to be given full voice on those same pages. Most recently, Wikipedia has begun including the newer lies and slanders from Turner's "Orgasmatron" book, repeating them in great detail. Photos of the serious and mature Wilhelm Reich, from his years as a research scientist and biophysicist, were at one time removed and substituted with a photo of a baby-faced individual who didn't even look like him, also aiming to denigrate the man and his research findings.

This abuse is cleverly constructed disinformation, specifically designed for half-educated, lazy and not-too-sharp readers. Some is practiced deceit, where fully false or irrelevant "citations" are given to support a typical slander that tears Reich down in serious ways. The given citation may point to a serious work, such as Myron Sharaf's Fury on Earth: A Biography of Wilhelm Reich.34

On the surface, that seems "accurate" and "scholarly", the original statement vilifying Reich is "cited" and "referenced". It all seems fully believable if you don't bother to actually check the primary source reference. But if you do take the time to look it up, you find absolutely nothing to support the malicious slander found on the Wikipedia page!

This is a new "low" for the Reich-haters, to deliberately concoct phony citations to support a falsified biography of Reich. It is the worst of unethical conduct imaginable, similar to fabricating data in an experiment. But they get away with it, firstly because it is all done anonymously, and secondly because they have the power to do so. Truthful corrections simply get deleted, again and again, leaving only the lies on public display.

Maybe tomorrow some lone scholar will spend hours to correct the Wiki pages on "Reich and Orgonomy", but history suggests that it won't be tolerated for very long. Reich's Orgonomy is not alone in being a target of such deliberate disinformation and abuse by organized advocacy groups dominating the pages of Wikipedia, making it an unreliable source for anything of controversy.

Do an internet search on the words "Wikipedia Lies" or "Wikipedia Slander" to locate a plethora of independent websites put up by scholars and others on the subject, containing their own protests against the ant-army of scribblers who apparently have plenty of free time on their hands to spread lies and defamation, compared to those who actually work for a living. Some examples of this are given below.

Postscript 2014
A quick check of Wikipedia in May of 2014 indicated that nearly all the citations to major published research studies verifying Reich's biophysical work had been erased from the "Wilhelm Reich" Wikipedia page. I therefore made annother effort to add some of them back in, but only in the "Further Reading" section at the very bottom, where I thought the Wikipedia editors might overlook them.

That was my illusion. Within less than one hour, every single citation added back in had been deleted. So I added them back in a second time, and within ten minutes they were deleted again. I added them once more, which was followed by another deletion, and a warning from the Wikipedia editors that I was at risk of being "banned".  (VN: that tells you the editors for Wikipedia were in on the fraud)

They claimed my citations to articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, or to published studies which had been undertaken at major universities with even greater peer-review (as academic Theses or Dissertations), or to books by PhD or MD scientists, were "substandard" or "not accepted by the mainstream", which was both alarming and yet another lie.

When I pointed out the hypocrisy of disallowing those scholarly references supporting Reich, as compared to the allowed "references" of slanderous unfactual newspaper articles by non-scientists on the Wikipedia page, there was no reply, nor any action to restore the deleted citations. If someone wants to write slander and defamation against Reich on Wikipedia, and promote old disinformation that "nobody in the scientific community has verified Reich's biophysics", they will get a warm reception at Wikipedia.

If they dare to correct Reich's biography in significant ways, however, especially to provide documentation that his sex-economic and orgone biophysical work had reasonable merit and independent scientific support, they are not tolerated in the slightest.

These are the reasons why serious university professors and school teachers will scold or even flunk a student if they dare to cite Wikipedia as a reference source. The situation is doubly serious for any controversial subject.

And so, once again:


For more information, see these webpages:

In Defense of Wilhelm Reich: Opposing the 80-Years' War of Mainstream Defamatory Slander Against One of the 20th Century's Most Brilliant Physicians and Natural Scientists.   Review of Christopher Turner's book Adventures in the Orgasmatron:
Emotional Plague Bibliography
OBRL Page: Response to Skeptics
 Professors Stand Against Wikipedia
"As Wikipedia has become more and more popular with students, some professors have become increasingly concerned about the online, reader-produced encyclopedia. While plenty of professors have complained about the lack of accuracy or completeness of entries, and some have discouraged or tried to bar students from using it, the history department at Middlebury College is trying to take a stronger, collective stand. 
 It voted this month to bar students from citing the Web site as a source in papers or other academic work. All faculty members will be telling students about the policy and explaining why material on Wikipedia -- while convenient -- may not be trustworthy." 
Wikipedia more dangerous than crack cocaine
"It all started when a teacher researching Martin Luther King Jr. found white supremacist information in the civil right's leader's entry. Then a student researching the Vietnam War found Wikipedia's casualty count had been lowered by someone who wanted kids to think that the war was a walk in the park." 

Researcher: US Gov't Editing Wikipedia Entries
Wikipedia Founder, Jimmy Wales, Trashes Energy Medicine, Holistic Healing http://www.change.org/petitions/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-create-and-enforce-new-policies-that-allow-for-true-scientific-discourse-about-holistic-approaches-to-healing#share  
 ... and here's Wales arrogant "skeptic clubber" rant (er, reply): http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/387790/jimmy-wales-rants-at-holistic-healers-petitioning-wikipedia 
Can you trust Wikipedia? The founder of the online encyclopedia written and edited by its users has admitted some of its entries are 'a horrific embarrassment' (But he does nothing to change Wikipedia policies and practices.)
Wikipedia Lies: Online Disinformation & Propaganda
How the Professor Who Fooled Wikipedia Got Caught by Reddit
Copying Wikipedia's lies is not just for hacks, right Lord Leveson?
Wikipedia Slander of Depak Chopra Biography:
Chopra Vs. The Wikipedia Trolls, er, Editors
Wikipedia Lies, Slander Continues
- See more at: http://www.orgonelab.org/wikipedia.htm#sthash.LWv9Ac5U.dpuf

The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

No comments: