Ray Eales, Paul Joseph Rovelli
and H.O.O.R.shit

In WARRIORS LVX, Volume 4, Number 4, the Fall 1997 E.V. issue of "The Official Organ of H.O.O.R.", Paul Joseph Rovelli, under the banner of "Guest - Eye on the Pomposite", wrote in response to my article a two-page reply entitled "The Black Testament of G.M. Kelly's 'Newaeon'."  I was tremendously delighted with it and will here quote excerpts and comment upon them for your amusement and enlightenment.

Rovelli began by stating that "First of [sic] let me state that any intelligent investigation into any subject whatsoever, [sic] requires first, [sic] an accumulation of facts about the subject."  He went on about this, but of course broke the rule throughout his article.

He vaguely referred to "Motta's comments on the Black Lodge" and then wrote "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 school yard."  First of all, Motta, a woodenheaded puppet whose strings were apparently pulled by the Black Brotherhood in an effort to misrepresent and destroy Thelema, was hardly an authority that can be relied upon in this instance, and Rovelli really did not speak specifically as to what it is that he claims makes me a Black Brother.  As for my "overtly immature style", well folks, I'm having fun.  I'm clowing around.  And why?  Because I am dealing with a bunch of clowns.  Rovelli, Slippery Eales, Kevin-Not-So-Bold and that ill wind that bloweth, Bill Breeze [these latter two of the Caliphate pseudo-o.t.o., originally featured in Part Three of the article], they simply can't be taken seriously ... except in that all of them are perverting and misrepresenting Thelema to serve their own petty personal egocentric desires.  And these people simply have no sense of humour - a sure sign of an ego-dominated personality if ever there was one, wouldn't you say?

"On the whole," Rovelli wrote, "his testament is overtly judgmental; reaching unsubstantiated conclusions that he makes no apparent effort to support."  As is so often the case, Rovelli has falsely accused me of the very things he and his kind are constantly guilty of.  It is, of course, a lie, as any reader of Newaeon will know since I back up my statements with direct quotes from the people and organizations I am commenting upon.

"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," Rovelli wrote.  Why I ... I ... never mind!

Hmm ... "self-aggrandizement" ... uh huh ... yeah yeah.

Rovelli went on to somewhat misquote my article.  "'What it all boils down to'" became "'as one cold [sic] possible [sic] be.'", and he mentioned that I of course call the late Marcelo Motta a madman - well, one only has to read The Commentaries of AL, for instance, to see that that, if anything, is an understatement!  This was followed by an inane bit of nonsense in italics, framed in brackets:  "Editor's Note:  The stories of my demise in the Eyes of My Master have been greatly exaggerated .... mostly by people of the ilk of Kelly who derive their information from the stewings of their porcelain oracles no doubt - flush-o-mancy I think it is called."  And they call me immature!  Also note that Slippery Eales turned the column over to Rovelli to try and make it appear as if he is above it all, but not only must he insert some "Editor's Notes", you can be sure he was sitting right alongside Rovelli the whole time, helping him along, desperate to appear amused and unaffected while just as desperately trying to "get even."  Like I said, and they call me immature ...

Ray "Slippery" Eales' second "Editor's Note:  I had to laugh out loud when I read this little tidbit from Kelly .... the rest of it was funny in a sad sort of way but this! .... HA HA HA HA HA HA and so on.... really GM couldn't you have managed not to plagiarize my 'Eye on the Pomposite' article so blatantly?  I mean I know you have trouble forming ideas of your own but really......!"  Not only is this rather obvious and manic, not to mention a bit illiterate, but the ego it demonstrates!  The accusation of plagiarism is simply inane, no effort to back it up is made, and of course The Newaeon Newsletter, of which this EL is a supplement, has been around since the Winter Solstice of 1977 E.V., long before there was any H.O.O.R. and WARRIORS LVX.  What is painfully obvious is that Eales is the one incapable of forming ideas of his own, trying to copy me, the Caliphate, whomever, in a desperate effort to be somebody.

More nonsense followed, then Rovelli outright lied and wrote "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...'.  Moveover, 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."  Not exactly quoting me very well, Rovelli has taken an important sociological insight and a reference to the need for Thelema in society, a need for people to discover their True Will and achieve a union with the True Self, turned it around, twisted it a bit, and used it to falsely claim that I said individuals who seek community can't be Thelemites.  I said nothing of the kind, as anyone who reads the article that precedes this [in Part I] can discern for themselves.  Furthermore, the conclusion he arrived at is, in the extreme, "irrational" - a word he used in reference to my conclusions.  I had merely pointed out that there are a lot of people in the world today who are, at heart, Thelemites, thinking and acting in a Thelemic manner, and who have as yet not been exposed to the philosophy nor have even heard the name of Aleister Crowley.  Are Rovelli and Eales going to deny this?  And, of course, I was not tying "all the Thelemic bodies" togehter simply because H.O.O.R., the S.O.T.O., the Typhonian and the Caliphate pseudo-o.t.o.s are not Thelemic.  Parroting Crowley and The Book of the Law, wearing a bit of "Thelemic" costume jewelry, claiming to be a Thelemite, while speaking and acting in a most unthelemic manner does not a Thelemite make.  Why, that's part of the point of my reviews and commentaries.  Regarding the above, then, orbviously Rovelli went out of his way to lie ... or are he and Eales really that stupid that they couldn't grasp the obvious?

In "unaffected" Slippery Eales' third "Editor's Note" the head H.O.O.R. said that I should receive the "goofy prize" for "The idea that community is somehow anti-thelemic", but of course any intelligent reader of my article can see that I never said that community is anti-thelemic, so who gets that "goofy prize" anyway?  I say give it to ol' Slippery Ray!

Let's see, there's a fourth "Editor's Note" - Ray just couldn't keep his hands off of this piece of nonsense.  Rovelli said I'm a Black Brother - Eales said "Tool of the Black Lodge would be more appropriate" ... yeah yeah.  Yawn.  Rovelli then went on to say that "He insists that only those who isolate themselves from other Thelemites can really be a Thelemite."  Et cetera.  And of course I never said that, it's simply not in the article I sent H.O.O.R. a copy of, that very same exact article that precedes this comment [in Part I].  Read it for yourself.  Why do Rovelli and Eales lie?

In his typically inane fashion, Rovelli wrote:  "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 gades' or 'initiations'.  Yet he will accept cash donations for his 'work' on behalf of Thelema' [sic] which in his view is more ethical than an initiating body such as our accepting dues from its members in order to however inadequately, fund our activities."  [And maybe certain habits, Paul?]  Again, these rigid egos have absolutely no true sense of humour, yet on the other hand, sure! if some wish to assist me and Newaeon's efforts with money, equipment, information, good wishes, whatever, I will be more than happy to accept any kind of assistance that does not have strings attached.  Would I not be a proud egocentric fool indeed not to accept assistance with a job that is so daunting, time consuming and expensive as mine?  And the point was, as well, I am not selling phoney, useless and meaningless degrees, grades, and initiations like H.O.O.R., the S.O.T.O. and the pseudo-o.t.o. groups.

Oh, and by the way, I was kidding about sending me the nude photos as well, then again, if you feel that you must, please don't let me stop you!

He ranted a bit about the "Christist eggregore" [does that have something to do with poultry?], and of course this constant refocussing upon an enemy from without, real or imagined, is a way of taking the focus off of the real enemy within one's own ranks, an enemy who poses as "one of us" while, like a termite working away at a foundation, destroying everything that we hold dear, in this case, Thelema.

"Editor's Note" Number 5 - he should have simply written the article himself instead of trying to appear so above it all and failing so miserably -claimed that I am "being used by the forces which seek to keep the status quo" and that I am "a tool, dumb, inert", etc..  Yeah yeah.  Right.  Sure.  After which Rovelli revealed more of his outrageously inflated ego by writing "Should Mr. Kelly actually read this, I can safely surmise that he would have 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 I am reminded of a Carly Simon song with the lyrics ... 'You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you.'"  And:  "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."  This is how Slippery Eales, er, I mean Paul Joseph Rovelli finished his vengeful attack.

