Chapter V hereof.

5 See The Thomson Masonic Fraud, pp. 117, 122, 193 and 208. 274
we wes C OST CRUCITAN |FRAUD
right and authority to organize Blue Lodges and confer the Craft degrees. Later, he abandoned most of these claims and asserted this right under an endorsement on one of his many spurious char- ters made J. N. Cheri, Grand Commander of the Supreme Council of Louisiana,°® the origin of which he traced back to France, thence to Scotland. Finally, when forced to abandon that and all other claims, he rested his entire claim to the Craft degrees under the Rites of Memphis and Mizraim through the spurious Grand Council of Rites of Scotland.
Peter J. Wilkie, Esq., an attorney, of Sacramento, California, ‘who had been one of Thomson’s high officials in California, but who had questioned Thomson’s authority and had been expelled, testified, among other things, that he had seen the denial over the signature of the head of the Supreme Council: of Louisiana, of Thomson’s authority to do any of the things which he claimed to have the right to do from Louisiana. Continuing his testimony (quoting from the transcript), he said:
“T asked Mr. Thomson if there was any truth in such a statement. I can give you his words as he gave them to me. ‘Brother Wilkie, I never claimed to have any author- ity from Louisiana.’
“The Court: From what?
‘‘A. Louisiana.
“OQ. Mr. Morris: What then occurred?
‘A. I asked him from whence he received his author- ity. He replied that he had received his authority from the Rite of Mizraim and Memphis through the Grand Council of Rites of Scotland.
“Q. Mr. Wilkie, what degrees were you talking about ?
A. We were talking about the fundamental degree of the organization, the Craft degrees. There are no other degrees to be considered. If you are not a Mason of the Craft degrees, the higher degrees amount to nothing, so far as you are concerned.”’”
6 See The Thomson Masonic Fraud, pp. 12, 53, 73, 78, 127, 134, 137, 141, 156, 165, 170, 183 and 189.
7See The Thomson Masonic Fraud, p. 159; see also testimony of Francis J. Blust,
2
AN ANSWER LO LEWIS") WHITES (7) SOC as
Thomson admitted all of this to be true, but insisted that he possessed the right to confer the Craft and all other degrees under the Rites of Memphis and Mizraim through the Grand Council of the Rites of Scotland. However, on this last and final stand under the Rites of Memphis and Mizraim, through his self- constituted Supreme Council of Rites, he was convicted of fra- ternal swindling and fraudulent use of the mail, and sentenced to pay a fine of $5,000 and to serve two years in prison. Thus ended the Thomson Masonic Fraud of twenty years’ duration.
And, Mr. Lewis, his successor in fraternal swindling, now oper-. ating his Masonic-Rosicrucian fraud in its twenty-first year, having been driven from one spurious claim of authority to another and many others and having made many conflicting claims and set up many fraudulent devices, has been forced to set up his final fraudu- lent device: the spurious International Masonic Congress of Brus- sels, 1934, and his bogus International R. C. Council—the Fuposi*—and to center his claim to Rosicrucian authority in the Masonic Rites of Memphis and Mizraim, just as Thomson did in his last and final stand.
It is remarkable how the characters and genius of these two men—their ways, plans, claims, methods and mode of operating their respective fraternal swindles and frauds, with perfect verity, run in deadly parallels.
The Government Set a Precedent
In the Thomson case, after seven years of intensive investiga- tion, the Federal Government :vigorously prosecuted and convicted a fraternal racketeer of traficking in the noblest impulses of man- kind and of swindling his fellow-men in the name of and under the guise of Brotherly Love. It established a precedent and dem- onstrated that a fraternal swindle and mystic fraud is just as insidious and equally as bad and harmful as any and all other swindles and frauds.
In sentencing Thomson and his associates, Federal Judge Wade said, in part:
to the same effect, pp. 172 to 176. 8 See Part IV this chapter and Chapter Five, this volume.
276
eevee Caak OSTCRUCEAN FRAUD
‘Well, nobody can hear this evidence in this case with- out being convinced, absolutely convinced, that this thing has been a fraudulent scheme from the beginning. I can see where an ignorant person might find some possible excuse for the methods employed in this case, but for intelligent people and experienced people to try to con- vince this court that this organization and this plan and this work that had been going on, is on the square—it can’t be done. ... This court hasn’t really any power to impose a penalty here which would be adequate punish- ment for this thing that has been going on.’”®
The Lewis-AMORC Scheme
The Federal Government is aware of the AMORC scheme as operated by H. Spencer Lewis and his son, as a family enterprise and fraternal racket. In 1931, a former member of AMORC filed a complaint with the Chief Inspector of the Post Office De- partment, charging the Lewises with the fraudulent use of the mails. Mr. Lewis dispatched his attorney posthaste to Washing- ton. Apparently, his legal staff succeeded in convincing the Post Office Department that AMORC is a voluntary fraternal organi- zation; that it should not be scrutinized too closely and that they should be allowed considerable latitude in the operation thereof —simply because they were operating their racket under the prima facie guise of fraternalism. At any rate, no corrective action was taken."
In 1933 and 1934, the Internal Revenue Bureau of the Treasury Department made an investigation and audit of Lewis’ fraternal enterprise and merchandising business.” The Special Investigator found that it was not a fraternal organization within the meaning of the Revenue Act, and so reported. Mr. Lewis employed one of the best and most expert firms of attorneys in Washington practicing before governmental departments to represent him before the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, which, of course, was entirely proper. They succeeded in convincing the Commis-
9See The Thomson Masonic Fraud, p. 241. 1See page 41 of.this volume. 2See Chapter Six of this volume.
2
AN ANSWER TO*LEWIS (WHITE) Book
sioner that AMORC was a fraternal organization and that it would come within the Act after certain changes had been made in its by-laws and a certain system of bookkeeping and accounting was installed; whereupon the Commissioner issued his certificate of exemption from the payment of Federal Income Taxes.
In 1935 and the early part of 1936, the Federal Trade Com- mission caused to be made a thorough investigation of Mr. Lewis’ operations by competent investigators. The voluminous report, accompanied by many documents and much evidence, made to the Commission, evidently was adverse to Mr. Lewis, since he made a hurried trip to Washington to attend, so he says,* a banquet tendered him by a Federal Judge; however, while in Washington, at that time, he again employed the aforesaid firm of attorneys, who had successfully represented him before the Commission of Internal Revenue, to represent him before the Federal Trade Commission.
These clever, ingenious and able lawyers succeeded in convincing the Commissioners, or some of them, or perhaps some of the ofh- cials of the Commission, that AMORC, as operated by Lewis, is a secret fraternal association and should not be investigated, that if the Commission did so it would have to assume the burden of investigating all fraternal associations and secret societies. Accord- ingly, the investigation was discontinued—at least temporarily.
It does seem, however, in view of the well-considered precedent established in the Thomson case, that the argument of counsel was fallacious and the action of the Commission ill-advised. It is not necessary that all fraternal or religious institutions and secret societies be investigated. Such institutions, as a rule, are open and above-board, free from fraud and without mercenary contamina- tion. But when many members of a concern, purporting to be a fraternal or secret order, complain that they have been misled, even defrauded; that it is being conducted as a family racket, and that it is not what it purports to be, then it should be investigated.
It must be conceded that it is within the range of possibilities that a fraud and swindle may be perpetrated in connection with a fraternal organization or under cover of fraternalism. Indeed,
3 So he testified at the trial of the case of Roy W. and A. E. Smith vs. Supreme Grand Lodge of AMORC et al. in the Federal District Court at San Francisco in Feb- ruary, 1936.
278
——
eves NIGC2kOsTOCRU.CTAN FRAUD
some of the worst swindles and most damnable frauds have been so committed. They are odious to a greater degree and far more pernicious than ordinary swindles which rob men of purse and property, because perpetrators of such frauds traffic in the high inspirations and noblest impulses of men, and rob them of their ideals as well as of their money.
There are some things more precious than property and above the purchasing power of the almighty dollar. Religious, fraternal and secret societies have been instituted by men to foster and pro- tect those precious things for which men are willing to part with their money, that they may have, hold and enjoy them.
This being true, daring and unscrupulous promoters, now and then, invade the sacred precincts of these fraternal shrines, by racketeering in brotherly love and under the fairest pretensions commit the meanest frauds and perpetrate the worst swindles. That is exactly what H. Spencer Lewis, the most daring of frater- nal racketeers, has done. For twenty years he has been operating, and now is operating, a fraternal swindle of the first magnitude, in the name of a holy order under the fairest pretensions and the cleverest of fraudulent devices. |
The time has come, and now is, when our high governmental officials should take due notice of these facts, and action that is meet and proper, to the end that our people be protected against his malignant type of racketeering and this detestable species of “benevolent”? fraud, and also to the end that heartless fraternal swindlers may receive their just punishment.
With the purchased aid of able, clever and ingenious lawyers and his own super-cunning and unscrupulous stratagems, he may, as he has been doing, postpone the ultimate and inevitable day of reckoning and retribution; however, when the whole truth is known and fully appraised—and justice is done, as it shall be done—and the complete history of his extraordinary fraud and unique swindle shall have been written, it will be puzzling to know just what place and rank shall be assigned to Lewis, among the Masonic and Rosicrucian impostors of the past. Will that captivating company of charlatans, who, in different ages, have sported with credulity and follies of men and women, be offended or jealous at the thought of having Lewis added to their number? He has outdone them all! Some of them were Masonic pretenders, others were Rosicrucian
21D
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS’ WHITE (?) BOOK “D®
impostors, but Lewis, with a genius excelling them all, has com- bined the two into one gaudy, alluring, fraternal, mystic, occult, Masonic and Rosicrucian swindle. The plausible lies of his cun- ning, entertaining propaganda about the marvelous Primitive Egyp- tian Masonic Rites and the Ancient Mystic Rosicrucian teachings which he alone—of the many who sought the august privilege— has been permitted to bring to this fair land for the gratification, well-being and glorification of our people, have fascinated a con- tinent for the past twenty years. These weird tales of this Masonic- Rosicrucian mountebank, embellished with the glaring plausibility of truth, but dashed and brewed with lies, have pleased the credu- lous, exploited the gullible, puzzled the wise, and filled the coffers of the Lewis Hierarchy of Fraud with filthy lucre taken from the unwary by the deft hand of a clever and pious pseudo-mystic, but none the less a detestable and damnable fraternal racketeer.
280
Sees ONTC=ROsSTCRUCLILAN »-FRAUD
TRANSLATION OF “IMPORTANT ROSICRUCIAN DOCUMENT No. 4,” SHOWN ON THE OPEOSLE Ee PAGE
THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM IS LOVE OF GOD
: ORDER OF ORIENTAL TEMPLARS
Hermetic Brotherhood of Light THE SOVEREIGN SANCTUARY AND ITS LAWS
Ancient and Primitive Freemasonic Rites of Memphis and Mizraim
(By authority of the Great Orient of Gaul, from the Charter dated July 21, 1862, N. 28911, and by authority of the Sovereign Sanctuary of Britain and Ireland by Charter dated September 24, 1902, A.D.) .
The Great Orient of the Ancient and Accepted Masonic and Scottish Rites of 33 Degrees ‘GREETINGS!
To whom it may concern:
WE, Albert Carol Theodor PEREGRINUS, Sovereign Directing Magus of the Egyptian Rite of primitive Masons of Memphis and Mizraim of 95 degrees, and the Grand Master General of Free Masons of the ancient and accepted Scottish Rite of 33 degrees; and the Caput and Frater Superior, and the Vicarius Salomanis of the
ORDER OF ORIENTAL TEMPLARS,
by virtue of the authority vested in us by the most venerable brothers, grant H. Spencer Lewis 33°, 90°, 95°, VII°, O. T. O., to be an Honorary Member of our Sovereign Sanctuary for Switzerland, Germany and Austria, [permission for instituting a Lodge] and to represent our Sovereign Sanctuary [of the secret knowledge of Our Order of Masons, to be called] as Gage of Amity near the [im] Supreme Council of the AMORC at [and for the purpose of conducting all the classifications or degrees from the first up to the] San Francisco, California, classification or degree of the ancient Masonic Art and of the Egyptian Rite of Primitive Masons of Memphis and Mizraim of 95 degrees, and of the ancient and accepted Rite of Scottish Masons, in accordance ° with the laws and ritual instituted by us and accepted by the Order of Oriental ‘Templars.
If the Constitution of the Order of Oriental Templars, dated January 22, 1906, 1917, A.D., is violated or neglected, this permission and foregoing diploma may be rescinded at any time.
As a document of these things, this diploma is written, sealed and signed by our hand.
Granted in our Sanctuary, p. t. Basilea, on the 30th of July, in the year of
281
AN ANSWER TO ‘LEWIS’ WHILE (:) BOOK 7 Ba
TRANSLATION OF “IMPORTANT ROSICRUCIAN DOCUMENT No. 4,” SHOWN ON THE OPPOSITE PAGE
true light 000,000,000, which corresponds to the year of our order 1303, AD LOZts
(Five SEALS) PEREGRINUS, 33°, 97°, X°, (SEAL) Caput of the Order.
NOTE: That part of the foregoing document within brackets and printed in italics is crossed out or a line drawn through it on the original document in Latin, of which the foregoing is a free translation into English.
eS
FAC-SIMILE REPRODUCTION No. 40
IMPORTANT ROSICRUCIAN DOCUMENTS, No. 4
It was issued by the O. T. O., Read his statements
Lewis claims that this is a Rosicrucian Charter. See
under a Masonic Charter. See Translation on opposite page. about this Charter (?) this volume, pp. 135-136; Volume I, pp. 345 and 381. ‘Text and note carefully how willfully and grossly he has misrepresented it.
TRANSLATION OF “IMPORTANT ROSICRUCIAN DOCUMENT No. 5,” SHOWN ON OPPOSITE PAGE
SOVEREIGN AND MILITARY ORDER
Here is the Standard: ‘The letters of the Motto on the top are: N. N. D. K.-W. 'S. N. “P= Di G.iimstead of fonlys N. N. D., which stands for Non, Nobis Domine—the Motto of Templars.
OF THE TEMPLE
The Grand Bailiff
has the honor to inform Mister
H. SPENCER LEWIS
that the Grand-master conferred on him the title of Bailiff Grand Cross of the Order, title transmissible to his descendants.
This August 10, 1933 (V. E.)
(Signature not clear; only a Masonic Cross is distinguishable.)
MR. LEWIS’ STATEMENT
Let us compare Mr. Lewis’ statement and misrepresentations of this certificate, made under his published fac-simile thereof (shown on opposite page) in December, 1933, with the above translation, as follows:
“The above illustration is a photograph of the document authorized by the Supreme Council of the ‘Sovereign and Military Order of the Temple’ in Europe. This Order of Templars was founded in 1118 in Jerusalem and has had a continuous existence throughout Europe up to the present time with an unbroken list of Grand Masters representing noble and royal families of Europe and the most prominent individuals of every section of the European countries. The above charter was authorized by a vote on the part of the Euro- pean organization conferring upon H. Spencer Lewis the power and authority of ‘Grand Bailli’ of the Order for the United States of America, which is equiva- lent to the title of Grand Master for this country, and also confers upon him the Grand Cross of the organization and the special coat of arms which is painted in color at the bottom of the charter. The coat of arms becomes hereditary with H. Spencer Lewis and his descendants. A later amendment to the charter signed by the same officials, the Grand Chancellor and the Grand Bailli, extended the authority to include Canada and Mexico. It will be noted that the Rosicrucian emblem appears in the special coat of arms and the history of the organization shows its close relationship with the Rosicrucians throughout the past centuries. The above charter authorizes H. Spencer Lewis to confer the honorary degree of Knight of the Temple upon those who distinguish themselves in special serv- ice to the Rosicrucian Order in North America. This is the first honor and power of this kind ever conferred upon an individual of North America.” (Ital- ics are ours.)
It will be observed that the Coat of Arms is very important in his mind and very dear to his heart. Nothing is said in the certificate concerning the Coat of Arms. Could it be possible that it was added and imposed thereon by the artistic and deft hand of an impostor? We dare not say. See text.
284
Pa MASONIC-ROSICRUCIAN: FRAUD
FAC-SIMILE REPRODUCTION No. 41
This is Mr. Lewis’ “ImMporTanT RosicructAN DocuMENT No. 5”—although it has nothing to do with the Rose Cross Order—no more than any of his other “important”
documents. If it is authentic, it was issued by a Masonic organization. See the
translation on the opposite page and his description of this document, also the text, and note his miserable misrepresentations about this unimportant document.
285
FAC-SIMILE REPRODUCTION No. 42 334
1060 tion is known and recognized as the Ancient
100
LS)
Mystical Order Rosae Crucis, and in its abbreviated form is known as AMORC. The North American jurisdiction comprises the United States of America, Canada, Alaska, the insular and territorial possessions of the United States, Central and South America, and other countries and territories.
III.
Plaintiff order is devoted to the perpetua- tion of the scientific, ethical and moral teach- ings, philosophies, and theories of The An- cient Rosicrucian Brotherhood, which came into being in Ancient Egypt, and has con- tinued to date. That for the past centuries the Sovereign Sanctuaries of the Ancient. Rites of Memphis and Mizraim have been and now are the Grand Conservators of the integrity and ideals of the recognized and accredited Rosicrucian Brotherhood through the world. Plaintiff has been in the past and now is the recognized and accredited Su- preme Authority and the representative of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood in the North American jurisdiction, and has and does now maintain fraternal relationship and com- munication with other recognized and ac- credited supreme representatives of the Rosi-
(Continued on Next Page)
fv ONC ROSTCRUCIAN “FRAUD
FAC-SIMILE REPRODUCTION No. 42A 330
1003 crucian Brotherhood of other jurisdictions throughout the world. As such accredited and recognized representative of the Rosi- erucian Brotherhood of the North American jurisdiction, plaintiff is a member of and participates in the convocations and deliber- ations of the World Supreme Council of the recognized and accredited supreme jurisdic- tions of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood. The central office of the World Supreme Council
1004 is now in Vienna, Austria.
On this and the preceding page are fac-simile reproductions of pages 334 and 335 of the Transcript on Appeal of the case of AMORC vs. Smith, showing Paragraph III of the sworn pleading filed by Lewis on July 5, 1933, in that case. Note carefully that he claims that his “brand” of Rosicrucianism—the spurious kind—comes by way of the Masonic Rites of Memphis and Mizraim and that Rosicrucian authority— the kind he possesses—has been conserved for centuries in the Sovereign Sanctuaries of those Rites. Now, remember that he was illegally made an Honorary Member -of the Sovereign Sanctuary of those rites for Switzerland, Germany and Austria by his “Important (!) Rosicrucian (!) Document No. 4.” That after misusing, abusing and debauching those Masonic rites, he held the now infamous clandestine Congress of Brussels, 1934, composed principally of discredited Masons and produced the Fupost, his latest model of International Rosicrucian Council—which recognized his fraternal enterprise as the only Rosicrucian Order in America—and you have the sum and substance of his latest claim—his last stand on his “Rosicrucian” authority. It, in brief, is the foundation and framework of his Masonic-Rosicrucian swindle. See text.
287
2 ¢ ih = 8 = , F f ‘ 7 1 . - a - \ i! : \ ' i : 8 > ' orn a j t cS: 4 y o > “a \ i y + *® 4 — . ! ; « ’ 1 . 4 N = ’ ~ 3 ° i at t rs . 6 * ‘ i \j %. e « « , 2 Y Fe i a : \ _ e \ - y rs ul s X oy .
MASONIC DOCUMENTS MUTILATED Falsified and Manufactured Evidence
We shall now deal with a particularly notorious and base at- tempt made by Mr. Lewis to use deleted, mutilated and falsified Masonic documents as proof to sustain his false claims and gross misrepresentations relating to alleged mythical and non-existent Rosicrucian World Congresses and International R. C. Councils from and through which he claims Rosicrucian authority.
It will be remembered that he has complained bitterly that we have misrepresented the facts and convicted him with “manufac- tured’? evidence, which, of course, carries the tacit admission of guilt, if our statement of facts is true and our evidence genuine. However, after accusing us of misrepresenting the facts and manu- facturing evidence to establish his guilt, he proceeds to do that self- same thing, that is, to delete and mutilate Masonic documents, to falsity them and to falsely represent that they prove that a Rosi- crucian Congress was held in 1908 in Paris and that all his claims - are true. Now, inasmuch as he did that self-same thing, as will presently appear, it seems to us that the necessity for resorting to such methods clearly indicates the falsity of his claims and that the employment of such questionable tactics is an open confession of guilt.
