Wilhelm Reich and orgone provided by PORE = Public Orgonomic Research Exchange ---- © Copyright 1995-2006
** last update (2006 March 9-12)

His Last Will and Testament created the Wilhelm Reich Infant Trust Fund

Section 3 -

g "I have throughout all of my lifetime loved infants and children and adolescents, and I also was always loved and understood by them. Infants used to smile at me because I had deep contact with them and children of two or three very often used to become thoughtful and serious when they looked at me. This was one of the great happy privileges of my life, and I want to express in some manner my thanks for that love bestowed upon me by my little friends. May Fate and the great Ocean of Living Energy, from whence they came and into which they must return sooner or later, bless them with happiness and contentment and freedom during their life times. I hope to have contributed my good share to their future happiness.

To this end the Wilhelm Reich Infant Trust Fund should be mainly devoted and safely directed. " by WIlhelm Reich 1957

h. I bequeath the cabin below the road opposite the Student's Laboratory at Orgonon to my daughter Dr. Eva Reich.

i. The 80% of all income, profits or proceeds due me and the Trust from royalties and tools originating in my discoveries shall be devoted to the care of infants everywhere, towards legal security of infants, children and adolescents in emotional, social, parental, medical, legal, educational, professional or other distress. Part of the proceeds may be used for basic orgonomic research.

j. Should the Wilhelm Reich Infant Trust Fund fail of purpose, then my Trustee after careful deliberation of the matter shall transfer all of the assets of the said Trust Fund to an appropriate agency designed and capable to handle such affairs.

Book on children and sex finds harsh critics Terry Collins Star Tribune

Published Apr 3, 2002

A book about the sexuality of children and teens, published by the University of Minnesota Press, has attracted national criticism even before its planned release in May.

Press officials said they have received unprecedented opposition to Judith Levine's book, "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex" -- 100 calls, e-mails and letters from across the country so far.

Levine's book argues that protecting children and teens from knowing more about sex does more harm than good -- and that not all sexual interaction between adults and those youths is bad.

Kathryn Grimes, a University Press spokeswoman, said Tuesday that while some controversy was anticipated, reaction wasn't expected to come before publication.

The book's promotional message said Levine "challenges widespread anxieties" such as pedophilia, stranger kidnapping, Internet pornography and "sacred cows" such as abstinence-based sex education and laws on statutory rape. The university literature said the book offers "fresh alternatives to fear and silence."

Levine said Tuesday that she supports the age-of-consent law in the Netherlands as a "good model" -- it permits sex between an adult and a person between 12 and 16 if the younger person consents. Prosecutions for coercive sex may be sought by the young person or the youth's parents.

"Can little children under the age of 12 have sexual experiences with adults that are positive? I would doubt it," Levine said. "The Dutch law does two things: The law does balance that young people are sexual and they behave sexually under their own will.

"At the same time, they are weaker than adults and therefore they can be vulnerable to adult exploitation. So the law protects them from that exploitation."

Grimes said most of the criticism of the book grew from a Newhouse News Service article last week that quoted Levine as saying that a sexual relationship between a priest and a youth "conceivably, absolutely" could be positive.

Levine said that her comments had been taken out of context and that she disapproves of any sexual relationship between a youth and an authority figure, whether a parent, teacher or priest. However, she said teenagers deserve more respect for the choices they make in consensual affairs.

The Newhouse article has been debated on local and national talk radio shows and Web sites, leading to the pre-release criticism.

"The response to the book is unprecedented for us; however, it has been based on a misrepresentation of the book," Grimes said. "We hope that people will take the time to read the book and it becomes the start of a debate instead of an attack based on inaccurate information."

The manuscript was reviewed by five academic experts, instead of the usual two, she said, to make sure its argument was based on research, not opinion.

Levine, 49, a journalist for 25 years, said Tuesday that her book is about adults learning to give children realistic, practical advice about sex "that talks about the ways of how children can grow to be happy, healthy sexual beings while being safe in the process."

She writes in her introduction that if educators want to be credible about sexual responsibility, "they have to be forthright about sexual joy." She also writes that if parents want their kids to be happy, it's their duty to help them learn to love well.

"For our part, adults owe children not only protection and a schooling in safety, but also the entitlement to pleasure," she said.

Levine, who has written articles in Ms. magazine and other national publications and founded a feminist group called No More Nice Girls, said Tuesday from New York that she began working on the book in the mid-1990s. She acknowledged that with the recent sex abuse scandals involving clergy members and young people, this is a tough time to argue that American children can have positive sexual experiences.

Levine said Tuesday that she had sex with an adult when she was a minor. In the Newhouse story, she said that "on balance it was a perfectly good experience."

In the introduction to her book she writes that " 'Harmful to Minors' launches from two negatives: Sex is not ipso facto harmful to minors; and America's drive to protect kids from sex is protecting them from nothing. Instead, often it is harming them."

Several media commentators and activists have accused Levine of condoning child abuse.

Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America's Culture and Family Institute in Washington, D.C., is urging the University of Minnesota to fire the University Press officials who decided to publish the book.

The institute's mission is to "bring biblical principles into all levels of public policy," its Web site says.

