Part of my problem is that I cannot dispel the myths that have somehow accumulated over the years. Somebody writes something, it`s completely off the wall, but it gets filed and repeated until everyone believes it.
"You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill
Ja, degene die de waarheid aan de mensen wil onthullen,stelt zich bloot aan veel onbegrip." - Omraan Mikhaël Aïvanhov
"Een permanente, aandachtige vijand is haast dierbaarder dan onbetrouwbare vrienden." -Marnix Gijsen
It is so easy for the most clever, careful and conscientious historian OUTSIDE OF OUR ORDER, to be mistaken about facts which deal with the INSIDE. You must be initiated, to KNOW, although, of course, you may SURMIZE at any time.- HSL
"Occult truth, to be of any use, most become life experience; it must descend into the heart, pass through the fires of love and transfiguration, and rise again into the highest, a spiritual creation, to be shed abroad for the blessing of the world." ~ Raymund Andrea
Neutrality & passivity are the best friends of evil! - Christian Bernard
BROTHER WHAT MAKES YOU TICK?
Why is a person doing what he's doing, why does he like what he likes, what are his motives, in other words what makes him tick!?
What makes you tick?
Sometimes this question is extremely hard to tell such as to explain why you love your wife!?
Sometimes it's surprisingly easy though. Why would you want to write about something? Because you're mesmerized by the subject, you're very interested in it, or you're forced to do so by the authorities, or you're not so interested at all but you'd make a lot of money simply by writing about it.
If non of the above criteria do apply however and you nevertheless spend a substantial part of your time, by writing its history then, quoting Sherlock Holmes, after eliminating the impossible what remains must be the truth. So when I confronted the author of this illuminating series and frankly asked him what moved him, he completely freaked out.
Well, of course the answer's very simple, it was all my fault!
So now my conclusion is that, where he obviously doesn't like the subject he's writing about and provided he's not mental, his intentions are probably to deride it and discredit it.
quote Milko:
I'm from the Netherlands and a (former)student of CR+C
(AMORC offshoot)Fraterntas LVX Occulta (BOTA offshoot),
and a first degree Martinist.
"Does the AMORC system work"?.
Even though I am a former member myself, I am not in the position
to give a proper judgement simply because
I never advanced above the first Temple degree!?
unquote
It's a mix of tragedy and humor to reads all the attacks on AMORC on this discussion group. A lot of people, who obvious haven't the faintest idea what they are talking about, dedicate their spare time to publish lies about AMORC.
Blinded by some pathological hatred or paranoid conspiracy theories,they should rather turn and twist their minds, so as to be able to discuss the more important and essential matters. - Anonymous AMORC member
The following post was withheld by the Rosicrucian_Garden Yahoo group:
Milko & Fra Ben
To my best knowledge Milko until this week I've never addressed you, seen you, contacted or criticized you and or your writings or ever used your name. And to be honest what you write in your AMORC history or about Martinism isn't bad at all.
Well on the other hand if you read things and assume that I'm talking about you isn't that a bit paranoid!?
In various groups and on many occasions you've made it abundantly clear that you didn't exactly like them (AMORC i.e.) which is your prerogative of course.
What's so amazing though and it never fails to surprise and amuse me is that you and some others care to spend so much time on something that you in fact loathe, and which you traded in for the CRC and which again you soon left again to trade it in for... etc.etc.etc.
Talking about frustrations...
The only thing that I dare to question is the objectivity of these "researchers" and their hidden agendas.
And about my trustworthiness and popularity I couldn't care less. Being not trustworthy in the eyes of Fra Ben I rather consider it a compliment. And if I wanted to be popular I'd be doing other things in life. I am just the messenger...
So the fact that you're so f* pissed off, could this perhaps be because deep inside you know that I'm right!?
L:.L:.L:.
