Book V of Volume I hereof, we stated that he was the originator

and organizer of the O. T. O. without properly limiting or qualify- ing our statements or showing his true relations to and connections with the O. T. O. Our statements should have been limited to the English-speaking Branch of the O. T. O. and explained, which ex- planation we are now pleased to make. Mr. Crowley did orig- inate the English Section of the O. T. O. with its notorious Law of Thelima, i.e., ‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law —Love is the law, love under will,” which was adopted as the law and doctrine of the O. T. O. in 1912, as we have seen, after which the O. T. O. became a new, a reorganized and completely Crowley- ized O. T. O. In this very proper sense Crowley was the originator of the O. T. O. as we know it today, and as it has been since 1912, at which time he organized the British Section, including all coun- tries where English is spoken, under a grant of power or charter from Theodor Reuss, its then supreme head. We also stated that Crowley made announcement of his O. T. O. activities in 1911, which carries the silent accusation that he began his O. T. O. activi- ties before he had proper warrant of authority. This was an error and unjust to Crowley. He did not make announcement of his O. T. O. activities until September, 1912, and not until he had first received due warrant of authority.
Lewis’ Charter (?) From the O. T. O. Was It Signed by Crowley?
In the footnote to his ‘“Exhibit No. 8,’’’ which we have reviewed
* See our Reproduction No. 54.
569
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS’ WHITE (?) BOOK ‘‘D”
in part, he says: ‘The upper photo shows pages of the O. T. O. guide book in English and German, according to the Constitution of 1906,” which turned out to be a mutilated copy of parts of pages 16 and 17 of the O. T. O. Book of the Constitution, issued in 1917. Continuing, Mr. Lewis says: “It was issued by ‘Supreme Magus Peregrinus’ in 1907—four years before Crowley ever heard of the O. T. O., and twelve years before Crowley manufactured his imita- tion O. T. O. The lower reproduction is from a letter on the O. T. O. stationery written by the Supreme Magus ‘Peregrinus,’ who signed one of the AMORC charters. It proves that ‘Pere- grinus’ and Theodor Reuss-Willsson were identical. This also proves that Crowley did not sign the AMORC charter.”
In a footnote on page 31 of his White (?) Book D, referring to his ‘“Exhibit No. 8,” he further says: “This signature is identical with that on the German-Austrian-Switzerland charter granted to Imperator Lewis (our italics) and which Clymer ridiculously or maliciously says was signed by Crowley.”
Well, we did not say that Crowley signed the O. T. O. Honorary Certificate of Membership which Lewis claims is a charter. That is his way of confusing the charges and misrepresenting the facts. We did, however, intimate very strongly that he had something to do with it and that Crowley was and is Lewis’ Secret Chief.
In view of the facts, heretofore shown, briefly stated as follows: that Crowley was granted a charter in 1912 giving him jurisdiction of the O. T. O. in all English-speaking countries; that he had jurisdiction over Lewis in 1921, when Reuss granted the Lewis Honorary Membership Certificate;* that Reuss recognized Crow- ley’s jurisdiction over the U. S. A. and Lewis, residing therein, by issuing said certificate under the personal seal of Crowley;°* that the O. T. O. accepted his Black Magic-Sex teachings in 1912 and has since been under his complete domination; that he succeeded Theo- dor Reuss, who was previously under his domination, upon his death in 1924 as the O. H. O. of the O. T. O.; that Crowley is the only survivor of the high officials of the O. T. O., his organ, The Equi- nox, is the only surviving official organ of the O. T. O., and he is the only high officer active today—hence, he is the Secret Chief of
8 His “Important Document No. 4,” which he fraudulently claims to be a Rosicrucian Charter. See our Reproduction No. 40.
° The third seal from the left. See our Reproduction No. 40.
570
Mote
free OE CHRITTIPAND BLACK SEX-MAGIC
the O. T. O., therefore, it makes little or no practical difference whether Crowley personally signed the Lewis certificate—about which he has boasted so much and completely misrepresented—the effect is the same. Whatever rights and prerogatives Lewis may claim or may actually have in, under or from the O. T. O., he must exercise them under Aleister Crowley, his SECRET CHIEF, hom he admits is a Black Magician.
The Sex Black Magic As It Ils Taught by the O. T. O.
What are these notorious and infamous Black Magic-Sex teach- ings of Aleister Crowley, which were accepted and now taught by the O. T. O.? This question has been answered by Mr. Crowley, who in an article written for general distribution in a circular, under the title of ‘“The Law of Liberty,” gives us a very good idea of these Black Magic-Sex practices. Although the article or tract is written in somewhat mystical language, yet it is sufficiently clear that all may understand the exact nature of these notorious sex practices and these detestable and dangerous teachings. From this article by Aleister Crowley, wr iting under the name Therion, we ong in part, as follows:
The Law of Liberty A Tract of Therion
aes A MAGUS *9° 20) AL At.
iss DABY CHE O. J:0..(ORDO TEMPLI ORIENTIS)
“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
“TI am often asked why I begin my letters in this way. No mat- ter whether I am writing to my lady or to my butcher, always I be- gin with these eleven words. Why, how else should I begin? What other greeting could be so glad? Look, brother, we are free! Re- joice with me, sister. There is no Law beyond Do What Thou Wilt!
“T write this for those who have not read our Sacred Book, the Book of the Law, or for those who, reading it, have somehow failed to understand its perfection. For there are many matters in this Book, and the Glad Tidings are now here, now there, scattered throughout the Book as the Stars are scattered through the field at
571
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS’ WHITE “(7)) BOCK De
night. Rejoice with me, all ye people! At the very head of the Book stands the great charter of our godhead: ‘Every man and every woman is a star.’ Weare all free, all independent, all shining gloriously, each one a radiant world. Is not that good tidings?