"The action is so grievous and so irresponsible that I felt they relinquished their right to academic freedom," said Knight, who has described the book as "very evil."

The University Press is an independent auxiliary of the university, Grimes said. Its publication costs are paid mostly through sales revenue; funding from the university contributes less than 2 percent, or about $100,000, of its annual budget.

Levine said Tuesday that the book does not endorse pedophilia or any type of sexual abuse.

"I deplore rape, sexual abuse of children and any way that a person is forced to have sex against their will," Levine said. "I am a feminist, and I am glad that our legal system has laws against rape.

"For anybody to say I promote child abuse is absurd."

Levine said that while it's good that safeguards such as statutory rape laws are in place, more has to be done through honest and open communication.

"You can't watch your kids every minute," she said. "You need to arm them with the tools of how to be a good person and how to protect themselves, including giving them comprehensive sexual information.

"My main point: Ask them. Don't assume."

-- The Associated Press contributed to this report.

-- Terry Collins is at tcollins@startribune.com .

Iran ahead of U.S. in sex education

Maggie Fox

Saturday, April 27, 2002 at 09:30 JST

WASHINGTON - Iran may let 9-year-old girls get married, but it could still teach the United States something about sex education, Population Action International said in a report issued on Friday.

Well-meaning adults trying to protect children and teen-agers from sexual activity are actually keeping vital knowledge from them, and this is true around the world, the report from the nonprofit family planning advocacy group says.

Only the Netherlands has an exemplary policy, the group said, citing statistics that show the Dutch reap benefits from their policies that include exceptionally low rates of teen-age pregnancy, HIV infection in youth and sexually transmitted diseases.

"Iran has a relatively strong public health system through which family planning and maternal health services are widely delivered," Margaret Greene, who helped write the report, told a news conference.

"In the United States we are increasingly headed toward a politicized content with no guarantee of medical accuracy ... whereas Iran has developed age-appropriate sex materials that are very accurate and explicit," Greene said.

"I'd say there is far less hypocrisy in this area."

The group cited moves in Congress, where a House of Representatives panel on Wednesday endorsed funding "abstinence only" sex education, defeating opponents who called for a broader sex-education curriculum providing information on birth control and sexually transmitted diseases.

The panel also dropped wording in the bill that would require sex education programs to be backed by scientific research.

The group also points out, however, that Iran's religious leaders recently blocked moves to raise the legal age of marriage for girls from 9 to 15 and that Iran's sex education programs assume that all sexually active couples are married.

The problem in most countries is that they do not respect the ability of adolescents to make wise decisions for themselves, said James Waggoner, president of Advocates for Youth, which supported the report.

"Too many policymakers subscribe to the caricature of adolescents as mere hormone-driven accidents waiting to happen," Waggoner said.

The groups especially attacked abstinence-only education programs, which teach only that sex before marriage is wrong and do not offer any information to teens who may be having sex anyway. The result can be deadly, Waggoner said.

"Our HIV rate for young men is three times higher than in the Netherlands. Our rate for teen births is 11 time higher than in the Netherlands. Our teen gonorrhea rate is 74 times higher than in the Netherlands," he said.

Many studies have shown that open sex education that includes information about contraception and that also attempts to build self-esteem can lower sexual activity rates and result in fewer pregnancies and cases of disease, the report says.

"We have over 87% of Americans who believe there should be comprehensive sex education in schools and we have a Congress that does not support this in their legislation," Population Action International president Amy Coen said.

"It is a battle between religious conservatives and the rest of the country and the rest of the world. We are holding young people hostage to ... conservative Christian views and it really is an embarrassment."

(Reuters News) ____________________

Click the link below to view this article and related discussions on Japan Today http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&id=213486 ____________________

Textbook Turnon

China tries first set of sex education textbooks (05/16/2002)

Chinese children as young as 12 will receive sex education in a pilot scheme in Northeast China's Heilongjiang Province.

With the proliferation of sexual diseases worldwide, in particular HIV and AIDS, and complaining from the public about a lack of sexual awareness, China is a facing the issue head on with the introduction of its first series of textbooks on sex education.

Published in Harbin this January, the books are designed for junior and senior middle school and college students, providing basic knowledge on sex to help prevent sexually transmitted diseases. The textbooks are to be used as reference books by local teachers.

To date, nationwide, China has no official sex education curriculum and has no official course books, according to the Ministry of Education.

Middle school students complained in the past they were not getting enough sex education from their teachers, who either skipped over sections in textbooks or asked students to read the parts by themselves.

Also, the majority of Chinese parents are said to avoid the subject of sex education or even scold children for asking such questions. However, the situation appears to be improving, as increasingly more schools throughout China begin sex education classes.

Some students at a middle school affiliated to the Beijing Institute of Technology are said to be looking forward to their first sex education course this term, as are their parents, as it saves them the somewhat embarrassing task of teaching their children.

Universities and colleges are also placing sex education on their list of priorities.

In East China's Fujian Province, Fujian Normal University offers an elective sex education course. The 32-hour course introduces basic information about sex, including physiology, psychology, ethics and health care.

