Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 17:51:10 -0500
To: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
From: James DeMeo <demeo@mind.net>
Subject: Response to "Orgonomy Peddlers..." Article 1/3
Sender: owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu

***********
Copyright (C) 1996, All Rights Reserved by James DeMeo
***********

RESPONSE TO "ORGONOMY PEDDLERS..." ARTICLE

by James DeMeo, Ph.D.
Director of Research
Orgone Biophysical Research Laboratory
Greensprings, PO Box 1148
Ashland, Oregon 97520 USA
demeo@mind.net


Introduction

Recently, an unpublished article was circulated in the USA and Europe,
firstly by postal mails, and later on the global computer Internet, titled
"Orgonomy Peddlers, Cloudbusting, and the Environment", written by Mr. Joel
Carlinsky.  The article purported to "expose facts" about the field
research of myself and several other workers in orgonomy, coming to very
negative and harsh conclusions.  This "Response..." will:
        I.  Address the specific charges and assertions the author made in
the "Orgonomy Peddlers..." article, and establish what the facts actually
are.
        II.  Briefly recount the author's own history of destructive
attacks against Reich and various workers in orgonomy.
        III.  Discuss and expose what Reich called the emotional plague
mechanisms apparent in his conduct, and in the conduct of those who acted
as "helpers" in the wider distribution of the smear materials.



I.  Falsehoods in the "Orgonomy Peddlers..." Article

        The article starts by taking points of warning from Reich's own
writings and then amplifies upon Reich's concerns about the misuse and
distortion of his work.  The author writes: "Reich... spoke of harm done to
the cause of freedom by irresponsible Freedom Peddlers, and warned about
the possibility that his own work would be similarly usurped by Orgonomy
Peddlers who would use it in harmful ways."  He then complains that
contemporary supporters of Reich's work are apparently ignoring this
warning, and he compresses a string of derogatory terms to describe those
who are "reckless and irresponsible", "incompetent", "misguided",
"harmful", etc., causing "serious ecological damage" in their alleged
"efforts to prove Reich right". He clarifies: the article is "not directed
at Reich and his theories, but only at the actions of certain present-day
Reichians...".  This clarification is important, because in the past this
same author has in fact made similar criticisms and attacks against Wilhelm
Reich's work - and all of orgonomy - this is well documented in Part II
below.  The "Orgonomy Peddlers..." article will, the author informs us, be
directed only against some of Reich's followers, "in the name of Reich".  
        The author of "Orgonomy Peddlers..." then presents a series of
accusations against "Dr. James DeMeo and his associates" who have an
"obsessive compulsion to convert unbelievers", to "prove Reich right", that
we are "doing a great deal of harm to the environment and to innocent
members of the public as well as hurting the long-term prospects for
serious investigation of Reich's discoveries by ill-conceived cloudbursting
operations conducted without proper ecological knowledge or concern for the
environment".  Following that statement, he asserts we have created
"devastation to ecosystems and [caused] the deaths of numerous people due
to storms, floods and freezing weather".  Etc.  
        No evidence is initially presented for these highly-compacted and
serious accusations, but he attempts to build a case in the following
pages.  He also asserts we have some kind of driven "need to gather
statistics".  While there is factually no given evidence for any such
"need", surely in the course of my work, some good statistical data have
been gathered which provide strong support for Reich's discoveries, that
the accumulator and cloudbuster actually function as Reich reported.  Is
this somehow damaging?  The author reveals a concern here, that Reich's
work might actually be supported through scholarly, scientific methods. 