Pater Cathare
Two articles written By Milko BOGAARD
THE 1930'S – QUESTIONS, CONTROVERSIES, AND DISPUTES
As noted previously, AMORC's membership increased greatly during the
1930's when the Temple teachings were presented as written lessons
to all members. The introduction of the Home Sanctum membership
[developed during the latter half of the 1920's] accelerated the
increase of members.. The public magazine the "Mystic Triangle",
which had been published until 1929, had been replaced by
the "Rosicrucian Digest" in 1930. Over the years AMORC's public
magazine was issued under various names; the "American Rosae Crucis"
[1916-1918], the "Triangle" [1920-1925], the "Mystic Triangle"
[1929], and the "Rosicrucian Digest" [1930- ]. The Digest was
published for the North American jurisdiction and is still published
today. In time, other jurisdictions started to publish their own
journals, such as for instance the "Rosicrucian Beacon" [The Beacon],
issued by the "English speaking jurisdiction for Europe, Africa and
the Middle East".
Returning to the year 1930, in that year AMORC introduced a private
publication for their members called the "Rosicrucian Forum". Each
issue featured several topics of interest to members of all degrees
and often discussed current world events from a Rosicrucian
perspective. The "Rosicrucian Forum" was a bimonthly magazine.
Some of the discussions were quite controversial. In the April 1935
issue for instance, Harvey Spencer Lewis [HSL] talks about
the "Rosicrucian perspective" on birth control.. HSL emphasizes "that
the Rosicrucian Order should take any definite stand one way or the
other in regard to birth control except upon purely ethical grounds"
[RC Forum, 1935]. HSL continues by stating that he thinks that he has
touched upon this subject before "but will say again that we
agree with the view of Mr. Hitler, for instance, in Germany, who is
expressing only the view-point that the ancient Greeks had and which
all students of present-day social problems agree upon and which
scientists have indorsed; namely, that there is too little
restriction being placed upon who should marry and who should
propagate the future generations of mankind. In other words, I
believe that the doctrine of eugenics should be made universal and
enforced if possible and that in addition to the securing of a legal
license for marriage in order that there may be no violation of legal
laws in connection with marriage, there should be no violation of
natural laws either." [RC Forum, April 1935]
To some it might be shocking to find out that Lewis spoke favorably
of Adolf Hitler. In Lewis' defense it should be pointed out that at
the time he wasn't the only respectable American citizen who spoke
favorably of "der Führer" [Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, W.
Randolph Hearst, Joseph Kennedy -JFK's father, John Rockefeller, to
name but a few]. In the same issue of the "Rosicrucian Forum" there's
a short article on the situation of the Jews in Nazi Germany. Lewis
states that the Jews in Germany were treated by the Nazi's as any
other German citizen. HSL claimed he had obtained his information
from personal observation while traveling through Germany during one
of his "recent visits" to Europe. The negative reports in the
American press about the deteriorating situation of the Jews in
Germany gave occasion to Lewis' publication of the article in
the "Forum". It should be noted, however, that it was the year 1935.
It was just a year ago when Hitler's cabinet transferred the role and
powers of the head of state to Hitler as "Führer" and Chancellor. It
would take another three years before it became clear to the whole
world how the Nazi's thought the Jews should be dealt with. I am
referring, of course, to the notorious "Reichs Kristallnacht" [199].
On the other hand, Dachau [the first concentration camp] was built in
1933 and Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" had already been published in
1925. Being an exposition of the author's ideology the book was out
there for everyone to read.…
There are indicatiions that Lewis was not particularly fond of a
democratic and liberal system of government. Instead he allegedly
favored an autocratic system of government. French author René
Witzhard [200] claims that already in 1917 H. Spencer Lewis had
openly critisized the democratic and liberal models of government and
instead dreamt aloud about the benefits of autocracy.. This view will
seem controversial to many, but it must be said in defense of HSL
that this was common thinking in those days in the world of occultism
and initiatic organizations. Although I have to add for accuracy
sake, that the term `autocracy' should be replaced with `theocracy'
[`Theos'-`God']; a [wordly] government based on spiritual-social
fundaments, so to speak. We all are familiar with concepts like
the "Unknown Superiors", the Theosophical "Masters", or the "Great
White Brotherhood". Some mystics even developed a governmental
system, like Alexandre Saint Yves d'Alveydre [1842-1909] who
developed the concept of "Synarchy". Returning to H. Spencer Lewis,
according to Lewis the "Great White Brotherhood" was an association
of enlightened Spiritual Beings, "in or out of incarnation", who were
the real movers behind the Rosicrucians, hermeticists et cetera. The
G.W.B. are the overseers of the spiritual development [the G.W.B.