For about 100,000 students in Changsha, capital of Hunan Province, sex is no longer taboo. A two-hour compulsory course on sex education has been included in the curriculum of Changsha's 22 universities and colleges.

Sex education experts said it is not enough for youngsters to receive sex education at school. Society and families all bear an equal responsibility to tell children the truth about sex. ____________________________________

Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 20:06:46 -0400
Subject: RE: [OrgonomyMail-List] we must reduce pain!

Childbirth would be a great deal easier if the natural processes were followed. Placing a woman on her back, feet up, does not work with gravity, and is done solely for the convenience of the physician. Working against gravity and the natural forces never made any sense to me. Effleurage (using the fingertips to distribute the energy throughout the abdomen) is very effective, as is regulated breathing. I don't think we need resort to chemical intervention, unless there is an emergency situation. There are many energy practices that can be used with pain of all types. Magnetic therapy is one that works for me, as does the use of lodestone. E....

pascal ori skrev:

Even if process are natural, it does not mean there is no pain. Nature is frightening too: look at the jungle! To follow the Nature does not mean total hapiness or homeostazy! We must find way to reduce the pain such as horrible pain during birth, by using chenical processes and orgonomic devices and procedures.

Pascal

Message is from OrgonomyMail-List which is sponsored by J. Ogg at PORE http://www.orgone.org . This OML is a continuation of the original OML operated on the net since July 1995. To unsubscribe send email to: OrgonomyMail-List-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com OrgonomyMail-List guidelines: http://www.orgone.org/orgonoml01.htm

The following is a news item posted on CBC NEWS ONLINE at http://cbc.ca/news

SEX ED DOESN'T WORK, BUT ABSTINENCE IS WORSE: RESEARCHER http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?category=Canada&story=/news/2002/06/14/sexed020614

WebPosted Fri Jun 14 23:38:32 2002

HAMILTON, ONT.--Sex education doesn't work, a team of McMaster University researchers has found.

And neither do the other methods of preventing teen pregnancies, a study headed by Alba DiCenso, a professor at the Faculty of Health Sciences, shows.

She called for new pregnancy-prevention programs that delay intercourse and improve birth-control use, thereby reducing teenage pregnancy rates.

The researchers reviewed other published studys, and concluded "the prevention strategies evaluated in these studies – sex education, abstinence programs, family planning clinics, and community based programs – did not achieve their intended effect," they said in a release.

Abstinence programs, which are very popular in the United States since the Bush administration has backed them, are the worst, she said. The pregnancy rate of young women in abstinence studies actually went up.

On the other hand, sex ed does not lead to higher rates of pregnancy, as some have claimed, she said.

Pregnancy rates among young women aged 15 to 19 are 93 per 1,000 in the United States and 43 per 1,000 in Canada.

For the teenagers who do get pregnant, life is often hard. "I wouldn't have chosen to be a young mom," a teenage mother said.

WebPosted Sun March1223:38:32 2006

THE SEXUAL ABUSE of children has been aptly labeled ''a silent, violent epidemic" by the American Medical Association. While the clergy sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church has shattered the silence, the truth is that those revelations reflect only part of a broader societal problem.

One in four girls and one in six boys have experienced some form of sexual abuse before age 18, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. More than 80 percent of incidents are never reported to authorities. Massachusetts already recognizes that the nature of these crimes is so egregious and its impact so devastating that sexual offenders are the only class of criminals the state identifies on its website.

Effectively addressing this epidemic will require the active involvement of many sectors of society, including public health, law enforcement, and private citizens alike.

A survey conducted for the Massachusetts Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Partnership makes it clear that Massachusetts citizens are willing to take on these challenges. Ninety percent of those polled believe child sexual abuse is a serious problem, and 85 percent believe it can be prevented. Nearly half want to become more involved in ways to protect children. Two bills that would repeal the criminal and civil statutes of limitations for child sexual abuse crimes are a step toward these ends.

Those who know someone who has been victimized have seen the emotional, physical, and financial toll childhood sexual abuse exacts. The journey that leads to healing is long -- often measured in decades, not in years. It can take one through the depths of addiction, depression, and other physical and mental hardships. Many survivors can find their way to hope and healing with the support of families, friends, and professionals.

However, not everyone makes it -- some lives are permanently damaged, and others take their own life as a last resort. Given the demands of such an arduous, personal journey, it is no wonder that it often takes victims half a lifetime or more before they can consider seeking justice in a court of law.

The current statute of limitations for these crimes ranges from three years for civil cases and up to 15 years for criminal cases. The clock starts ticking on the victim's 16th birthday. However, in a preponderance of cases, current law prevents victims from seeking justice in our legal system after age 22.

A study by advocate attorney Carmen Durso revealed that his clients came forward on average nearly 33 years after their abuse occurred -- at an average age of 45. Mental health and law enforcement professionals confirm this. The disparity between the time it takes for victims to come forward and the current statute of limitations represents a ''justice gap." Closing this gap is critical for victims. Moreover, it may also prevent the victimization of the most vulnerable citizens of our society by putting offenders on notice that they will not be allowed to continue offending with impunity.

