Was orgone legit?

>>40580072 (OP)
I require data. What's this subject? Where do I look it up?

>>40580267
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone
https://www.thoughtco.com/wilhelm-reich-and-orgone-accumulator-1992351

It was a bit of af orgone conclusion

>>40580072 (OP)
Orgone? More like Orwrong.

Yes

>>40580072 (OP)
Yes it was legit which is why the FDA lied and erased everything Wilhelm did and got rid of all his shit.
>however…..
However Wilhelm failed to fully understand Orgone, sure it could be described as “life force” but libido is just a wrong way to describe it, Orgone is beautifully simple, it’s consciousness thats free floating and without a form/vessel and it can be gathered or influenced.
>Orgone is concentrated in plant life, and plant life all feels and thinks as one unlike us animals.

Yeah these Orgone threads typically don’t last long.

>>40582041
But why?

>>40581448
lethally based

>>40580072 (OP)
It was legit in a sense. But Reich was also a pedo Jew who like Kinsey believed in the concept of infant sexuality. I know this from buying and reading his works. You can read "invasion of compulsory sex morality" his book, if you require proof.

>>40584977

>>40584989

>>40584977
And he's right

>>40586395
Was Kinsey also right when he experimented on infants to see how many orgasms they could have in a 24 hour period you disgusting long nose?

>>40588454
I want to see these studies.
How did he determine if an orgasm was experienced?

>>40584977
>But Reich was also a pedo Jew who like Kinsey believed in the concept of infant sexuality.
Pankseppian instincts are universal across mammals, lust is one of them. If you think children don't experience it in some form you're embodying the type of thought that justified Reich's attempted revival of instincts (like lust) in the cultural consciousness. Sexuality doesn't just fall on our heads when we hit puberty, we establish the baseline for what will become a healthy sexuality through childhood expressions of that lust instinct.

This doesn't mean diddle kids, it just means keep your emotional hangups about being an incel (or a tranny) to yourself and let kids grow up themselves.

>>40588555
You want to read about a jew using pedophiles to rape babaies and making up pseudoscience about it? Well, its out there. I dont have a link or document but im sure if you look hard enough you can find it. Heres a paper i found doin a quick google search: The previous chapter concentrated on the work of one author, Alfred Kinsey, and his view of ‘children’s sexuality’, a view based not on children’s experiences of their sexuality but on adults’ experiences of their sexual interactions with children, using the one criterion which Kinsey found important and to which everything else became subservient: the orgasm. Kinsey wished to argue that children have a sexuality which is not harmed by being used for adult gratification, and thus he saw adults ‘manipulating’ children to orgasm as synonymous with children’s own authentic and autonomous sexuality. His views on childhood sexuality have continued to shape understandings of paedophilia and child sexual abuse up to the present day. In particular, Kinsey articulated a view of sex in which the only ‘abnormal’ sex is no sex and therefore, by extension, paedophilia does not exist as a pathology or even as a separate concept. Children — like animals, adults or wet dreams — are simply another ‘sexual outlet’ which may be used for orgasm. Kinsey also argued persuasively that ‘sex offenders’ do not exist and so should not be criminalized. Neither of his two encyclopaedic books on human sexuality deals with the reality of rape and nowhere is the concept of non-consensual sex addressed. According to Kinsey, therefore, it would be absurd to prosecute anyone for such an offence as ‘paedophilia’ or ‘child sexual abuse’, and indeed, his work has been used to argue for leniency and, more fundamentally, to revise legislation to make it less vigorous in prosecuting sexual offences. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230306745_5

>>40588555
Im not familiar with the term Pankseppian. However yoi seem to be arguing in bad faith, i never said sexuality just comes out of nowhere at ounerty. But claiming newborns and infants can “orgasm” is clearly some pedo jew shit. Psychology is jewish in origin and is in a lot of cases pseudoscience. Clearly there is a difference from a developed hormonal and glandular body of a teenager or adult vs an infant.

You asked how Kinsey documented the orgasm in infants? By their screaming and crying:

to be fair, there's plenty of evidence of Kinsey being a spook sponsored pedophile, there's no evidence that I'm aware of that Reich was a pedophile or even a pervert

>>40588622
>Im not familiar with the term Pankseppian.
Jaak Panksep was keen to find the space between genetic impulse and psychological conduct. He boiled things down to 7 instincts that are common across mammals: SEEKING, FEAR, RAGE, LUST, CARE, PANIC/GRIEF, and PLAY. The claim is that basically complex psychological systems are rooted in these biological instincts to some effect.