originated in the teachings of H.P. Blavatsky]. Strictly seen from a
theoretical point of view, it was not that unusual that Lewis adhered
to the belief in the benefits of an autocratic [read `theocratic']
government. However, this only partly explains HSL's alleged
sympathies for such dictators as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
Again, it must be said in defense of Lewis that the first reference
to Hitler was made in an article on birth control. In the article HSL
explains why he believes that the doctrine of `eugenics', from an
ethical perspective, should be made universal. The reference to
Hitler which Lewis presents is just an example of a practical
application of eugenics. It should be noted however that the
philosophy behind eugenics is also considered controversial. Eugenics
is a philosophy which advocates the "improvement of human hereditary
traits through various forms of intervention" [201]. It is not hard
to undetrstand that a theory like this can lead very easily to a
slippery slope, ethical-wise… The latter reference to Hitler and Nazi
Germany only tells us that Lewis was still very naive in those days
[1935] about the situation of the Jews in Germany. Now, as for Lewis'
sympathy for Benito Mussolini ["Il Duce"], the fascist leader and
Prime Minister of Italy between 1922 and 1943, that is a whole
different story….
next: Part 52 "I TURISTI AMERICANI DELLA `ROSICRUCIAN' RICEVUTI DAL
DUCE" [HSL's visits to Mussolini]ART i
MY TEA WITH MUSSOLINI
I TURISTI AMERICANI DELLA `ROSICRUCIAN' RICEVUTI DAL DUCE"
For some reason Harvey Spencer Lewis considered it useful or even
necessary to associate himself with "Il Duce". As I have stated in a
previous work "Lewis even wins the confidence of Mussolini, who
already banned Masonry in Italy in 1925, who receives Lewis with open
arms as a friend of the family as early as 1931." [202]
Lewis met Mussolini for the first time in 1931. HSL's concern
for values and ethics is possibly reflected in his alleged sympathies
for a dictator like Mussolini. Concepts like ethics, morality,
patriotism etc. were held dear by H. Spencer Lewis. AMORC has always
extolled qualities such as "good citizenship and patriotism", next to
ones "scientific and cultural self-improvement", as it is stated in
one of their 1920's pamphlets. Lewis' commitment to these moral
values culminated in his chairmanship of the ultra-
nationalistic "United States Flag Association" for the state of
California. This association awarded Lewis in 1934 the Grand Cross of
Honor, making him a Knight of the Flag, for his activities in
connection with the "national war against crime" campaign. Regarding
Lewis' 'admiration' for the "Duce", the story goes that the Imperator
complimented Mussolini at one of his visits on the "absence of
beggars in the streets, the impressive architecture, the punctuality
of the trains" etc.[204], something which cannot be said of Italy
today, I'm afraid.. Lewis returned once more to Italy in 1937.
Together with 120 American members, HSL was received by Mussolini at
the Palazzo Venezia in Rome where a reception was held in honor of
the American Rosicrucians. To this occasion, Mussolini gives a
speech "in which he promises a radiant future for AMORC." [205] It is
even claimed that Mussolini was going to open a universaty "in which
hermeticism and occult ideas supporting the elite would be taught".
It seems that Lewis was going to figure prominently in this
educational venture. The Italian newspaper "Il Messagero" published a
frontpage article on the event, complete with pictures [dated March
6, 1937]. In addition, H.Spencer Lewis was presented a special gift
from Mussolini; a statue of the Roman Emperor Julius Caesar. The life
size statue was placed in Rosicrucian Park [on a side note, there was
a rumor among old members of the Order that the statue of Caesar
represented Harvey Spencer Lewis. The Imperator was said to be an
incarnation of Julius Caesar].