Eliminating the statute of limitations would send the message that Massachusetts is joining other states, including Maine, in the fight to protect children. It would also promote greater accountability on the part of institutions that must work diligently to create sexual abuse free environments for the children they serve. It would help take serial offenders off the streets and away from the places where children live and play.

Eliminating the statute of limitations will not -- and should not -- lessen the legal protections of those accused. Prosecutors and plaintiff attorneys will still be required to make their case on the quality of evidence before a court of law. But it will level the playing field for victims by giving them the opportunity to seek justice and hold offenders accountable. Above all, it will reaffirm the right of every child to a safe and healthy childhood and of every adult to a life free from the devastating and costly aftermath of child sexual abuse.

Jetta Bernier, executive director of Massachusetts Citizens for Children, and John Mackey, retired police chief of Tewksbury, are members of the Coalition to Reform Sexual Abuse Laws in Massachusetts.

March 25, 2006

SouthCoastToday.com - A service of the Standard-Times

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/03-06/03-25-06/09state-region.htm

Lawmakers try to accommodate consensual teen sex By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

MONTPELIER, Vt. - A Senate committee has taken up a House-passed bill that seeks to decriminalize sex between consenting teenagers, so long as they're both at least 15 and within three years in age.

The House passed an amendment to a bill toughening penalties for sex offenders by trying to ensure that such sexual relationships would not be considered crimes. "We didn't want to subject those kids to being a sex offender that would be put on the registry for life," Rep. Thomas DePoy, R-Rutland, said in a reference to the state's sex-offender registry. "It doesn't mean we're trying to condone it."

Sen. Richard Sears, D-Bennington, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, agreed the aim was not to condone teen sex. But he said he knows of cases where young lives have been ruined as a high school romance results in a permanent criminal record and dashed college hopes.

"This issue isn't about whether kids should have sex, but the question is should it be a criminal offense," Sears said.

Vermont's age of consent under current law is 16 and a 17-year-old having consensual sex with a 15-year-old can be prosecuted for sexual assault on a minor.

No figures are available for how many such cases are prosecuted in Vermont. Windsor County States Attorney Robert Sand estimated there are five to 10 such cases per year around the state.

Sand said his fellow prosecutors don't oppose the change proposed by lawmakers, but he called the problem "minuscule."

Defender General Matt Valerio cited Sands' higher number and said, "For the 10, it's devastating."

Sarah Kenney, public policy coordinator with the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, urged against lowering the age of consent further or widening the age gap beyond three years. Lowering the age another year and allowing a four-year age difference could allow sex between a 14-year-old and an 18-year-old. "You can have a 14-year-old and you're all over the map in terms of maturity level," Kenney said.

*********
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]

April 10, 2006

This kind of law ought to be enacted across the entire USA. Originally, "statutory rape" laws were developed in the late 1800s and early 1900s to protect children from coercive and forced prostitution and child betrothal. To block old men from purchasing sex with young girls, or buying a young bride. Those laws were abused by moralists, who increasingly did their best to attack young men and women for consensual love, to throw "Romeo and Juliet" into prison. Defacto, teens in the USA are increasingly sexually active, in spite of AIDS hysteria and genuine pregnancy or STD risks. In most states, the decision to prosecute a sexually-active teenager younger than the "age of consent" is made by prosecutors, who must judge on their own the merits of the cases and decide which ones to prosecute, and which ones not. If the prosecutor is level-headed and remembers his own youthful romances, he'll ignore the "Romeo and Juliet" cases, and go after only the authentic pedophiles. If the prosecutor is a moralist, Romeo may be thrown into the slammer, but sometimes, also Juliet. ...... James Demeo. (OBRL)

• Selbstregulation als Prinzip orgonotischer Selbststeuerung von John Trettin
  Self regularization as principle orgonotischer self-control --- http://www.orgonpraxis.de/art1.htm
  Last Modified: Monday, January 08, 2001 3:36:28 AM GMT
• ..

..

• Return to PORE main page
• See our Disclaimers, Copyright, Trademark. and Article submission statements

Worte vergehen, --------Words go away,
der Schmerz bleibt ----the Pain will stay

Niete, Trottel, Versager, ---------------------------Rivets, Nincompoops, Failures,
Worte können Kinder schlagen ------------------Words can beat children
Kinder haben ein recht auf gewaltfreie Erziehung ---Children have a right for non-violence education

Weitere Informationen erhalten sie unter --------------- More information you can get under
www.mehr-respekt-vor-kindern.de ------------- www.mehr-respekt-vor-kindern.de
Deutschland erneuern Mehr Respekt vor Kindern ---- Germany Renew More Respect for Children

---

---

Reactions to this WEB page and OML:

----- Original Message ----- From: Khwrit@aol.com To: life@orgone.org Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 12:59 PM Subject: PERSONAL TO JOGG, from Kevin Hinchey

Hello Jamerling,

How are you? It distresses me to have to write this note, but I feel I have no choice.

Yesterday (Wednesday - March 8, 2006) I received a phone call from an Ann Kim, a reporter with the Portland Press Herald. She had called the Wilhelm Reich Museum earlier, and since Mary Higgins had left for New York City, Mary Henderson referred her to me at home.