“Then comes the first call of the Great Goddess Nuit, Lady of the Starry Heaven, who is also Matter in its deepest metaphysical sense, who is the infinite in whom all we live and move and have our being. Hear her first summons to us men and women: ‘Come forth, O children, under the stars and take your fill of love! I am above you and in you. My ecstasy is in yours. My joy is to see your joy.’ Later she explains the mystery of sorrow: ‘For I am divided for love’s sake, for the chance of union.’
“This is the creation of the world; that the pain of division is as nothing and the joy of dissolution all.’
“Tt is shown later how this can be, how death itself is an ecstasy like love, but more intense, the reunion of the soul with its true self.
“And what are the conditions of this joy and peace and glory? Is ours the gloomy asceticism of the Christian and the Buddhist and the Hindu? Are we walking in eternal fear lest some ‘sin’ should cut us off from ‘grace’? By no means.
“““Be ye goodly, therefore: dress ye all in fine apparel; eat rich foods and drink saveet wines and wines that foam! Also, take your
fill and will of love as ye will when, where and with whom ye will!’ *’ (Our italics.)
This is a classical description in mystical language of the danger- ous and detestable doctrine of free love. After all, a bolder and clearer statement of the doctrine of promiscuous sex abuse and misuse could scarcely be made than to admonish all to “take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where and with whom ye will,” even though it be voluptuously and enticingly described, as follows:
“For hear, how gracious is the Goddess: ‘I give unimaginable joys on earth; certainty, not faith, while in life, upon death; peace unutterable, rest, ecstasy; nor do [| demand aught in sacrifice.
“Ts not this better than the death-in-life of the slaves of the Slave-
Gods as they go oppressed by consciousness of ‘sin,’ wearily seekin ME ) J or simulating wearisome and tedious ‘virtues’?
“With such who have accepted the Law of Thelima have nothing to do. We have heard the Voice of the Star-Goddess: ‘I love you! I yearn to you! Pale or purple, veiled or voluptuous, I, who am all
Siz
Paar Crrr AND BEACK SEX-MAGIC
pleasure and purple and drunkenness of the innermost sense, desire you. Put on the wings and arouse the coiled splendor within you; come unto me!’ And thus she ends:
“Sing the rapturous love song unto me! Burn to me perfumes! Wear to me jewels! Drink to me, for I love you! I love you! I am the blue-lidded daughter of Sunset; I am the naked brilliance of the voluptuous night sky. Tome! To me!’” (Italics are ours.)
And then we are told in conclusion by the Master of the Black Arts of abominable sex practices—by the most notorious of Black Magicians—to:
“Lift yourselves up, my brothers and sisters of the earth! Put be- neath your feet all fears, all qualms, all hesitancies! Lift yourselves up! Come forth, free and joyous, by night and day, to do your will, for ‘there is no law beyond Do What Thou Wilt.’ Lift yourselves up! Walk forth with us in Light and Life and Love and Liberty, taking our pleasures as Kings and Queens in Heaven and on Earth.
“The sun is arisen; the spectre of the ages has been put to flight. “The word of Sin is Restriction,’ or, as it has been otherwise said in this text, “That is Sin, to hold thine holy spirit in!’
“Go on in thy might; and let no man make thee afraid.
“Love is the Law, Love under Will.” (Our italics.)
This is the Black Magic teachings of Crowley as magnificently stated by himself—the sex teachings of the O. T. O. since 1912. Is it any wonder, therefore, when we showed that by reason of his connection with the O. T. O., he was closely associated with Crow- ley and his Black Magic, that Lewis should denounce Mr. Crowley and, with an assumed attitude of injured innocence, indignantly declare: ‘“We have very strongly and definitely condemned all of the sex teachings and other so-called philosophic ideas proclaimed by Mr. Crowley ...and we would expel from AMORC any member that was associated with Crowley and his work’? (Italics ours.) But he did not mean what he said. It is a mere subterfuge—a bom- bastic bluff! He could not mean it. ‘The logical application of his declaration would compel him to expel himself from his own family racket. Because he teaches the self-same Crowley Black Magic-Sex doctrines and practices.
513
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS WHITE (7) BOOK® Da
Lewis Teaches the Black Magic of Sex The Vicious Doctrine: “Do What Thou Wilt”
In his special tenth grade lectures, which he introduced’ as “‘one of the most important messages”’; as being “‘special secret lessons” for the inner circle of the ‘“Tenth Degree,” and as the ultra-secret and heretofore wholly unknown teachings of the “Great White Lodge of Tibet,’’? he deals with a hodgepodge of subjects, teaching many inverse doctrines and much Black Magic.
”
In the fifty-eighth lecture of said tenth grade he deals at some length with the subject of “‘sin.”” On page 3 of said lecture he says:
“Many of our moral laws today, especially in the most civilized lands, are based upon ancient regulations as forbidden things with- out having any evil in them whatsoever. In many lands today it is quite common for male and female to indulge in sex matters quite freely, without restrictions, limitations or marriage rites. In highly civilized lands such habits are sinful, and the courts say they are also illegal in some cases and under certain circumstances. Cohabita- tion between a man and his neighbor’s wife is considered sinful, even though there may be shown to be absolutely no evil in the act so far as injury, destruction, harm or other destructive element is concerned in relation to either man or woman.
“From the mystical point of view, whatever regulation we accept as being worthy of our support and whatever rule we adopt as being a rule for our betterment and our guide in living, that rule and regula- tion we must obey, and the moment we break that regulation we com- mit a sin. In other words, if we establish certain forbidden things in our own lives, then when we do those forbidden things we commit sins. From the Cosmic point of view, the doing of a thing which by common consent is forbidden is the breaking of faith with the Cosmic
Consciousness; and this, while not an evil thing, is a sinful thing.” (Our italics.)
The promiscuous cohabitation of the sexes is very boldly and strongly suggested and we are told that cohabitation between a man and his neighbor’s wife, although it is unlawful and considered
1 This introduction is quoted and printed in full in Chapter Two, this volume, pp. 98 to 104, both inclusive, supra.
2This fake “Great White Lodge of Tibet’ has been discussed fully in Parts One and Four of this chapter, supra.
