"Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will: ..."
- Liber OZ (Liber LXXVII)
"...thou hast no right but to do thy will."
- Liber AL vel Legis, Ch. I, V. 42
Ms. C. C. de Menezes
c/o Box 90213
Nashville, TN 37209
Mr. Gary Allen Martin
(G. M. Kelly)
The New Aeon Newsletter
5910 Alder Street,
Pittsburgh, Pa 15232
31 Jan. '80 e.v. AN LXXVI
You have overreached the bounds of permissible literary criticism, by misquoting passages of Mr. Motta's writing deliberately, and making comments that are personal and offensive, in your publication, "The New Aeon Newsletter".
Not only that, you have published xeroxes of Mr. Motta's handwriting without Mr. Motta's permission, which is a breach of Mr. Motta's privacy and gives the impression that Mr. Motta has maintained extensive correspondence with you, which is untrue.
Also, you have been using A.·. A.·. symbols without belonging to the organization, and issueing spurious material using the nomenclature characteristic of the A.·. A.·. curriculum. Such material is not only false and nonsensical, but it may also harm psychologically those minds fool enough to try to work with it.
In view of your slanderings of Mr. Motta and of the A.·. A.·., we are presently putting your case in the hands of a lawyer, who will be taking action against you. Please be warned that if you do not stop immediately your criminal procedures, we will be going to Court against you, for misrepresentation of yourself, of Mr. Motta and of the A.·. A.·., as well as for your actions mentioned above.
This letter, which possessed an overly ornamental and colourful letterhead, was sent to us, certified mail, and received in February 1980 of the vulgar era. It was a gauche attempt intended to be both impressive and frightening. We are not easily impressed and the degree of our fear can be determined by the present article. The letter has been reproduced as close to the original as possible, accurate to the point of including Ms. de Menezes' original errors, her signature reproduced from that original missive.
Please take note that Mr. Motta, who always communicates through another, seems to forget that he is supposed to be a Thelemite. He has forgotten Chapter I, Verse 41 of Liber AL vel Legis, "The word of Sin is Restriction." He wishes to restrict us. Has he also forgotten the Thelemic Rights of Man, Liber LXXVII, which gives everyone the right to think, speak and write what they will? And what of the Constitution of the United States of America? This letter proves Mr. Motta and his associates to be far more than hypocritical. And, as noted above, he always communicates through a representative (if, indeed, these representatives actually exist independently from Mr. Motta's imagination). Doing this always leaves Mr. Motta the option of dismissing his representative and claiming that she had no authority to write or say such things. However, he cannot squirm out of it that easily. If, indeed, these others do exist, he chose them as his representatives and he alone is responsible for what they say and do. Furthermore, so much time passes between communications that one is inclined to believe that these representatives first check with Mr. Motta, obtaining explicit instructions, before they take any action whatsoever.
We have not over reached the bounds of permissible literary criticism in the least. We have quoted Mr. Motta quite accurately, as we try to quote everyone accurately. If we do make an error, and, after all, we are only human, what we quote can and should be checked by the reader. Book and chapter titles are always given and these are often supplemented, in the body of the review, with the page numbers upon which the quotations may be found in the original.
We do not doubt that the comments made in The Sword of Horus reviews were found to be offensive to Mr. Motta. We cannot help that. But, in our opinion, they were quite true nonetheless and we find Mr. Motta's misrepresentation of Aleister Crowley and Thelema quite offensive.
We also published samples of Mr. Motta's handwriting for the purpose of graphological analysis. We did not need his permission for this was not copyrighted material. As for it being an invasion of his privacy, well, that is the price everyone has to pay for becoming, in some way, a public figure. A mature adult has to learn to take the bad with the good, the bitter with the sweet.
We did not intend to give the impression that anyone at Newaeon and Mr. Motta had carried on an extensive correspondence, and we do not think that many readers would have gotten that impression, which, by the way, would not matter in the least one way or the other. If the wrong impression was given we are sorry. We obtained the samples of his handwriting and copies of many of the letters he had written from various persons who have known him for many years. He is just bloody lucky that we do not print everything that we know about him, and that we do our very best to substantiate what we decide to print.
What is the A.·.A.·.? Who really is a member of the A.·.A.·. (Argenteum Astrum; the Silver Star)? What gives Newaeon the right to use the A.·.A.·. Seal? Let the careful reader and the sincere aspirant answer that for him- or herself. What gives Mr. Motta that right and at the same time denies Newaeon the very same right?
As to how "false" and "nonsensical" the material printed in The Newaeon Newsletter is we will, as always, allow you, the reader, to judge for yourself.
Let there be a sincere and objective board of psychologists assembled. Let them review the works of Mr. Marcelo Ramos Motta and the works of The Newaeon Newsletter. Let them be the judge of which is and which is not psychologically harmful. We teach self-reliance (Self-reliance) and "common sense". We advise the aspirant to investigate everything, everyone, and every group very thoroughly before making any commitments which may prove to be dangerous. We encourage the aspirant to think and to question, everything and everyone, even ourselves. If there is something psychologically harmful in this then we admit to being raving lunatics leading the world into lunacy.