Ms. Kim wanted some information about Reich's thoughts on child and adolescent sexuality. She explained to me the unfortunate situation regarding the dispute over a school sex-education program in Westbrook. And the fact that a parent had apparently done a Google-Search on your name and found your orgone.org website, which--according to the parent--included some content about lowering the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12.

Hence the newspaper's phone call to The Wilhelm Reich Museum.

I emphasized quite adamantly to Ms. Kim that at no time did Reich ever advocate sexual relations between children and adults, or between adolescents and adults...and that at no time did Reich advocate lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12, if that is what was being implied here. I also challenged anyone to find anything in Reich's writings to that effect, if that is what anyone was implying.

Because Ms. Kim had not yet fully explored the orgone.org website herself for the material that was offensive to the parent, I urged her to do so, which she said she would.

And although I hadn't explored the website either, I told her that I strongly doubted that there was any content there to the effect that the age of consent should be lowered from 16 to 12, for the simple reason that your website was purportedly about Wilhelm Reich and Reich never condoned anything of that nature.

After we concluded our conversation, I checked your website for myself. And found, to my surprise, disappointment and shock, that I was wrong about its content...that, in fact, you had posted a cover photo and article about a book entitled "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex" authored by a Judith Levine. And in that article was the following statement:

"Levine said Tuesday that she supports the age-of-consent law in the Netherlands as a 'good model' -- it permits sex between an adult and a person between 12 and 16 if the younger person consents."

While I regret any difficulties you may be encountering in the Westbrook controversy, I am less sympathetic to your posting of that article on a website that you claim is about Reich. This is not an issue of free expression or censorship, but one of simple common sense and discriminating judgment.

We all know how frequent and easy it is for any irrational person-- or rational person, for that matter--to twist the truth about Reich's life and work.

Posting that kind of content--on a website that is purportedly about Reich-- is irresponsible and misleading, and leaves the door open for any individual to easily and understandably conflate that content with Reich's own writings and convictions. All of which is damaging to the truth of Reich's life and work, to the Wilhelm Reich Infant Trust, and The Wilhelm Reich Museum.

That we should have to clarify to a local newspaper that Reich did not advocate sexual relations between children and adults and that he did not advocate lowering the age of consent to 12 underscores the danger of posting that kind of content on a website that is purportedly about Reich.

As a member of the Maine community, the Trust and the Museum can ill-afford being unfairly drawn into a potentially damaging situation that might well have been avoided if you'd exercise a little more common sense about the nature of the content that you allow on your website.

Reich's reputation and contributions to the world should be presented in a manner that is nothing less than accurate and intellectually honest. A website about Reich should be about exactly that.

Again, I emphasize for any difficulties you may be enduring in this Westbrook controversy.

best wishes, Kevin Hinchey

---

----- Original Message ----- From: life To: Khwrit@aol.com Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 8:25 PM Subject: Re: TO JOGG, from Kevin Hinchey

#$%^&* Kevin are you OK, You have turned into a formal person....... :-(
You start with how are you before chastising me. How quaint. Yes I feel anger and sadness at what you wrote to me.

I think you miss the point of the web page. Maybe look again as I adjusted it March 9th due to misinterpretation and use of it out of context. I am surprised you do the same.. http://www.orgone.org/infantchild/infantchild-aa-00a.htm

Other than that lets just say I have little to say back except that we do not agree and you have made many incorrect assumptions...... :-(

my best to you...just the same....

PS I do not support adults to have free sexual reign on 12 year olds and it says that but you should read some Reich again because he did support adolescents with each other and I would love to ask if he ever put an age to it. If so please do quote it with reference. He came from a world that did not have age as a barrier for adolescents and he did support many the freedom of sex of adolescents in Germany and Austria..

It is sad to hear you have reacted and withdrawn into a safety place......And not seen beyond the mongers of the Maine Christian Civic League that began this rhetoric about my web site and etc blah blah blah blah blah blah

cheers to you....

Jamie

---

----- Original Message ----- From: khwrit@aol.com To: allmyforce@hotmail.com Cc: OrgonomyMail-List@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:20 PM Subject: [OrgonomyMail-List] from Kevin Hinchey - WILHELM REICH MUSEUM

TUESDAY - APRIL 24, 2007

To: JAMERLING OGG From: KEVIN HINCHEY - WILHELM REICH MUSEUM & WILHELM REICH INFANT TRUST

Since late 2005 and as recently as April 19, 2007, we have quietly observed and compiled dozens of vindictive statements and personal attacks directed at The Wilhelm Reich Museum and its staff that have been posted on the internet "OML Mailing List" which you both founded and moderate.

These vindictive statements and personal attacks--which we feel are completely unnecessary--have either been written by you, or written by others and subsequently approved and posted by you as moderator of the "OML Mailing List."

On April 22, 2007 an e-mail was brought to our attention in which you expressed your plans to attend our 2007 International Conference on Orgonomy, which we are hosting at both The Wilhelm Reich Museum and at Saddleback Mountain in Rangeley. It is to this point that we must now take issue.