574
Pore OrCHt rT (AND BLACK, SEX-MAGIC
sinful, there is absolutely no evil in the act, if it be shown that there is no injury, harm or destructive element in the relation to either the man or the woman. His statement concerning these matters may appear to be restricted and qualified, but in the sentence immediately following, he effectively removes all restriction and qualifications by telling his followers that, “whatever regulation we accept as being worthy of our support, and whatever rule we adopt as being a rule for our betterment and our guide in living, that rule and regulation we must obey,” and that, if those self-adopted rules and regulations are broken, then sin is committed. Well, that is a very poor and vicious definition of sin, but it is a most excellent statement of the notorious and dangerous Black Magic doctrine: “Do what thou wilt.’ Adopt your own regulations, but stick to them. Therefore, if according to yourself-made regulations you hold that it is proper to cohabit with your neighbor’s wife, you commit a sin only when you fail to do so—only when you violate your own rules and regulations! The sin consists in failing to do your own will! Mr. Crowley, being a scholar, made a more classic statement of the dangerous and detestable doctrine of free love— but Lewis states it so bluntly plain that all may understand. Real- izing that he has made his teachings very clear, he apologizes for them somewhat in the next paragraph, but tells us that it is the way a “Mystic should live,” as follows:
“T must admit that this doctrine is not one that should be widely promulgated, and I do not believe that the youths or even the adults of our day are all prepared to be taught such a doctrine as this. It borders too much on the very broad, lenient and convenient prin- ciple of ‘Let your conscience be your guide.’ However, among highly educated people and especially those who are mystically trained and who understand the law of Karma, certainly this under- standing of sin and of the doing of evil gives us a more natural code for living than any of the artificial ones that have been established in the past. One thing is certain—-the very counterpart of all the foregoing brings home to us a magnificent illustration of how a mystic should live.” (Our italics.)
)
It is written: ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and it is also said that ‘““Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.’ These are the Christian ethics in the land in which we live, but we suppose that they are entirely too modern for a fraternal racketeer who
$75
AN ANSWER-TO LEWIS’ WHITE (G7. bO0k es
deals in “‘ancient’? wares, modernized after his own fashion to his heart’s content, and to suit his own convenience or caprice. And that is the way a Lewistonian “Mystic” should live!
“Do What Thou Wilt’ As Taught in the O. T.O. and AMORC.
In the eleventh grade, in AMORC-Temple Lecture Number Ten,’ in connection with his strangely ‘“‘mystical”’ teachings concern- ing the “word” and the “inner voice” and in connection with “worldly temptations” and ‘divine urge,’ Mr. Lewis, the holier- than-thou, who has a family racket, that “does not deal with sex problems, sex practices or indulgences under the guise of higher
994
occult teachings,’’* contrary to all his virtuous protestations and
holy indignation—introduces the Crowley Black Magic-Sex teach- ings into the lectures or lessons of the AMORC in the following manner:
“This leads me to a point where J may safely and confidentially comment on one of the ancient Rosicrucian laws which we have refrained from using in any of the lower grades because it is so apt to be misunderstood. That law is this: ‘Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law; love is the law, love under will. The first part of that law is the most significant. “Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law. Now, that does not mean that you can do as you please and that there is no other law except the law that you go through life doing anything and everything that you desire to do. You would see at once that such a principle would not be any law at all. The key to the whole law lies in the word ‘will. To do the things you will to do means to do the things that you have reasoned upon, ex- amined, analyzed and finally agreed upon, with the understanding that you will assume all the responsibility for your act and bear all of the Karma that results therefrom. You see, therefore, that the law is very much like the other one expressed in our teachings, ‘If you dare to do, you will have the power to do. (\ltalics are ours.)
8 At p. 3, near the end and continued on p. 4, see our Reproduction No. 59, which is a slightly reduced fac-simile of p. 3 of Temple Lecture No. 10 of the Eleventh Grade of AMORC, by H. Spencer Lewis, the Imperator thereof.
4 Rosicrucian Manual (AMORC), 1934, p. 4.
576
meres Chl boAND BEACK SEX-MAGIC
Thus the Crowley Black Magic-Sex formula is falsely presented to his members as “‘one of the ancient Rosicrucian laws.” The doc- trine of “Do what thou wilt” is not, it never has been a Rosicrucian law, it is Crowley’s invention. It is contrary to the elementary pre- cepts; the basic teachings and training of a Rosicrucian. To teach such doctrines and vicious sex practices as being Rosicrucian is will- ful fraud. Indeed, all that he has said upon the subject of his despicable and dangerous sex teachings, including his denial thereof, has been and is deliberately false—absolutely false!
He Denies and Denounces His Chief, Yet Teaches Hs Diabolical Doctrines
What shall we say of a pseudo mystic, conducting a fraternal swindle as a family racket, who claims to be a member of the O. T. O., which teaches the Crowley Black Magic of sex; who denies and denounces his Secret Chief of the O. T. O. as an inter- nationally “infamous” and “‘deplorable character known as Crow- ley,” and who “‘very definitely” condemns ‘“‘all of his sex teachings and other so-called philosophical ideas proclaimed by Crowley as being unfit to be a part of the literature to be found in any home, or to be read by any person of clean mind’’—yet, who, in the higher degrees, himself teaches the Black Magic-Sex formula and degrad- ing philosophical doctrines of Mr. Crowley?
What shall we say of a boasting, self-styled Imperator, a Rev- erend Sobbitha Bhikku of the Great White Lodge of Tibet and a Most Perfect Master Profundis, who denounces all sex teachings, good or bad, and who denies that his fraternal racket and mystic swindle deals with sex problems, practices or indulgences under the guise of higher occult teachings—yet, who, himself, teaches sex practices and indulgences, for the educated and those mystically trained, far more vicious, dangerous and degrading than the Black Magic practices and indulgences taught by Crowley—the notorious and internationally infamous Black Magician?
Much might be said, if we could find adjectives sufficiently strong and accurate to describe our thoughts! Mr. Crowley has been de- nounced all over the civilized world, he has been driven from coun- try after country, because they would not tolerate his vicious sex teachings and practices, but he never sailed under false colors, and
5va
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS’ WHITE (7), BOOK Be
it must be said for him and to his honor that he never did the like of this—such as the Imperator of AMORC has done.
It must be said that his denunciation of Crowley and all sex teachings are Badges of Fraud and that his denial of teaching the vicious doctrine of sex convenience and free love under the guise of mystical training is another—just another—of the many Fraudulent Devices employed by him in the promotion and carrying on of his fraternal swindle.
How long, oh, how long, will a righteous government that so zealously guards the morals of its citizens and protects them against frauds and swindles permit this fraternal racketeer—who uses the mails and other instrumentalities of the people—to carry on!
Exposing a Fraud Publishing So-called Secret Lessons
Shortly after we published our Brochure, dn Exposé of the Im- perator of 1MORC,’ in which we published several mimeographed lectures or lessons of AMORC, sent through the mails weekly to those members who pay their monthly dues, a loyal and deluded member wrote us complaining that we had violated the higher ethics of the secret and occult schools and breached the best fra- ternal customs in publishing the secret lessons of AMORC.
We deny most emphatically that we did anything of the kind. No school or order of occultists or of secret fraternities believes more sincerely in the higher ethics of the secret schools, orders or fraternities, and none observes more strictly the sacred and estab- lished fraternal customs of such secret schools or orders than do the Rosicrucians. We would not and we never have exposed the secret work of any legitimate order or organization.
AMORC is not a legitimate secret or occult order. It is a fraudu- lent concern and a fraternal swindle—a family racket. The lessons or so-called lectures we published were not secret. They had been boldly lifted from published books and sold to deluded members of said family racket under false and fraudulent representation. The introductory remarks and other statements contained in said so-called secret lessons by Lewis were false and the means of frau-
5 Republished as Book Five in Volume One hereof.
578
ee ee
eam
a)
Paver CHTEry AND BLACK SEX-MAGIC
dulent selling and presenting the same to his paying members.
We published the same, as we have certain statements and mis- representations by Lewis and excerpts therefrom in this volume, to expose a fraud. It is no breach of the ethics of occult orders and fraternal societies to publish and expose a fraudulent concern or fraternal swindle, posing as a secret order and sailing under the flag of fraternalism, as protection for its nefarious work.
It is likewise contrary to the higher ethics and well-recognized fraternal customs to make known the secret initiate names or secret marks or signatures of the initiates of any occult order, fraternal or mystic society. We believe in these higher ethics and customs and adhere to them most scrupulously. Mr. Lewis, in defending himself against our charges and in making counter-charges against us, exposed the initiate name of Theodor Reuss, viz.: “Peregrinus,” which forced us in self-defense to make known another secret name of Reuss, viz.: “Merlin,” also to reveal the secret name of August Reichel, viz.: “Amertis.”’ All other so-called secret names having the appearance of initiate names, which we have exposed herein, have been mere nom de plumes or assumed names which Lewis and his confederates have adopted or assumed and which Lewis has used in the promotion of his fraternal racket. Therefore, the ex- posing of such names or nom de plumes to expose a fraud is not a breach of said ethics and fraternal customs. Indeed, it would be a means of perfect protection to all fraternal swindlers, trafficking in brotherly love and high ideals, if they be allowed to hide under a so-called mantle of secrecy, behind a shroud of higher ethics and be exempted from exposure by the ethics and fraternal customs which they desecrate.
The Crowley Black Cross The Lewis Exhibit No. 12
In our Brochure, dn Exposé of the Imperator of AMORC,' we showed that in 1910, in connection with his A.-.A.-.activities, which was before the O. T. O. joined with him, issued him a charter cov- ering all English-speaking countries and adopted his sex magic: ‘Do what thou wilt,’’ Aleister Crowley published a certain cross as
6 Pages 83 to 86 and Reproductions Nos. 23, 24, 24A, 25 and 26 shown on pp. 111 to 115; or Volume One, pp. 353 to 358, and Reproductions on pp. 383 to 387.
sy)
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS’ WHITE \(7)) BOOKS Be
the grand symbol of his Black Magic. We also showed that Lewis had adopted that cross or one almost identically similar, in connec- tion with his family enterprise and fraudulent R. C. Order. We submitted that evidence as a link in the chain of evidence which we offered to prove the close relationship between Lewis and Crowley,
his Secret Chief, whom he confessed as such in his letter of Febru- ary 16, 1934) touNl, Carl:
In an attempt to disprove our charge and the evidence supporting it, on page 28 of his White Book D, he published his “Exhibit No. 12,’ which we have reproduced herein for convenience of discus- sion, being our Reproduction No. 61, which he says is not Crowley’s Black Cross, at all, but the ancient ‘‘Alchemical and Hermetic” Rosy Cross. To show that this is not true, we have reproduced herein the true Golden and Rosy Cross of the Rosicrucians, being our Reproduction No. 63, also the genuine Alchemical and Her- metic Rosy Cross, being our Reproduction No. 62.
The History of the Crowley-Lew1s Crosses
It will be interesting to know the origin of this Cross, how Crow- ley acquired it and why and how he misused it. In our Brochure * above mentioned, we stated that Mr. Crowley had been a member of an English Rosicrucian organization, and that he had broken his vows and turned Black. The organization referred to was the ORDER OF THE GOLDEN Dawn, which was founded by the well- known occultist and Kabalist, S$. L. McGregor Mathers, often re- ferred to as a Rosicrucian Order, which, however, is not entirely correct in the strict and exact sense—because, in fact, it is far more Kabalistic than Rosicrucian. The major part of its secret teachings were based upon the Ancient Kabala, as is a generally known and accepted fact in occult circles.