Even Mr. Lewis seems to agree with this statement. At any rate he appears to believe that anyone who resorts to such methods is wholly unworthy of belief. In commenting on “The Value of Tes- timony”’ and in accusing us of manufacturing and presenting false evidence to prove our charges against him, he says:
“Tt is commonly recognized in all courts of law and among persons of good common sense that when a wit- ness resorts to falsehood, falsely manufactured evidence, deliberate deceit, misquotations and the tricky use of un- related elements to produce an artificial 1 impression, he is immediately disqualified as a competent witness or as one to be given any consideration.
‘When it is found in any inquiry that the principal
289
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS’ WHITH) BOOK. ae
witness or the one who is making the charges against an- other has deliberately and knowingly, willfully and ma- liciously falsified in one or two of his statements or pieces of evidence and EXHIBITS, all the rest of his testimony be- comes suspected and unworthy of consideration as truth. If a witness or plaintiff against another person has to re- sort to false, malicious and artificially manufactured evi- dence against.a person to support one or two points in his argument, the whole of his argument must be weak and all of his contentions must be worthless, or there would be no need of augmenting them with untruthful and de- liberately deceptive statements.” *
He who charges others with “manufacturing” evidence should at least be consistent and not resort to such questionable and shady — methods, because consistency is the hallmark of honest enterprise and genuine institutions, whereas inconsistency is often the badge of the spurious. In this particular case it is a badge of fraud. There- fore, by his own standards—or pretended standards—we shall judge him and his handiwork.
International Rosicrucian Councils and W orld Congresses
When he instituted his fabricated fraternal swindle in 1915 un- der a Rosicrucian appellation he claimed that it was ‘“‘sponsored”’ by a Rose Cross Order in France with the approval of the Inter- national Council then alleged to have been located in France.’ Since then he has located and relocated this non-existing so-called World or International R. C. Council in Egypt and all over the map of Europe and has attended—or claimed to have attended— many meetings and sessions thereof, as well as a few world con- gresses of all the great occult and mystical societies, orders and organizations of the Universe. He has returned with glowing ac-
1 White Book D, p. 5. The italics belong to Mr. Lewis. We have printed the word “exhibits” in capitals in the above quotation to direct particular attention to it in view of our discussion of his exhibits and especially his Exhibit No. 6, our Reproduction No. 43, discussed in connection herewith.
2 See Chapter V hereof, dealing with his changing and inconsistent claims of author- ity from various alleged and spurious sources.
290
ParOVING? CLAIMS WITH DELETED: RECORDS
counts of his wonderful accomplishments, picturing himself as the Kingfish of all the great occult and mystical movements across the sea. Much of his alluring, high-pressure, fictitious propaganda has been falsely built around these alleged World Congresses and R. C. International Councils. We have repeatedly exposed this myth and his claims as being utterly and absolutely false.
In a published letter under date of April 5, 1935, Mr. A. Leon
Batchelor, his former Grand Treasurer, said to and of him:
“For several years you and your family have taken trips to Europe with the funds of the order, falsely stat- ing to the members that you were going to Rosicrucian Conventions. There have been no such conventions, and there is no such thing as an ‘International Council.’ ”’
(The italics are ours.)
To these serious charges and exposé he replied, on page 30 of White Book D, under his own misstated and garbled charge Num- ber Two, as follows:
“Clymer says and charges that when AMORC’s
Note Misstatement of cfiicers speak of the Rosicrucian Order and its exist- Real Charges and ence in Europe at the present time and during the Confusion of past centuries, or speak of international conventions Authentic Order and congresses being held in Europe, that the Im- With AMORC, His perator of AMORC is lying and deceiving his mem- Fraternal Racket. bership and that there are no such foreign branches
of the organization active and that there have been no conventions or congresses of Rosicrucians held in Europe or elsewhere.
“The committee has read a mass of evidence in the form of books by Waite, Fra Wittemans and
Our Italics. Castells, another eminent Masonic Historian, in If Such Meetings which books the names, dates and places of active Were Held, Lewis Rosicrucian bodies in various parts of Europe are Did Not Attend. given for the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries
and the names, dates and places of Rosicrucian Con- ventions and Congresses are given. “This evidence was supported by newspaper and This Remarkable magazine reports of such conventions,? which the
’ Here he refers to his “Photo Exhibit No. 6,” our Reproduction No. 43, to be pres- ently discussed.
291
AN ANSWER TO- LEWIS” WHITE > (@) BOOK “D”
Evidence, He Says, committee saw and examined in person; by cable- Fully Disproves gram messages from abroad confirming such con- Our Charges. ventions; by photographs of assembled groups at con-
ventions and congresses and by other indisputable statements made under oath and even signed and sealed by members of the American Council abroad
It Is Truly and by the officers, chief officials of foreign govern- Remarkable! ments who certified the documents. “This, then, proves the falsity of Clymer’s sec- ond charge.”
Tricks of the Trade
These are the ways of charlatans, the methods of pretenders and the artful dodging of tricksters. Here our eminent Imperator, by garbling and misstating the clear-cut charges, makes confusion profound by setting up a false and confused charge, which he an- swers with misrepresented, falsified and deleted documentary evi- dence. Moreover, he convinced his own “voluntary investigating committee” who read a mass of this sort of remarkable evidence by his still more remarkable methods and the tricks of his trade.
