AMORC Origin Stories (2015)

7/21/2019 AMORC Origin Stories (2015)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amorc-origin-stories-2015 1/81

AnA nalys isof Diffe ringA ccou nts, Contra dictio nsa ndIn consis tencies

inthe LiteratureofAMORCand HarveySpencer Lewis’Books,Documents

andArticlesintheLightofCognitivePersuasion,ASubtleMethodof

MindControlUncoveredbytheLatestAdvancesinNeuroscience.

www.picfrefrecman.comwww.lhcpf5soruwofamoofc.com

http://www.picfrefrecman.comwww.lhcpf5soruwofamoofc.com/

http://www.picfrefrecman.comwww.lhcpf5soruwofamoofc.com/



* * * * *

The Use of Cognitive Persuasion in the C reation, Modification and Amplification o f the Stories of theFounding of a lOO-Year-Old Religious Cult

By Pierre S. Freeman

An Analysis of D iffering Accounts, Contradictions and Incon sistencies in th e L iterature o f AMORC an

Harvey Sp encer Lewis’ Books, Documents and Articles in the Light of Cognitive Persuasion, A Subtle Method of Mind Control Utilizing the N on-Reflexive, Instinctua l Wa y of Thinking Un covered by the

Latest Advances in Neu roscience



Copyright ©2015 by Pierre S. Freeman

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever withouwritten permission, except in the case of brie f quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. Please dnot participate in or encourage the piracy of copyrighted materials in violation of the author’s rightPurchase only authorized editions.



“...there is only one universal Rosicrucian Order existing in the world today, united in its variou jurisd ictions , and having one Supreme Council in accord ance with the original plan of the ancieRosicrucian’s manifestoes... This international organization retains the ancient traditions, teachingprinciples and practical helpfulness of the Order as founded centuries ago. It is known as the AncieMystical Order Rosae Crucis, which name, for popular use, is abbreviated into AMORC.”

Statement of the Grand Lodge of th

English Language JurisdictioAMORC, Inc., Publishers

Cosmic Mission Fulfill

by Ralph M. Lew

1966 Editio



CONTENTS

AMORC Origin StoriesEndnotesAppendix



It was quite some time ago when I left AMORC, determined to find a way to prevent present and futurmembers from having to endure the psychological trauma and life-destroying consequences of its subtl

but highly ef fective mind, co ntro l system.In my various books, The Prisoner o fSan Jose, AMORC Unmasked, The Emperor-Imperator-Speaks: Tales

the Puppet Master, Daring to Speak o f Darkness, Mayhem on the As tra l Highw ay—M ind Slaves o fthe Rosicruci

Collectorum— Par ti, I have spoken of various methods by which AMORC has lured prospective members intits stronghold o f deception—but mostly remotely—through its advertising and its books, and now, througthe wonder of the Internet.

How I Came to Look a t the Origin Stories More Closely

In Tales o f the Puppet Master, I presented a series of reviews of various books of H. Spencer Lewis ancommented on the account of one of his origin stories in my review of the official Rosicrucian M anua

Following my discussion of Tales and its publication that included some comm entary o f a huge controver

about Lewis' account of its origin as presented there, I found I had left an important piece out, Lewis’ owautobiographical account, A Pilgrim’s Jou rney to the East, which was supposedly first published in 1 91

Although I knew about its existence, I could not seem to locate it.Still curious after Tales was published, I spent some time looking for it, realizing that I had run into

but the title of the web pages that carried it had throw n me off. It seemed like it was only part of the boo but a closer inspec tion found that it was rather short, some 26 pages, and was really the whole thing. Veshortly after it was published, it was taken out of print, according to an official 1957 publication fromAMORC’s organization in London and was permitted republication by the Imperator Ralph M. Lewis, thson of H. Spencer Lewis.

Why was it taken out?The answer to that is probably the cornerstone o f my discussion.

The Power o fOrigin Stories in M ind Control



I have always known that one of the fundamental building blocks of AMORC’s mind control system ain many other cults are its origin stories. Just like in comic books where one is always interested in thorigin o f superheroes, people are always interested in the origins of religions and religious figures becauorigin stories provide a platform for how institutions or their leaders gathered their authority. And sinAMORC claims to be a super cosmic organization, an ancient occult fraternity that sometimes proclaimthat it is the only true connection between God and man, a vital determinant for our species taking thright course for human history, origin stories are important in establishing that monolithic, all powerfu

contact.In classical hypnosis and in various forms of mind control, the whole basis for creating a trance in

subject is preceded by validating the practitioner’s authority and power. For this reason, AMORC, iImperator and its leadership, must serve that purpose. In cult mind control in general, the objective is transfer the sense of their themselves—their essential sense of self (true personality) or what Robert JaLifton calls the Protean Self—to a cult personality (false or synthetic personality), which will pay homage a cult leader and their organization. At that point, the dimensions of control that they can gain ovanother person are unfathomable.

I know. I was one of AMORC’s mind slaves for twenty-six3 years, a reality that I have fully documentein my book, The Prisoner o fSan Jose {link).

AMORC’s literature about itself and some outside commentary, including this discussion, reveals th

AMORC has n ot Ju st one origin story, b ut several. For those interested in the true history of AMORC’s creatiothis can be a fascinating journey but for those who are hoping that AMORC is what it pretends to bperhaps a rather d isappointing one.

It really is hard to entangle to find even a kernel of truth.We are talking here about multiple and contradictory origin stories, or so it appears. If one keeps u

with the comic books or perhaps more likely Marvel and DC films about superheroes, you will notice th

there are multiple origin stories about Superman, Batman, and Spiderman. They all have similarities, but,you want to be nitpicking, there are a lot of differences. We can easily forgive that because we all like goosuperhero adventure stories and the variety is interesting.

But having a distinctive difference in an origin story is not necessarily so appreciated when you ardealing with critical narratives of an organization with extraordinary claims that can affect the enti



direction o f your whole life. Those kinds o f variations in stories, perhaps, are worth picking apart becauthey cast a shadow on the organization’s claims? Do they reveal the truth, or does their very contradictornature reveal the possibility that there is another origin story altogether, one held back from the public anfrom the majority of those truly invested in the story like the cu rrent members o f AMORC?

Very intriguing possibility.

Why Do Origin Stories H ave Such Power?

In all my books so far, I have emphasized one mind control element as the decisive factor in total cuindoctrination. That component that I believed was the decisive factor in creating full compliance fromcult member, and which I still believe to be true, is trance induction. This technique is combined wit

various hypnotic triggers to create a state of suggestion capable of even creating positive hallucinatoexperiences on a regular basis. Ultimately, trance induction heightens suggestibility to such an extent helps to create buffers in the human personality that repress both the normal or Protean personalitallowing a false or cult personality to emerge as the pred ominant conscious decision maker.

The Protean personality is a term used by the famous anti-cult analyst, Robert Jay Lifton, and conveythe idea of an essential, core identity of all human beings, one that can be suppressed but does not go dowfighting and can actually war against the cult personality. I have fully described my own battle in th

Prisoner ofSan]os& (link). I still have some of the aftereffec ts of that battle.

This type of mind control, featuring the hallucinatory elements, creating a division so great in the cumember that it can cause Post Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms, is common in religious oparanormally-oriented cults, which need "the miraculous’’ or "other worldly” events to support theclaims.

But there is another factor, another element of persuasion that is not trance-based and has recentcome to the fore as a major factor in various kinds of human decision-making like politics, marketing even family interactions, and that is the power of the narrative through the neurologically-based activity framing. I call this type of mind control cognitive persuasion.

Before we discuss the actual technique of cognitive persuasion, let us take a peek at some of the term

used in cognitive linguistics, a subset of neuroscience that looks at language in the face of scientif



used in cognitive linguistics, a subset of neuroscience that looks at language in the face of scientifdiscoveries about the way we think and talk. One of those scientists is George Lakoff, who classifies himseas a progressive political thinker concerned about the way neuroscience discoveries reveals the persuasivpower of storytelling, which serves to propagandize certain political views that actually have the power overturn the rational and ethical ways of thinking demanded in human rationality.

"Frames,” as explained by George Lakoff, a cognitive scientist, are "structures of ideas we use understand the world.” Frames, he purports, allow us to internally organize and simplify the things an

events around us. Each frame is related to a specific neuronal level which, when activated, can actually bobserved and measured. Frames strung together in a certain way create narratives, and narratives used i

storytelling can be used to trick the mind into a premature act o f belief.1 This power to trick the mind is, fact, what I have called cognitive persuasion, a non-trance form of mind control used a great deal ipolitical propaganda and commercial advertising for centuries, but only today is the scientific basis for th

type of mind control being discovery as it is based on the way people are naturally inclined to think, ademonstrated in laboratory experiments.

According to Lakoff, there are two reasons, one allegedly proven and the other still speculative, that givnarratives a special power over the human mind.

One is that the part of the brain that responds to, say, seeing or moving things responds in identicways to imagining that we are seeing or moving something. This is called mental "stimu lation." This mean

that there is a certain reality to what happens in our imagination tha t equates internally to what happens the real world. Yes, we can generally distinguish between the two, but because of this, in some way, unledisciplined by specific oversight coupled with rational thinking, the two appear to have almost equ

weight in the mind of the undisciplined recipient. What happens in the real world and the mind hasomewhat of an equal power. This process is affecting the brain in this way is called "mental s timulation.”

Lakoff says on page 39 of The Po litical Mind.

The same part of the brain we use in seeing is also used in remembering seeing, indreaming we are seeing, and in understanding language about seeing. The same partsof the brain used in really moving are used in imagining that we are moving,remembering about moving, and in understanding about moving. Mental



"stimulation" is the technical term for using brain areas for moving or perceiving,imagining, remembering, dreaming or understanding language. It is mental

stimulation that links imaginative stories to lived narratives.2

But, again according to Lakoff, there is a possibility that there is something called "mirror neurocircuits” which link our own sense of lived narratives to the narratives of another person. So, in a sense, w

experience what another person is alleged to do in the same manner as we experience ourselves doin

something.The way "your lived narratives are linked to someone else" could be, according to Lakoff, because

"mirror neuron circuits,” a kind of brain activity" proven in macaque monkeys, but only plausibly assumeto take place in human beings.

“Mirror neuron circuitry" implies that when you see someone in an action or perform it yourself, theare two-way pathways that connect to the brain in the same way: to the primary motor cortex, connectinto neuronal activity in the muscles, which can directly control muscle movement and to the part of th

brain that integrates sensory informat ion in the visual, auditory, and somatosensory regions of the brainwhat is called the parietal cortex. Also, the positive and negative emotional pathways are connecte

through the insula.Also, in this theory of ‘mirror” circuitry, there is a connection to the posteromedial cortex, whic

actively supports ‘the experience of empathy, say, in compassion and admiration. Finally, there is

connection to the prefron tal cortex that supposedly contains the "super-mirror” neurons, which modulathe activation of the mirror neurons and limit or enhance their capacity for empa thy.’-

By understanding the equation between real experience and imagined experience and one’s owexperience and another, powerful influences can intentionally create in words or in media that have ainfluence on recipients that, without conscious reflection and due diligence, can override one's rationprocesses and unwantedly influence the human personalities’ predilections, desires, and interpretationabout events. This is a way of controlling the mind without trance induction or even some kind osubmission of authority to a third party through something like psychological transference.

Again, I call this form o f mind control “cognitive persuasion.” No drugs, no trances, no enhanceinterrogations utilized spontaneously in the past by people with a shrewd understanding o f human natu



and how people could be easily manipulated whether they knew the scien tific underpinnings or not.We shall see how cognitive persuasion works in AMORC shortly, but first let us take a deeper look a

AMORC’s self-described b eginnings.

AMORC LAUNCH-TIME!

The fact is that there are, indeed, several origin stories about AMORC. In this book, I will present eight them chronologically—six from AMORC and two from outside skeptics about AMORC’s stories. Three froAMORC were initiated by H. Spencer Lewis himself with one of those a posthumous biography by his so

Ralph Lewis, and another by a so-called Rosicrucian historian, Christian Rebisse, but both heavily derivefrom Harvey’s own writings. A third AMORC writer is "Grand Master" Julie Scott.

The Rosicrucian Manual, was undoubtedly ultimately developed, in part, without Harvey’s supervision but depended on it. Two more stories, one created by R. Swinburne Clymer, the founder of the RosicruciaFellowship, and the other described and analyzed from the historical record by Robert Vanloo, an authoand ex-member of AMORC, who has taken considerable efforts to study and report of these origins.

STORY #1 - THE 19 16 VERSION

A Pilgrim ’sJourney to th e E ast

By Harvey Spencer Lewis-I

How H. Spencer Lewis, who has studied Rosicrucian literature and engaged in various literary and sociaactivities involved in studying psychical and spiritual matters, makes a personal journey to become ainitiate in the Order. This was an autographical account by H. Spencer Lewis, published in 1916 in

Pilgr im’s Jou rney to the Far East. This is was the first published autobiography, but apparently, according

its 1957 republication by the branch of AMORC in London1, it was not available for many years, probabquite soon after its original publication. When you see how much it was altered, it is not too hard to figurout why? Yet, there was so much evidence that it was altered, it is sometimes difficult to figure out wh



they were not more careful.

STORY #2 - THE 19 29 VERSION Rosicrucian Questions and Answers

By Harvey Spencer Lewis-

In this story, H. Spencer Lewis is a self-professed descendent of the founders of a Rosicrucian Order

America who projects that the true Rosicrucian Order operates in 108 year cycles. Having professed hstarted an organization to explore Rosicrucian traditions and history, he is eager to start a new cycle of thOrder in America. Having been encouraged by a “Legate" from India, mentioned in the 1929 book

Rosicrucian Questions an d Answers, he goes to France to gain the authority to start the Order. This storomits certain information mentioned in a magazine called Cromaat, published in 1918, which indicatwho that "Legate" may have been, a Mrs. May Banks-Stacey, a controversial participant in the writtehistory of the Order.

STORY #3 - THE 19 35 VERSION Rosicrucian Fellowship in America

Which Contains a Formerly Published Brochure:

“Not Under the Rosy Cross” By R. Swinburne Clymer2

Perhaps Lewis’ most vocal and litigious opponent. Clymer was challenged to a public debate by Lewis iDecember of 1933. He replied by inviting Lewis to a "complete and impartial tribunal composed of higMasons.” When Lewis refused, he wrote this scathing expose of the connection between AMORC anAleister Crowley, the Black Magician. His claim was that Lewis’ initiation in France was totally bogus an

claimed it took place in England under Crowley’s umbrella. He takes great length to show the connectio between the symbolism, teachings, costum ing, and ritu als o f AMORC are not Rosicrucian but from a mucdarker place.



STORY #4 - THE 19 66 VERSION Cosmic Mission Fulfilled

By Ralph M. Lewis-

This autobiographical account of Ralph Lewis’ father, the former Imperator of AMORC, borrows explicitfrom A Pilgrim 's Journey to the East but attempts to integrate certain features in other versions of H

Spender’s Lewis story in Rosicrucian Q&A and in the obituary of May Banks-Stacey. He speaks of his father ithe third person, assuming that he wrote it and includes portions of his father’s Last Will and Testamenwhich perhaps makes it somewhat more personalized. The book seems like an attempt to integrate anexplain some of the contradic tions in the other versions, but, on inspection, it fails in its purpose.

STORY #5 - THE 19 71 VERSION The R osicrucian Manual

Initiated and Overseen by H. Spencer Lewis

And, Later, Probably Other Imperators w ith Help of Staff2

This later version is mentioned in the 1971 edition of the Rosicrucian M anu al but it may have been printe

before. This edition develops the idea that Mrs. May Banks-Stacey, a representative of the Order in Indi

provides Lewis with certain documents and jewels that gives him the right to start the Order. He thetravels to France to start the Order. It draws on information mentioned in the 1918 edition of Cromaaabout Mrs. May Banks-Stacey but not mentioned in the 1929 Rosicrucian Questions a nd Answers. In thstory, she is the descendent of the English sponsors of early settlers of the original Rosicrucian Order iAmerica and had been made a Legate from the Rosicrucian Order in India.

STORY #6 - THE 200 1 VERSION

“Controversy around a Document? -Is the A.M.O.R.C. an Offspring o f the O.T.O. or Not?”