The complete story on these visits to Italy has been published by
Belgian historian and former AMORC member Robert Vanloo in his "Les
Rose-Croix du Nouveau Monde" [Editions Claire Vigne-1996].
Disclosures such as this one obviously cause a stir within the
esoteric community, especially among Order members [in this case
AMORC]. But, as stated previously, Lewis was not an exception – also
not in the esoteric community. There were more well-known
esotericists with elitist- and theocratic sympathies; Julius Evola,
Max Heindel [a known anti-semitist], Lanz von Liebenfels, Frater
Albertus, RA Schwaller de Lubicz, Israel Regardie to name but a few.
Their views and ideas are probably regarded by the majority of the
public today as right-wing or even fascist in nature. In defense of
[most] of the here-accused, it should be pointed out that these
accusations are in fact a bit short-sighted. It is known, for
instance, that H. Spencer Lewis admitted women as well as Afro-
Americans into AMORC in a time when it was not generally accepted..
Already during his lifetime Lewis was accused of almost everything on
the menu – from satanist to a Jesuit agent, from a Russian spy to a
radical American nationalist etc. In July 1937 there appeared an
article written by HSL in the "Rosicrucian Digest" which commented on
these accusations. The article in question is called "My coat of
changeable color" [issued under the header "The thought of the
month"]. On the alleged Nazi sympathies Lewis comments: "When I have
expressed some personal criticisms of conditions in Germany, I have
been accused by many of nearly all of our German readers of being
anti-German or anti-Hitler. On the other hand, whenever I have spoken
of the excellent things I have found in Germany I have been accused
of being a patron of secret alliances in Europe supporting the Hitler
regime." About his meeting with Mussolini Lewis states; "And right
now, I am being accused of being one hundred percent pro-Mussolini
and pro-Fascism, and one hundred per cent anti-democratic and anti-
Communistic, just because of my recent interview with Mr. Mussolini
and my honest and unstinted praise of his remarkable accomplishments
in Italy and with the Italian people." ["My coat of changeable
color", Rosicrucian Digest, July 1937].
In the article Lewis wants to make it clear to his readers that AMORC
is not "actively interested in politics or religion". Lewis
furthermore states that his objective is "to speak of the good in all
things, in all movements, all individuals, all nations, as I
personally find them and observe them" ["My coat of changeable
color", 1937]. Lewis comes across as being quite sincere in this
article, a bit naïve maybe but that's another story. Lewis is said to
have claimed in one of his publications from that period that
Mussolini's government is closer to the initiatic model than the U.S.
democracy. With what we know today, it is almost unimaginable that
anyone with a sane mind could make such a claim. Harvey Spencer
Lewis' standpoints on these issues are therefore generally perceived
by the majority of the historians as `politically incorrect'.
Lewis, like many mystics and occultists, was a follower of an
initiatic and elitist model of government [see previous page]. He was
a nationalist and a romantic, with values and beliefs which we would
define as right-wing. But the majority of the people at the time
longed for a strong [political] leader. These were the days of the
Great Depression; times were hard, it was a period of poverty and
mass unemployment. In the U.S. there was an increase of "serious
crimes", mainly due to the alcohol prohibition. Many European
countries lived under the [imaginary] threat of a communist
revolution [which fed the success of National-Socialism and Fascism].
All things considered, it once again shows us that Harvey Spencer
Lewis was human; not a saint – not a sinner, but plain human, like
all the rest of us I personally think that Lewis should have known
better with Mussolini, way better actually, especially in his quality
as a Grandmaster and Imperator, let there be no doubt about it. The
only point I wanted to make here is that there is always more to the
story than meets the eye at first glance, obviously. it's always easy
to see things clearly through hindsight…