DeMeo's 1989 Experiments in Arizona:
        The author of "Orgonomy Peddlers..." criticizes my 1989 experiments
in Arizona, undertaken as an attempt to confirm the desert-greening
capabilities of the cloudbuster.  He misrepresents many facts about my
work, and Reich's work prior work in Arizona.  He falsely asserts we
started the work in March, but in fact the work started in May, a fact
clearly stated in all published accounts of that work.("Orop Arizona 1989"
Special Report, Orgone Biophysical Research Lab, 1991; p.10.  Experiments
also reported in "Journal of Orgonomy", 23(2):271-272 Nov. 1989;
24(1):111-124 May 1990, and 24(2):252-258 Nov. 1990; and "Pulse of the
Planet", 3:82-92 Summer 1991)  It is asserted our work created
out-of-season rains, and that this created severe ecological damages. Let's
look at those claims more closely.  
        What about the ecological effects of unseasonal rains in drylands? 
Is this really a problem?  As a generality, the answer is no.  It is a
well-known fact of climatology that as the total yearly quantity of
rainfall declines, with shorter "rainy seasons", rainfall variability
increases. This means, the drier the environment, the more difficult it is
to predict when rains will fall.  In the driest of environments, such as in
the Sahara, Namib, Gobi and Atacama deserts, years will pass without any
rains, decades in some cases.  Then suddenly, and without any firm seasonal
characteristic, a lot of rain will fall in a few days.  This gives rise to
sheet-flooding across open desert areas, collection of runoff in arroyos,
wadis and depressions, water erosion of upslope landforms, followed by
pooling and groundwater recharge.  Life in such areas is very well adapted
to long periods of drought, punctuated by heavy and saturating,
unpredictable rains.  Burrowing animals which have adapted to those
environments survive by not making their nests directly in the path where
water erosion is most likely to occur, and it is a misrepresentation to
claim that heavy rains in desert regions will have any major disruptive or
destructive effect upon native plants and animals.  
        When such desert rains occur, local plants blossom with tremendous
displays of flowering and fruiting, and from this comes a burst of insect
and animal life as well.  In a few isolated spots constituting a tiny
percentage of surface area, water erosion may indeed flood a few burrows
and erode away some plants.  But generally, generous rainfall, even
torrential rainfall, is a real blessing to dryland areas.  One only has to
go to a desert region a few weeks after a good saturating rainfall to see
the benefits to native, desert life.  The pooling of water in drylands from
heavy rains and runoff is what in fact feeds the waterholes, oases and
groundwater, upon which desert flora and fauna are dependent.  But what
does this lesson in bio-climatology have to do with our work in Arizona, or
the wild charges in "Orgonomy Peddlers..."' that my work created big
damages?  Let's look again.
        As given in all the published accounts describing the 1989 Arizona
experiments, our operating cloudbuster was sited in a deep desert-basin
region between Blythe, California and Yuma, Arizona, on the Colorado River.
 This area gets the lowest yearly rainfall of almost any place in the USA,
except for nearby Death Valley.  Rainfall at that particular spot is
infrequent, even during the "rainy season".  More typically, natural rains
fall on the surrounding mountain areas, and not on the dry and parched
valley floor. During the planning stages for my Arizona work, an intensive
and detailed review was made of all published papers by Reich regarding his
1954-55 experiments.  My 1989 work was therefore undertaken with a full
appreciation of the methodology and discoveries worked out by Reich, as
reported in his own journals and in "Contact With Space" (CWS) (W. Reich:
"Contact with Space", Core Pilot Press, New York, 1957), and so it was
possible to build upon his prior findings.  While Reich required weeks and
months of work to isolate some of the causal mechanisms standing as a
barrier to rains in the desert Southwest, I had his writings available to
point the way.  Our operation site was selected with Reich's writings in
CWS in mind.  Based upon his writings, and my prior work with the
cloudbuster, I did not anticipate any big rain across the desert areas, but
only a statistical increase in rains following the natural patterns for the
given seasons.  
        For example: Following our first operation, in May of 1989, I
wrote: "Crisp, cool, sparkling conditions persisted over the Arizona/New
Mexico region for weeks, bringing widespread rains in the surrounding
mountains." ("Orop AZ, Special Report", ibid, p.11)  From our operations
site we saw the incredible changes in the atmosphere, the widespread
clearing of dor conditions and so forth, but little or no rain fell on the
lower-elevations of the hyper-arid desert basin.  The same was true in the
later June 1989 operation, when a storm "dropped abundant precipitation on
the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains" ("Orop AZ, Special Report", ibid,
p.13).  The above two cloudbusting operations, of May and June 1989,
occurred during the time when rains would by nature be anticipated only in
the high mountains surrounding the dryland basins of the Southwest, and
that natural pattern was in fact what occurred, amplified somewhat by the
cloudbusting.  There was no "unnatural" quality to it.
        During the July, August and September operations, however, the
natural summertime "monsoon" season of the desert Southwest was occurring,
and at those times, the valley floors also received good rainfall after our
operations.  Those rains also followed the natural patterns. The charge
that our team worked to produce rains in opposition to the natural pattern
is groundless.
        The author of "Orgonomy Peddlers..." also accuses us of creating a
5x increase in rains "for the area", but does not clarify.  He gets the
basic information from our own published Report ("Orop AZ, Special Report",
ibid, p. 15), but misrepresents it.  That 5x increase was in fact isolated
to a very small territory, of around 100 miles diameter, in the area near
Blythe and Yuma, and reflected rainfall conditions between June-August
1989, a three-month period.  As this region rarely gets rain, it is an
example of the previously-mentioned condition, of high rainfall
variability.  Natural rains in the area, when they do occur, often produce
similar 2x, 3x, or 5x the average, given the fact that it rains so
infrequently.  Most years, the area receives well below 50% or even 25% of
normal.  The 5x increase we witnessed was a very isolated and temporary
rainfall increase which the author misrepresents as being something much
more dramatic and widespread.  And where was the ecological damage claimed
in "Orgonomy Peddlers..."?  The author asserts there was damage, but
provides no evidence whatsoever, and in fact contradicts what is commonly
known by climatologists and biologists studying drylands.  
        I was there, studied the landscape and atmosphere, and gathered the
data. There was no ecological damage.  The 1989 Arizona experiments are
written up, documented and published for anybody to see, with charts, maps
and rainfall data.  