No one would argue with your freedom and right to determine the content and tone and participants of the internet mailing list that you founded and moderate. Nor should anyone argue with our freedom and right to determine the content and tone and participants of our endeavors. Whereas your overall tone has become increasingly ugly and inflammatory, ours is decidedly different. This summer's 2007 International Conference on Orgonomy, for example, will involve presenters and participants from all over the world who have responded to our invitation "to join us for an exchange of knowledge, hope, and friendship." Sadly, the vindictive statements and unnecessary personal attacks against The Wilhelm Reich Museum and its staff that appear with regularity on your Mailing List demonstrate little knowledge, hope, or friendship.

The following, then, is our response to your willingness to aggressively demean The Wilhelm Reich Museum, followed by your misguided expectation of participating at our events:

1) You are hereby put on notice that you are not allowed onto the property of The Wilhelm Reich Museum and The Wilhelm Reich Infant Trust at Orgonon in Rangeley, Maine at any time.

2) You are hereby put on notice that you are not allowed to register for/or attend any event organized by The Wilhelm Reich Museum or The Wilhelm Reich Infant Trust, including the 2007 International Conference on Orgonomy at Saddleback Mountain, Rangeley.

3) You are hereby put on notice that your appearance at Orgonon or at any of our events will be considered trespassing, that are we prepared to press trespassing charges against you, and that we are committed to pursuing such charges to the fullest extent of the law.

4) So that there will be no confusion regarding our intentions, we are bringing this matter to the attention of law enforcement officials in Rangeley, the management of Saddleback Mountain in Rangeley, and appropriate members of the local community.

Should you still be confused about our intentions, I will also forward you a printed copy of this letter via the U.S mail for your records.

Kevin Hinchey Associate Director - Wilhelm Reich Museum Board Member - Wilhelm Reich Infant Trust

-------

---

----- Original Message ----- From: allmyforce To: OrgonomyMail-List@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [OrgonomyMail-List] from Kevin Hinchey - WILHELM REICH MUSEUM

How to react to this over reaction of Kevin Hinchey to co-moderator Jamie Ogg of the OML for some critiques of the Museum. Jamie Ogg is accused of being vindictive by Kevin Hinchey.... but vindictive of what. (see definitions below) What did he react to?? What is he revenging? That is perplexing.
The over reaction and vindictiveness seems or may also appear to be coming from inside the museum and not from the outside. A projection it is said by several in emails.

Jamie Ogg has always shared critique of the museum dating back to 1974 when he was an observer working along with Eva Reich and Bill Moise while he/she attempted to open the archives of the WRITF to the public via a court case. Eva Reich also attempted at that time 1974 to replace the trustee. Roger Hutchison was a possible appointment among others to become Trustee should Eva have won the case. The attempt failed. Eva was the initial Trustee. She was appointed by her father in his will of 1957. Due to the hurt and dire straights of funds resulting from her Dad's court costs and the pain of his loss and death, she appointed the present Trustee through the recommendation of a Dr. who had worked with her Dad, Wilhelm Reich. Mary Higgins became the Trustee and yes her efforts did save the estate/trust from ruin at the time and she has worked hard to improve the Museum as she has felt best to do that. Not all agree on some of the methods used. Many years later in the early 70s Eva Reich was disturbed by the changes she felt the Trustee had made including changes in translations of his work yet the courts ruled against Eva Reich's attempt to reverse the appointment and or open the archives. The story goes on with many untold parts and now none of children of Reich's have anything to do with the museum and have-not for many, many years. What happened with the relationships of the children and the Museum. Were they also banned or did they just walk away quietly. So many untold stories and some on this OML list know the answers. And in some cases only the children may know.

Students for Orgonomy - a non-profit group formed in 1974 and members-directors were part of a University of Southern Maine class in 1974. The class was taught by Roger Hutchison and Jamie Ogg as co-teachers. The class consisted of about 8-10 students and most were also were members of the SFO board of directors. This group proposed a large conference at the Saddleback Mountain in July of 1974. It was the first conference on Wilhelm Reich since his death to be held in Rangeley. It was a momentous occassion and the Rangeley Highlander (local paper) carried the opposing comments by the WRM and SFO with full page coverage. It turned into a smaller conference at the Rangeley Inn with keynote speaker Eva Reich. It still took place in July 1974 about 33 years ago. It was a success and C.Grier Sellers was a participant in the audience as were about 20 others...maybe more. No one was banned from the conference. The USM class (Psycho-Somatic Nature of Man) members were all invited to a conference at the WR Museum in the fall of 1974 except Roger Hutchison (he was banned by the WRITF for involvement with Eva Reich during the above court trial and other reasons that they truly must know themselves). The students invited were the sole attendees of the first conference put on at the Museum in October 1974 since Reich death. Two conferences in Rangeley in the same year and none for the 15 past years since Reich had died. What precipatated the Museum to hold one after one was already held that summer? Was it because they felt they need to move forward after a few students managed to do what they had not for all those years. Was it a reaction that Eva Reich with the help of SFO had presented 2 meetings that year in the spring and the summer in Rangeley without the Museum's blessing? It was with the request and diplomatic communication of one of the SFO board members that MBH allowed the possiblity of a meeting of the students at the Museum. Again the SFO group had changed for the better the museum's public exposure to open the doors again. Thank you Brad Libby who was a member of the SFO and was able to convince MBH to be open to a confence at the museum. At the October conference at the Museum Dr. Raphael presented the topic "Orgonomic Functionalism". After the lecture the students Dr. Raphael and Higgins sat around a table and all students including Jamie Ogg gave criticism and suggestions to the museum which over the next 10 - 15 years the Museum used and changed things and adapted to them. Some were opening the museum for longer hours than only 2 hours a week and others were to re-organize the equipment to make sense, have summer conferences, invite students, demonstrate accumulators and many other comments. In the spring of 1974 Kevin Hinchey was an attendee to one of the SFO evening presentations in Rangeley with Eva Reich as speaker at the local church downtown. At that time Eva was not welcome at the Museum. Kevin Hinchey too was critical of the museum and seeking changes. He was critical several years ago too yet now his heart "appears" to have changed. Only he would know for sure. Now the museum again reacts to criticism but in an apparently obtuse fashion. Jamie has always supported the good the museum has done and when it does things negative, HE SPEAKS TO THEM TOO.

