Customize

Professor James R. Lewis on Heber Jentzsch and the Freezone

Discussion in 'Independent Scientology' started by The Wrong Guy, Jun 8, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member

    I'll just leave this here. It exposes Lewis for the faketard he is: http://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/skent/Linkedfiles/When Scholars Know Sin .htm
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Anonymous Member

  3. Anonymous Member

    ^^^ QFT.
    • Like Like x 3
  4. Anonymous Member

    Not quite. There was a breakaway group made up of most members from the main centre. Just recently they have gone official and set up an organisation, no doubt chasing the tax exempt status to leverage as "proof" that it is a religion.


    I can't be arsed listening to Lewis' lecture to them . . . for anyone who has, does he make mention at all of the need to formalise structure and so on?
  5. Anonymous Member

  6. Anonymous Member


    Huh? I make the observation regularly and I aint in no steeenking cult.

    Its quite simple, really. Unless a person is doing their Scientology as a member of the formal organisation, they are squirrels. Its scripture. If the Hubtard were alive today, the Independents would be hunted down and destroyed, one by one. Is promoting this fact of assistance to the cult? Can't see how in that it reflects the Hubtards application of unacceptable policies and the fact that he was anything but "mankinds greatest friend"

    Anyhow, just saying. You've got me thinking now. As you were.

    /derail.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Anonymous Member

    Not in the portion that has been released. But that isn't the entire lecture.
  8. Anonymous Member

    JR Lewis is still a wanker.
    • Like Like x 3
  9. Anonymous Member

    Broken record here -- but Lewis and his ilk are so far from "scholars," it's ridiculous. They're just more con artists.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Random guy Member

    Sure, you and i know that, but from a social science POV, no religion is more or less true that the next. If Lewis decide he want to do a study on the "religious experience" of being an indie clam, then it will be very, very difficult for scholars, any scholars, to tout the cult party line without showing serious lack of knowledge of the field. Sooner or later, even the insiders will hear there are more scientology to be found, but outside.

    Now, this may sound like I'm all wishy woshy about indies, but my reason for applauding this development is that it we have seen the indie groups splinter and dissolve once outside the cults mind control. A big, thriving indie field will help the cult get drained of cultist faster.

    Sorry, won't happen again Sir/Mam!
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Anonymous Member

    If it was truly about the theology of NRM groups then it would be fine (and the ‘true’ comment made above would make sense), but they rarely ever stay within this confine. It just baffles me how any ‘scholar’ can look at a series of theological claims and make any sort of pronouncement like those Lewis has done regarding the ‘group’ being legit or apostates being bitter.
  12. Ok, so there are 30 members of the "freezone" breakaway group in Dror, - Haifa, Israel.
    That is not very many, and I don't see it becoming particularly popular in the country I also noticed that the folks at the presentation seemed to think of themselves as following more of a philosophy as opposed to a religion. I cannot help but think that if, assuming that they are Jewish, that if they knew about LRH's dogma which sounds reflective of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", that they would no longer be interested in following his teachings, and instead defer to the many brilliant sources of inspiration found from a variety of different sources which are more intelligent and enlightened.

    How many members are there of the formal Scientology org are in Israel currently?
    Anybody know? A long time ago, when some documentaries were made, there was an org in Tel Aviv, and they had recruited a popular singer from the Israeli entertainment industry.

    Also, I am curious about the background of Lewis.
    From his Wikipedia page, if i understood correctly, he was part of a group when he was younger called 3HO, a different sect started by a dude from India who called himself Yogi Bajan. He incorporated Sikh beliefs with Kundalini Yoga. Perhaps he got involved in it in his early 20's - not sure.
    Yogi Bajan was culty leader guy who was notorious for taking advantage of female followers, as well as amassing a fortune from his enterprise.

    The wikipedia page also said that at one point, Lewis started his own group.
    I would be interested to know what sort of group it was.
    Apparently, he has personal experience with "alternative new age" groups, which is why he may be more open minded to exploring other alternative belief systems.
  13. I watched the video when it was first posted, and what Lewis seemed to say was that it would be more beneficial for SCN to allow people to come and go freely, without the "regging", punitive disconnection and fair game, and to perhaps be less dogmatic.

    He made mention of Hari Krishnas for example, who were devout to their group, who then went through a phase of disenchantment for a period of time - years even - , but who returned because they felt that they would be accepted or welcomed back into the group when they chose to return.
    (I am assuming however, that if one were to research a site like Rick Ross, the Hari Krishnas probably have their own version of strict dogma which might contradict the above statement)
  14. Anonymous Member

    When he mentions the letter Hubbard wrote in 1953 about the "Religion Angle" he was encouraged to not look at Hubbard as a scam artist..
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Random guy Member

    To people like Lewis, the interest is in the subjective experience of belonging to a group. Perhaps he ultimatly seeks to understand his own involvement with the Sikh 3HO cult and the small breakaway group he formed. Considering hos interest, the theology itself is of secondary interest, "truth" or "not truth" (or in this case "standard" or "squirrel") is rather irrelevant. The "squirrel" bollocks from Hubbard is really not relevant to anything, except as a control mechanism within the cult.