By Robert Vanloo, BA12



In a sense, Vanloo’s version of the origin of AMORC raises more questions than gives conclusive answers. certainly throws doubt on the role of Mrs. Banks-Stacey and the Toulouse initiation. On the other handalthough the connection between Crowley and Lewis seems rather clearly demonstrated, Vanloo does nsee AMORC as a true branch of the OTO as promulgated through Crowley (or anyone else for that matter

although he sees the possibility of some kind of non-Crowley involvement in the early years. Later on, ther

was a definitive connection between Reuss’ OTO and Lewis, but not anything substantive in relation to thcontent of AMORC’s teaching. Crowley, in somewhat of speculative effort by Vanloo (because names are nmentioned), does appear to be a kind of witness to Lewis’ deceptive practices, particularly with Mrs. MaBanks-Stacey.

STORY #7-2009 “H. Spencer Lewis - Re storer of Rosicrucianism”

By Christian Rebisse, FRC

Featured in a podcast,— movie— and article—. The 2 00 9 date appears as a copyrighted version of th

podcast and video. As it is so prominently featured, it appears to have the fullest possible authority bAMORC as it is featured in their new multi-media publicity machine.

STORY #8- 20 10 “Clemence Isaure: T he R osicrucian Golden Isis”

By Grand Master Julie Scott, S.R.C.—

This article focuses on an anecdote taking place and preceding Lewis’ initiation in the Hall of the Illustriou

in Toulouse’s city hall

The Difference in AMORC Generated Stories #1 , # 2 and #5

The first question which we believe should be addressed, why are there differences between thesdifferent AMORC-originated stories #1, #2, and #5, however small? We are not particularly focusing o



Ralph Lewis’ biography because it is basically an amalgam of Stories #1 and #2. We will be addressinChristian Rebisse’s version a bit later.

In my opinion, when you develop a mind control or hypnotic script, you want it to be power packewith a uthority as much as possible. And if you don’t particularly care about the truth and you don’t thinyou can easily be caught, why not change things around and improve on them? Another related possibili

is that things may have come up in the stories that made AMORC more vulnerable to its subterfuge about iearly history being uncovered and maybe there was a value in hiding these components. Remember, earli

in its history, AMORC was under attack from various opponents, including a legal battle with R. SwinburnClymer.

Remember all this is done in the days before the Internet when investigating something like this woumean going to libraries or, even more possibly, visiting newspaper morgues or traveling to ocorresponding with bookstores or even individuals to find books that probably wouldn’t be found in thordinary library.

I would like to state here that although it is clear there are inconsistencies in the stories, there may b

other documents existing that provide a more complete account of the early AMORC era than I have so faAny assistance by readers having access to other relevant documents would be very much appreciated. Mguess is that additional documents would probably expand the variations in these stories since theobvious intent is to convey whatever the controlling author wished and not necessarily to relay thhistorical truth.

The D evil is in the Details

In order to explain the difference in these origin stories, I will go into some of the details. As I will ginto later in this discussion, the human mind is easily swayed by certain types of narratives, and the hopethat someone truly concerned with the various influences that contro l his or thinking and life will take thtime to make sure these influences are pure and unfiltered by a secret agenda—be it commercial, politica

or personal. For such a person, the devil is in the details.



Let me first quote from page 170 in the book, Rosicrucian Questions an d Answers and look how thnarrative differs slightly from what is in the manual itself and also from A Pilgrim'sJourney (please note memboldening).

It was in 1909, also, that I made my visit to France for a similar purpose. For manyyears I had held together a large body of men and women devoted to occult and

metaphysical re' search along Rosicrucian lines. As editor of several occult magazines I had made contact w ith various Rosicrucian manuscripts and had discovered that I was related to one o f the descendants of the firs t Rosicrucian body in America-that which had established itself in Philadelphia in 16 94. This gave me access to m any of their old papers, secret m anuscripts, and teachings. These we discussed, analyzed,and attempted to put into practice. Among ourselves, the society, composed of several

hundred persons in professional life, was known as The Rosicrucian Research Society.—

It is worth noting that this story from the 1929 Questions and Answers differs somewhat from the stortold in the 1971 Manual, which says on page 6.

"Having had passed to him in the proper way certain knowledge preserved by the

descendants of the first foundation in America, he prepared himself through various

courses of study and association with metaphysical bodies, for the work he was toundertake in 1 909 . Then in the month of July of that year he went to France where hewas introduced to the proper authorities and inducted into the mysteries and

methods of carrying out his life mission.—

; One can note here th at it does not, in this passage from the manual, mention that he was a descendan

but rather he had the in form ation "passed to h im in the proper wa y... .” Standing alone that would not beproblem, but later in the Manual, on page 129, it says that after many years of scientific and psychiresearch, Lewis...

...made his first con tact with the work of the Rosicrucians through obtaining copies of



the secret manuscripts of the first American Rosicrucians, who established theirheadquarters near Philadelphia in 1694. A member of the English Branch which sponsored the first movement in America, Mrs. May Banks-Stacey, * descendant of Oliver Cromwell and the D’Arcys of France, p laced in his hand s such papers as had been officially transmitted to her by the last of the first American Rosicrucians, with the Jewel and Key of authority received by her from the Grand Master of the

Order in India, while an officer of the work in that cou ntry.—

For her role in the alleged role in the formation of AMORC, Mrs. May Banks-Stacey is designated in th Rosicrucian M anu al as the Co-Founder and First Grand Matre in U.S.A. in a caption below her photograpeven though it is alleged that the Grand Matre did not sign the first Manifesto in (check). A passagseemingly confirming she was the "Legate” was published on page 27 in Volume D in a RosicruciaMagazine called Cromaat back in 1918 .

“I further state that the said Jewels and incomplete instructions were delivered intomy hands by the R.C. Masters of India, representing the Supreme Council of the World,and that I was there made an initiate of the Order and a Legate of the Order for

America. I also state that the said Jewels and papers were represented to me as coming

direct from Egypt and France, and that they were given to me to be formally handedto that m an who should present certain papers, documents, jewels and “key” inAmerica. Such a person having matured and being Brother H. S. Lewis, I did the dutyexpected of me, fulfilled my commission and with pleasure express the joy at seeingthe work so well under way in accordance with the prophecy made in India to me inperson. The history of the Jewels and papers are, to my knowledge, exactly as stated

herein and as described by Mr. Lewis, our Imperator, in the History of the Order as

published in the Official Magazine.”—

Interestingly, this quote is published in an article colorfully entitled, “The Supreme Matre EmerituRaised to the Higher Realms." The article is actually Mrs. Banks-Stacey’s obituary.



In Rosicrucian Questions an d Answers, published in 1929, on page 165, it clearly states that before 190when Lewis first visited France, as a descendent himself of the original founders of a Rosicrucian settlem eat Ephrata in Pennsylvania, he was going specifically to gain official authority to start a new cycle Rosicrucianism in America, He says:

I have said that as the year 1 909 approached, many men and women journeyed to France or other parof Europe seeking not only initiation into the Order, but some official permission to aid in th

establishment of the Order again in the United States, for its new cycle.—

So, again, his mission to go to France was clearly to found this Order, not just because of a personapassion as described in A Pilgrim’s Journey (which we shall fully document later). One can only imaginthat the "Legate” mentioned in the following passage on page 171 o f Rosicrucian Q uestions and Answ ers wMrs. Banks-Stacey, but Lewis does not mention her. This is what he says:

Just before 1909 there applied for membership in our society one who presentedpapers proving appointment a s...’’Legate” of the Rosicrucian Order in India. Manyweeks of close association with this member revealed the fact that I might besuccessful in my search for some form of authority to introduce the true Rosicrucian

work in America at the right time. Every means of communication with any official ofthe Order in foreign lands was denied to me until early in the year 1909 when I wasinformed th at the year for the public appearance o f the Order in America was at hand

and that definite arrangements for the new cycle had been completed.—

Yes, in Story #2 in 19 29, it does not identify Mrs. Banks-Lacy as the Legate, although it, like the Journ

to the Far East, her role was published explicitly before in 1918. Further, in 1971, the Rosicrucian M anu

says that she was the descendent, not Lewis.Why all these strange little discrepancies concerning Mrs. Banks-Stacey’s role and Lewis’ backgroun

and mission?For the mome nt, let us look at some notes from Soror Rectifier at the beginning of the 19 16 ’s A Pilgrim

Journey to the Far East republication in 1957. She states that the republication occurred, after years of it being out of pr int, by the largesse o f Ralph M. Lewis, H. Spencer Lewis’ son, who was the then Imperator.



the 1 957 notes, she says,

The information contained in this booklet is given out as a privilege to members. Thepresent Imperator, Fra. Ralph M. Lewis, wishes it to be understood that no questionscan be answered in connection with the contents, and that there will be nocorrespondence about it. It is a publication of the history as written by Dr. Lewis, and,

therefore, since he has passed through transition, no one is further qualified to carryon correspondence with respect to his personal experiences.—

I think this is quite interesting because given anyone's sensibilities about what was published alreadythere surely could be many questions. But I suppose the voice of the current Imperator might be taken as kind of thoughtfulness on his part out of respect for his deceased father? Or would it have opened Pandora’s box of questions if one had read Questions an d Answers and. the obituary in CromaaP. Remembthis is before the Internet and books not printed for a number o f years—especially obscure ones—would bvery hard to find.

The Re ason for Lewis’ Going to P aris a s Re lated in "A Pilgrim'sJourney"?

In a further statement in the 1957 prologue to A Pilgrim ’s Journey, the story about Lewis being

descendent from Questions and Answers is repeated which clearly states that a “Legate” from Indappeared to him and told him "that I might be successful in the search for some form of authority tintroduce the true Rosicrucian work in America at the right time.”

None of this is mentioned in the beginning of A P ilgrim'sJourney nor does he mention his desire to opea branch of the Rosicrucian Order in America nor his alliance with a "Legate” from India.

Instead, it is said that he actually writes to the editor of a Parisian paper the following question: “Hocan I learn of the method to pursue which will secure guidance to the Rosae Crucis?”

When the editor writes back, he tells him to call on the studio of a Professor of Languages in Paris. Lewsays:



After many years' study of the exoteric work of Rosaecrucianism and an increasing,obsessional desire to join with the Brotherhood, unselfish in its great undertakings forthe bettermen t and unity o f man, I wrote—after a deep inner impression to do so—to

the unknown editor of the Parisian paper.—

Why, pray tell, if he knows the Legate of the Order in India, is he forced to write to an unknown edit

in France? After all, the Legate supposedly came to him before he left for France in 1909, according tRosicrucians Q&A. Still, when he wrote, A Pilgrim 's Journey, published in 1916, it isn’t clear he had muccertainty about anything, much less the influence of the Legate. He hadn’t come up with the idea yeFurther, speaking in A Pilgrim'sJourney, he says:

Determination I had, and the visions I dreamed by day and by night kept alive myambition and my faith. It was early in July that I received my letter from Paris;possibly by the following year I might find it convenient to go to Paris. What was a year o f waiting? Had I not waited two, three, four, five years in the hope of even learning that the Order still existed? And so I folded the letter carefully and put it

among the precious papers that constituted my hopes of the future.—

But he knows the Legate from India! He knows the Order exists. To repeat Lewis’ quote from Story #2 i Rosicrucian Q uestions and Answers.

Just before 1909 there applied for membership in our society one who presented

papers proving appointment as...’’Legate" of the Rosicrucian Order in India.—

Flash forward to his meeting with the professor, who asks him, “and why do you seek to know a Brothe

of the Rose Croix?”At this critical juncture you would expect him to say, if the Question and Answ ervexsion is true that he

a descendant of the Founders of the Order in America and wants to start the new cycle there. But, insteaLewis says, stumbling:



"Because I want to know if the old Order is still in existence and if it is....’’ I was lost forwords. I could not say that I wanted to become a member. One could not bluntly ask

such a privilege in the presence of a man like Professor "X.”—

The Professor replies, "And that is your only excuse for coming to Paris, for coming here? Is it what yo

call a curiosity”?—Then Lewis gives his reason.

"Ah, no, Professor,” I began, feeling that I had wrongly expressed myself and had donean injustice to my real motives. "I am not acting out of idle curiosity at least. I want to

know because I want, some day, to be one of them, if I may.”—

The professor is not impressed until he finally seems to show the real motivation behind his journey. Hsays:

"But, Professor," I began again, “I only want, desire, to learn how I may proceed if I amever to have my fond hopes realized. I make no demand now for admission into theOrder; I ask for no rare privilege or honour at this time. I come to you only as a seeker

for knowledge—for light.”—

His speaking of his ardent desire is what opens the door for him—a purely personal reason. Yes, thprofessor knows his background as an occult journalist and lecturer, his college degree and recognition by

French academy. But it is desire for Light that opens the door—certainly no t his yet unm entioned pedigree

W hat This Should Sound Like if Story #1 was True?

First of all, Lewis wouldn’t be writing to an unknown Parisian letter. Having an acquaintance with "Legate” from India, he would probably be given an address, perhaps to this alleged Professor in France. he told him a few things in the letter, but not his connection to the mysterious "Legate,” perhaps tconversation would go like this: If the version in Rosicrucian Questions and Answ ers were true, wouldn’t thstory go more like this?!!!!



Hypothetical Conversation in Paris with Professor if Lewis Had Come for Reasons Cited in the Rosicrucian M anual

Professor: So-1 have read your letter and consented to see you. We do know of thisLegate and so I take it you have a serious inquiry?

Lewis: Yes, professor, first I would like to present to you some documents from myfamily that can document the fact t hat I am related to some of the earliest members of

the American Rosicrucian Order, which was established in Ephrata in Pennsylvania.

The Professor looks over the papers.

Professor: We have done some research on you after we received your letter. It is my belief that these documents are authent ic. So why are you here?

Lewis: I represent a group of people who have spent years with me researching andstudying what we could find about Rosicrucian traditions. I am convinced that not

only would I personally make a permanent connection to the Order, but I believemyself to be associated with enough earnest and serious students of the occult as towarra nt my being authorized to revise the American Order.

Professor: Well, Mr. Lewis, that indeed is a lofty ambition. You wish to initiate the108-year cycle in America?

Lewis: With all my heart.

Professor: I’m in no position to grant you your wish or to speculate on yourpossibilities, but I think I can say, if you are serious, there are a few people I think youshould speak to.

But what about Story #3 ? How would that go if that were true?



Hypothetical Conversation in Paris with Professor if Lewis Had Come for Reasons Cited in the 197

Rosicrucian Manual

Professor: So, I have read your letter and am quite excited to see you.

Lewis: May I show you these documents, Professor?

The Professor takes the documents and looks them over. At one point, he takes out a magnifying glass.

Professor: I have spent a good bit of my life studying art, including canvas and paper.These are, indeed, very ancient. And the marks, though faded, seem quite authentic.Congratulations.

The Professor, seeming slightly nervous, looks at Lewis intently.

Professor: May I see the jewels?

Lewis takes a small linen sack out of his jacket and empties the jewels in the Professor’s hand. The Professosits down at his desk and takes a small microscope out of the bottom drawer, peering at the jewels fo

almost ten minutes. He then hands them back to Lewis.

Professor: Thanks you so much. It is quite amazing to meet you. There must be quite a

story behind this.

Lewis: Do you know Mrs. May Banks-Stacey?

Professor: Yes, I do. I met her once in London. She is from our English Order and quitea world traveler, I believe.

Lewis: Yes, she was a member of the very branch that originally sponsored the firstRosicrucians in America. She is a descendent of Cromwell and the French D’Arcys.Anyway, she gave me papers that had been originally transmitted by the lastdescendent of the first American Rosicrucians. She also received the Jewel and the Key



of authority from the Grand Master in India. She was an officer at that time in India.

Professor: You spoke of a key?

Lewis: Yes. Would you like to see it?

He removes it from his vest pocket. The Professor takes it from him gingerly. He

shakes his head slowly as if in awe of the artifa ct in his hand, then hands it back.Lewis: Is there anything else you need to know, Professor?

Professor: Honestly, perhaps I was being selfish in keeping you here so long. But youare bearing considerable historical treasure, and I felt compelled to take a look.

Lewis: I quite understand.

Professor: Don't worry, Mr. Lewis, our Grand Master and his staff have been preparingfor your arrival. All is ready. I will give you your travel instructions later this

afternoon. Will you be able to come back to my office?

Lewis: Of course. I am quite ready for everything and anything I may have to do. I am

at your disposal.

As you can see from my hypothetical conversations based on two other versions that differ from Pilgr im’s Journey, there is somewhat of a gap between all three stories.

But now let us get back to that original 191 6 version, where Lewis is on his way to learn his destiny regards to joining the highly secretive Rosicrucian organization.

So, after much effort, Lewis finally arrives in Toulouse and finds himse lf at the Old Tower, a painting which he saw when he was being interviewed by the Professor. Climbing up a long staircase, he final

reaches a room where he is greeted by an old man with a long gray beard and white hair. The old man say



that he had been expected and, as a matter of fact, Lewis’ horoscope is on his desk. Lewis says:

I spent an hour examining some rare hand-illuminated books. I saw one book made inthe time of Christ, recording His work for the Order, containing a sketch in watercolours of the true Christ and other sketches of incidents of His life. The book was

bound with wood and iron , had iron hinges and an i ron lock—all greatly rusted. I sawarticles from Egypt, from various pyramids and Temples. I saw rare relics from

Jerusalem and other countries. And, I saw the last Oath of the Order made by Lafayette before he came to America, the firs t Rosaecrucian from France to come here. May his

name ever remain sacred to the Order in America.—

Following his interview with the old man, who turns out to be the Chief Archivist of the Order, he given directions to a great estate near the Tolosa, the old Roman city where Toulouse was eventually buiHe eventually arrived at a mysterious old building known as the Grand Temple. There, he is finally initiateinto the Order Rosae Crucis.

At the end of all this, the day he left, he was allegedly told the following directly by the “Mo

Worshipful" Grand Master of France, Monsier L:

Brother, these papers appoint you as a Legate of this Order for your country. Your duty and privileges are well defined. The documents you have, and the few jewels I now hand to you, will enable you to proceed at the time and in the manner indicated. W hen you have made some progress you will m eet with a representative from the Order in Egypt who will hand you, under certain conditions, other papers and seals. From time to time there will come to you those whom you will recognize bythe signs indicated. They will add to your papers and devices until your working

papers and tools are completed. Our Archivist will send you under seal, with theprotection of the French Government, other papers as soon as you have made theprogress, which will be reported to us by our Agents. Your semi-annual reports will



warrant, or deny, your progress and assistance. The Master of the world will be glad toadminister to your wants and your requirements from time to time; and Peace and

Power shall come to America if the dictates of our Order are faithfully fu lfilled.”—

So, in this version, he is made the Legate immediately by the Grand Master. He goes to France and

made a Legate. And he gets certain jewels and documents then. And, yes, he is made a messenger to thUnited States, but the actual original allegedly Rosicrucian com munity of Ephrata is not m entioned. And, I have mentioned before, and will mention again, whether or not the Pietists who formed this communitwere truly Rosicrucian in the sense of being directly a part of an initiatic order is still a controversy. As yocan see, the story goes through various stages—not necessarily a straight path—and tumble around. Therwas not an In ternet back then, and as I said, changes in documents were far harder to track.

* * * * *

The Fun Part—A nalyzing the Narrativesfrom the Stan dpo int o f "Persuasive Cognition ” —An other Cult M in

Con trol Technique Only Now Coming to the Forefront o f Pu blic an d Scientific A wareness

In looking at the way the mind works, one cannot ever underrate the power of narratives, especial

when embodied in storytelling. There are various reasons why, which we explore. And, despite whatev

stylistic objections one might have to H. Spencer Lewis' original origin story, A Pilgrim’s Jou rney to the F

East, there is no doubt that it would have a powerful and persuasive interest on individuals looking tunderstand various fundamental truths of reality, with the hope that by comprehending these truths, thecould better their lives. This, of course, was my hope, as I significantly explain in my memoir of cuentrapment, The Prisoner o fSan Jose.

In discussing the effect of A Pilgrim’s Journey, I would like to point out there is probably no morpowerful kind of narrative than a first person story. In literature, this is meant to create a close bon

between the narrator and the reader because of its powerful emot ional effect. And when you look at thorigin stories of AMORC and couple with them the extensive literature and monographs written

supervised by Lewis, its first Imperator, you can understand why a first person account could be, in people



minds, the very foundations of AMORC’s appeal. Of course, in literary creations, the protagonist who telthe story is fictional.

However, if you are more of a propagandist than a creator o f literature, you want to use narration astool for creating “authenticity" in the mind of the reader or listener. A story told by one person hasrippling effect on their consciousness no simple third person narrative could have. Marry this first-perso

effect with a sense of the honesty and integrity of the narrator and you have a profound step in thdirection of creating b elief in the mind of the recipient. When a narrativ e/story is conveyed by an expert mind control, it can be a fundamental tool for enslaving the human mind. Hitler did it, spreading hpoison with Mein Kampf, a masterpiece of political propaganda, resulting in a great deal of Germany losintheir soul in a cauldron of well-conceived mind control.

And as we have mentioned elsewhere, it appears, by his writing, that H. Spencer Lewis was a fan anapologist of Hitler’s. And, if someone wishes to debate that, try and debate his infatuation and proximity Mussolini who he courted in the flesh.

Whatever the degree of untru th is in Mein Kam pf, there is no doubt it makes Hitler appear to its reade

as a real person.In a marvelous little literary blog by Chris Gerwel called The King of Elflan d's Second Cousin, Chris mak

some points about the manipulative power of the "voice" in narration that I find directly applicable to th

power of “reader manipulation ” through this device. He says, speaking of the "invisible voice” in literatuin a specific blog, titled "Narrative Voice as Mind-control: Thoughts on Manipulating Reader Perception:”

Voice is the ultimate mind con trol, af fecting how the story resonates with us, how wefeel about the characters, and what we remember when the last page is turned. At itsmost impressive, it should be invisible. When we notice the voice, its influence on ourresponses and perceptions is lessened.

He further says in the following excerpts from the same blog.



First person narration—when executed well—earns the reader’s instant engagementprecisely through its link to voice. The narrator is a character in the story, with theirown perceptions, predilections, and foibles. They have their own way of seeing theworld, a tendency to pay attention to certain aspects that others might not notice inthe same way. One narrator might comme nt on people’s appearances. Another mightpay closer attention to facial expressions. In first-person narration, we are generallylocked into the narrator’s voice throughout the story. That’s the trade-o ff we make for

building th at super-close rea der /narrato r rela tionship .11

In discussing A P ilgrim ’s Jou rney to the Far East, I would be remiss in mentioning that it is a wonderfuintriguing little narrative demonstrating the humility and integrity of the narrator, presumably the authoH. Spencer Lewis, very shiny and believable.

But, maybe, considering its withdrawal from republication for so many years and the substitute alternative stories, maybe someone in charge thought it lacked the power it needed. And maybe, given thmotive, that someone didn’t mind reverting to what might be his strongest point involved in hrecruitm ent o f AMORC membership, some more carefully crafted literary fiction.

Cogn itive Persuasion

“Cognitive persuasion" is a technique of mind control that rests on a peculiarity of the hum an m ind

favor certain types of narratives. You might cause it the result of a certain protective mechanism, built ithe brain, to favor certain outcomes, regardless of their ultimate pra cticality or truth.

As an example of this, let us look at something familiar to my readers, the so-called "fight or flighsyndrome.” Neil F. Neimark, M.D., a Board Certified Family Practice Doctor defines it in his essay, "FivMinute Stress Mastery.”

When we experience excessive stress—whether from internal worry or externalcircumstance —a bodily reaction is triggered, called the "fight or flight” response.Originally discovered by the great Harvard physiologist Walter Cannon, this response

is hard-wired into our brains and represents a genetic wisdom designed to protect us



from bodily harm. This response actually corresponds to an area of our brain calledthe hypothalamus, which—when stimulated—initiates a sequence of nerve cell firing

and chemical release that prepares our body for running or fighting.—

He further goes to point out that during this time, "chemicals like adrenaline, noradrenaline, ancortisol are released" into the bloodstream; blood moves quickly from the digestive track to better fumuscles and limbs so we can better run or fight. Awareness increases while perception of pain decrease

etc.—This is obviously an instinctive process.

But sometimes, given human values and goals, we have to fight against this natural instinctive proces built in to our physiology, in order to achieve a more importa nt outcome than fight or flight. An example

this would the utilization of passive resistance techniques used to fight segregation in the United States bMartin Luther King who emulated Mahatma Gandhi who deployed this technique to bring down the BritisEmpire. Passive resistance often meant standing one’s ground against an enemy atta ck and deliberately nfleeing (often because fleeing was not all that possible in an enclosed space like a restaurant where one willegally perching at a soda fountain counter during the heyday of segregation. Passive resistance was technique to show one’s determination, to block normal consumer activity unless an expected eve

occurred (like serving a cup of coffee to a black person) or to shame the perpetuator of violence, who wtrying to bully, hurt or m aim a non-violent person whose major crime was to be treated equally as a normhuman being. Therefore, the conscious human m ind would deliberately overcome the instinctual directionembodied in the "flight or fight syndrome.”

As we have mentioned, George Lakoff is a cognitive scientist and linguist, whose metier happens to bamong other things, the neuroscience behind political persuasion. In his book, The Po litical Mind, he poinout the powerful draw of certain types of narratives in his book, narratives that appeal to us on such ainstinctive level that they can easily be easily accepted, unless we insist that our opinions are governed breflective thinking. Although this book is concerned with political narratives, its findings are clearl



applicable to other areas as well. I think, psychologically, political and cult propaganda are inextricablinked.

The building blocks of narratives are the concept of "fram es,” which we have indicated that looks atstructure of ideas we use to understand the world. Another, even more scientific-sounding account oframes is given in Paul Thagard’s glossary of Cognitive Science: "Data structure that represents a concept o

schema.’— In that glossary, a “concept” is defined as a “mental representation o f a class of objects or even

that belong together, often corresponding to a word”—and a “schemata” as “a mental representation of

class of objects, events, or practices.’ —If frames are like the atom in physics, you could compare narratives to molecules because they a

composed of frames and if they are structured in a c ertain way can do things that atoms ca nnot. Althougframes can be seen as something thought of or a thought embodied in language, the whole point cognitive science is that these ‘frames’ are also represented in actual neuronal activity in the brain. There isphysiological correlate to frames tha t can be measured.

Frames can be simple or complex. When H. Spencer Lewis steps onto a trolley in A P ilgrim'sJourney thcan be a relatively simple frame compared to that point when he has climbed a long staircase in the OCastle and is greeted by the Archivist, a little more complex frame.

I know many of you following this discussion are not necessarily interested in a complex discussion the neurophysiology of frames and narratives, but nonetheless, I would like to take the time to make thconcept slightly clearer.

As hypnosis and other trance states levels were first measured by brain waves through aelectroencephalograph, the EEG is sometimes used in cognitive research, but, it can also be used iconjunction with other methodologies like an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) to measure frame activion a neural level. To see what this might mean to scientists, let us refer to a 2012 experiment with thprodigious title of "Tracking Down Abstract Linguistic Meaning; Neural Correlates of Spatial Frame Reference Ambiguities in Language,” by Janzen, Haun and Levinson. Their conclusions in their Abstra

show that different specific spatial concepts, described in language and images, can be tracked down specific, correlated neurological activity:



Using this method, we were able to precisely pinpoint the pattern of neural activationassociated with each linguistic interpretation of the ambiguity, while holding theperceptual stimuli constant. Increased brain activity in bilateral parahippocampalgyrus was associated with the intrinsic frame of reference whereas increased activityin the right superior frontal gyrus and in the parietal lobe was observed for therelative frame of reference. The study is among the few to show a distinctive patternof neural activation for an abstract yet specific semantic parameter in language. It

shows with special clarity the nature of the neural substrate supporting each frame o fspatial reference.—

I mention this to demonstrate tha t the conclusions o f cognitive scientists like Lakoff who wish to draconclusions about the way people think or how they are influenced are based on experiments such as thdemonstrate neural activity through using scientific instrumentation that shows physiological braiactivity, that correlates to the facts and interpretations they are making. This actually is a hug

breakthrough in utilizing science to understand the human mind—n ot only the deliberative, conscioumind but also the instinctual, built-in power of certain narratives, built out o f frames in a specific way.

Since this is a complex subject and my point here is to consider the type of influence we have calle"cognitive persuasion,” we will not dwell on the neural substratum of cognitive science but rather sominsights into human thought and behavior that have bearing on a specific type of influence that AMORC h

attempted to use for the same reason it has used trance induction—to co ntrol what people think.When I say this, I don’t mean that H. Spencer Lewis, during his time, actually knew about cognitivscience as we know about it today. But as a trained advertiser, he knew about the power of language andfully conscious or not, the power of certain types of narratives. This kind of knowledge has existed in

somewhat intuitive level since ancient times. It is the essence of both political and comm ercial propagandThis is reflected in modern times as in politics speechmaking, campaign promises and advertising, par

platforms and public relations, and in the commercial world primarily in advertising, but also in publrelations. We have known for a long time about the power of narratives, but we did not know that mucabout how and why they worked in respect o f brain physiology and cognitive linguistics.



Frames, as we have mentioned, are relatively simple structures, but when they are strung together, thecan form a more complex structure out of frames like: H. Spencer Lewis, seeker after Truth; a cruise ship; thoffice of a Professor Linguistic in Paris, the old Archivist, officious Jewels and Documents. When formetogether with a specific direction, this complex o f frames is called a narrative. Narratives generally haveProtagonist to whom good and bad things happen.

According to Lakoff, there is a structure to a narrative, which goes like this:Preconditions—pre-conditions that exist before the narrative starts

Buildup—the route to the main eventThe Main Event—the subject of the narrativeThe Purpose—the goal of it allThe Wind Down—the immediate aftermathResult—the short-term consequences

Later Consequences—what happens later o n -

This type of narrative is called an "event schema.” It involves a dynamic structure and is powereneurophysiologically caused by "neural binding,” a way in which neural pathways and activities are locktogether in a certain structure. In a moment, we will examine a key dynamic event as described in th

literature of AMORC. Suffice to say that event schemas like this can have strong emotional effects via thpositive route, the dopamine circuit, which creates a sense of well-being and happiness, or th

norepinephrine circuit, which triggers negative emotions like fear or anger.

* * * * *

Why A Pilgrim’sJourney to the Ea st is a Pow erful N arrative

First of all, it is complete—a whole story. It is short enough to be read in one or two sittings. Secondly, is a Hero type of story, a power-packed type of narrative we will examine later. Let us now look at istructure,



Preconditions—preconditions that exist before the narrative starts

H. Spencer Lewis is characterized as a profound Seeker After Truth, who has spent his adult career as aeditor and writer of the occult. Where he has various business and educational credentials, his onoverwhelming concern is the pursuit of Truth and he wants, with all his heart, to be a part of thRosicrucian tradition. To this end, he has even written to an editor, who he does not know, in Paris to seehe can make contact with a real Rosicrucian contact.

Buildup—the route to the main event

When the Parisian editor responds, he takes a boat to India. On the boat, he meets a man he supposes t be East Indian. As per his ins tructions from the editor, he meets a Professor of Languages at his store , whicsells artwork and photographs of French monuments. After an interrogation by the Professor, he inspects

painting of a Tower and is sent to Southern France, where he meets his companion from the boat on a tra“by accident,” who proves later to be a member of the Order, who is watching him, and has variouadventures that lead him eventually to Toulouse,

The Main Event—the subject of the narrative

Once in Toulouse, he meets a photographer who sends him off to another venue, which turned out to bthe very tower that the Professor had shown him in a picture, called by Rosicrucians, the Dongeon. There h

meets an old Archivist, who proves to him that he has been watched and approved enough to meet thGrand Master and Imperator in his holy temple. Eventually, he heads out, as directed, to the old city oTolosa and to an old estate and told he will meet the Officers of the Grand Lodge at sunset. That night he

initiated into the Order Rosae Crucias, crossing the Threshold in the Old Lodge in that same building of thestate. He meets the Officers, takes the pledges and is made a Brother of the Order "as the witching hour Midnight”is struck by the old chimes in the tower of the building.”

The Purpose—the goal of it all

The goal was to become a Brother of the Order.



The Wind Down—the immediate aftermath

Lewis remains in Toulouse for a week and gets to go to lectures, demonstrations, and private classes, Halso gets to attend the Monthly Convocation o f the Illuminati as well as seeing the buildings and courts thare used as a Rosicrucian monastery.

Result—the short-term consequences

The day he leaves Toulouse, he is appointed as Legate for America. The Grand Master tells him:

Brother, these papers appoint you as a Legate of this Order for your country. Yourduty and privileges are well defined. The documents you have—and the few jewels Inow hand to you—will enable you to proceed at the time and in the manner indicated.When you have made some progress you will meet with a representative from theOrder in Egypt who will hand you, under certain conditions, other papers and seals.

From time to time there will come to you those whom you will recognize by the signsindicated. They will add to your papers and devices until your working papers andtools are completed. Our Archivist will send you under seal, with the protection of theFrench Government, other papers as soon as you have made the progress, which will

be reported to us by our Agents. Your semi-annual reports will warrant, or deny, yourprogress and assistance. The Master of the World will be glad to administer to yourwants and your requirements from time to time; and Peace and Power shall come to

America if the dictates of our Order are faithfully fulfilled.”—

Later Consequences—what happens late r on

He brings the Grand Master’s blessings to his brothers and sisters in America. Of course, it is understoothat after he reaches America, then he begins AMORC.



The Pilgrim's Jou rney to the Far East, which incidentally is about H. Spencer Lewis’ journey to ToulousFrance, not the Far East, is a narrative about the humble beginnings of a Spiritual Super Hero.

For someone who actually knows what AMORC pretends to be, as described in their brochure, T

Ma stery o f Life, and in the monographs, realizes that the position of the Imperator, whose Rosicruciaorganization is basically the only authentic and best link with the God on Earth, is more important as person than the kings and presidents of planet Earth, as well as the Pope and the Dalai Lama and any heaof a large corporation in the world. Such a person is a Superhero.

But, if so, why do there appear to be changes to the narrative?I think there is one clear progressive change in the narratives. They provide more authoritative suppogiven to Lewis outside of himself, which gives more credence to the so-called weight of the initiations Toulouse.

In the first narrative, A Pilgrim 'sJourney, Lewis is really just a humble petitioner with a background the study of the occult who wishes to join the Order. In the second narrative, Rosicrucians Q&A, Lewis is aactual relative of the founders of the American Rosicrucian Order, who is influenced by a Legate of thOrder to petition the Order in France for his involvement. This "Legate,” with the unmentioned namappears to him before he leaves for France.

He then says, referring to his first journey to France in 1 909 ,

Before leaving France I had the pleasure of meeting several of the highest officers andmet in America on my return the Legate from India, who presented to me the Jewels

and Papers that had been preserved from the early American foundation.25

Doesn’t this "Legate” seem like she must have been Mrs. Banks-Stacey? But Mrs. Banks-Stacey doesnappear until perhaps the fall of 1 914 , at least according to Ralph’s account in Cosmic Mission Fulfilled.

It was in the fall of 1914 that events occurred that accelerated the formation of theOrder Rosy Cross for its second cycle. He (H. Spencer Lewis) wrote of this event, "There

came to me a grand old lady who had been a deep student of the occult for years. Shehad traveled much abroad in search for knowledge and had been initiated in many

forms o f our (Rosicrucian) work.”—



He then goes on to say that the lady was, indeed, Mrs. May Banks-Stacey, a descendant of the D’Arcys France and Oliver Cromwell and how she had been given a special errand and mission connected to “thOrder.”

Thus, on another rainy night in the m onth o f November, on my birthday, in fact, sheunceremoniously and reverently placed in my hands a few papers, a small packet, and

a beautiful red rose! The papers I found to be some of those which the Masters hadexplained to me in Europe in 1909 and which were promised to come to me by special

messenger when I needed them most.”—

So is this the same Legate from India who inspired him to go to France before he went to France 190 9? Again, why does A Pilgrim'sJourney not mention her? Why are not jewels mentioned this time as theare sometimes—sometimes before he leaves France, sometimes afterwards?

Remember our recent quote from Rosicrucians Questions an d Answ ers? It talks about his initiation i1909 in France, saying he returned to meet the Legate again, who presented him with jewels and pape

from the early American Order?Did it not talk about Mrs. Banks-Stacey giving him jewels and documents in both the 1971 Manual an

her obituary in Cromaat of 19 29? And why in his son’s book and in the manual does it not m ention him

being a direct descendent of the Founders in America as it does say in Rosicrucians Questions an d Answers?The stories and their components weave back and forth, jeopardizing their credibility if anyone werwary enough to look at them carefully.

To me, it appears that Lewis alone may not have had the credibility he wanted, and then perhaps th

addition of the Legate and his own blood relationship to the Order in Ephrata gave him more power but wanot enough. But then, the n the bestowal of the jewels and documents by a Legate who received their ordefrom India was even more authoritative. And so these three narratives evolved, giving more and morsupport to Lewis’ supposed initiation. But along with this authority being vested in him, why was hdescent from the American Order left out? Perhaps it was not such an easy thing to disprove? Who knowsAs you can see, the claim has not been forgotten.



Perhaps one of the most significant narratives today is based on a short biography called "H. SpencLewis—Restorer of Rosicrucianism” by Christian Rebisse, FRC, who is touted as a "Rosicrucian historian ”the few paragraphs before the narrative begins. It is significant because it is currently being promoted bAMORC through a podcast and a movie. The movie is offered in many different venues—not just througthe official website.

As you can imagine from what we have discussed about cognitive persuasion, there is a great power in

narrative because what you see outside yourself is linked to the same processes o f perception in your owmind. And certain narratives have more of an effect than others, unless the rational mind intervenes, aninvestigates what is behind the narrative.

Of course, one o f the main points o f mind control in cults is to utilize the power o f a simple narrative gain the participation of the member. This is done through cognitive persuasion. But after a short timtechniques are deployed to fatigue the mind and body o f the member, which enhances suggestibility. Themethods of trance induction are deployed that can heighten suggestibility to the point of actually replacinthe personality of the member with a new cult personality, often partially based on changes in thmember’s perception of reality by creating a capacity for positive hallucinations based, in this case, on thteaching o f a religious cult.

Still, in no way should the effect of cognitive persuasion be diminished. It is a conduit to many lifchanging decisions and emerging lifestyles due to commercial advertising, political propaganda, anreligious indoctrination. In my opinion, overall, it has a more dangerous effect on society than trancinduction, which is used robustly by religious cults but also sometimes, in a variety of ways, by other typof cults and political organizations.

So, let us now take a look at the “Restorer" narrative. As we have laboriously mentioned, there arconflicts and problems with the AMORC-generated accounts we have previously presented. But now we aabout to see more conflicts.

According to the claim of Rebisse, Lewis had a mystical experience on the Thursday after Easter thwould ultimately change his life. It was this experience that convinced him that the ultimate truth la

within him self and that he had to go to France to contac t the Rosicrucians.



There are several problems with this narrative. First o f all, it seems to indica te that this experience wthe ultimate driver of the journey. And, other narratives, like in Rosicrucian Questions and Answ ers and h“ Pilgrim 's Jou rney to the East" seem to speak of years of preparation. Secondly, in Questions an d Answers,

certainly appears that the appearance of a Legate from India joining his organization prompted him. Amentioned, in a quote from Mrs. May Banks-Stacey, whose story is referenced in the 191 8 Cromaat editioand referenced in the manual, it appears she brought him documents and jewels, validating that he wou

be the one to start an Order in America. The Questions and Answ ers narrative and the Banks-Stacey claim both emphasize that his reason for going to France was to be able to restart the Rosicrucian Order

America.

Who D id Lew is F irst Contact in France Who Persuad ed Him to Come to Paris?

You would think that an historian would be more careful in his discussion of Lewis’ backgrounespecially since he directly quotes A Pilgrim'sJourney to the East. In Rebisse’s Restorer version it says:

In the hope of obtaining some information regarding Rosicrucianism in France, he

(Lewis) decided to write to a Parisian bookseller whose catalogue he had obtained.—

But in A Pilgrim'sJourney, Lewis speaks of a:

...letter I received from the editor of a Parisian paper of whom I had asked the simplequestion: “How can I learn of the method to pursue which will secure guidance to the

Rosae Crucis?”—

So here we have an editor in one account and a bookseller in another. Perhaps a small thing, but perhapnot for a biographer whose interest seems to be to identify the actual cha racters that Lewis connected wit

Despite the contradiction between these two claims with the initial contact, both cases, quoting from Pilgrim 'sJourney, the Restorer version says that Lewis was told he should contact at "the Studio of M., th

Professor of languages at No._ Blvd. St. Germaine.”



Rosicrucian Questions a nd Answers does not mention either contact, but paints the picture that thmysterious Legate from India encouraged him to go to France since he was a descendent of the Founders the American Order and had studied their original documents.

How Lew is' Trip was “M agica lly”Funded

A nd How He W ent to France with h is Father

In A P ilgrim’s Journal, it does mention Lewis having some fina ncial problems with the trip, but within

week of determining his need to visit the connection mentioned in the letter from either the editor or th bookseller (whichever you believe) came another:

...letter through a business proposition, which offered a most unexpected opportunityto visit several cities in France. And I could visit Paris, my mind free and easy, and my

desires to be gratified. Surely this was a demonstra tion o f a Rosaecrucian principle.—

In Pilgrim % it does not say much about the nature o f the business proposition, but in Restorer, it is qui

explicit. It says:

Although his financial situation did not permit him to consider such a voyage, anunexpected opportunity presented itself the following week. His father, Aaron Lewis,an expert in authenticating documents as well as a renowned genealogist, needed anassistant while conducting research in France for the Rockefeller family. On July 24,1909, the two men sailed for Europe on the Amerika, of the Hamburg Amerika Line.On Sunday, August 1, the ship arrived at Cherbourg, and the two travelers set off for

Paris by train.—



How Lewis’ Trip w as "M agically”Funded A nd How He W ent to France with h is Father

In A P ilgrim ’s Journal, it does mention Lewis having some fina ncial problems with the trip, but withinweek of determining his need to visit the connection mentioned in the letter from either the editor or th

bookseller (whichever you believe) came another:

...letter through a business proposition, which offered a most unexpected opportunity

to visit several cities in France. And I could visit Paris, my mind free and easy, and mydesires to be gratified. Surely this was a demonstra tion o f a Rosaecrucian principle.—

In Pilgrim's, it does not say much about the nature o f the business proposition, but in Restorer, it is quiexplicit. It says:

Although his financial situation did not permit him to consider such a voyage, anunexpected opportunity presented itself the following week. His father, Aaron Lewis,an expert in authenticating documents as well as a renowned genealogist, needed anassistant while conducting research in France for the Rockefeller family. On July 24,1909, the two men sailed for Europe on the Amerika, of the Hamburg Amerika Line.

On Sunday, August 1, the ship arrived at Cherbourg, and the two travelers set off for

Paris by train.44

How Lewis’ Trip Was Magically Funded

And How, Totally Alone, He Befriended A Middle Eastern Strange r

But in Pilgrim ’s, which also states the voyage on the ship began on the 24th of July, 1909, it mentionhow on the following morning he meets a “dark complexioned young man” who "seemed to place himsein my company at every opportunity, above and below deck, on Saturday afternoon, and I felt thlonesomeness, the one great equalizer at sea, was gnawing at his heart as it was at mine.”



Although the reference to meeting him on Sunday, but spending time with him on Saturday, does seeincongruent with its own narrative, the discussion of his loneliness and spending all his time with himseems totally incongruent with the fa ct he was on board ship with his own father. In Pilgrim's, this strangand he arrive in Cherbourg and they begin a six-hour journey to Paris, where they part. So, in Restorer, it his father and he who are "the two travelers” who set off to Paris by train. In Restorer, it is Lewis and a darcomplexioned man.

In Restorer, it says:

The days that followed were entirely devoted to genealogical research, and it was only in the following week that H. Spencer Lewis was able to visit the bookshop and the

professor of languages on Boulevard Saint-Germain. “A Pilgrim’s Journey to the East”reported his meetings with the professor on Saturday, August 7, and on Monday,

August 9.—

Of course, in Pilgrim ’s, there is no bookstore. In fact, in explicit detail, Lewis says:

I visited the Professor early one morning and found that he was the proprietor of a store whose sole merchandise w as rare and bea utiful etchings and photographs o f the

“monum ents o fFrance.

I will remark on this point, that is, the store being a fine art shop with etchings and photograph because on his second trip, he shows him one of his pictures, taken from behind one o f the glass doors o fcabinet.

"Among the many beautiful sights you may see while in this cou ntry is this one. Yousee here only a material representation of a spiritual place. This old tower—a very old

building—is one of the truly great French monum ents. Some day you may see this

tower, then remember that I have called your attention to it. I believe that you will



always cherish a view of it and this is a very excellent piece of work.”—

Lew is on the Loose In T oulouse Various Twists on tha tjoum ey

Since there is no father in Pilgrim's, on his first trip by train out of Paris, with the destination bein

‘Avignon, he meets up with his friend from the steamer on a train. After various adventures, not m entionein Restorer, he finally arrives in Toulouse. There, he visits the "Hall of the Illustrious,” and then, later he ridein a carriage to his next destination. He says:

I was, in fact, practically skirting the city. I say old churches, old buildings, some oldRoman Bridges across the Garonne, some ruined places - and then - ah, at least, the OldTower.

There, before me, was the actual tower itself, the one I had seen in the picture at theProfessor's store in Paris. I notified the driver to stop, I paid and dismissed him. And,in rapture and doubt, I stood before that Old Tower (known to Rosaecrucians as "The

Dongeon”—Fr. Donjon,) for many minutes with a feeling in my heart that, somehow

this was the goal. My search was ended.—

This, indeed, is a momentous moment in Pilgrim 's because it is there that Lewis receives his nedirections, after meeting the old Rosicrucian Archivist and seeing he is clearly on his way.

But in Restorer, it says something quite different. Lewis doesn’t even go to the Old Tower. His fathedoes, and it appears to be a public place, where Lewis' father can consult the city archives, presumably abou

material related to the Rockefeller genealogy research.

On Tuesday, August 10, the two men left Paris, and following some adventures thatH. Spencer Lewis interpreted as his having been put to the test, they arrived in

Toulouse on Wednesday. On the following day, his father resumed his work and



probably went to the Donjon (Keep or Old Tower) to consult the city archives.Meanwhile, H. Spencer Lewis went to the Salle des Illustres (Gallery of the Illustrious)of the Capitol, where he met an individual who was instrum ental in bringing his questto a successful conclusion. After a brief discussion, this person gave him a piece of

paper on which was written the name of the street where he should go so as to meet

some Rosicrucians.—

In the Restorer version, at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, Lewis engages a taxi and goes to the addresprovided, and as we have said, his encounter with the Archivist in the Tower com pletely left out o f the stoand the Tower appearing to be a place where there are city archives, which would probably not be in

building belonging to a secretive Roscrucian Order.Why are there these discrepancies? Then again, in another passage, another seeming problem occurs.After passing through the old town of Tolosa, he arrived at a stone edifice encircled by high walls an

situated on a hill. It was in this castle that, according to “A P ilgrim’sJourney to th e Eas t" he was initiated inthe Rosicrucian Order. Although this text does not give any details regarding this ceremony, hautobiography provides some intriguing information. We are told that the person who greeted Lewis waCount Raynaud E. de Bellcastle-Ligne, a seventy-eight-year-old man, who lived here with his widowe

daughter and whose means of living were modest, despite his noble origins.Although it clearly says that this information about the identity of the Count is supplied in A P ilgrim

Jou rney to the East, it is not there at all. It is rather located in the book called Rosicrucian Questions an

Answers. Why would the Order allow such obviously sloppy attributions be made, which further points the fictionalization of AMORC’s origins narratives but also to a kind of a cavalier attitude towards bein

exposed?We know that A P ilgrim's Jou rney wen t out of print sometime early in AMORC’s history and that it wa

republished, perhaps as a brochure, in the 195 0s, a long time before the Internet. Perhaps it was allowed slip out of print again.



Robert VanLoo’s Article R evisited

I have tremendous respect for the research of Robert VanLoo as revealed in his article, “Is the A.M.O.R.C

an offshoot of the O.T.O. or not?”49 When attacked by a reader for alleged plagiarism of Clymer's writing i

a Google Group, one reader with a rather well known pseudonym (Christian Rosencreuz) said:

In his online m aterials Robert Vanloo is also critical of Clymer's arguments.

He examines issues of AMORC legitimacy that Clymer did not, particularly the statusof the Pronunziamento #1 and Lewis's variousclaims. Certainly if Clymer was awareof the Pronunziamento with the “OTO" written on it, he would have used it in anattempt to link Lewiswith Crowley.

Vanloo's research was ini tially undertaken while he was in the AMORC and I believe hewas ousted when the results of his work started to threaten people's beliefs in HarveySpencer Lewis. So the work was not initially prepared with the intent of hostility toAMORC.

In fact, Vanloo's work is copiously referenced from source materials, and thearguments are developed by analyzing those materials.

It's noteworthy that in the six years since the publication of his work, “Les Rose-Croixdu Nouveau Monde”, AMORC, with all its resources, has not been able to mount ascholarly reply to his arguments at all.

Doesn't that say something?

R+C—



At the time that I wrote Tales o fthe Pu ppet Master, analyzing some of H. Spencer Lewis’ books, I had nocome across either Rosicrucian Q uestions and Answers or A Pilgrim’s Jou rney to the East. Although I obvioushave not believed in anything about AMORC’s fairytales about its legitimacy, I did not have the sourcmaterial to realize their profound lack of consistency.

VanLoo’s research brings us to the point, again, of asking—Why?In my work, I always look at the mind control, and now, with the cognitive persuasion componen

platform that Lewis was creating. But, with this in mind, it is a question whether Lewis was engaged in

kind of cover-up, where he feared he might lose his credibility to the nefariousness of the connections h

may have unwittingly initiated in the beginning of his efforts in form ing AMORC.According to VanLoo, the problem might have been with the connection between the O.T.O. (Ord

Templie Orientis) and AMORC. Had AMORC been original ly trying to derive its authe nticity from the O.T.O but had he found that its connectio n to “sex magic,” which would severely color AMORC’s comm ercisuccess in often very Victorian-minded America? Or even worse, was there a direct connection betweeAlistair Crowley, a man whose reputation in early twentie th century America could alienate the middle-othe-road potential cu stomer base o f Lewis?

This claim of some type of connection between the O.T.O. and AMORC was not invented by VanLoo bu

was developed in detail by R. Swinburne Clymer, whose authenticity as the leader of a Rosicrucian Ord(the Rosicrucian Foundation) and ‘‘protector’’ of Rosicrucianism was challenged by the then upstart AMORorganization.

His book is titled, NO T UNDER THE ROSY CROSS. A section under the title defines the purposes of th book specifically .

Presenting documentary proof that H. Spencer Lewis—Imperator of AMORC, aspurious R.C. Order—fabricated and copied secret lessons from published books....Lewis admits that Crowley, Baphomet Anti-Christ, is his Secret Chief, and the BlackCult of O.T.O., as source of his authority, shows his connection with Black Magic and

inverted triangle.—



The book, published by Clymer’s Rosicrucian Foundation, which is, incidentally, located iQuakerstown, Pennsylvania, (the state where Ephrata, the alleged but sometimes disputed first colony Rosicrucians were established in America) claims to contain a facsimile explanation of its documentaproof. The page following the title page, defines its mission: "An Expose of the Imperator of AMORC, H

Pilfering Charlatanism and His Connections with ALEISTER CROWLEY, Notorious Black Magician anO.T.O. ORDO TEMPLI ORIENTIS Despised Black Cult.”

To show his eagerness to spread the word, a single page following the foregoing says: "Not CopyrightePermission to copy granted. The courtesy of credit is requested."

In quoting the following passage and in our further explication of what Clymer says, we are not in anway trying to confirm that Clymer represented a true Rosicrucian Order nor that his specific allegationagainst H. Spencer Lewis are true in the way he formulated them so many years ago. We are presentinthem and other claims, such as made by Crowley himself, as evidence of the antiquity o f these claims and aexplanation of why Robert VanLoo and others, including myself, continue to try and unravel the truabout AMORC’s origins, an organization which continues to recruit and ind octrinate hundreds of innocen

members a year.Our main points of view in this book can be summarized as follows: the origins of AMORC are uncle

because there are so many versions and contradictions in them. That we postulate the reason for this Lewis’ instinctive understanding that certain narratives have a more persuasive power than others, a

understanding that is buoyed up by the discoveries and interpretations of the results of cognitive sciencThis power of narratives was understood even back then by commercial promoters and advertisers, as weas confidence men, steeped in fraud and criminality. We call these methods of influence, utilizin

narratives instinctively favored by our minds —cognitive persuasion,

But in addition to the use of certain persuasive narratives, changes in these narratives may hav

occurred to hide certain realities in Lewis’ actual history. It is well known that he had com munication aneven alliances with some strange bedfellows, particularly in his adventure with the formation anpromotion of FUDOSI, which was formulated, as we have previously discussed, with anti-Semitic and antmasonic prejudice.



Even though the history of the origins is not clear, there is little doubt that H. Spencer Lewis wainvolved in some way with Reuss and Crowley, both affiliated with an organization originally calling itsethe O.T.O. an organization that splintered into different groups. Nonetheless, it is probably not in th

bombastic way that Clymer presents, yet Clymer’s claims and his person are a part of the history of thOrder. As is Crowley. As is Reuss.

Here is what Clymer's preface to his book, NO T UNDER THE ROSY CROSS (which he calls a brochur

despite the fact it is 130 pages, single-spaced) says about Lewis and his motives.

This brochure presents and makes available to all students of the occult sciences and

mysticism; members of secret schools, societies and the churches; serious seekers ofthe Rosy Cross, and especially to all members of A.M.O.R.C., a picture in miniature ofthe astounding career of a most successful deceiver; a vile impostor, a clever charlatanand a crafty sorcerer, who, having formed in 1915 an organization under the stolenname of a holy order, under the false pretense that it was an authentic Rose Cross

Order—an order of White Magic and of the White Brotherhood—while at the time ofsuch organization, at all times since, and is now a member and affiliated with theO.T.O. (Ordo Templi Orientis), a notorious Black Cult of the Black Brotherhood; who,since 1921, has been acting un der the a utho rity o f a cha rter issued by the O. T. O., by and

under the direction of Aleister Crowley, its founder and Secret Chief, a notorious anddespised Black Magician, and who has, evidently, long intended and now, as it is clearly indicated, is attempting by a process slow b UT sure to convert its organization, theA.M.O.R.C., into a Cult of Black Magic under the dominion of Crowley -Bahomet- the

ANTI-CHRIST, whom he acknowledges to be his Secret Chief—

Clymer, perhaps Lewis’ most flagrant opponent, in his brochure/book tells quite a different tale abouLewis’ initiation in 190 9 of which we have already two somewhat complete, but different stories in Pilgr

and in Restorer. By publishing this ancient claim, we are by no means asserting its veracity. Nor do ou



quotes from Clymer diminish the fact th at his bone fides as to being a "true Rosicrucian” have beechallenged by others. One thing is certain, his prolific attack on Lewis was prodigious. Even Crowley, whoproposed association with Lewis made him the key villain in Clymer’s claims against Lewis, had this to saabout Clymer’s ceaseless attempts to defame AMORC and its exalted Imperator.

...filled with nothing but hatred. It is to me an extraordinary circumstance that a manshould be so eaten up with passion that he can put hours of time and quite large sums

of money into such a monument of abuse. Even in the Middle Ages, I don’t recall anycontroversy so prodigiously documented. An interesting point is that Clymer seems tohave acquired almost magical powers through his fervor. He has obtained possessionof documents which even I, who had my nose in the business since 1 912 , have never

heard.—

Clymer certainly does make strong accusations against Lewis, challenging his authenticity in a varieof ways. Perhaps some of his strongest statements are as follows:

HIS INITIATION IN 1909

In the beginning of his spurious Rosicrucian activities in 1915 and for some timethereafter, Mr. Lewis claimed and frequently published his claim that in 1909 he went

abroad and was received into or in itiated in some kind of a Rosicrucian Order and thathe had received authority to establish his work in America in 1915. His claimsconcerning the source of his authority, as in the matter of his sponsor, have beenvague, contradictory, and confusing. He has made claims of authority from Egypt,

France, Germany, Switzerland, and other sources.—

He further says:



HIS 1909 INITIATION WAS IN LONDON Not in Toulouse France, as He Claimed

It now appears that prior to and during 1909 Mr. Lewis and Mr. Albert H. Postel wereemployed by a publishing concern or associated in the publication of a mysterymagazine in New York City. Mr. Lewis was the artist and Mr. Postel the astrologer. Aninvestigation by the United States postal authorities made it advisable, if not

necessary, for them to leave the country in the year 1909. Mr. Postel tells us that heleft for Paris, while Harvey S. Lewis, as he was then known, paid a visit to London,

where he received his initiation in 1909, about which has written so much and so

confusedly.—

So, far I have not been able to track down too much about Allen H. Postel except that there wastrologer named Postel and he made interesting claims. Here is the cover of the March 1907 edition ofmagazine called the Nautilus which contains an advertisement highlighting Postel's claims about h

astrological gifts.



i M i ii l i lX030803865



T H E S T O R Y O F

Y O O R L I F ENtw York Professor Perfects System by

Which He Quickly Reads the SecretCharacteristics and Lives of

People Though Thousandsof Miles Away.

D O N ’ T W R I T E T O M E :

X c n n m l W o m rn I n Al l W a l k * o f Li t eI t e ce l v e l e t t e r * I r on i t h i n G r r a t

An t rn l o gc r I n w h i c h H eAi l s la m T h « n t o n I m

portant Aflfc lr*.

O f f er* Free I { ra i l l n K« l o Al l W h o W ri t *itml Hr ml D ale ol It lrth.

Prof. Albert H. Postel, author. lecturer andtraveler. hat completed arrangements by whichhe hopes to render a great service to humanitr.Thousands of men and women in all walks of lifeare seeking the advice of this eminent aatrolojrer.and many voluntarily send thankful letters, highly praising the profesior for bis kind and helpfulservices. The following arc samples of letters re*ceived by Professor Postel:

Mr. William Payne Cole, of Grange, Md.writes: “I do. indeed, thank you for the grandwork you hare done; things of which you spokehave already come to pait. I feel that if I hadthis reading two years ago I would have been bet-ter off today. May God bless you and your goodwork."

From Allie WardwdL Converse. Ind.: “I re-ceived my ilorosccpc and I am well pleased withit. You have a wonderful knowledge of humanlife. It is the best Horoscope I ever had. Pleaseaccept my thanks.**

While Profeitor Postel is modett and unat

If rarn o tp r cs DM I a m t l y oa * hU l a « IM t - K roo Rn d l i ( . ‘ whk-b m #1 DO n l i M to h> M ; . T Tm m I r a o lUwd lnc* ar» utra rum ««o p ie foe u>o m boni on a cr r ta ln da j. n * > i n a tm Ji oo o t i m t l t l K t w * • IU i r fr rotxw lo few p lKO of Mr tl l ud UM*bow . A* w* l l i n igkt * ip « i I MM I ( • g t * W T m an tom e a A a t I I I A t * M l m n d l f m M f

If j r «a vas t a caiwfal r r ad l i f l i d i i f wi l l i ng lo H>; for It. Mod j o * r fn:i data* , aai . ^l ara, t u PrC** . ooo nr 1*0 iM Un Rra4 for ■> l iwrmtaro anyway ih (or

I have N fi In aaano pta<* many ywara J l a a l l l M r r a- l rr a « u l t h e m l » r S K i *.

Tour* for a aquar* deal.

DR. DEROLLI, Astrologer,

Hofei Pelham, • Boston, Mass.

SCIENTIFIC ASTROLOGY.S U M i W i M a a d A N a l l k i Wa ia a m lk«*r feaada

«Nd op aad fated at Ike i n * . rcttX .r.i haa Intmhiwlr F « H tko fan i kM ikroo al er tl y aretMole af ifea al ffct x n tnunau j f tr i a led M fcunaa •fa i l * and tU m -t l w ( W *r r ry l if e . T W p u l a * 4 I w w i e l•B tl lmae ki tt Wl i r ved U tfcal r a l ar aa roald rntl i u Ikt ■real Kv ol na Tfcia ■»■. ia. act by chant*. fatuJtlen l a tefnt iMk Rrcrot d raonatratione of Aalro-Pkyaaral aci r ac* baa* wl i iw r r r a Um aai x l t of natra! rr edk ttawe of Tpk « I ttk i and Kep lar and tfe* frr a i r et ef pMt Sacra. I f yea really m u * to I im * what S ci enti f ic Aatrelc<y haa far tn i a the war af toapirMinn and faId_____

aa ta raw fiitort. aaad na jaai klnfedala wnh a*U-addrraerd atanaedenvelop* or !»»<»»! ataap, and I winda«b t rowwnk my lotiaiatt d*Un*alionaf r*wr proaparia

PROP. Alcor N. Mizaro,Bo. 94*. BRIDGEPORT . CONN.

LET ME TELL

Y O O R F O R T O N EFREE.

tha anawer ie the wara. >t o r lei I m wkot Ihekaa ia Mora fat yvu. t*> r»< wUk lo know

r you will fr*»i<r ar wot In f o n t •ndcfia fcla f»

KeadM Mwlether

But like all claims about men ’s foibles, the claim o f or about another man, his relationships, activities, wrongdoing or his reality as a once living person does not point to any kind of validation of a specific claiagainst him. To date, I have not been able to confirm anything more about Lewis and Postel and the allegeinitiation in London. But it is intriguing that there is a record that Postel exists. But so what?



I do have a profound skepticism about Lewis being a pawn of Aleister Crowley, as claimed. I think theis evidence against it. Still, however misinformed, there are, indeed, some strange things linking some AMORC’s symbolism to those of Crowley’s. It does appear, in some way, there were connections between athree men, including an allegedly short and futile visit of Clymer to Crowley. That Crowley knew Lewis an

was, to some extent; involved with him personally, there is no doubt.

Crowley developed somewhat of a relationship with Lewis but Lewis basically rejected him in the lonrun. To give you an idea of what Crowley thought of Lewis’s charter, which he claimed to receive from hso-called French Rosicrucian masters in Toulouse, Crowley had nothing but derisive skepticism, “...if thehad mastered all the secrets of Nature, those of the elementary rules of French grammar still baffled them.

According to Starr, Clymer actually visited Crowley around 1914-15 but was soon asked to leave. Eve back then, if this happened, there wasn’t any love between the two men, and later on in June 17, 191when Lewis was arrested, Crowley offered bail to him, apparently believing the charges were fallaciouLewis had been charged with selling bonds stating that AMORC was a part of large internation

organization after seizing a charter claiming its association with an organization in Toulouse. 5 5 Whethor not these charges had any truth to them, they were dropped as I have spoken previously about in anoth

book.When in 193 4, Crowley was criminally convicted in July of 1 934 with an appeal upheld a few month

he then suffered a bankruptcy in 193 4 in the following year. Crowley’s appeal for help, considering hattempts to deny Clymer’s claims, was answered to with a definitive refusal to assist him and a denial of hauthority to run the O.T.O. as a legitimate successor to Theodor Reuss.

I think Starr’s interpretation of events is much more likely than Clymer’s. In any event, VanLoo quotefrom the 1935 White Book D—AudiA lteram Partem, a product of the so-called National Membership DefensCommittee, organized in AMORC to defend against attack by its enemies.

According to Martin P. Starr in his book, The Unknown God: W. T. Smith and the Thelemites (p. 229), thconnection between the O.T.O. and Lewis is much more complex than described by Clymer, who wants tput AMORC directly under Crowley’s umbrella. In fact, various commentators make the point that the



were two O.T.O. organizations, and Lewis was probably only officially involved with one under thumbrella of Theodor Reuss.

According to Starr, in 191 8, Crowley was quite eager to enlist Lewis into his splintered-off group of thO.T.O. and offered him an honorary VII degree called the "Gage of Amity" as well as to enroll him as Magister Templi and a membership in the Order of Illuminati, that Starr notes was an extraordinary offenever made to anyone else in Crowley’s lifetime. This offer was supposedly documented in a letter to Lew

by Crowley and Jones in July o f 1918 , a docum ent sold at Sotheby’s in a London auction in 1996. The off

was rejected by Lewis.

In his discussion o f FUDOSI, Milko Bogaard reports:

Harvey Spencer Lewis was intrigued by the inform ation com municated to him about

all this*. In order to lend (R+C-) credibility to the AMORC organization, Lewis was insearch of traditional Rosicrucian Orders. "He wanted to contact Theodor Reuss toknow more about it. Though he did not appreciate much of McBlain Thomson, he hadto resolve himself to write to him so as to be able to contact Theodor Reuss*.” Reusswaited for six months before answering the letter. (Lewis used Thomson's name as a

reference. Reuss had just broken the connectio n between hims elf and Thomson due tothe "Zuerich disaster”; one can imagine that the name "Thomson” was no longer a

“reference” to Reuss!). Anyway, from Reuss' firs t letter he presents the ORDO TEMPLIORIENTIS as "the exoteric front or showcase of a Rosicrucian Order”. As one can

imagine, Lewis showed a lot of interest in the assertions made by Reuss. Lewis startedto build up a relationship with Reuss. “With McBlain Thomson, Reuss had not made asuccess with the renewing of the project started by Papus in 190 8. He saw inA.M.O.R.C. an occasion to re-start this idea. Then, he sent a diploma to Lewis. Thisdocument is a "gage of amity” (a token of friendship) between O.T.O. and A.M.O.R.C.

(Lewis was "made” an "O.T.O. VII Grand Councilor of the Mystical Templars”). 57



It is then noted that this was an honorary degree, and Lewis never received any ritual initiation fromthe O.T.O.

According to Bogaard, Lewis himself writes “under the cover of his National Defense Committee that:

«The committee has seen indisputable evidence (...) to the effect that the Order of theOriental Temple was affiliated with the genuine Rosicrucian organization as far backas the Seventeenth Century in Europe, and in 1895 John Yarker, eminent Masonic

historian in London, was Supreme Magus of the O.T.O. Theodor Reuss (Willsson)—«Peregrinus»—was the elected successor to Yarker. It has seen records of a

convention of the O.T.O. held in Europe in 1906 and 1908, and it has seen a copy ofthe Constitution of the O.T.O. published in Austria and Germany in 1907, provingthat the organization was a large one before 1911. It has seen evidence to prove thatcharter granted to H. Spencer Lewis in the name of the O.T.O. was not granted byCrowley, but by the well-known European mystic, Magus Theodor Reuss-Willsson of

Munich, whose Latin official name is known all over Europe as «Peregrinus».—

Clearly, if this was written by Lewis, it doesn’t prove anything with certainty about his relationsh

with Crowley, but it does show his concern to negate that claim of Clymer and justify what is generallconceded that he had some kind of relationship with Reuss and that his association with the "ancient

Order of the Oriental Temple was justified by its inherent legitimacy.

Looking a t the Restorer an d the Pilgrim's Version o f Lewis' Companionfrom the Stan dpoint o fFrames an d

N arratives

The purpose of a narrative by those seeking to influence a chosen audience is often to create a metaphowhich is attractive to the human mind. What is superior about Lewis coming over to Europe with his faththan com ing over to Europe with a strange, unknown companion who appears to him to be an East India

but turns out to be Persian but secretly is an emissary of the Rosicrucians in Toulouse? Why does Lew

ite a lette to hi ife o Au u t 13 190 9 a e o ted by "Pe ato ” ho ite a e ilo ue to Pil i



write a letter to his wife on August 13, 190 9, as reported by "Pensator,” who writes an epilogue to Pilgrim

saying:

You remember my first experience about the R. & C. about a year ago. You recall mydescribing so many times since then the strange dark-complexioned man who was tomeet me. You always laughed and said it was a vagary of my mind. Well, I met him inlife on the boat and he gave me a paper, which has helped me to meet the people—theofficials I wanted to meet. And he has followed me part way to Toulouse and his trainwas wrecked. I don't know if he was hurt or not. So he came into my life and out

»5 9again. —

But after all this narrative, why does the mysterious stranger completely disappear in the Restorer storyFurther, why does Restorer mention Count Bellcastle-Ligne in terms of the "official history of the Ordewhich might correctly refer to his name in the book, Rosicrucians Q uestions and Answers while, in fact, seems to claim that this gentleman is mentioned in Pilgrim, which it is not? Why do these stories change soften and are modified in such a sloppy way?

To me, Lewis' story is slowly morphing from a narrative that describes him an earnest, but naive seekwho finds the Truth to a man either descended from the founders of the original Rosicrucian Order

America or given the authority by a descendent of the Order in England that gave the American Order theauthentic connection to the Rosicrucians.

Incidentally, his hereditary connection to the founders of the American Order eventually seems tdisappear.

In Pilgrim, Lewis purposes in searching to become a Rosicrucian are sarcastically challenged by professor and an art dealer whose role is downsized in Restorer whereas the role of Count Bellcastle-Ligne emphasized. From the naive, almost floundering Earnest Seeker A fte r Truth, Lewis is changed in the 192

1971 and Restorer Version to the Worthy Heir of the Title o f Am erican Rosicrucian Imperator . The narrativswitches from stressing his spiritual quest, his honesty, and his thirst for truth to either his "royaRosicrucian bloodline or the authority granted to him by a direct descendent of the English Order (whicapproved of the founding of the American Order), stressing also his authoritative experience in studyin



occult matters, his access to historical documents by virtue of his descent or by authoritative proxy and hstrong leadership capacities, as partially expressed by his business intere sts and occupations.

Now we understand that besides being different than each other, there may be a qualitative differencin the way the narratives affect the unconscious of the human mind, giving one narrative more cognitivpersuasion than another—that is, more of a desire to believe and be influenced by a certain narrative.

Before we proceed to explain why narratives are preferred, let us go back to "The Fight and Fligh

syndrome we have discussed as being instinctive. Many times humans make decisions based on though

patterns tha t are governed by automatic responses to the brain based on unconscious processes that gove behavior unless the individual has sufficiently analyzed and deliberated on a response dictated by reasoLakoff calls the more autom atic responses, reflexive, and the less automatic responses, ones based on carefand conscious reasoning, reflective. He points out that Kahenman and Tversky, using a slightly differennomenclature regarding reasoning in economic circumstances, came to certain conclusions that hav

consequences for political behavior and, I believe, cult behavior as well.—

These were:

I. People think in terms of gains and losses relative to a reference point.

An origin story is an important reference point for building the credibility of a religion or religiouorganization. Think o f how critical the story of Moses’ birth and his experience with the burning bush aror how the birth o f Jesus in the manger and the proclamation of his identity by John the Baptist are; or thprovision of the Koran to Mohammed by an angel and his ascension to the seven heavens. Though thestories, speaking only of them as narratives, regardless of their accuracy or actual spiritual significancthey create a special signification to the protagonist. In the various stories of H. Spencer Lewis ascendento the Imperator of AMORC, there is an evolution from a lowly and humble seeker who becomes an initia

of a secret order to a man chosen by destiny of birth or association by persons related by bloodline to thfounders or sponsors of the founders of the first Rosicrucians in America. The evolution of the latter story one providing greater power and authen ticity to the Imperator.



Perhaps one of Lewis’ losses in the origin story is one that he relates in Rosicrucian Questions an d Answer

Although there are a variety of setbacks and problems in Lewis' world, the one he truly discusses in detail regards to the origin of AMORC is his first attempt to get his original charter signed, which was a failure.

believe it is for this reason that he gives an extensive account of his failure in the 6th Installment of ‘‘ThAuthentic and Complete History of the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis” in the July 1 916 edition the American Rosae Crucis. He does this in order to set up a powerful narrative that explains his victory follow.

Here is the account of his failure in his own words:

The Authentic and Complete History

of theAncient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis

The 6th InstallmentCompiled by H. SPENCER LEWIS, F. R. C.

Grand Master General and lmperator of the Order in the United States

In concluding this history I feel that I must speak of the establishment of the Order inAmerica.

I did not realize at the time—possibly I do not thoroughly realize now—the greatresponsibility and tremendous importance of the undertaking. Daily I am more

strongly impressed with its power for good in this country and what it will eventuallymean to America and Americans.

As the founder, organizer if you will, I have most certainly made a few mistakes inmatters important and trivial. With new and different conditions to meet andcontend with, without precedence for many acts I was forced to permit or institutequickly, and with the war in Europe to prevent my rapid communication with the



Masters abroad, I know I have had to use discretion and judgment requiring moremature understanding than one of my age and experience possesses.

I would that I could undo some of the errors: I would remove from the hearts andsouls of some the memory of anguish, disappointment and sorrow which I havecaused. I shall sometime pay the penalty, however, and I trust that I may have theopportunity to do some kinder acts, sweeter deeds and more joyous matters to

recompense those whom I have pained.

It was not until the fall of 1913 that I began my outward activities for the Order inthis country and my fir st acts were a mistake.

My instructions plainly said that the Order was not to be made concrete until 1915.Well I knew the year. The figures 1915 were blazoned in my mind; that was to be the"great year" for America which many Rosaecrucian students had been lookingforward to for many years.

But my instructions in weird, symbolical language requiring careful translation alsostated that during the winter of 1914-1915, "between December 15th of 1914 and

Easter of 19 15 ,” I should make such preliminary announcements as would enable meto have my American Supreme Council selected by April 1 st and my Officers installed by not later than May of 1915. These in struction s I had read m any time s during 19 10 ,

1911, and 1912. During 1913 1was devoted to the preparation of the necessary "firstpapers,” by the large, illuminated Charter to be signed by the selected Councilors, andthe first '"Black Book” which I had to design, letter and bind myself, not beingpermitted to have any m atter pass from my hands before the Order was established,

Thus it was that as December of 1913 approached, the figures 1914 of the comingyear seemed to stand forth boldly in my consciousness and my instructions I

misinterpreted as being between December 15th and Easter of 1913-1914 instead of



misinterpreted as being between December 15th and Easter of 1913 1914 instead of1914-1915.

My papers for the preliminary announcement were ready. I anxiously awaitedDecember 15 and on or about that date I made my first mistake. I announced to someespecially advanced members of the New York Institute for Psychical Research ofwhich I was then President, that I would have them meet with me to prepare the wayfor the establishment of the Order Rosae Crucis in America.

A preliminary meeting was held during the winter of 1913-1914 and I was surprisedto find no enthusiasm and little interest. Those whom I considered interested

displayed no interest, but rather antipathy. I recall well the very rainy night when Iwended my way home fro m a lady's home on Madison Avenue, near 34th Street, withmy papers, charter and "Black Book” under my arm, dejected and puzzled or thetwelve who had assembled (out of 20 invited). Not even one signed the preliminaryorganization paper.

"Was this an ind ication o f what the R. C. would be in America?” was the question Itried to answer later that night in the stillness of my room.

Then light came. I discovered my mistake o f dates and the morning's sunlight brought

joy at the thought that no one had signed that paper nearly twelve month s before itwas time to be signed. The very weather, antipathy and disinterestedness of thosethere that night had prevented a grave error on my part. Truly a Rosaecrucian lesson!(And, strange as it may seem, not one of those twen ty supposedly interested men and

women have to this day shown any inte rest whatever in the Order in this country.)—

III. People tend to choose frames that highlight gains rather tha n losses.

In the same installment, Lewis now transforms the historical embarrassment into a victory and, withoumentioning names, brings in the chara cter of Ms. May Banks-Stacey as a kind of DeusExM achina , coming



the rescue.

However, the following winter I was even more ready and more prepared to carry outthe preliminary work. During the fall of 1 914 there came to me a grand old lady whohad been a deep student of the occult for years. She had traveled much abroad insearch for knowledge and had been initiated in many forms of our work. Being ofroyal descent and intimately acquainted with governmental and military authoritieshere and abroad, she had been entrusted with a special errand and mission connected

with the Order. Thus on another rainy night in the month of November—on my own birthd ay in fac t—she unceremoniou sly and reverently placed in my hands a few

papers, a small packet, and a beautiful red rose! In addition to these she gave me alocket of gold set with stones in symbolical form, containing a rare and historicalpiece or mineral. The latter was a personal gift- to be worn in her remembrance andever shall I remember the dear old soul whose days are numbered but who is sure of asweet place in the hearts of my wife, my children, and myself. (S. of the C.!)

The papers I found to be some of those, which the Masters had explained to me inEurope in 1909 and which were promised to come to me when I needed them most,

by special messenger. The packet contained a seal and an insignia . I was pleased,

astounded, and now greatly fortified for my work.—



Considering what we know about frames and narratives, we note a continuous attempt by Lewis to perfehis narratives and this accounts for the inc onsistency in his stories.

The mission of H. Spencer Lewis was very much directed to proving the existence, antiquity, anauthenticity of the Order. To this end, he assiduously worked to create an organization called FUDOSwhich we have discussed elsewhere. Note that the po int of this "Manifesto” from FUDOSI essentially makthe claim that AMORC in San Jose is the "only authorized sector of the ancient Fraternity of Rosicrucianperpetuating the true traditions o f the R+C in North and South America, w ith authenticity recognized by

the ancient Initiatic Orders forming this Counsel Internati onal and Federation.”



• a U , tmAm0mm la M'YSSAX I W Mlfttff

C O N S E 1 L I N T E R N A T I O N A L

d e » O R DR E S O R IE NTAUXP A I X — T O L E R A N C E - • U N I O N I

tee Iniortz/1

J t ia &ec r t t h a l :$inrt the /I HI l) IX <f i»itk iti i# ^ fe

tKr ¥«llcvf of Man J o* rt (/alifernla. i s tl»r onlij autkoitee tor o f t il* anrirnt Vr a lr r n i ly o f Ho «ir r u r i* n0 per pet ua ting tKr true t radit io n* anfc prinrfplrs of thr H +tf in llortk anb£outk.Am rrira.uj itH autk» ntirU ^ rrrogfz«& by all tke anriratOmtiatir Orber* ftrm inq (hi# tfo nri f !)wlrrn«tion»lan& i? rArratii a,*#^’ 'krr«Fore, tMeset d£.S UsfmptrmtorJUviieml Mr 01 Tr* /rr&

Jpo Ker Ltfin J- f - C- / , sjed kit UntLsfa ry jm rn tn s b ti

bi O k uc L si* rep rrunto ii*aand Se*r CfftctrsftrJbrO>p»dSnrfMJ**rtou **i theis ̂ ffiliaUdewntrifS' of*U tM Jm /u /tt dhjtrs ump*iiagO»FUDOESi.*Jk sm/Aerifyb eaUMaA w/sJr m*cAQndea 10theefmMtdeemfrtn

7 k t S tr rr e • e m t m n u n e m y e n + r jr lt y - t f s f t k r J 6 r ( f ix e r s

d * 4 ef 0/ *i e f to r f im r h i * O r d er s te m p e s v f M e , / IW J / * / i /s b h r m * W ^ n r / W r *

B ru sse ls. d ~ -~ f (t» fJ k e fv s i /S* h /*• /** * AQ>v d e tM td iy Se M m ef

V. People tend to think in terms of prototypical frames.

These would be conventional, typical frame s that come to mind. I would say that both "ardent seeker findthe truth ” is one example. The story of Gautama Buddha questioning the reason fo r death, disease, and oage and then finding enlightenment under the Bodhi tree is this kind of a success story, paralleling th



narrative the Lewis search for a Rosicrucian Order, ultimately taking him to the initia tion in Toulouse. Thother frame is based on authority being passed on by virtue of the royal blood of a descendant, which wou

be the story of most Kings and Queens gaining their position or by a spiritual authority delegating authorito a successor as Jesus did to Peter. Lewis stories of his succession are:

1) That he him self is a descendent of the Founding Fathers o f the American Order.

2) That he is given a uthority by a descendent of the English Order that perm itted the founding of the Ord

in America.

These are kind of a hybrid of sacred stories about the seeker thirsting for spiritual knowledge and gainingand a man granted spiritual leadership by authority of his descendants or someone else’s—a variant oauthority by the blood of royalty in one way or another, popular, well-known narratives historically or blegend or hearsay.

VI. People tend to adapt to a new state and take it as a new reference point.

This vulnerability of people accepting new frames and leaving others behind, not even really wortexploring, explains why AMORC can get away with rewriting their historical narratives. This was a leasier before the Internet.

VII. People tend to substitute more “accessible”frames for more accurate but less accessible frames.

This is clearly related to the "new s tate” preference for frames. The new origin stories told by AMORC amuch more accessible, particularly for entranced newcomers. You still have to do a lot of searching to fin

them, presuming you question these stories in the first place. This is why the organization of this materiin this way is rather new. Perhaps it has been done before—that is, comparing these various narratives

hi d l i h i f i i i B f kl I ld fi d hi ki d



this way and analyzing them in terms of cognitive persuasion. But frankly, I could not find this kind discussion in this way, and it was laborious to put it together.

This is maybe the most obvious reason that AMORC has worked so successfully to promote and maintain iexalted image. It is also why politicians and CEOs’ pasts are so often forgotten. They simply doninvestigate much o f the frames they have accepted.

I don’t think simple laziness is the reason that people don’t check the central stories they believe in—storie

about politics, religion, and business and why they seem so forgiving about the misdeeds that are quoted them from time to tim e that challenge their beliefs. To some extent, perhaps it is a neurophysio logic

nudge not to overload their pure, confused selves with too much investigation. Whatever the reason, mopeople do very little probing o f an investigative nature into their core beliefs.

I believe this is why we are saddled with so much corruption in politics, religion, and business and why smuch of our thinking, as members of the human race, is so often reflexive.

Reflective thinking involves hard, conscious work and certainly the acquisition o f facts. That is why it is much easier to believe, instead of to know.

In the case of AMORC, many of the facts that I am presenting here are buried in old documents, thankfulpreserved, but in the recent past, difficult to obtain without the Internet and its capacity, a capacity fuele

by people who have archival interests in preserving knowledge in manuscripts , books, and audio-vidmedia, to increasingly catalog and restore some our recently lost knowledge. And it is for that reason, alon

with the help of a few researchers, we have been able to come closer to an appreciation of this mosimportant reflexive function of our brains to challenge what we are told, to investigate and come to ouown conclusions. Even in the Internet, most members of AMORC probably rarely use it to fact check or tsee if they can challenge the official story. They are more inclined to accept what they believe and what thecan easily access.

Ralph Lewis Takes Up the Na rra tive Gaun tlet



We have discussed Restorer, what appears to be the most contemporary story of the seven stories whave discussed but now let’s go back a bit.

In 1966, Ralph Lewis first released his book, Cosmic Mission Fulfilled and it has gone through severeditions. Recently, along with Christian Rebisse’s work, H. Spencer Lewis—Restorer o f Rosicrucianism

components of it are available for podcast. I have taken my comments from Chapter 1 of the podcast.In Ralph Lewis’ version, after much time searching, in great consternation for information regardin

the Rosicrucians, Harvey Lewis finds a letter from Paris in the mail. He tears it open and reads an answer t

his question that he had written to the editor of a Parisian paper. The question is: “How can I learn of thmethod to pursue which will secure guidance to the Rosae Crucis?”The answer is as follows: "If you came

Paris and found it convenient to call at the Studio of Mons, the professor of languages a t____ B'l'v'd SGermain, he might be able to tell you something o f the circle of which you inquire....Certainly a letter to hiannouncing your coming (by date and name of boat) would be courteous.” The substance of the letter in th

broadcast w ith one sentence left out ("I t might be advisable to hand him this note ”) is identical to the quoin A P ilgrim's Journey to the East, subtitled, "And I Journeyed to the Eastern Gate,” published in as the FiftInstallment of the ‘Complete and Authentic History o f the Order in Am erican Rosae Crucis Magazine in Maof 191 6. The podcast also paraphrases the claim that Lewis had put a special mark in the letter, a symbol h

had received in a dream.Ralph Lewis’ book follows nine years after the 1957 republication of Pilgr im’s, a copy of whic

contained a note to the reader that Lewis would not respond to any questions about the shoautobiography. Could it be that this new version had been developed, quoting the original source, becausthere had been various problems conce rning Lewis’ account that had been troublesome for some readersparticularly in the account in Rosicrucians Questions and Answers?

In both the Cosmic Mission Fulfilled podcast and the early version of Pilgr im’s, an economic deficienchaunts the ardent Harvey Lewis in regards to an immediate journey to Paris. In Pilgrim's, the solution

presented, somewhat vaguely, through “a business proposition, which offered a most unexpecteopportunity to visit several cities in France.” In the podcast, like in Restorer, it is directly through Harvey

father, Aaron R. Lewis who supposedly had become an expert on forged documents was also a genealogiand had been commissioned by the Rockefellers to research their fam ily history in France In the podcast h



and had been commissioned by the Rockefellers to research their fam ily history in France. In the podcast, hhad been doing so for a number of years with his wife, Catherine, but now his wife could not go so hdecided to take his son.

On the steamer, Harvey Lewis is mystified by the experiences he is about to have on the steamer. In thpodcast version of Cosmic Mission, Harvey is with his father, who does not appear to be on the ship as i

Pilgrim ’s. Ralph mentions that Harvey, like in Pilgr im’s, met a mysterious stranger on board who beside

signing a postcard with the names of the passengers, also hands Harvey a separate piece of paper with h

contact in formation. It is, of course, rather strange that this one single incident with a stranger handing aextra piece of paper to Harvey is deemed as an experience worthy o f the term, "m ystifica tion.” After Harvgoes to Paris, he meets the Professor who owns the art store. Although perhaps slightly embellished, thstory is basically the same as in Pilgrim's.

Cosmic Mission Fulfilledvs, a strange book because although it is written by his son, it is not written in thfirst person as though by a loving son about his father, who he has replaced as Imperator. It generally seemto be written by an appreciative, but very much third person narrator. It also seems very derivative witlong segments taken directly from Pilgrim ’s and from Rosicrcucian ’s Q&A.

A nd Ye t Another V ariation ...

In a short but poetic article, titled Clemence Isaure: The Rosicrucian Golden Isis, Grand Master Julie Sco

S.R.C. relates another variation of AMORC’S origins, providing specific, seemingly inside information, of a

event described vaguely in the Hall of the Illustrious in Toulouse's City Hall.—In a Pilgrim 's Journey, it does not describe or name the painting that Lewis studied but it does talk abou

him approaching a photographer who seemingly makes a Rosicrucian sign. He then goes up to him ansays, in the following passage from Pilgr im’s.

"Pardon Monsieur," I said, “but I believe I am addressing a gentleman who has some

inform ation for one who is seeking Light.” That seemed to be a very proper way ofaddressing him.



His reply was in French, and I could understand but one word, "Yes.” Seeing myembarrassment he took from his pocket a paper and with a pencil he wrote somewords and handed it to me to read. I can read more French than I can speak. In factthat is not the proper comparison. I can read about one hundred French words andcan speak only three or four. What he wrote, however, said: “Why did you so studythat one painting in the alcove?” I was disappointed at what I read. At first I thought itwas a statement. It was only the question mark that enabled me to realize—with my

limited knowledge of French—that it was a question. And such a question after all theexpectations.

"Because, Monsieur,” I said, "it seems so beautiful, so wonderful and expresses what I believe. I see in it a very mysterious meaning, a symbol o f.. ..” He was smiling. He couldnot understand what I was saying, and I was going along rapidly, enthusiastically, as Irecalled the deep impression the painting had made. Then he wrote again on the

paper: “I understand, I appreciate.’ —

That is fine, maybe the Grand Master knows something, but then she, like so many others, returns to th

story of Lewis coming to the palace and tells yet another variation o f the story.

In 190 8, twenty-four-year-old H. Spencer Lewis had a mystical experience in which hewas directed to seek out the Rosicrucians in France. Not knowing exactly where to

begin, he wrote to a Parisian bookseller who had recently sent him a catalog ofmystical books, to ask if he might be able to help him in his quest. The booksellersuggested that H. Spencer Lewis come to Paris. Following many synchronistic events,

H. Spencer Lewis was able to travel to Paris a year and a half later.—

As mentioned before, Pilgrim 's states that it was a professor of languages that had an art store whcalled for him to visit Paris, not a bookseller. In fact, considering the Professor’s avocation and the big deahe makes in showing Lewis a picture of the Old Tower and Lewis’ apparent interest in art (besides being a

illustrator and calligrapher himself), it is a puzzling omission unless it is because of other AMORC origistories floating around



stories floating around.Further, it is puzzling that she says, "Following many synchronistic events, H. Spencer Lewis was able

travel to Paris a year and a half later.” Perhaps the key synchronistic event was that, although when hreceived the letter in early July, he did not have the funds to go but then, after a week of great concern ovthe then financially unobtainable promise:

...came a letter through a business proposition, which offered a most unexpectedopportunity to visit several cities in France. And I could visit Paris, my mind free and

easy, and my desires to be gratified. Surely this was a dem onstration of a Rosaecrucianprinciple.... I wrote once again to Paris, this time announcing to the professor, mycoming on the steamer “America,” leaving New York on July 24th, fifteen days

hence.—

Going back to the old problem with who accompanied him on his journey to France, would he really taabout his chance to go to Europe as a "business proposition” in the mail, when his father had asked hi

allegedly to do genealogical research?

THE GREAT DECEPTION

I think of all the questions I might be asked by people curious as to why I spent twenty-six years trappein the Rosicrucian mind contro l system; this is the one that is the most important:

Of all its components, what is the most serious deception in the AMORC mind control system?The answer to this is simple—AMORC’S NARRATIVE THAT IT IS THE ONLY ORGANIZATION WITH

FUNDAMENTAL LINK TO GOD.In the Prisoner o f San Jose, which is my most extensive account of my personal odyssey throug

AMORC’s system, I discuss how I only gradually accepted AMORC as the key factor in my life, the first beinmy family’s economic survival. I came to the United States from Haiti after securing a paycheck from thgovernment of Haiti as long as I lived in the United States. At that time, for reasons I will explain, I was no

worried because I believed my connection with AMORC gave me the protection I needed "to beat th



economic survival game."As I said back then when I wrote Prisoner, “As things progressed, AMORC would slowly become th

center o f my life and, eventually, my only connection to God.”The reason I thought this is profound and complex is because it required that AMORC slowly, primari

through its monographs, weave a complex web around my rational mind.

AMORC holds that to pray to God, you must enter into contact with the Cosmic.

Contact with the Cosmic is actually a state of consciousness which some might saywould be equivalent to the mystical Christian state of unity with the divine. According

to AMORC, this is best done through rising to the level of the Celestial Sanctum. This isthe best platform for seeking Cosmic Attunement...To enter the Celestial Sanctum isonly possible to those that are in deep harmony with the Master of the Universe. Andthis works most effectively if one is a member of a true initiatic or mysticalorganization on Earth.

Notice this one point in the foregoing quote—’’prayer works most effectively if one is a member of a truinitiatic or mystical organization on Earth.”

At one point in discussing the monographs, I wrote:

AMORC speaks of the seven true mystical organizations, which are all fromseventeenth and eighteenth century. The only ones of these that are still in existenceare AMORC and the Freemasons. But according to AMORC, the modern Freemasonsare a “sleepy organization,” meaning that they are not the authen tic organization theyought to be.

Being sleepy means the Masons no longer are really providing the cosmic connection one needs effectively communica te with Deity. I then further said:

It did not take much thinking to realize that I had to be in harmony with AMORC in

order to reach the Cosmic. Whenever I felt doubt about the AMORC organization, I



o e o ea e o i e e e I e ou a ou e A O o ga i a io , Iquickly suppressed it and complied with their teachings at all cost because I did notwant to lose what I then believed to be my only connection to God.

This discussion demonstrates how certain areas of the brainwashing are in the more or less privaliterature of AMORC like the monographs, whereas other elements are quite public.

This book opens with a quote to be found at the end of Cosmic Mission F ulfilled. It is a statement fro m thGrand Lodge of the English Language jurisdiction of AMORC, Inc., the publishers.

“...there is only one universal Rosicrucian Order existing in the world today, united in

its various jurisdictions, and having one Supreme Council in accordance with theoriginal plan of the ancient Rosicrucians manifestoes... This internationalorganization retains the ancient traditions, teachings, principles and practicalhelpfulness of the Order as founded centuries ago. It is known as the Ancient Mystical

Order Rosae Crucis, which name, for popular use, is abbreviated into AMORC.”—

If you have read this book carefully, you might see how puzzling this statement is because it seems imply that AMORC, the organization that I belonged to, which was created by H. Spencer Lewis is now th

central Rosicrucian Order.But this Order was supposedly only permitted to exist by the official largesse of a separate internation

organization that first gave AMORC the authority to exist in America. Consistent with this view, thmanual, after speaking about being granted this permission provisionally, then states that after variouorganizational meetings were held, two officials of the Internationa l Council of the Order came to Ameriand approved of the Order in America, making it an independent Jurisdiction but under guidance of th

aforementioned Interna tional Council of the Order (no longer under the French Jurisdiction that Lewis woriginally connected to). It says:



And this gave the Ancient and Mystical Order Roase Crucis (AMORC) o f North Americaa representation in the International Council, in its National and internationalConventions and Congresses, and made the American AMORC a part of the AMORC ofthe world. Therefore, the A.M.O.R.C. of today is the ONLY Rosicrucian movement in

America having such authority and connection.—

It is my belief that over the years, a kind of deceptive switch was made from AMORC in America beinrepresented as an independent organization affiliated with an ancient worldwide organization to becoming the worldwide in stitu tion itself.

This was my belief when I was a member of AMORC: They were the supreme organization in the wortoday, the only real connection to God and I better stay in or risk the loss of my divine connection.

END NOTES

1 G L k ff Th P l lM d Wh Y C ' U d d 21 C A P l h 18



1. George Lakoff, The Po litical Mind: Why You Ca n't Understand 21 st -Century American Politics with an 18

Century Brain (New York: Viking Penguin, 200 8, 22- 24

2. Ibid., 39

3. ibid, 101, 118

4. H. Spencer Lewis, “A Pilg rim ’s Jou rney to the East" The Am erican Rosae Crucis, May, 1916, 12

5. H. Spencer Lewis, “A Pilgrim’s Journey to the Ea st" 1957 Republication by the London Ordehttp://docslide.us/documents/a-pilgrims-journey-to-the-east.html

6. H. Spencer Lewis, Rosicrucian Questions and Answers. With Com plete History o f the Rosicrucian Order (Sa Jose, Supreme Grand Lodge of AMORC Printing and Publishing Department, 1929)

7. R. Swinburne Clymer, Rosicrucian Fra ternity in Am erica:N ot Under the Rosy Cross, Book V, p. 269, one several book selections in this compendium of different works, (Rosicrucian Foundation Beverly HallQuakerstown, Pennsylvania 1935)- book was published as a "brochure”probably in 1934

8. Ralph M. Lewis, F.R.C., Cosmic Mission Fulfilled, (San Jose, Supreme Grand Lodge of AMORC Printing anPublishing Department, 1 966 )

9. H. Spencer Lewis, Ph.D., F.R.C. (In 1918, prepared under the supervision of probably up to his death thesubsequently supervised by succeeding Imperators) Rosicrucian M anu al (San Jose, Supreme Grand Lodge AMORC Printing and Publishing Department, 1971)

10. Robert Vanloo, BA, “Controversy around a Document? -Is the A.M.O.R.C. an Offspring of the O.T.O. oNot?”(2001), http://www.parareligion.ch/sunrise/vanloo/ameng.htm

11. Christian Rebisse, FRC, “H. Spencer Lewis—Restorer of Rosicrucianism”—podcast version (2009https://rosicrucian.org/podcast/h-spencer-lewis-restorer-of-rosicrucianism-christian-rebisse/

12. Christian Rebisse, FRC, Restorer, movie version (2009) Begin video on Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qxbf361Rh8

http://docslide.us/documents/a-pilgrims-journey-to-the-east.html

http://www.parareligion.ch/sunrise/vanloo/ameng.htm

https://rosicrucian.org/podcast/h-spencer-lewis-restorer-of-rosicrucianism-christian-rebisse/

https://rosicrucian.org/podcast/h-spencer-lewis-restorer-of-rosicrucianism-christian-rebisse/

http://www.parareligion.ch/sunrise/vanloo/ameng.htm

http://docslide.us/documents/a-pilgrims-journey-to-the-east.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qxbf361Rh8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qxbf361Rh8



13. Christian Rebisse, FRC, Restorer, Rosicrucian Digest, No. 2, 2014, 9

14. Julie Scott, S.R.C, Grand Master, “Clemence Isaure: The Rosicrucian Golden Isis/’ Rosicrucian. Digest. N1. 2010,46 .

15. H. Spencer Lewis, Rosicrucian Q&A, 170

16. H. Spencer Lewis, Manual, 6

17. H. Spencer Lewis, Manual, 129

18. H. Spencer Lewis, "The Supreme Matre Emeritus Raised to the Higher R e a lm s Cromaat, Volume D1918, 27


20. Ibid, 171

21. H. Spencer Lewis, “Pilgrim’s,” 195 7 Republication, 1

22. H. Spencer Lewis, “Pilgrim’s,” Rosae Crucis, 12

23. Ibid, 12



26. Ibid, 14

27. Ibid, 14

28. Ibid, 14

29 H Spencer Lewis “Pilgrim’s ”RosaeCruris 26



29. H. Spencer Lewis, Pilgrim s, RosaeCruris, 26

30. Ibid, 26

31. Chris Gerwal, The King of Elfland’s Second Cousin (blog), "Narrative Voice as Mind-Control: Thoughon Manipulating Reader Perception”, http://elflands2ndcousin.com /2011/05/17/narrative-voice-amind-control-thoughts-on-manipulating-reader-perception/