Now, we have not said that there are no Rosicrucian Orders in Europe at the present time, nor that there have been no Rosicrucian International Conventions and Congresses held in Europe during the past centuries. We give an account of one of those great Con- vocations, The First World Parliament, in Book One of Volume I of this work. We have also spoken of the authentic Orders of the Rosy Cross existing in Europe today. See particularly pages 151 and 165-166 of this volume. There have been real Rose Cross Convocations held in Europe and elsewhere, some of which have been reported and referred to by writers in books and articles about the Rosicrucians; others have been secret and only known to Rosicru- cian Masters and high initiates. Our charges relate entirely to his false claims concerning the fake International Councils, of which he claims to be a high and honored member, from which he claims his authority; and the bogus World Congress, which he claims to have attended during the past twenty-one or twenty-two years, and of which he boasts of being one of the leading spirits—if not the lead- ing spirit.
Now, Mr. Lewis and his family—the Hierarchy of AMORC—
292
PEOwVeNG CLAIMS WITH -DELETED: RECORDS
although they have made numerous trips to Europe for that alleged purpose at the expense of their member-victims whom they have deceived, yet they have never attended a real Rosicrucian Congress nor has Mr. Lewis ever been a member of an International R. C. Council or attended the meetings of any such council; but he pro- posed to prove that there had been such conventions, not since he fabricated his spurious R. C. Order in 1915, but prior thereto. How? By the “remarkable” evidence set forth in the foregoing statement and by the documents set forth in his ‘“‘Photo Exhibit No. 6,” which we have reproduced herein for the convenience of study and discussion.*
Hard Pressed for Proof
You may wonder how it will help his case to prove that there was a Rosicrucian Congress announced in Germany in 1907 and held in Paris in 1908, which was some seven or eight years before he fabricated and launched his spurious R. C. Order and before he and his family began to make pleasure trips to Europe to attend R. C. Councils and Congresses—and, of course, before he began to write glowing accounts thereof as promotional propaganda to increase the Royal Revenues of his fraternal racket to pay the ex- penses to attend other meetings of the R. C. Council and to attend and promote the Great Congress of Brussels in August, 1934, to create the Fuposi to certify to the Rosicrucian authenticity of his fraternal swindle.
Well, whatever the point or advantage he had in mind, he proved (?) it with the photographs of the deleted and mutilated parts of documents shown in his ‘Exhibit No. 6,” beneath which he made the following false—absolutely and wholly false—statement :
“The upper photo shows an announcement issued in Germany in 1907 inviting members of the ‘Rosicrucian Order’ in all parts of Europe and members of its allied groups, the ‘O. T. O.,’ to participate in a Congress or Convention to form an international alliance. The lower photos show the first and last pages of a mimeographed copy of the report of that Convention concluded in Paris,
4 Our Reproduction No. 43 at the end of this part.
293
AN ANSWER ‘TO LEWIS” WHITES (7) 2BOOKy
June 9, 1908. Note that the report was signed by Papus and Teder, former Supreme Masters of the Martinist Order; Blanchard, the present Supreme Master of the Martinists, and Theodore Reuss, Supreme Magus of the Rosicrucians and O. IT. O. Blanchard was a partici- pant in the ‘Fuposr Congress in 1934, representing the Martinist Order.’
The O. T. O. is not a Rosicrucian Order, but a Masonic Order, as we shall conclusively show in Part Five of this chapter. The an- nouncement shown in the upper photo was not issued to members of the ‘‘Rosicrucian Order” and members of its allied groups, the “O. T. O.,” to participate in a congress to form an international alliance and had nothing to do with the Rosicrucian Order or an R. C. Congress or international alliance. It was a call issued by the O. T. O., a Masonic organization operating under a Masonic Charter, addressed to women, not to hold a convention, but it was and is an invitation extended to women to become Masons and to form a Co-Masonic or Female Masonic organization,® which is anti-Masonic and clandestine Masonry the world over.
The lower photo is not a report or part of a copy of a report of “that” convention called in Germany in 1907 and concluded in Paris, June 9, 1908, as is so plainly intended to be implied. ‘The Congress of Paris was not a Rosicrucian Congress, as is also falsely claimed, but a Masonic Congress,’ as will presently appear.
Mr. Blanchard is not the present Supreme Master of the Mar- tinist Order, of Masonic nature, as we have seen a few pages back.
And Theodore Reuss, although the Supreme Head of the O. T. O., was not the Supreme Magus of the Rosicrucians, as we have seen in our study of his “Important Rosicrucian Document No. 4’® and as shall be conclusively shown’in Part Five of this
chapter.
5 White Book D, p. 22.
6 See our Reproductions Nos. 44 and 44A of the original document in its entirety and our translation of it to follow in the text.
7 See full report of the Congress of Paris, June, 1908, shown in our Reproductions Nos. 45 to 45E, and the translation of the Official Report to follow in the text.
8 See our Reproduction No. 40 and the translation shown only a few pages back.
294,
meOVING CLAIMS WITH DELETED RECORDS
Deleting and Mutilation The Trick of a Desperate Trickster
Let us make a careful examination of the upper document shown in “Exhibit No. 6,” which we have marked ‘‘a” in our Reproduc- tion No. 43. Note carefully that he has mutilated it by making heavy parentheses between the words ‘‘des”’ and ‘‘ames”’ and after the word “Croix” and underlining the words ‘‘ames de la Rose > Croix,’ ostensibly to give emphasis thereto and to leave the im- pression that the document relates to the Rose Cross—an alto- gether false impression—but in reality to delete the letter ‘“‘D”’ from the word “Dames,” thereby making it read: ““ALLIANCE IN- TERNATIONALE DES (AMES DE LA ROSE >K Croix), whereas be- fore he mutilated it by deleting the ‘““D” at the beginning of the word “Dames” it read: “ALLIANCE INTERNATIONALE DES DAMES DE LA ROSE > Crorx.”’ ®
Thus by this cunning, deceptive ruse he made the French word “Dames,” meaning women, appear to be “ames,” which in French would indicate that it had something to do with the “Souls” of the Rose Cross. Was that clever? No—yjust crooked—base crooked- ness. He needed proof—he had none—he was desperate—so he turned the trick and falsified the record with willful intent to de- ceive. Did the Committee discover that before they signed and swore to the report or did Lewis mutilate, delete and falsify the document after he “put it over’? on the Committee? And did he lead the Committee to believe, as he is trying to lead the public and his other members to believe, that because the document has the words “Rose Croix’’ on its face that it relates to Rosicrucian af- fairs as he says in his “Exhibit No. 6” above quoted? The answer —the only answer—to all these questions is obvious. It was a petty trick of a rank pretender—the act of a desperate promoter; just another of the many badges of fraud of his fraudulent scheme and fraternal racket.
Gross Misrepresentation
The original document was issued in French, then translated and issued in German. The mutilated heading reproduced by Lewis in
® See our Reproductions Nos. 44 and 44A of the original document.
295
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS” WHITE (7 bOOK Tag.
his “Exhibit No. 6” is the German edition. We have reproduced the original French document. The free translation of this docu- | ment makes doubly clear the gross misrepresentation and base chicanery of Mr. Lewis in connection therewith.
The document translated in its entirety is as follows:
“ORDER ORIENTAL TEMPLARS—O. T. O.
INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THE Lapigs (DAMEs) OF THE ROSE > Croix
“The ALLIANCE INTERNATIONALE of the Ladies (Dames) of the Rose > Croix is an auxiliary organiza- tion of the Universal Federation of the Templars.”
May we pause for a moment to consider this heading and the initial statement? It is clearly indicated that the call is issued by a Masonic organization which is confirmed by the context that fol- lows: The O. T. O.—Order of Oriental Templars, based upon and working under a charter of a Sovereign Sanctuary of the Free- masonic Rites of Memphis and Mizraim—has a degree known as the Rose Croix. This explains the use of the term “‘Rose Croix” appearing therein. It was not the intention of the O. T. O. or Mr. Reuss-Willsson to give the misleading impression that a Rose Cross alliance of the Rosicrucan Orders of the world was to be formed. That was Mr. Lewis’ idea, intended to mislead and de- ceive his followers, and by trickery and base chicanery offered as proof (!) of his own false representations concerning Interna- tional R. C. Councils and Congresses. The real and unmistakable purpose of the O. T. O. was to found an international organization of Female-Masonry or a Co-Masonry under its jurisdiction.
The invitation addressed to women, inviting them to join and form a Co-Masonic organization, continues:
“The Secretary of the Federation is giving the fol- lowing declaration concerning the aim of the organiza- tion:
‘““‘We represent and we aspire to the. realization of the universal reconciliation of the nations without distinction of the races and religions on the basis of an autonomous
296
BEOVING CLAIMS ;-WITH DELETED:> RECORDS
government of all the nations who are politically mature.
‘This constitutes, so to say, our outside politics, and _ we will in this way qualify our fundamental ideas which govern us in our relationship with all the nations.
“Yet we have in mind a certain inside politics aspiring to the leveling of the social differences governing in all the countries. We vote for any social measure which is capable of maintaining the well-being of all the working and industrial classes. We are aspiring to the transfor- mation and the development of the financial and economic conditions, also of the conditions of the production of dif- ferent states and communities, which should be based on directions: broad, tolerant, altruistic, co-operative and in- ternational. With every means possible we are trying to prove in a practical way that only with the help of art in all these branches it would be possible to cure the wounds inflicted by the war [World War, 1914 to 1918]. No matter if it is manifested in the fall of morality, depres- sion of souls or by non-belief in God. The art, providing the conditions are favorable, can cure these physical and moral ailments. Music is especially created to bring man
- back to God. The art is the forerunner and the one who annunciates harmony. The reward of those who believe in God is to be dissolved in harmony, because divinity it- self is eternal harmony. Because God, or the creator of the universe, or the eternal cosmic law, gave to the human world the woman as a symbol of beauty; and as every art has to be beautiful in aim to produce a harmonious result, we consider the woman a symbol of personified art and beauty and as the one who is representing and announc- ing our aim of the reconciliation of the nations; because the reconciliation of the peoples also supposes the har- mony of the souls, which women are particularly capa- ble to invoke through the art in these different branches and to stimulate like a flame and thus keep and to pre- serve.
“This is why we first of all invite women of all the countries to join our Order for the realization of the reconciliation of all the peoples. We also invite them to
297
AN ANSWER TO°LEWIS WHILE) 2BOOK is
organize Synods and Lodges of our Order and make an ardent propaganda of the Harmonization of the Nations which still fight and soil themselves with the most un- reasonable rage.