It "appears" at present to some of those sharing emails on this event that there are some within the inner circle of the Museum-Infant Trust (changing names at present) whom expect all comments to be positive and kiss up to them or they may be banned or shunned from the museum. A Clique has formed. How many secrets do the inner circle hold from each other in fear? There are some secrets that have not been told. So now Ogg has been banned and maybe that is an omen of things to come. Who else has been banned? Who will be next? Why does it appear to some that there are those at the museum who operate out of fear now? Have they always? Remember Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. And hate leads to suffering. - Yoda, my favorite Jedi Knight. Lets hope this is not the case as Yoda observed in "Star Wars". Things are changing again at the Museum. Will it be for good or not, time will tell. The conference this summer is really just another conference yet has many good people from Europe coming and the east coast. May it all go well. One would certainly hope so. The days of past at the WR Museum with Tom Ross (Reich's estate caretaker) telling stories and memories of his of Reich to visitors have gone by. Tom would take visitors to the memorial grave of Reich and reminisce aloud his time with Wilhelm Reich. Occasionally he was told not to speak to media by the Museum yet he had a mind of his own and did speak. Banning persons from the Museum for expressing their thoughts will not stop free expression. It is just a sign of fear. Tom Ross was truly a treasure of the museum-estate and of Rangeley along with his family. Only one or two are left alive who knew Reich directly and they have each been a treasure to share time with and they ( Morton Herskowitz and Bernard Grad) each see beyond the museum for the future of orgonomy. Many others do as well and continue to move forward with honest work and good cheer to others.

Bless all their hearts.

hugs and smiles from here

"American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source vin·dic·tive (vin-dik'tiv) adj. Disposed to seek revenge; revengeful. Marked by or resulting from a desire to hurt; spiteful.

----------

---

----- Original Message ----- From: allmyforce To: OrgonomyMail-List@yahoogroups.com Cc: khwrit@aol.com Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [OrgonomyMail-List] from Kevin Hinchey - WILHELM REICH MUSEUM

To Kevin Hinchey via OML in reply to your email April 24th, 2007 to OML concerning me. ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 7th, 2007
Dear Kevin,
You have used very negative adjectives and adverbs to describe behavior on the OML towards staff at the WRM-WRITF. You fail to mention examples or persons you perceive as mentioned yet here it appears to me in my opinion that you now make personal attack with below descriptions of my past actions and the actions of others on the OML but you included no examples.

Words you have used in your post:
            "observed and compiled dozens; vindictive statements ; personal attacks"
            "ugly and inflammatory ; to aggressively demean ; misguided expectation"

Questions. Questions. Questions. Questions.
Questions. Questions. Questions. Questions.

Your Ad hominem statements in the email to me via OML are empty of examples. Would you please respond to the questions.

I have received no hard printed copy of your letter via US Mail that you stated you would send. It has been 2 weeks?

I still have plans to be in Rangeley that week for a vacation which I planned over 2 months ago when I made reservations for lodging. I will forgo being present at any of the museum functions and property you mention you do not want me at any more. Thanks for your new directive. At My last understanding of my affairs: I have no criminal record, I have never been charged with making any threats to anyone and am free to take a vacation in USA..Maine including RANGELEY or elsewhere without encumbrances from your directives except to stay away from WRM/WRITF functions or property when you have sent an official hard copy.

Now to the questions I am kindly requesting answers from you to learn what you truly meant with your statements.

1. Who are the staff at the WRM/WRITF that you are referring too? This is an important question since there have been many email letters on the OML that have praised many people at the WRM/WRITF as well. Please name the staff you perceive? My guess is that your perception may only include 2 persons (you obviously or certainly appear by your response must be one of them) out of the 10s of staff that work there yet you make it sound like it is about all of them. Is this an intended written description to include all staff or just an oversight on your part?

2. Please list the "compiled dozens" of examples of what you perceive to be "vindictive statements" directed at the WRM/WRITF and its staff?
       Discussion on the this OML is just that it is Discussion. It is not email sent to the WRM/WRITF or directed (sent to) to them. Yes it refers to them as such. It is discussion.
       The OML is a discussion group. It is not a published paper to the public like a newspaper or a reporter on TV news or a magazine.
       It is a group of members sharing feelings and perceptions of what is going on.

