Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 03:24:29 -0500
To: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
From: Kenn Thomas <skthoma@umslvma.umsl.edu>
Subject: Re: Reich, paranoia & conspiracy
Sender: owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu

>a style of argumentation that moves too quickly for the details
>> to be verified.
>
>Kenn Thomas replied:
>>
>> "Conspiracy theory" moves no more quickly than the nightly barrage of
>> consensus reality people receive on the evening news.
>
>That may be true about TV, Kenn, but that is simply a red herring.  The
>point is: Does a conspiracy theory substantiate its claims?  Does it hold
>up to critical scrutiny?

Come to think of it, the details behind the conspiracy to kill Reich have 
been thirty plus years in coming--like much of the JFK material. But Jim 
Martin has done some remarkable field work to substantiate and expand what 
already could be seen in its broad strokes by the extant published record. 
Again I cite Jerome Greenfield's Wilhelm Reich Vs. USA as a primer on this 
story.

> you say that:

>> A conspiracy of federal agencies
>> conspired to stop Reich's work, throw him in prison and possibly kill him.
>When questioned you about this the first time, you offered no evidence, nor
>did you point me to any sources.

A conspiracy is commonly understood as an agreement of some combination of 
people to commit an evil act. Without even going into the co-ordinated press 
attacks on two continents, that the FBI spied on Reich (Steamshovel #12 is 
one of many places for proof of that) , who was arrested for violating an 
FDA injunction (Greenfield), clearly makes the event a conspiracy.

>Even if it were true that "There really were Communist agents in the
>state department," the question is: did any of these "Communists"
>have anything to do with Reich's case? What does Michael Straight have to
>do with the state department?

I direct you to articles by Jim in Steamshovel #s 4 & 8 (esp.) and reprinted 
in the  Popular Alienation anthology, which might be available at some 
libraries.

>I realize that I have no chance whatsoever of convincing two of the leading
>publishers of conspiracy theories of my point.  My intention is to show that
>there are certainly a wide variety of viewpoints regarding conspiracy
>theories within orgonomy- even if this list tends to be dominated by only one
>point of view.

My apologies if anything I have posted seems intolerant.I am certainly very 
happy to consider Chris' point of view.  I do feel an urgent need, however, 
to explain that what we're talking about here are conclusions reached by the 
blood, sweat and tears of serious researchers and should not be dismissed 
because of some prejudice against "conspiracy theories".

kt
http://www.umsl.edu/~skthoma
Kenn Thomas



     --- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Many thanks for Geocities providing this free space
Get your own Free Home Page

Web Hosting · Blog · Guestbooks · Message Forums · Mailing Lists
Allwebco Web Templates · Build your own toolbar · Financial Data · Audio, Fonts, Clipart
powered by bravenet.com