We have not slandered Mr. Motta. Though he has slandered many people in his pseudo-Equinox, Vol. V, No. 2. We have merely reviewed his works and his claims. We have backed up everything that we have written with direct quotations from his works, which can and should be checked, and with graphological analysis, which opinion upon may differ, depending upon the graphologist--thus the samples were given so that other opinions could be obtained and compared with those that we published. (By the way, we would like to thank Ms. Claudia Canuto de Menezes/Mr. Marcelo Motta for confirming the fact, in print, that those handwriting samples were, in fact, Mr. Motta's.)
Here is where Mr. Motta, via his rep., proves himself to be most unthelemic, despite his claims. He wishes to restrict us, to prevent us from doing our Will of Adjustment, and to deny us the Rights of Man.
First of all, we have the right to think, speak and write as we will. We have legitimately commented upon Mr. Motta in the body of a literary review. He has no case.
Secondly, any further motion in this direction will only continue to prove that he is being highly hypocritical. On top of that, the results would come as a very nasty and distasteful surprise to Mr. Motta and company. A warrior does not go into battle without first being sure of his defenses.
Thirdly, if he were indeed a Magician and an Adept as he claims, why does he not keep his silence, consecrate a Circle, and send a magical current of force against us to stop us? Why does he act like a common man? Why does he not act like a Kingly Man? The answer is all too obvious.
Lastly, and more appropriately, why does he not fight fire with fire? We have reviewed him; why does he not review us? Here, in this published and copyrighted article, we are responding to his letter, for the first time, and we give Mr. Motta permission to quote from The Newaeon Newsletter, accurately, for the purpose of review. He may say anything he will about Newaeon or any individual here, and he may make any judgments he will. After all, does he not have the right to think, speak and write as he will? We are not denying him his rights. We are not restricting him. We only ask that he be as gentlemanly with us as we have always been with him, and everyone else, and that he quote accurately, substantiate any statements, and send us a complimentary copy of the completed work in which any such review or mention of Newaeon appears.
I believe that this is quite fair, and believe me, it will save Mr. Motta and company from wasting much money and time for nothing, and maybe, just maybe, he will be able to save face.
Of course, the wisest thing for Mr. Motta and his associates to do at this point would be to remain silent. They have failed in this before; can they succeed now, given yet another chance?
Now to clear up some confusion. My "Christian", "given" name is Gary Allen Martin. My friends and all those who would hope to be my friends do not call me by this name, but instead they call me by my chosen name, Kelly. Simply stated, I never cared for the sound of my "given" name and I am not Christian. It is, however, my legal signature, as Aleister Crowley's legal name and signature was Edward Alexander Crowley. I am Kelly. There is no attempt to misrepresent here, as there is no attempt to misrepresent in the case of any true magician, artist, writer, and film star.
Gary means "Spear; spearman"; Allen means "Handsome, cheerful, harmonious one"; Martin means "Warlike one"; and my "confirmation name", Hugh, means "Intelligence; spirit". Oh, and by the way, I never took my Roman Catholic upbringing seriously and never felt the urge to rebel. Baptism rolled off me like water from a duck's back. As for Kelly, it means, in part, "Warrior". An entire book could be written on the significance of my given and my chosen names and the reasons for my preference, but is anyone really that interested?
We here at Newaeon are not hiding anything. That is why pictures have been printed in the newsletter, and that is why a graphological analysis, with handwriting samples, and an astrological chart on the editor have been published. Correspondence is also free and all one needs to do is to ask a question and it shall be answered.
What do we really know of men like Marcelo Motta, who go to great lengths to hide themselves?
Why do they hide?
What do they fear? Honesty? The truth?
We all remember, and shall never forget, such men as the Reverend Jim Jones and the Guyana tragedy. The horror of such an abuse of mystical aspiration is etched in history forever and should be for us a warning and a lesson--a lesson that people died to teach us.
I am not suggesting that Mr. Motta, or any of the others that The Sword has struck out against, are going to lead so many to such an obvious destruction. But I am saying that many people, despite their chronological ages, are still spiritual and emotional children and as such, despite their great potential, are very vulnerable. So many people may never again be led to such degradation and death as have been in Guyana, but people can be, and are being, individually destroyed--physically, financially, socially and psychologically. This is something we wish to prevent, as much as it is possible. Especially when the destruction of others is done in the name of Thelema.
There has to be criticism of these people who claim to be religious and mystical teachers, who write "authoritatively" on these subjects, and claim the leadership of organizations which are supposed to lead men and women along the Spiritual Path. No one is forced to listen to such criticism. No one is forced to believe either side of an issue. But both sides of any issue should be given so that the aspiring individual may study the alternatives and choose for him- or herself.
We are merely doing our True Will of Adjustment to the best of our ability.
We are merely offering to the aspirant another point of view to consider.
We are merely giving the aspirant the benefit of our experiences and our considered opinions.
We merely give each and every reader a greater choice.
Let Mr. Motta speak, write or do anything else he wills to do. We do not deny him his rights. Likewise he should not attempt to deny us nor anyone else their rights.
The funny part of the letter was that it was intended to frighten us into writing no more about Mr. Motta. We had finished with him. We thought that we had written enough about the man and we had intended to write no more than, possibly, a one paragraph review of any further books he may publish. Then the letter came and this article was evoked. If he were wise, Mr. Motta would choose his representatives more carefully, and would, himself, retire into silence and seek to improve himself. But can he be wise?
(TNN.III.1.2-5, 3/20/80 E.V.)