    He won't. To him they are just another example of the dynamics of a break-away group. The thing is, to the NRM researchers, what constitute a "religion" is really not important. They are perfectly fine with calling obvious bonkers stuff like Hubbard's drivel "a religion", a fact the cult has exploited to the maximum.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Random guy Member

    The great thing about Wikipedia is that it has links to all sorts of interesting stuff. Here's Lewis' own accord of his break with the 3HO group, including his experience of quite a few factors we as clam watchers will recognise as cult control mechanisms, and his own little short lived splinter group:

    http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/2010/articles/lewis_2010.pdf

    I strongly suggest reading the whole thing (at least brows through it), because it gives some interesting insight into the kind of topics that are interesting in NRM studies and some ideas of what make a cultist wake up. Personally, I found I felt a bit more sympathy for Lewis after reading it, I'm not sure if he has yet understood he let himself be screwed over by a quite skilled psychopath back in his youth.
    • Like Like x 2
  17. DeathHamster Member

    I wouldn't call it open minded. He seems to have definitely made sponsorship deals with the Church Universal and Triumphant to write slanted happy material. He had to realize that was stepping over the line.

    See all the links in the 2nd post in the thread.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Random guy Member

    Quite.

    Not to mention his paid and bought defence of Aum Shinrikyo, see: http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/14563/1/nr.2000.3.2.pdf
  19. Anonymous Member

    So who exactly is financing JR Lewis now? Marty?

    JR Lewis has long history of writing glowing crap about cults, after getting paid to write glowing crap.

    Whore.
  20. Anonymous Member

    There is claims made on the related ESMB thread that he edits his own WP page amongst other things not mentioned here.
  21. DeathHamster Member

    It has been said here, and a view of the article's history as well as the Talk page will prove that. I don't know if he's edited it recently--he was warned in the Talk page. However, there are plenty of pro-cult editors who protect their pet academics from any critical additions.
  22. Anonymous Member


    As Kent was checking his page proofs, the publication's editors informed him that an attorney representing The Family, a Family spokesperson, and an American researcher all had sent letters objecting to the publication of his article (which the objectors had not read). The lawyer and The Family representative made vague overtures about a lawsuit. The American researcher, Mr. James R. Lewis, alleged "questionable" aspects of Kent 's research on Berg, and also accused him of "violat[ing] professional ethics" (in Mobilio, 1994, 17). Remarkably, after alleging ethical problems with Kent 's study, Lewis misrepresented his own credentials by identifying himself as "James R. Lewis, Ph. D.," even though he never completed the doctorate at the University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill . Indeed, at least three controversial religions and a professional colleague though that Lewis had his doctorate (Church of Scientology International, [1994/1995?], [3], 67, 68; Church of Scientology International, 1995a [3], 33, 35; Cult Awareness Network, [1996/1997]; Royal Teton Ranch News, 1994, 8; Scott vs. Ross, et. al. 1995a, 134).

    [...]

    At the same time that Lewis intervened in Kent 's publication process in early March, 1993, he and various academics associated with his organization, the Association for World Academics for Religious Education (AWARE) were engaged in producing a publication to help The Family cultivate a positive public image

    [...]

    Lewis described his published scholarship as "undermin[ing] the notion that nontraditional religions exercised extraordinary forms of influence" over its members and, hence, he categorically rejected the idea that CUT "brainwashed its adherents" (Lewis and Melton, 1994a, viii). Challenging, however, to Lewis's rejection of the idea that controversial religious groups exercise extraordinary influence over their members is trial evidence, which revealed aspects of CUT's coercive controls over its members ([CUT] v. Gregory Mull, 1981, 5; [CUT] and Elizabeth Clare Prophet v. Linda Witt, 1998, 23; Balch and Langdon, 1998, 199). Throughout the investigation, however, both Balch and Langdon "observed and experienced subtle pressures not to raise critical questions about either [CUT] or the study itself" (Balch and Langdon, 1998, 203). After Langdon "continued to raise questions about issues that were not being investigated, some members of the research team (ironically) began to question his objectivity" (Balch and Langdon, 1998, 204).

    [...]

    As expected, therefore, CUT used the results from Lewis and Melton's superficial study in an attempt to gain legitimacy within the community and among its members. Following publication of Church Universal and Triumphant: In Scholarly Perspective that Lewis and Melton coedited in 1994, CUT's newsletter, Royal Teton Ranch News, carried a front page headline that proclaimed, "Study Debunks Anti-Church Myths." Headlines on following pages sound equally victorious: "Reality Wins Over Perception: Church is Entering Mainstream" (1994, 2); and "Moving Beyond Stereotypes" (1994, 8). In an interview in the same issue, Lewis stated his hope that the AWARE study "will be a paradigm for future studies" (Royal Teton Ranch News, 1994, 8). None of the articles in the newsletter mentioned that Lewis ran the independent publishing firm (Center for Academic Publication) that produced the study -- the same press that published The Family study.

    [...]

    both Shupe and Lewis were to publish articles against CAN (Shupe, 1994/1995?); in Scientology's Freedom magazine

    [...]
  23. Anonymous Member

    500x_trainwreck.jpg

    I'm thinking that Lewis and the Indies kind of deserve each other.
    • Like Like x 4
  24. DeathHamster Member

    I wonder if he ever noticed when Heber was slinging bull about Scientology's position on Christianity? (page 2):
    • Like Like x 1
  25. I think Lewis will work for whomever pays him. Right now, corporate Scientology doesn't want his services - that is, unless he's secretly working for them in some way.

    The shady New Religious Movement studies category of academia came about, during the 1970s, largely due to the actions of Scientology's Guardians Office working with a few other key cults.

    "Scholars" for hire.
  26. DeathHamster Member

    Heber's "the threefold path of Christ" doesn't seem to match the Christian gnostic/mystic version. Is that from his Mormon fundy background or was he improvising?
    • Like Like x 1
  27. CarterUSP Member

    Sounds like improv. Dude didn't know what he was talking about, usual scilon attempt at a shore story.
  28. Random guy Member

    I don't think he would get through with that bullox today.

    Thanks Internet!

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins