Paul Joseph Rovelli

First off let me state that any intelligent investigation into any subject whatsoever, requires first, an accumulation of facts about that subject. These need to be ingested and churned by the rational faculty before any informed conclusion could be obtained. And without such a reasonable process, any conclusions reached may very well fall prey to the more chaotic elements of the thinking mind. Even in some cases, with the biases of the ego at the helm, reactionary and defensive attitudes may completely obscure any capacity to re-synthesize the material into a cogent schemata.

In Motta's comments on the Black Lodge contained in his commentaries, mostly through the first two chapters of Liber AL, he clearly intimates that just this sort of wanting in the intellect/ego structure amongst other signs that I will elucidate, is evidence of a 'Black Brother' at his craft. So I suggest that G.M. Kelly seems to personify these ideas as I read his review entitled ONE, TWO, THREE...ZERO. He writes in an overtly immature style attacking our order amongst others; even handing out insulting nick names and taunts like a grade school bully in a schoolyard.

At every possible opportunity that he can generate for himself, he uses such epithets as "Frater Stinks' and "Slippery Eales'. He then accelerates to cheap poetry with "Sabazious, Sabazius, probably he's the craziest!". On the whole, his testament is overtly judgmental; reaching unsubstantiated conclusions that he makes no apparent effort to support.

His use of long run on sentences betray to the intelligent reader, not only his poor writing skills, but his lack of command of the English language. This he openly acknowledges during his attack on the penmanship skills of David Bersson. Further, it becomes quite apparent just how little clarity he manages to employ in his thought processes. With his sophomoric, antagonizing style and his clouded reasoning, he's able to produce a strong example of the Black Lodge technique for self-aggrandizement. This of course, being at the expense of others.

Without any direct contact with our Overseer in order to afford him the opportunity to present his countenance, he is able to conclude that he must not have attained any grade of merit as he writes: "What it all boils down to is that like Bersson, Eales was a Motta crony and his whole claim to being A.'.A.'. hinges not upon demonstrable attainment or even legitimate documentation, but upon the fact that he was associated with Motta (whom you will recall dissociated himself from Eales) [note: the Volume II of Motta's Equinox that he is referring to a disassociation from Eales was written by Eales enemy Mr. Bardon and not Motta...and years after Motta's death. Yet another example of sophomoric research.!] who is nothing more than an ASPIRANT to the A.'.A.'., proved himself too obviously to question quite paranoid and mad, as far from the A.'.A.'. as one cold possible be." Of course he calls Motta a madman as well.

Continuing with his self-aggrandizement, he does nothing in his rantings but gripe and complain about everyone he mentions in his review. This on the one hand. On the other, he accuses our Overseer for acting in an allegedly like manner in his articles written for 'Eye on the Pomposite'. He states: "...Eales can't take criticism, has no guts, can only cry and whine, and be, well, pompous." It's as if this man has turned our Overseer into a mirror by which Mr. Kelly can see Mr. Kelly. And it seems that Mr. Kelly doesn't like what he sees.

His raving leaps to irrational conclusions betrays not only his immature psyche, but a sophomoric research effort. When noting our national convention recently in Tampa, he surmises: "I am sure there will be enough attendees to make it all worthwhile for Eales...financially speaking." Here, all he had to do was contact the Master of Horus Lodge and he would've learned that the Lodge lost a substantial sum of money (as is usually the case for each lodge that hosts our annual event).

Another such rush to judgment finds him asserting that we do "not offer one Thelema", the we "merely offer another smaller society to join and eventually become dissatisfied with." Yet there's no rationale to demonstrate how we are or are not like the larger 'society'; and I can't tell if he is referring to the occult community or the mass culture. Nor is there any rationale to show how our 'smaller society' is or is not Thelemic; does or does not promulgate Thelemic ideals and philosophy.

But he does present the idea that anyone who joins in community with others whether it be the larger or smaller scale, can't be Thelemites as he goes on to say: "The sad thing is that there are so many people in the occult community who crave social interaction with others they think will accept them and validate their desires and fantasies...". Moreover, he ties all the Thelemic bodies he mentions in his review to one 'community' (quite obfuscating) and says: "...most true Thelemites in society are those outside of that community who do not yet realize their Thelemic nature." It would seem by his rationale that the only true Thelemite is one who doesn't know he's a Thelemite.

And as if he hasn't confused the weak-minded sycophants that he's trying to convince of his Thelemic prowess, he goes on to assert that because one seeks community, they can't in any way be in touch with their own inner nature. It's unmistakable. Just listen to his words: "The loneliness that people generally suffer from is not due to a lack of like-minded people to associate with, but rather is it the natural result of an individual being cut off from his or her Self." Therefore this supposed need for "social acceptance and communal membership" precludes one from being a Thelemite. It does not matter to him, nor does he even consider the possibility that it might be one's will to join just such a community.

Black Brother? You tell me. He insists that only those who isolate themselves from other Thelemites can really be a Thelemite. Yet remember, if you think you're a Thelemite he asserts, you can't be. Of course, in his 'Suggestion' at the end of his review, he infers quite clearly that he's a Thelemite if for no other reason than that he can't offer anyone any "membership" or "fraternity" or any "degrees or grades" or "initiations". Yet he will accept cash donations for his "work" on behalf of Thelema' which in his view is more ethical than an initiating body such as ours accepting dues from its members in order to however inadequately, fund our activities.

And if that wasn't enough for you, try this one...he proffers the idea that Thelemites should fight each other and amongst themselves. This in his view is far more important than coming together in strength against the Christist eggregore that is raping our world. How divisive! How dark indeed! Just listen..."While the Judeo-Christian community is a problem, it's foundation in lies and hypocrisy, Thelemites need to be more concerned with the individuals and groups that falsely claim to be Thelemic, their own foundation based upon lies and hypocrisy while espousing the elitist principles that tend to undermine every world religion whose members feel that they are God's chosen and everyone else is doomed to one form of Hell or another." Is that what we've claimed? Or is that the Christists? I think he's confused himself!

Should Mr. Kelly actually read this, I can safely surmise that he would conclude that he has been victimized by it as a magickal attack upon him. And this by me; the owner of an inflated ego that he bruised by his negative assertions about me and the magazine that I edit. And on that subject, he criticizes us and Mr. Eales for reprinting Crowley's 'John St. John'. When what we actually printed was Mr. Eales comments to the work. He didn't even bother to read the article that he reviewed!

And I am reminded of a Carly Simon song with the lyrics..."You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you." Well..."I know you are...but what am I?" And can we please get back to the front lines?--The Christist eggregore is all about us. Sounds paranoid...eh? After all, I am the disciple of a 'madman' who was the disciple of a 'madman'. Or-"I who am the image of an image say this." (madcap laughter).