32. Neil F. Neimark, M.D., "Five Minute Stress Mastery”,http://www.thebodysoulconnection.com/EducationCenter/fight.html

33. Neil F. Neimark, M.D, "Stress”

34. Paul Thagard, "Glossary of Cognitive Science”,http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/courses/Phil256/glossary.html

35. Janzen, Haun and Levinson, 2012 Experiment "Tracking Down Abstract Linguistic Meaning; Neur

Correlates of Spatial Frame of Reference Ambiguities in Language”

36. George Lakoff, The Political Mind, 17

37. H. Spencer Lewis, “Pilgrim’s,” Rosae Cruris, 27


39. RalphM. Lewis, F.R.C., 122

40. Ibid, 122

41. Christian Rebisse, FRC, “Restorer,” Rosicrucian Digest, 10

42. H. Spencer Lewis, “Pilgrim’s,” Rosae Cruris, 12

http://elflands2ndcousin.com/2011/05/17/narrative-voice-as-

http://www.thebodysoulconnection.com/EducationCenter/fight.html

http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/courses/Phil256/glossary.html

http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/courses/Phil256/glossary.html

http://www.thebodysoulconnection.com/EducationCenter/fight.html

http://elflands2ndcousin.com/2011/05/17/narrative-voice-as-



58. Ibid.

59. H. Spencer Lewis, “Pilgrim’s,” 19 57 Republication, Epilogue



59. H. Spencer Lewis, Pilgrim s, 19 57 Republication, Epilogue

60. George Lakoff, The Political Mind, 224

61. H. Spencer Lewis, “The Authentic and Complete History of the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae CruciSixth Installment,”The Am erican Rosae Crucis, 11-12

62. Ibid, 12

63. Julie Scott, S.R.C, "Clemence", 46

64. H. Spencer Lewis, “Pilgrim’s,” Rosae Crucis, 22-24

65. Julie Scott, S.R.C, "Clemence", 49


67. RalphM. Lewis, F.R.C., Cosmic, 365

APPENDIX

SOME FASCINATING CONTRADICTIONS



SOME FASCINATING CONTRADICTIONS

IN AMORC’S ORIGIN STORIES

PILGRIM— A Pilgrim 'sJourn ey to the E ast- The American_Rosae_Crucis, May 1916

Q&A— Rosicrucian Q uestions and A nswers, 1929-1954

MANUAL—The Rosicrucian M anual, 1971

RESTORER— H. Spencer Lewis, Restorer o f Rosicrucianism, by Christian Rebisse, FRC—printed in thRosicrucian Digest Volume 93, Number 2 2 01 4

ISIS—Clemence Isaure: The Rosicrucian Golden Isis, Grand Master Julie Scott, S.R.C Number 1, 2010

COSMIC —Cosmic Mission Fu lfilled 1966 and 1978 Editions cited

W H A T K I N D C O N T A C T I N P A R I S C O N V I N C E D I . F .W I S T O C O T O P A R IS ,

W H E R E I I E W A S A L L E G E D L Y I N I T I A T E D IN T O U L O U S E ?

s o d r c i : Q U O T E D A T E P A C . E n

P IL G RI M A fte r m a ny ye ar s’ s tu dy o f th e e xo te ric wo rko f R o s a c c r u c i a n i s m a n d a n i n c r e a s i n g ,

b i l d i t j i i t h t h

1916 12



o b s e s s i o n a l d e s i r e t o j o i n w i t h t h eB r o t h e r h o o d . u n s e l f i s h i n i t s g r e a tu n d e r t a k i n g s f o r t h e b e t t e r m e n t a n d u n i t y o fm a n . I w r o t e — a l t e r a d e e p i n n e r i m p r e s s io nt o d o s o — t o t h e u n k n o w n e d i t o r o f t h eP a r i s i a n p a p e r .

B U I I N 1 9 0 9, A C C O R D I N G T O R O S I C R U C I A N S Q«S fc A. II E K N O W S T H E

L E G A T E F R O M I N D IA S O H E A L R E A D Y H A S A C O N N E C T I O N . W H YW R I T E T O A N U N K N O W N E D I T O R I N P IL G R I M ' S A N D W H Y D O E S H E

N O T M E N T IO N T H E L E G A T E IN T H E 19 16 D O C U M E N T A N D H IS

‘ K N O W L E D G E * T H A T H E W A S A D E S C E N D E N T O F T H E F I R S T

A M E R I C A N R O S I C R U C I A N O R D E R ? T H E P A R I S IA N E D I T O R I S N O T

M E N T I O N E D I N T H IS B O O K .

Q & A J u s t b e f o r e 1 9 0 9 t h e r e a p p l i e d f o r m e m b e r s h i p

i n o u r s o c i e t y o n e w h o p r e s e n t e d p a p e r s pr ov in g ap po in tm en t as “ Le ga te " o f theR o s i c r u c i a n O r d e r i n I n d i a .

1929 129

B U T I N R A L P H L E W I S B I O G R A P H Y O F H I S F A T H E R , C O S M I C M I S S I O N F U LF IL LE D , I T M E N T I O N S T H E L E T T E R T O T H E P A R I S IA N E D I T O R

A N D N O “ L E G A T E " I S M E N T I O N E D ? A R E W E M O R E O R L E S S B A C K T O

T H E P I L G R I M ' S V E R S I O N ?

C O SM I C J us t b ef or e 19 09 th er e a pp li ed f or me m be rs hi pi n o u r s o c i e t y o n e w h o p r e s e n t e d p a p e r s pr ov in g ap po in tm en t as "L eg at e” o f theR o s i c r u c i a n O r d e r i n I n d i a .

1966

I N A N A R T I C L E B Y G R A N D M A S T E R J U L I E S C O T T , S . R . C . , S H E C L A I M S

T H A T L E W I S C O N T A C T E D A P A R I S IA N B O O K S E L L E R , N O T T H E

E D I T O R M E N T I O N E D I N P IL G R I M ' S . N O L E G A T E A S W E L L .

IS IS 1 90 8 . tw en ty fo ur y ea ro ld H. Sp e nc e r I^cw ish a d a m y s t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e i n w h i c h h e w a sd i r e c t e d t o s e e k o u t t h e R o s i c r u c i a n s i nF r a n c e . N o t k n o w i n g e x a c t l y w h e r e t o b e g i n ,h e w r o t e t o a P a r i s i a n b o o k s e l l e r w h o h a dr e c e n t l y s e n t h i m a c a t a l o g o f m y s t i c a l b o o k s ,t o a s k i f h e m i g h t b e a b l e t o h e l p h i m i n h i sq u e s t . T h e b o o k s e l l e r s u g g e s t e d t h a t I I .S p e n c e r L e w i s c o m e t o P a r i s . F o l l o w i n gm a n y s y n c h r o n i s t i c e v e n t s . I I . S p e n c e r L e w i s

w a s a b l e t o t r a v e l t o P a r i s a y e a r a n d a h a l fl at er .

2 0 1 0 P. 49R .D.

N O. 22 0 1 4

I N A N A R T I C L E B Y C H R I S T I A N R E B I S S E , W H I C H C I T E S A P I L G R I M ’ S

J O U R N E Y T O T H E E A S T , W H Y D O E S I T N O W S A Y H E C O N T A C T E D A

P A R I S IA N B O O K S E L L E R ? D I D II E N O T R E A D I T A N D J U S T D E C I D E D T OQ U O T E JU L I E S C O T T ' S A F O R E M E N T I O N E D A R T I C L E ? N O L E G A T E I S

M E N T I O N E D H E R E .

R E S T O R E R In the hope of obtaining some information regardingRosiemeinnism in I'raitcc, he decided lo w rite to aParisian bookseller whose catalogue he had obtained.

2 0 1 4 P. 9R .D.

NO . 22 0 1 4

IN ROSICRUCIANS Q &A IT SAYS THAT

LEWIS IS DESCENDENT OF FIRST ROSICRUCIAN BODY IN AMERICA

AND THAT GAVE HIM ACCESS TO THEIR PAPERS

SOURCE QUOTE DATE PA G E#



Q&A As ed itor o f sev eral occult magazines I had

made contact with various Rosicrucian

manuscripts and had discovered that I was

related to one o f the descendants of the first

Rosicrucian body in Americathat which had

established itself in Philadelphia in 1694. This

gave me access to many o f their old papers,

secret manuscripts, and teachings.

1929 170

IN THE 1971 MANUAL IT SAYS HE MADE FIRST CONTACT WITH THE

WORK OF THE ROSICRUCIANS THROUGH THE WORK OF MRS. MAY

BANKS-STACEY WHO HAD BEEN GIVEN THEM BY THE LAST OF THE FIRST AMERICAN ROSICRUCIANS

M A NU A L A ft er m an y y ea rs o f c on ti nu o us sc ie nt if ic an d

psy chi c r ese arc h. ..h e m ade his first con tact

with the work o f the Rosicrucians through

obtaining copies of the secret manuscripts of

the first American Rosicrucians, who

established their headquarters near

Philadelphia in 1694. A mem ber of the

English Branch which sponsored the first

movement in America, Mrs. May Banks

Stacey, desccndent of Oliver Cromwell and

the D'Arcys of France, placed in his hands

such papers as had been officially transmitted

to her by the last of the first American

Rosicrucians.

1971 129

I N I W , W H E N H . S P E N C E R L E W I S C R O S S E D T H E A T L A N T I C IN AS T E A M S H I P IN O R D E R T O G E T I N I T IA T E D , W H O W A S H I S C O M P A N I O N

I N H I S J O U R N E Y ? W A S H E A L O N E W H E N H E M E T T H E S T R A N G E R H ES P E A K S A B O U T I N A P I L G R I M ' S J O U R N E Y ? H E S U R E S E E M S T O B E .

P I L G R I M T h e t w e n t y f o u r t h w a s o n a S a t u r d a y . E a r l y o nS u n d a y m o r n i n g 1 m a d e t h e a c q u a i n t a n c e o f a

1916 I*. 12



d a r k c o m p l e x io n e d y o u n g m a n . w h o m 1 be lie ve d to be an Ea st In di an . He se em ed to pl ac e hi m se lf in my co m pa ny at ev er yo p p o r t u n i t y a b o v e a n d b e l o w d e c k o nS a t u r d a y a f t e r n o o n , a n d / felt that

/anestmteness. the one great equalizer at sea.

was gnawingat his heart as it was at mine.

I N 1 9 * 6 . I N C O SH A R V E Y L E W I SW E N T W I T H I IAH O W H I S M O T I

O N A T R I P T O E lR O C K E F E L L E R

S O H O W C O U L D

PIC O S M I C

•M I C M I S S I O N F U L F I L L E D , A L L E G E D L Y* S O N , R A L P H . I T E X P L I C I T L Y S A Y S T I LR V E Y O N I II S J O U R N E Y T O F R A N C E . I T

I E R C O U L D N O T A C C O M P A N Y H E R H U SJ R O P E T O D O G E N E O L O G I C A L R E S E A R

L S O N O F J O H N l >. R O C K E F E L L E R O F S II II '. B E C O N S U M E D B Y L O N E L I N E S S . A S

L O R I M ' S I F H E W A S W I T H T H I S F A T H E IA a r o n a p p r o a c h e d h i s o l d e r s o n . H a r v e y .W o u l d h e g o t o E u r o p e w i t h h i m ? T h i s w a s

ju st on e we ek af te r H ar ve y ha d re ce iv ed thel e t t e r f ro m P a r i s s u g g e s t i n g t h a t h e j o u r n e y t ot h a t c i t y t o f u r t h e r h i s q u e s t . O n e o f t h e

pa ss en ge rs , ta ll. da rk , im pr es si ve , ap pa re nt lya n E a s t I n d i a n , m a d e h i s a c q u a i n t a n c e . T h e r ew a s a n e n i g m a t i c a i r o r a u r a t h a t s e e m e d t os u r r o u n d t h i s p a s s e n g e r t h a t i n t r i g u e d H a r v e y .( B u t o n t h e n e x t p a g e , i t s a y s w i t h a nu n a t t r i b u te d q u o t e . " B u t h i s j o v i a l

pl ea sa nt ri es an d |>o siti vc av oi da nc e o f an ys u b j e c t p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e o c c u l t g a v e m e n or e a s o n t o b e l i e v e o t h e r w i s e t h a n t h a t h e w a sa n E a s t I n d i a n . B u t m y a t t e m p t s t o d r a w h i mo u t a l o n g o c c u l t , a n d e s p e c i a l l y E a s t I n d i a n ph ilo so ph ic al lin es , ga ve hi m a ve ry in tim at ea c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h m y o w n p h i l o s o p h i c a li d e a l s a n d b e l i e f s ." A D I R E C T Q U O T E f r o mP i l g r im .

W R I T T<T H I S FT A L K S

B A N D , A C I I F O R’A N D \ RE X P R E J

t?I'»><,

E N B YA T H E RA B O U TA R O N ,

P E R C YD O I L .i S E D I N

P. 1X4 - 8 5

I N AN A R T I C L E B Y C H R I S T IA N R E B I S SE , W H I C H C I T E S A P I L G R I M ' SJ O U R N E Y T O T H E E A S T , W H Y D O E S I T S A Y H E W E N T W I T H H I S

F A T H E R O N E S S E N T I A L L Y A B U S I N E S S T R I P , A N D , A G A I N , IF H E D I D ,W H Y W O U L D I T S P E A K O F H I M B E I N G C O N S U M E D B Y L O N E L IN E S S ,T H E G R E A T E Q U A L I Z E R A l S E A , IF H I S F A T H E R W E N T W I T H H I M ?

R E S T O R E R A l th o u gh hi s f in a n ci al s it u at io n d id no t p e rm i th i m t o c o n s i d e r s u c h a v o y a g e , a n u n e x p e c t e do p p o r t u n i t y p r e s e n t e d i t s e l f th e f o l l o w i n gw e e k . H i s f a t h e r . A a r o n L e w i s , i s . a n e x p e r t i na u t h e n t i c a t i n g d o c u m e n t s a s w e l l a s ar e n o w n e d g e n e a l o g i s t , n e e d e d a n a s s i s t a n tw h i l e c o n d u c t i n g r e s e a r c h i n F r a n c e f o r t h eR o c k e f e l l e r f a m i l y . O n J u l y 2 4 . 1 9 0 9 . t h e t w om e n s a i l e d f o r E u r o p e o n t h e A m e r i k a . o f t h eH a m b u r g A m e r i k a L i n e . O n S u n d a y . A u g u s t1. t h e s h i p a r r i v e d a t C h e r b o u r g , a n d t h e t w o

t r a v e l e r s s e t o f f f o r P a r i s b y t r a i n .

2 0 1 4 P . 1 0 R . D . N O . 22 0 1 4

IN THE MANUAL AND ALL THE OTHER ORIGIN STORIES, IT CLAIMS

THAT LEWIS HAD TO GAIN PERMISSION FROM AN OUTSIDE BRANCH

OF THE INTERNATIONAL ROSICRUCIAN ORDER TO BEGIN ITS

OFFICIAL ROLE \S THE AMERICAN ORDER. THE MANUAL EXPLAINS

HOW IT EVENTUALLY CAME UNDER THE DOMINION OF THE



HOW IT EVENTUALLY CAME UNDER THE DOMINION OF THE

INTERNATIONAL ORDER, THE AMORC OF THE WO RLD SO-CALLED.

AFTER A VISIT BY OFFICIALS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL ORDER.

AMORC’S OFFICIAL FORMATION AND STATUS W AS ALLEGEDLY

Conventions and Congresses, and made the

American AMORC a part of the AMORC o fihe world. Therefore, the A.M.O.R.C. of

loday is the ONLY Rosicrucian movement in

America having such authority and

:onnection.

IN MY OPINION, AFTER A TIME, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE

OmSIDE, INTERNATIONALORDEROFROSICRUCIANS m i ks \ \ i>

AMORC BEGINS TO TAKE ON THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME

ORGANIZATION ITSELF.

APPROVED. THE MANUAL SAYS:

MANUAL P 6

COSMIC 1978 FOUND

“There is only one universal Rosicrucian IN BACK

Order existing in the world today, united in OF BOOK,

its various jurisdictions, and having one UNDER

Supreme Council in accordance with the ROSICRU

original plan of the ancient Rosicrucians CIAN

manifestoes. This international organization ORDER

retains the ancient traditions, teachings. PURPOSE

prin cip les and prac tical help ful ness of the AND

Order as founded centuries ago. It is known WORK OF

as the Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis. THE

which name, for popular use. is abbreviated ORDER

into AMORC "