The particular cross which we are discussing was an exclusive symbol of the Order of the Golden Dawn. Asa part of his or her initiation every second-degree member was required to make this cross. The instructions given for the making of this cross were
7 See Brochure, pp. 98-99 and fac-simile reproductions, p. 117; or Volume One, pp. 369-370 and 389.
8 An Exposé of the Imperator of AMORC, pp. 67 and 83; or Volume One, pp. 337 and 353.
580
ater Crh Pe N DD. BLACK: SEX-MAGIC
elaborate and complicated. In its true design and correct execu- tion, it is a complicated combination of colors and their comple- ments. Each arm was painted according to its elemental color and the designs upon each arm in complementary colors. The twenty- two-petalled rose in the center contains much complicated symbol- ism, with Hebrew letters on each petal, also shown in complemen- tary colors.. On the whole, the completed original Cross of The Golden Dawn (which Crowley only exposed in part, as we shall later see) is a magnificent symbol containing much of the beautiful symbolism of the esoteric teachings of that noble order.®
How It Became a Symbol of the A.:.A.-. and of Crowley's Black Magic
Aleister Crowley was initiated into the Order of the Golden Dawn and was taught how to complete the cross above described as a symbol of his initiation. Afterwards he violated his oath, ex- posed in part the rituals and used the incompleted cross of the Order of the Golden Dawn as a symbol of his activities in connec- tion with his A.-.A.-., as indicated by his pronouncement: ‘‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.’ This he published in The Equinox, then the official organ of the A.-.A.-. before it became also the official organ of the O. T. O. He did not use the symbol of the completed holy cross of the Golden Dawn, because in its final and completed form it was dedicated to the Magic of Light, which did not suit his purpose.
Mr. Crowley had a right in and to that particular cross or sym- bol, because he had made it, but he had no right to expose, even in part, the rituals in connection with the secret work of which that cross is symbolical, and to use it or to publish it, even in its incom- pleted form, in connection with the Black Magic activities of his
Deel. “i.
What Are Black Activities? What Constitutes a Black Magician?
Black activities are bad—the opposite of good activities. The
® The explanation of the origin of this cross was not made in our Brochure, due only
581
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS’ WHITE (7)7 BOOK. De
first step towards Black Magic is evidenced by the violation of solemn oaths and sacred obligations and the exposing of secret work secured under such obligations. The final proof of Black Magic is the use of holy symbols for unholy purposes. In our brochure, 4n Exposé of the Imperator of AMORC, at page 63," we made a brief explanation and pointed out the distinction be- tween White and Black Magic. The same holy cross and other symbols which symbolize White Magic are often used by Black Magicians to symbolize their perverted arts.
Some Black Magicians use their own symbols that are truly elo- quent of their arts, while others, who were white, but who turned black, misuse the holy symbols of White: Magic and symbols of Holy Orders which they have betrayed as symbols of their unholy arts, of Black Magic. Just as the operator in the Black Mass pro- fanes a Consecrated Host, so have Lewis and Crowley, his Secret Chief, used and profaned the incompleted cross of the Order of the Golden Dawn.
By What Right Does Lewis Use This Cross Wrongfully?
Mr. Crowley was a member of the Order of the Golden Dawn, from which he received this symbolical Cross which he used in its incompleted and partial form in connection with his Black Magic activities. That cross, in design, in its various stages of comple- tion, was distinctively and solely a symbol of the Order of the Golden Dawn. That Order created it as its symbol. None but members of that Order who had reached certain stages of initiation or others, by authorization of that Order, have any right to use that distinctive symbol. Nowhere in the history of symbolism can that exact cross, with all of its special symbolism, be found. It was the Cross of the Golden Dawn. Crowley got it from that Order, as above shown. But where and how did Lewis get it, and by what
to lack of space. The explanation and a fuller statement of the facts are made herein in justice to the Order of the Golden Dawn and the remaining and former members of that noble order of White Magic, and if it was not, strictly speaking, an Order of the Rosy Cross, it was closely allied to the august fraternity and was of the White Brotherhood of Fraternities.
1 Volume One, p. 334.
582
Peotone hit “AND BLACK SEX-MAGIC
right and authority does he use it? He has never been a member of the Order of the Golden Dawn and thus far has claimed no “great honors” conferred upon him and exhibited no “charter” of authority from that Order. It is also evident that he does not know or understand the color symbolism of that cross, because, when he attempted to file it in Pennsylvania as a symbol of his family racket, he failed to describe the color symbolism of the Cross of the Golden Dawn.’ It is also evident that he does not know or understand the symbolism of the proportions of the origi- nal completed Cross of the Golden Dawn, which are of exact pro- portions so that when folded it forms a perfect cube, which also is a part of its meaning and symbolism. Now note carefully the cross which Lewis has been using and which he attempted but failed to file in Pennsylvania as a symbol of his family racket.? In the cross used by Lewis the lower section of the cross has been extended or made longer, thereby destroying its symmetry and cubical sym- bolism; otherwise it is the same in every particular with the in- complete Cross of the Golden Dawn‘ as published and used by Crowley. Then, by what right, how and from whom did Lewis acquire the authority to use the Cross of the Golden Dawn or a deceptive imitation thereof as a symbol of his fraternal swindle?
The answer is obvious, very clear, indeed. He either took it and wrongfully appropriated it to his use or he acquired it in the in- complete form from Crowley and is using it, or a close and decep- tive imitation thereof, with the consent of his Secret Chief, as a symbol of the Black Magic of his deceptive arts and the Crowley sex teachings of his fraternal racket, which in its last and final analysis is a Masonic-Rosicrucian swindle of huge and vicious pro- portions.