‘Inasmuch as art, in symbolism, is also a way leading to harmony, it has the faculty of tuning sounds common to all in the heart of the most different peoples and to create a link of friendship around them. Therefore, our Order is beginning to initiate its members into the mys- teries and sacred Symbols of the Ancients. It is going to use the form adapted to the above-mentioned aim of the Order; it will give to the women an education adapted so as to make them Apostles of the sacred arts, so that they can at any time and place be active as missionaries of the new message of salvation. I
“Tn all times and with all peoples the ‘Rose Mystique Crucifice’ (Mystery of the Crucified Rose) is the symbol of salvation. This is why all our members must try to be accepted in such communities in which the symbol of the Mystic Rose is active.
“But before they can be admitted in any Esoteric Cen- ter of the Initiates they have to acquire the elementary knowledge of general symbolism, and this by passing through the three first Degrees [Craft Degrees] of Symbolic Masonry. Because the comprehension of any mysticism is based on this knowledge.
“Women from good families who desire to join the Alliance are asked to write to the Administrator of the O. T. O., Mr. Reuss-Willsson, Hon. Prof. of Applied Medical Science in the Sup. School of Paris- (University of France), Castella Postale (‘‘A. Lugano” crossed out and ‘‘Bale”’ written in), Bale. (The following is lined out with a pen: ‘The payments are to be addressed to the Banque de la Suisse Italienne a Lugano.) ‘The Sec- retary of the Order, LaBan de LABAN.
In Memoriam
“The Most Puissant and Most Illustr. Sovereign Grand Master General of the Ancient Primitive Rite of
298
meOVING CLAIMS WITH ‘DELETED RECORDS
Masonry for France, Bro. Charles Henry Detre (Teder), 33°, 97°, X°, our most dearly beloved and co- pounderotour On, 1 O).)*
This call and invitation to the women of all nations of all na- tionalities to join the Co-Masonic Order of the O. T. O. was not issued in Germany in 1907 as a call for the Masonic Congress in Paris ending June 9, 1908, as falsely represented by Mr. Lewis. It was issued in France, where Reuss-Willsson was then residing. It was issued in 1918, after the World War, as indicated by its context and stated objects. At the close is a notice of the death of Charles Henry Detre (Teder), Grand Master of the- Martinist Order and of the Ancient Primitive Masons of France, who died in France in 1918 following the close of the late World War. Therefore, it is quite obvious that it was not issued in Germany in 1907, and it is also as obvious that it was not a call to convene a Rosicrucian Congress in Paris in 1908 to create an International
R. C. Council.
The statements concerning the Fupost, issued by Lewis and his confederates at the Congress of Brussels, 1934, published in La Rose *k Croix, a magazine, and shown in his “Exhibit No. 7,”* on page 23 of White Book D, are strikingly similar to this document. It will be interesting to compare this with the translation of the FuposI statement given in full in Part Four of this chapter. It will leave the impression that Lewis was familiar with the contents of this document issued by the O. T. O. and that his false representa- tions concerning it were not made in innocent ignorance.
Lewis and Co-Masonry
In this connection and supplementing Part One hereof by adding further evidence of his use, misuse and abuse of Masonry—show- ing how he plays ‘“‘hot and cold” with it, yet all the time using it to promote his Masonic-Rosicrucian swindle—we quote an article on Female Masonry written by Lewis and published in The Rosicru- cian Forum in April, 1932—a publication for his members only —warning them against the Co-Masonry. Perhaps he was fearful
10 Translation of our Reproductions Nos. 44 and 44A, to be found at the end of this Part. 1 Shown in our Reproduction No. 48.
299
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS" WHITE (1) BOOK Be
that he might lose some members to the Co-Masonic movement then becoming noticeably active in the United States. The article in its entirety is as follows:
His Members Being Solicited, He Warns Against Female Masonry.
Our Italics.
In This Instance Co-Masonry Conflicts With His Business. Therefore, He Condemns It.
But—In 1934 at the Brussels Congress— It Was Useful to His Business, So He Approved It.
Co-Masonry Has Been Sponsored by
Madam Besant, the O.’T. O. and Approved by H. Spencer Lewis.
Lewis Blows Both
FEMALE MASONRY
“T think it is time for us to sound a note of warn- ing and at the same time answer a question that has been coming to us very frequently and from many parts of the country. Evidently some new form of propaganda is going on, and it is also evident that our members are being solicited in a very definite Way.
“This new propaganda relates to an organization called ‘Co-Masonry’ and is sometimes called ‘Fe- male Masonry.’ The claim is set forth that this or- ganization is older than Rosicrucianism and that it contains all of the teachings and benefits of the Rosi- crucian Order and has a larger membership and other-distinct advantages.
“Now, the truth of the matter is that Co- Masonry is a very modern organization, and I doubt if even the spirit of it or any of the ideas back of it can be traced farther into history than fifty or sev- enty-five years. Certainly, in its present form and as a concrete thing, it belongs to the present generation of men and women.
“So far as we have been able to trace, it appears that Co-Masonry is either a branch of the Theo- sophical movement or one of the mass. pastimes or incidental activities sponsored by or created by Madam Besant? or other leaders of the ‘Theosophi- cal organization. We have not been deeply enough concerned to even attempt to trace its history, al- though we have in our library a blue leather-covered