Reich's 1954-1955 Experiments in Arizona:
        Here, the author of "Orgonomy Peddlers..." further misrepresents my
work and Reich's work.  He informs us that Reich spent 5 months in the
desert southwest, surveying the desert daily.  Then, by way of a false
contrast, he portrays me as a "weekend scientist", who drives into the
desert once a week, and pays no attention to pre-existing natural
conditions and cycles, saying that I am not a good observer of the
landscape and atmosphere, etc.  What are the facts?  
        Prior to undertaking any cloudbusting work in the arid southwest, I
spent at least three summers engaged in extended, months-long field work in
the area, studying the flora, fauna, climate, landforms, history and social
conditions of the region, and was assistant instructor of a University of
Kansas Field Geography course one summer.  Part of my doctoral research was
undertaken in the Sonoran/Chihuahuan/Mojave drylands, close to Reich's
Tucson base of operations.  In 1987 and 1988, I explored the area again,
looking for a place to work and live, but later decided to move to
California.  In 1988, a preliminary cloudbusting expedition was undertaken,
which appears to have been successful in ending the historically-extreme
Midwestern Drought, an expedition which proved many of my own prior
hypotheses about the transport of dor from the Pacific Ocean into the
desert Southwest, and from there, into the Midwest.(J. DeMeo: "CORE Report
#20: Breaking the Drought Barriers in the SW and NW USA", J. Orgonomy,
23(1):97-125; "Orop AZ, Special Report", ibid., p.17)  While living in
California, I again undertook explorations of the same dryland areas
discussed by Reich.  Regarding the 1989 Arizona experiments, extensive
planning for each expedition was required, and this included a full review
of satellite images and climatological reports, something Reich did not
have available for his work.  In fact my field work in the drylands, prior
to undertaking the actual cloudbusting work, was far more extensive than
what Reich had undertaken prior to his work.  The portrayal of me and the
research team as being incompetent "weekend visitors" is false.  
        The author of "Orgonomy Peddlers..." also makes big
misrepresentations of Reich's findings, as given in CWS.  He asserts:
"Reich succeeded in obtaining a lush growth of grass without a drop of rain
having fallen.  That's Right! Reich, according to his own report, did not
create rain in the desert and did not want to!  In fact, he explicitly says
that rain would have made it impossible to obtain the increase in plant
growth he did obtain, since it would have drown the developing vegetation. 
Reich's goal, in which he was successful only after 5 months of patient
daily labor, was not to make rain..."  Quite a sweeping statement, but is
it true?  What did Reich really do in Arizona in 1954-55, and write in CWS?
 
        Reich moved to Tucson in late 1954,  and his first cloudbusting
operations were undertaken in late October and early November.  Within a
week or two, according to his report in CWS (p.158-159), he does in fact
report grasses growing in nearby regions, "without a drop of rain". 
However, this was only in the first week or two of his work.  Reich did not
state, so flatly, that he "did not want" rain to fall, or that rain was
undesirable.  He only stated that a slow increase in atmospheric moisture
was best.  On this, I have no disagreement.  What about the rest of the
time that Reich worked in Arizona?  In CWS, there are in fact numerous
reports of good rains, even heavy rains being reported by Reich after his
cloudbusting work, and in most cases he was enthusiastic about it.  Some
examples:
        CWS, p.167: "...it was raining at 13:30 hrs. in western Arizona.
Showers were expected in Tucson during the coming night. It rained heavy
all over the west coast, strongest in the southern parts..."
        CWS, p.204-205: Chapter titled: "January Oranur Rains", "January
1955 was the month during which it rained repeated and abundantly in the
southwestern USA, due to our operations. ...  The Oranur rain on the 3rd,
6th, and 7th of January was rich and gently continued all through the
night.  There were deep water puddles in the streets.  The soil was well
soaked.  There was snow on Mt. Catalina.  There were floods in Mexicali. 
Two thousand families had lived in ever-dry river beds and now had to be
evacuated."
        I purposefully include this note by Reich, about the floods in
Mexicali, to de-mystify him as some kind of "perfect, god-like" cloudbuster
operator.  He was human, unable to foresee every possible consequence, and
in this instance, in spite of only gentle rains, there was some flooding in
areas where people should never have been allowed to build.  This kind of
flooding is predictable for drylands whenever rains occur, and is not just
the consequence of "cloudbusting".  No city planner should ever allow
people to live or build homes in such low-lying topography, but in fact,
people do so, often in spite of the best advice from hydrologists.  It is
one of the factual, difficult dilemmas faced by every cloudbuster operator,
and is one of the main reasons why Reich, myself, and others always have
the goal that rains should be produced in as gentle a manner as possible. 
Reich also discusses "rich rains" and "good rains" in other places in CWS
(for example, p.226-228, 246-247, 250). Unfortunately, neither Reich's
position, nor my position, is accurately or fairly represented in "Orgonomy
Peddlers...".
        The author also substitutes the term "developing vegetation" for
Reich's more specific and quite different ideas about "proto-vegetation"
(similar to bions).  Reich's ideas on proto-vegetation are controversial,
linked with his findings on pre-atomic chemistry and to my knowledge not
yet substantiated by other researchers; but it was only this new phenomena
which he believe would be washed away and destroyed if rains came down too
quickly.  For example: 
        CWS, p.183: "Dec. 10th was a beautiful DOR-free morning. It had
rained the night before in the southern Tucson region for two hours with
0.33 inches of gentle Oranur rain.  I was worried the rain may have drowned
the proto-vegetation.  Rain, good for already germinating vegetation, meant
death by drowning to Orene.  Moisture at a distance was the necessary
condition for the primal, proto-vegetation."

The Language and Methods of Cloudbusting:
        The author of "Orgonomy Peddlers..." claims that I use the
"rain-making", "weather-modification" language of the cloudseeders.  In my
1979 University of Kansas Thesis on the cloudbuster, which was presented to
a group of very orthodox natural scientists, I did use the phrase "modify
the weather" on several occasions, but that was 17 years ago.  Since that
date, in numerous articles on the question, I have completely abandoned
such terminology.  Years ago I first openly and publicly encouraged others
in this work to stop using such terms:

        "The atmosphere does not suffer from a 'lack of cloudbusting', but
rather from too much interference by humans for self-serving purposes. 
Reich articulated this concern in the context of atmospheric
self-regulation, and everyone following his precepts uses the cloudbuster
only in times of real drought emergency, and not as something to
'supplement' the weather on an on-going basis.  I am always suspicious of
people who speak about cloudbusting with great excitement, as if they were
speaking of a carnival ride."  (J. DeMeo, Letter to the Editor, Acres, USA,
July 1990, p.40-41)  

        "Over the years there has been a tendency for cloudbusting to be
called 'orgonomic weather modification', and other terms which imply that
the primary function of cloudbusting is to change the weather in a
specified manner, to make the weather do this, or do that.  The Editor of
Pulse (DeMeo) wishes to suggest this terminology be henceforth dropped
completely from the lexicon of orgonomy.  Reich's impetus in the
development of the cloudbuster was not to 'modify' or 'make' anything -
rather, it was to restore the lost property of atmospheric pulsation. 
Cloudbusting is a technique to remove obstacles in the way of natural
atmospheric functioning, to restore the lost principle of atmospheric
self-regulation. The context is similar to the goal of Reich's therapy, to
help the individual function in a more free, self-regulated manner.  When
armor or atmospheric stagnation sets in, one might attempt to assist or
help nature to function as it would normally, had not the armor or
atmospheric stagnation developed." (J. DeMeo, "Cloudbusting is Not 'Weather
Modification'", Pulse of the Planet #4, 1993, p.116). 

        From the above, it should be clear that the words and concepts
attributed to me in "Orgonomy Peddlers..." are false.  The author portrays
me as having deviated from the central tenets and functional emphasis of
Reich - atmospheric self-regulation and the expressive language of the
living - by using my own words and emphasis.
        The author then borrows an analogy made by Reich in CWS (p.213),
about how the cloudbuster should be used, the difference between a dictator
and a guide, that the cloudbuster must not be used in a "dictatorial"
forced manner.  Reich's point is true as can be.  But there is no truth
whatsoever to the attribution made that my work represents a deviation from
this important principle.  My institute, the Orgone Biophysical Research
Lab, does not have, for example, anything which would qualify as
"promotional material", and he attributes several phrases to me which
clearly require a context for interpretation.  For example, "greening the
world's deserts", or "turning barren deserts into lush pastures".  I do not
recall where, if ever, making these comments, but even if I did, there is
no truth whatsoever to the next assertion in the article.  Building upon
those phrases, the author launches into an essay on the problems of cattle
grazing and land-degradation from overgrazing, as if I were being paid by
the Cattlemen's Association, or otherwise desiring to turn all desert lands
into pastures for cattle.  This is patently absurd.  Even if this were
possible by cloudbusting, I would be against it.  At best, it does appear
possible to halt the spreading of the world's deserts, and thereby to
restore some ecological balance to a situation which has been degrading for
some 6,000 years.(J. DeMeo: "The Origins and Diffusion of Patrism in
Saharasia, c.4000 BCE: Evidence for a Worldwide, Climate-Linked
Geographical Pattern in Human Behavior", World Futures, 30:247-271, 1991;
also in Pulse of the Planet 3:3-16, 1991.)  But even this is not certain,
and I have always emphasized the need for the preservation of forests and
grasslands, the halting of atomic energy and nuclear bomb tests, the
control of air-pollution, and the control of overpopulation of humans and
cattle herding as the only real way to halt the spreading of deserts. 
Cloudbusting is only a temporary help, not a "miracle cure" for the world's
ills.  Our journal, Pulse of the Planet, and my other published articles on
the subject repeatedly maintain an emphasis upon these points.  

(Continued on 2/3)




     --- 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