The Guardianship of Masonry
Using It as a Device to Promote a Fraud
In closing this chapter in which we have exposed a number of
2 See affidavit of his son, Exposé of the Imperator of AMORC, pp. 112, 113; or Volume One, pp. 384, 385.
3 Shown in our Reproduction No. 25, Brochure, p. 114, or Volume One, p. 386.
4Shown in our Reproduction No. 23, Brochure, p. 111, or Volume One, p. 383. Please carefully compare this symbol with the Lewis symbol shown in Reproduction No. 23.
583
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS’ WHITE (?) BOOK Des
the subterfuges, misrepresentations and fraudulent devices which have been and are being used by Lewis, especially his use of Masons and the misuse of Masonry, to promote his fraternal racket, there is another instance to which attention should be directed in which he has attempted to misrepresent the facts, to confuse the issue, to curry the favor of regular Masons by condemning one of their number as being clandestine and by asserting that he had expelled said Mason from his fraternal racket because he had understood that the aforesaid Mason had been connected with an alleged clan- destine Masonic body—as if he, Lewis, had assumed the grave responsibility of keeping Masonry pure and protecting it against all clandestinism, whereas, in truth, he has offended against Ma- sonry as much as, if not more than, any other in the United States of America or elsewhere for that matter.
On page 17 of his White Book D Lewis publishes as his “Ex- hibit No. 1,” which purports to be the reproduction of a letter written under date of June 14, 1916 (note the date; it is impor- tant), by Andrew J. Provost, 33°, per J., to Mr. Alex Riedel, con- cerning which he says:
“The above is a reproduction of a letter proving that Alfred H. Saunders was ‘Commander-in-Chief’ in 1915 and 1916 of a clan- destine ‘Scottish Rite’ organization—Notr a ‘Memphis-Mizraim’ body, as Clymer and Saunders now claim. Freemasons will readily note the ‘tricky’ difference between the emblem of the ‘Eagle’ used on this stationery and the genuine emblem of the true, recognized ‘A. A. S. R.’ Note also that this clandestine body had its “Grand Orient’ (!) in New York City—not where the recognized Supreme Councils are located.”
If there have been controversies between Masons as to which of certain rites are regular or clandestine, it is not our purpose to enter into those controversies. As heretofore stated,® we have not here- tofore been in touch with Mr. Saunders; we have not conspired with him, as Lewis charges, to expose his fraternal frauds, and we do not here and now vouch for Mr. Saunders’ Masonry, nor do we hold a brief for him. As to the controversies existing between Saunders and Lewis, the former appears to be more than able to
° Chapter One, pp. 44-45.
584
feo OE CET AND BLACK: SEX-MAGIC
hold his own with Lewis and does not need our assistance. How- ever, we are interested in declaring the truth, in keeping the record straight and in exposing the trickery and devices of Lewis, the fraternal racketeer.
Following his usual methods of confusion and willful misstate- ment of facts, Lewis says that a Masonic body with which Mr. Saunders is alleged to have been connected in 1915 and 1916 was clandestine and that it was not a ‘“‘Memphis-Mizraim body, as Clymer and Saunders now claim.” That is willful and “tricky” misrepresentation. WE HAVE NOT HERETOFORE MADE ANY CLAIMS CONCERNING THIS MATTER, NOR HAVE WE MADE ANY STATEMENT RELATING TO THE Masonry or Mr. SAuNDERS. But since Lewis has raised this question and is deliberately attempting by misrep- sentation to court the favor of Masons by confusing the issue and by condemning Mr. Saunders, thereby continuing to misuse Ma- sons and Masonry as a device to promote his fraudulent fraternal enterprise, let us inquire into the facts.
Saunders and Lewts
Saunders Joins Lewis’ Fabrication
In 1916 Saunders and his wife joined AMORC. Lewis was highly elated by reason thereof, and on page 16 of The American Rosae Crucis (then his official organ) published a full-page photo- graph of Saunders and on the following page announced his ap- pointment as “Editor-in-Chief” and admission into his fabricated R. C. Order. (quoted verbatim), as follows:
“There is an old saying, ‘We shall know the true and the good by their humility.’* And certainly we meet one good, kindly, humble soul in the person of Alfred H. Saunders, whose smiling counte- nance, strong facial characteristics and weird, magnetic eyes make one feel that he is a true mystic and loyal friend and Brother.
“Came to us this Brother of the world and humbly pleaded for admission into our Order with the deep, sincere wish that he might
6 Humility being entirely foreign to Lewis’ egotistical and bombastic nature, it is, indeed, strange that he recognized it in another.
585
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS’ WHITE (?) BOOK Ds
serve in any capacity, not, for glory, not for self, but for the good of the Order into which he had grown through many years of quiet research and study. And into our Order he was welcomed as an applicant at the Threshold. And because he was made Prelate’ and then Editor of this magazine, we find pleasure introducing him to our readers.
“Alfred H. Saunders was born on December 23, 1866, in Stour- bridge, England. He was educated under the Schools of the Church of England and at fourteen years of age entered the field of Art. But the horoscope of Brother Saunders shows that he was destined to accomplish even greater things than rare skill in art—art which shows a distinctive and unusual appreciation of the spiritual things of life. His horoscope is one of a great leader in the realm of mysti- cism and philosophy. He was destined to travel through many lands, visit many Temples of many cults and finally come in touch with the Master Rosecrucians in England, France, Egypt and India. His early life was a period of preparation and initiation, and then he was to come to America, as was commanded by his Master in Europe, and here take up the great work which is now under way.’ (Italics are ours. )
Will the reader and investigator kindly note that, after praising Mr. Saunders to the sky and claiming that he was an advanced Rosicrucian, he employs his usual device of using Masonry to pro- mote his fraternal racket by setting out the Masonic connections of Saunders in this unusual manner:
“Brother Saunders was made a Master Mason on October 10, 1896, in the King Solomon Lodge, No. 2029, in London. In 1907 he became a 33rd degree Rosecrucian® and in 1911 was given the 95th degree of the Ancient Primitive Rite of Memphis and Miz- raim. He is also a member of the Royal Arch and a Past-Prelate of the Knights Templars.