Oh, he, they try so hard to act like masters absolutely in control of the situation and above it all, but their stupidity betrays them and they are, well, too stupid to see it.

First of all, Rovelli has some nerve talking about my poor writing skills - just look at how the above begins, and his editing skills are nothing to brag about.  His ego is so out of control that even he must admit it, although he does so in jest, that he believes that I will view his silly compilation of nonsensical words as a "magickal attack".  These guys wouldn't know magick if it turned them into toads.  In fact, there's evidence to believe that that has already happened!  And really, quoting Pee Wee Herman...?  Remember what Paul Rubens got caught doing in a movie theatre?  Well, Rovelli, it takes one to know one, so I suppose you chose your quote from one of like nature.

Sounds paranoid?  You bet.  And joking about it doesn't make it not so.  And all this fuss over the "Christist eggregore" is stupid, paranoid and "obfuscating", to use one of Rovelli's favourite words.  It serves to obscure what they are really up to, their self-serving motives, the damage they are doing to the image of Thelema, and of course as any observant person knows, one does not have to set out to destroy Christianity as it is very neatly destroying itself, crumbling before our very eyes, virtually disintegrating.  Churches are closing all the time, fewer and fewer individuals are joining the priesthood and becoming nuns, more priests and ministers are getting caught sexually molesting young boys and girls, having affairs on the side, visiting prostitutes, while Christian women are becoming more and more dissatisfied with their second class status, told what they can and cannot do with their bodies, denied the priesthood and so on.  And neither Rovelli, Eales, H.O.O.R. nor any of these occult whackos has anything to do with this, although I'm sure that they imagine it's all the result of their "magick"!  The gradual decline of Christianity is simply a natural occurrence, initiated by the lies and hypocrisy of its foundation and unnaturally unhealthy restrictive doctrines.  If this "Christist eggregore" is the enemy, then there's nothing to worry about since that enemy is destroying itself quite nicely without our interference!

To hell with the "Christist eggregore."  Our problems are a little closer to home, a little more immediate than that.  The problem for Thelemites is not some outside force.  Our enemy is not Christian or Jew, Muslim or Buddhist.  The enemies of Thelema are those individuals and groups who pretend to be Thelemites, mislead individuals, scholars and the media, misrepresenting Thelema, misrepresenting us.  Do not let the pseudo-thelemites mislead you and distract your focus.  Let Christianity take care of itself.  We need to focus on Thelema, representing it well and exposing the lies of those who misrepresent it to serve their petty egos.

I must admit, though, that I was amused by Rovelli's reference to Carly Simon's song, "You're So Vain" - and there is something here to be learned - as it was this very song that Ann, one of the two women in my forty-six years that I perhaps should not have broken up with and instead married, claimed described me well.  Fascinating coincidence, don't you think?  The point though is this:  Ann said that that song typified me after noticing that when we passed mirrors or windows in which our reflections appeared, I would glance at those reflections.  From this she, a lovely and charming if somewhat vain woman, concluded that I was vain, and of course she only found it cute and charming.  What I never bothered to explain to her was this:  I wasn't admiring my reflection at all.  I was simply trying to assess my status, at least so far as my appearance was concerned, perfectly aware of my many imperfections, with the hope that I might somehow discover a way to improve myself.  It's funny how some people can only draw one conclusion from their observations that is based more upon their own psyche than upon whom they are observing, isn't it?

Oh, by the way, as I alluded to earlier, I had only sent copies of the original article to a few friends and the people commented upon and all of this may not have been published had not Rovelli and Eales written their "review" of an article that practically no one had read, but now, most surely, will want to read!  So, you might want to send them a little thank you note.  I'm sure they'll appreciate it.