>I never said sexuality just comes out of nowhere at puberty. But claiming newborns and infants can “orgasm” is clearly some pedo jew shit.
Fair, I was jumping ahead. Victorian era society was highly suppressed, largely due to Christian moralism. The issue with suppressing innate instincts is that they'll manifest (sometimes explosively; Carl Jung talked about premonitions for a coming world war). What you are defining as "pedo Jew shit" is the product of a scientific method detached from the human condition looking back at sexuality (from a messed up, hyper-suppressed perspective) and aiming to figure out how it all works. Did creepy pedos use this research to normalize child rape? Yes, that happened in Germany I believe with Reich's research, and the "test cases" did very poorly or murdered their abusers. Does this mean that we can ignore that this instinct is baked into our genome? No, to do so would simply re-establish the fucked up perspectives that made renting orphans out to pedos seem like a good idea at the time. What I'm saying is this: all mammals (including humans) have a lust instinct. This lust instinct manifests in children non-sexually, Freud recognized it as oral fixation. The usage of the term "orgasm" was his way of signalling a biological drive that superceded "common sense" and was transcendent.

(1/2)

>>40588622
>Psychology is jewish in origin and is in a lot of cases pseudoscience.
So just because Jews got to it first it shouldn't exist for anybody? That's a pretty Jewish take, fren. I didn't come here to defend psychology really, but I'll say that the failures of psychology are derived from a too-strong adherence to the scientific method which is materialist in nature. Science doesn't have an explanation for consciousness, yet we all recognize that we are conscious. It comes off as a pseudoscience because it makes claims upon an immaterial realm that we're all largely bound by. Since it fails to do so, people like yourself decry it as evil, but I'm sure you're fine with religions making such claims. Well YOUR religion. Anyone else's religion can go fuck itself, right?

>Clearly there is a difference from a developed hormonal and glandular body of a teenager or adult vs an infant.
Yes, each person starts life as a mind slowly reaching out and forming identity. Panksep determined that certain instinctive expressions are common across mammals, and they dovetail nicely with the emotional drives we recognize in our daily dramas. Children establish the foundations for their adult selves by exploring these instincts directly, and they establish their foundations for societal involvement by how their explorations are judged by parents and peers. When you have a highly suppressive society (Victorian era), you'll get a lot of weird ideas around the instinct suppressed (sexuality) that can become a problem (pedo Jew shit) unless someone steps in to figure out what's going on (Reich, Freud).

If not for the efforts of Freud to shed light on this aspect of humanity, we might be in a situation where child abuse was so ever present as to be seen as normal, as we see in degenerate Muslim cultures like from Afghanistan with Bacha Bazi, or even ancient Greece.

>>40588600
Not ignoring your post, just wrapping up the previous response.
>Kinsey wished to argue that children have a sexuality which is not harmed by being used for adult gratification, and thus he saw adults ‘manipulating’ children to orgasm as synonymous with children’s own authentic and autonomous sexuality.
Yeah, Kinsey's take is a bad one, and you don't need to be a psychologist to understand why. Humanity has a long history of coming of age rituals to become a man or transition from girl to woman. Marriage, union between two people, was meant to be the psycho-spiritual transition into sexuality for men (at least). However, it's a cultural thing meant to harness an instinct, so science types looking to advance their regard and repertoire seek to explore the instinct (an ephemeral and previously only really addressed through religious or spiritual lenses) without cultural influence, thinking that their model of it will liberate humanity in some sense, like a work of art liberates the preconceived notions of its viewers. Kinsey took adult sexuality as the baseline for what human sexuality is and therefore assumed it to be good. His Kinsey scale implies this, because it focuses basically on what gets people hard, but says nothing for how people value their 'hardness'. Being sexually attracted to a child should fill a person with disgust in the same way that eating shit would, but because Kinsey found people who got hard over children, he approached it as a healthy (honest) expression of lust and didn't bother investigating their psyches for profound abuse trauma in their histories.

This is why actual science should be conducted slowly. If Kinsey was right, he could have spent decades researching stories of burgeoning sexual development to prove his case. Instead, he zipped right to the end, said he'd figured out sexuality, and inserted his maladaptive approach to sexual expression into the field of psychology.

>>40580072 (OP)
The moron didn't make it a religion, so he was screwed by the government!!

>>40589097
>>40589194
>>40589304
Just wanted to reply to a few points. My problem is not with psychology as a whole, or Jews specifically. However I do believe in race as a biological factor, so the modern, mainly "leftist" attempt of Fruedian descended psychology to ignore the "soul" or blood memory of a people in terms of understanding the makeup of our brains snd minds is something I take issue with. I agree that overly suppressive upbringing can lead to neuroses, and I think a lot of Reich work was pretty interesting. Whole I feel he *may* have had a totally different take, the wording of his ideas on infant sexuality and orgasm are just too close to Kinsey's ideas for my liking. We may disagree on quite a few points but thanks for the thoughtful replies and civil discussion, which can be rare on here. Also while Reich and Freud and Kinsey were certainly secular Jews, I think it's worth noting that the Talmud says sex with children as young as 3 is ok. I'm certainly not arguing that all Jews are pedophiles, but I do think some of these tendencies to manifest this way of thinking as seen in Freud (oedipal complex, oral fixation, etc), Kinsey and Reich, even if they go about it in slightly different ways, may possibly be tied to some kind of genetic memory of characteristic of certain groups of people.