“Brother Saunders is very reluctant to speak of his studies in the Rosecrucian realms in Europe or of his advancement in the Rose- crucian philosophies and science. With extreme humbleness and meekness he simply says: ‘I am a student, a seeker for Light, and I
* There are no “Prelates” in the authentic Rosicrucian Order. That is a title and an office in certain Masonic degrees and bodies.
8 This evidently refers to the 33rd degree of the Scottish Rite of Masonry. There is no 33rd degree in the Rosicrucian Order. This is further evidence of his attempts to confuse Masonry with Rosicrucianism and to use Masonry to promote his fraudulent R. C. Order. It is another Badge of Fraud.
586
aor Crh AND BUEACK 'SEX-MAGIC
come to learn, not to teach.’ But because of his unusual prepara- tion and advancement, his actual membership in the Rosecrucian circles and the dictates of the Masters abroad, our Imperator has ad- mitted Brother Saunders to our Order, has conferred upon him the title of Magi and ordained him Prelate of the Order in America. (Uur italics. )
“In assuming the editorship of the American Rose Crucis at the command of the Imperator, he states that only the highest principles for the benefit of humanity will find space in the columns. We ask the assistance of the brethren at home and abroad on behalf of Brother Saunders, and that they will uphold his ideals by articles bearing upon all occult subjects, especially those relating to Rosacru- cian philosophy.
“Likewise, our Imperator has admitted to the Grand Lodge the charming wife of Brother Saunders—Virginia Saunders, M.A., a daughter of the late Judge Okey Johnson, of the Supreme Court of West Virginia. Sister Saunders is a devoted worker in the Oriental languages and philosophies and comes to us with her hands, heart and
soul ready to aid in the propagation of the Roszcrucian lessons in the United States.”
Lewis Excommunicates Saunders for Refusing Him
aVote of Confidence...
Certainly Lewis thought well of Mr. and Mrs. Saunders in the early days of their association with him and employed every avail- able means to use them, their good names and high standing to promote his spurious and fraudulent R. C. Order. A short time later he fell out with them and expelled them from his spurious enterprise, and still later Mr. Saunders exposed Lewis and de- nounced his so-called R. C. Order as a fraudulent enterprise.
After Lewis issued his White Book D, in which he charges that Saunders was connected with clandestine Masonry, in which he in- timates that he expelled him from his AMORC for that reason and charged us with conspiring with Saunders, we decided to check the facts and accordingly asked Mr. Saunders to tell us why Lewis had expelled him. He did not tell us his side of the story, but sent us the original and a photostat of a certified copy of the resolution
587
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS’ WHITE (?) BOOK “D”
excommunicating himself and Mrs. Saunders. We returned the original and retained the photostat for our records. The certified minutes of the Supreme Council of AMORC contradict every statement made by Lewis in his White Book D with reference to the expulsion of Saunders and the reason therefor. They are as follows: |
“Meeting of the Ministraro® of the Supreme Council of the Su- preme Lodge A. M. O. R. C. held at 70 West Eighty-seventh Street, New York City, at 7:30 o’clock, Thursday evening, May 18, 1916.
“The following resolution was offered:
“Resolved: That, in view:of the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Alfred H. Saunders, at a recent meeting of the 3° held in the Temple, when the Master called for a vote of confidence, the said Mr. and: Mrs. Saunders declined to raise their hands as token of their allegi- ance to the A.M.O.R.C. and the Grand Master, therefore, that the Grand Master be requested to excommunicate forthwith the said
Mr. and Mrs. Alfred H. Saunders. (Italics are ours.) “The motion was duly seconded and unanimously carried.
“Present: H. S. Lewis J. C. Quinn Estelle Small Pearl L. C. Hogin Thor Kiimalehto Mrs. Duncan Little “C. W. WHEELOCK, “Secretary.” Therefore, it doth appear from the records of the AMORC > that Lewis did not excommunicate Saunders because he was con- nected with clandestine Masonry, but because he refused Lewis a vote of confidence—because he refused to be a fawning sycophant and bow before “our Imperator” after he had discovered that he was a rank pretender.
On page 10 of his White Book D, which we have reproduced
herein,’ Lewis alleges that Saunders has a serious police record in
® Correctly quoted, but we do not vouch for the correctness of the Latin spelling. 1 In Chapter Three, p. 129, supra.
588
owen Clalit AND, BLACK: SEX-MAGIC
England in addition to having been the leader of an alleged clan- destine Freemasonic body in New York. From our own recent in- dependent investigation, we would say that these charges may be disregarded as a vindictive calumnious attack on Saunders because of his denunciation and exposure of Lewis’ fraudulent R. C. Order; but his presumptuous assumption of the guardianship of Masonry —when he is the chief offender against Masonry—cannot be dis- regarded. It should be particularly noted that the letter which he offers as evidence to prove that Saunders was in some way con- nected with irregular Masonry in 1915 and 1916 is dated June 14, 1916, and almost a month subsequent to his excommunication of Saunders and wife because they refused a vote of confidence to a fraternal racketeer and his spurious fabrication. It is evident that Lewis’ attack on Saunders’ Masonic regularity was an after- thought and motivated by revenge and vindictiveness. It also ap- pears from a reliable source that at the time Lewis made his vicious attack on Saunders’ Masonry he was and still is a recognized Ma- son in good standing in New York, the jurisdiction wherein he re- sides. Therefore, it is another Badge of Fraud and the most recent attempt of Lewis to use Masonry as a device to promote his fraud- ulent Rosicrucian Order and fraternal racket.
Concerning the Reproductions CHAPTER FOUR PART FIVE
The following reproductions supporting the text become exceed- ingly interesting in many respects. We charged Lewis with being connected with Crowley and his Black Magic through the O. T. O. and that he is Lewis’ Secret Chief. He denounced Crowley and his sex teachings and charged him with fabricating and running a spu- rious O. T. O. To prove (!) the same, he produced the mutilated parts of pages 16 and 17 shown in his “Exhibit No. 8” (Repro- duction No. 54).
589
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS’ WHITE (?) BOOK * De
These reproductions shouldbe studied carefully in connection with the text. They show that all of Lewis’ statements concerning these matters were false; that Crowley has been a commanding, if not the commanding, figure in the O. T. O. since 1912; that it adopted his sex teachings; that he was the Grand Master or Secret Chief of the O. T. O. in the United States when Lewis received — his honorary membership certificate in the O. T. O. from Theodor Reuss in 1921 (Reproduction No. 40); that Crowley succeeded Theodor Reuss as the Supreme Head in 1924. However, irrespec- tive of Crowley’s succession to the supreme commandership, he has — been the head of the O. Tz O.:in the US: (A. and all@iageiene speaking countries since 1912, and that Lewis has at all times since then been under Crowley’s jurisdiction; he has been and is now Lewis’ Chief.
They show Lewis’ desperation for proof and the baseness of his trickery in publishing mutilated documents (his Exhibit No. 8) to prove that the O. T. O. is a Rose Cross Order and that Crowley has no connection with it.
They show, with other reproductions herein, how he has used Masonic organizations, regular and clandestine, to promote his fraudulent R. C. racket.
They show that his denunciation of Crowley and his Black Magic sex teachings was a snare and a delusion; they show why he is fond of and is closely associated with international disreputable sex- ologists such as Marc Lanval and, moreover, they show that Lewis actually teaches Crowley’s Black Magic of sex.
They show the true measure of this fraternal racketeer and the extent of his Masonic-Rosicrucian swindle.
590
FAC-SIMILE REPRODUCTION No. 55
aS ae then
vLNW ORD, ~
CONSTITUTION
of the
Ancient Order of Oriental Gemplars .O.T.0.
Ordo Templi Orientis.
With an Introduction and a Synopsis of the Degrees of thesO) TO,
HP
This is the title page or cover of the Book of the Constitution of the O. T. O., with an Introduction and Synopsis of its degrees, first issued in 1906, and revised and reissued in 1917. (See p. 13, our Reproduction No. 55B.) We publish this and the following reproductions from the Book of the Constitution and the Oriflamme, ap official organ of the O. T. O., to prove bevond a doubt that it is mot a Rosicrucian Order, that Aleister Crowley has been closely connected with it since 1912; that it adopted his Black Magic-Sex teachings; that he is the Secret Chief today, and that Lewis, in using the O. T. O. and his honorary membership therein as a device to promote his fraternal swindle, has mutilated the records and willfully misrepresented the facts concerning all such matter.
The deliberate trickery and utter falsification of this fraternal racketeer to support a fraud, as shown by these reproductions in connection with the text, is appalling and astounding.
he upper phe “according to the Constitution é it ow prinus in 1907-—four ycars before Cr we ev years before Crowley manufactured is from a letter on O. T. O. statio who signed one of the : Coe Reu
Here Lewis offers mutilated, manufactured and falsified evidence to support his false claims. See text, also our Exhibit ‘“N” on opposite page.
BASE DECEIT POND bre CK SE X-M'A'G IC
EXHIBIT: “N”
“LEWIS EXHIBIT NO. 8"
Compare with same line below. Note break in perpendicular line.
aA ORDO TEMPII\ORIENTIS.
MO TO
ALL OCCULT INSTRUCTION IS GIVEN GRATIS,
B16 TEMPLI e “au _ @
CLASSIFICATION
| SynoP
= F
Rosicrucians + Iuminism)
“through Ordinary Freemasonry may he become an O. T..O proper.
SSIFICATION OF MEMBERS
according to the
ly att ee ae dle Constitution of 1906
——=
a) Theoreticus
Note correct statement on “in der 0. T. 0.
Initiates Class
ynmutilated reproduction ; ie of same document ie i Pe iabeeles
@ —EE—————EE—E——EEE —S Se
b) Magus of Light =
c) Grandmaster $f Ligth, and Gra: mastet of all M ‘sonic, Lodges =
cel ah ; Johanna Resi m ,Meistér* in der These are the real active ohanpis-Freimaurerel Seria pals Baa
Here we demonstrate another attempt of the Imperator of Fraternal Fraud to sustain his false claims by the mutilation and falsification of pages 16 and 17 of the Book of the Constitution of the O. T. O. (Shown in our Reproductions Nos. 55E and 55F). The upper and dark portion is part of Lewis’ “Exhibit No. 8.” The lower and light portion is a reproduction of parts of the same pages before Lewis mutilated and falsified them. To destroy the proof that the O. T. O. is a Masonic and not an R. C, organization, he mutilated and covered the statement reading: “Only after a Member has passed through ordinary Freemasonry may he become an O. T. O. proper.’ Note the dou- ble parallel line to the right of this statement on the lower and unmutilated part of our Exhibit. These lines were erased by Lewis—the erasure is very plain with a glass— on the same page 17 shown in his “Exhibit No. 8.” He covered this with lines clipped from Article IX, Section I, of the Constitution of the O. T. O., reading: “The O. H. O. shall be the custodian of the Archives and Library of the O. T. O.’ Follow the arrows on our Exhibit “N” above. Make your own comparisons and satisfy yourself of the base handiwork and abject methods employed by this fraternal racketeer to promote and sustain his Masonic-Rosicrucian Swindle.
593
AN ANSWER TO LEWIS’ WHITE (?)) BOOK
FAC-SIMILE REPRODUCTION No. 55A ot Oe
in the judgement of that officer is against the welfare of the O. T. O.
Article XIV.