3. Please list the "compiled dozens" of examples of what you perceive to be "personal attacks" directed at the WRM/WRITF and its staff?

4. There are and have been two moderators on the OML. Which moderator are you referring to that approves the messages that you have not given as examples?
     And which emails did each moderator approve that you feel was affecting the WRM/WRITF and its staff and what was the substance of the emails that you perceive was negative and to whom?.

5. Please give examples of what you perceive to be "your overall tone has become increasingly ugly and inflammatory, ours is decidedly different. " And how is your tone decidedly different?
     You posted the below email to the OML with a treasure trove of negative adjectives-adverbs about persons and their actions on the OML.
     Is this a positive example of the public relations policy at the WRM/WRITF these days?

6. Please give again examples of what you perceive to be "your willingness to aggressively demean The Wilhelm Reich Museum"

7. Why am I "misguided"? I am at a quandary to understand how I could be possibly have the "misguided expectation of participating at our events" at the time when I stated I was planning to come to the conference on April 22nd to Mr. Bennet. I had not been informed of your intent to ban me from the WRM/WRITF at that time. You had not sent that directive out till April 24th and you had not sent me anything or conversed with me since around this time a year ago pertaining to the adolescent pages posted at the PORE web site. http://www.orgone.org/infantchild/infantchild-aa-00a.htm

8. And for the final double question for you: Kevin what do you fear from me? Is it truth?

A democratic sharing of positive and negative feelings each member of the discussion group OML have in regards to orgonomy and the various organizations is what the OML is intended to allow. It also included updates of various groups and conferences coming up and new scientific discoveries. There are "not" many places to do that year round for those on the internet except through Mail Lists and Blogs. Expression of feelings good or bad is what Reich was leading patients to do. I do not support a couple of the presenters at the WRM summer conference this year yet that is part of conferences as they go anywhere. We as individuals have those we like and some we do not. I Still wish the conference the best and hope you may find your softer heart again Kevin. Banning people from the museum that voice their free expression is not good for its public relations. Remember Kevin, Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. And hate leads to suffering. - Yoda, my favorite Jedi Knight. Don't let the fear get to you... And say hello to my friends Heiko Lassek from Germany at the conference and also say hi to Morton Herskowitz. Morton is one of the best dudes in Orgonomy. :-)

Sincerely Jamie Ogg

PS My criticism-support of the WRM/WRITF did not just start 2 years ago. Try to remember back Kevin to when we first met in 1974. I have always been critical where needed and supportive when appropriate of the WRM/WRITF ever since knowing of them in 1974. My major criticisms are of the re-translations of the originally approved by Reich "Wolfe" versions of his books; the treatment of the children of Reich by the WRITF via legal actions, and the difficulty the WRM/WRITF are making for those to have access to archives and information for research. These actually date back to 1974 when I was allied with Eva Reich in her court case vs. WRITF.

For the record: My involvement and support.
Member of group (SFO) to first present a conference in Rangeley since Reich's death - (Eva Reich Speaker April and July 1974)
Member of first conference at WRM in Rangeley since Reich's death - (Dr Raphael speaker October 1974)
First member of "Friends of the Reich Museum" 1970s
Created (web design and posted and maintained ) for WRM/WRITF their first Bookstore Web Catalogue via at PORE's website 1990s www.orgone.org
Donated financial support many many times when a call for support was requested by MBH - WRITF/ and Friends of WRM.
Advertised the WRM/WRITF summer conferences at PORE web site and given feed back by WRM staff that attendance improved with each year since mid 1990s. through 2000's

---

reply from Kevin but no answers to the many questiopns....as expected...

---

----- Original Message ----- From: Khwrit@aol.com To: allmyforce@hotmail.com Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 12:49 PM Subject: from Kevin Hinchey

I will send you a hard copy for your records, as I said I would.

However, sending you a hard copy has nothing to do with "making it official"--it's merely for your records. You being disallowed onto Museum/Trust property and at Museum/Trust events is in no way contingent upon you receiving a "hard copy." Hard copy or not, consider the previous e-mail "official" as far as you being put on notice that you are not allowed onto our property or at our events. You've clearly acknowledged its receipt, acknowledged its intent, and have reacted accordingly and rather publicly. Furthermore, all of these recent e-mail exchanges are being shared with law enforcement authorities to further document our decision not to allow you onto Museum/Trust property or at our events, as well as to document your receipt of our decision and your response to it.

Consider this reiteration "official" as well--hard copy or no hard copy--in case you have any intention of challenging or defying our clearly stated refusal to allow you onto Museum/Trust property or to any of our events:

---

I feel in good hands with Reich and Family as they also have been basically banned from the Museum. Wilhelm Reich is not there in spirit and Peter his son had his Cabin taken away by the estate on technicalities and Eva was refused in court via MBH to having some of her personal items returned from the archives that she personally put there after Reich's death. All was legally done but one asks where is the compassion within the Museum to hear the truth and have discussion. Not there anymore. So if you visit the museum....remember Reich is dead and the books have even become distorted by changing his orginal wording (click here for examples)