Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00434)

When Bart asked who the hatemongers were, he said
Daniel H. Caldwell (i.e., you), Brigitte, and FRANK. 
My name was not mentioned. I am not the one who says
Hitler won the war and gets around in a flying saucer.
I'm not the one who says Blavatsky wrote the
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and that it is
all true. This is another example of Daniel's
diversionary tactics.

The Pratt article is a piece of pratt. The issue is
not whether Paul has correctly identified the
mahatmas, but whether ther were any mahatmas to
identify. I say there were and he says there were
not. That Pratt would use stuff like the Vega
incident as evidence of anything sets the tone for the
whole thing. It is a lot of pratt from beginning to
end. He could defend his premise much better with
sound logic. Bart is right about this kind of pratt
constituting a pile of shoddy logic. He is being kind
by referring to it as logic at all.

As for hatefulness being in the eye of Bart, I would
submit that Alice Baley's thesis that inferior races
need to be wiped out so that high church Englishwomen
like hersefl can proliferate is pretty nasty. She
would be pretty typical of a lot of modern
theosophists, in other words, but I don't think it is
fair from what I have read to think her reasoning bore
much resemblance to Blavatsky's. Since Bailey was a
fraud on the face of it, I put her stuff aside long
ago and paid little attention to it since. Of all the
neo-theosophical charlatans, she is much more
substantial than Leadbeater or Steiner but that's not
saying a lot in her favor. Why are you defending
Alice Bailey, Daniel?

I won't suggest yet again that the cant and the rant
cease and give way to honest discussion. That is a
vain hope with a crowd of theosophists, it seems. Let
us just hope that list members are gradually learning
to see through this sort of thing, and that it becomes
more and more futile as a tactic. Then maybe we will
see the end of it by simple attrition.

--- danielhcaldwell <danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bart wrote:
> 
> "They [Brigitte, Steve & Daniel] have piles of
> shoddy logic, 
> falsified history, and plain out and out lies to
> fall back on, and 
> what they want is for people to argue with them so
> that they can pull 
> out their full loads of ammo. And, if somebody does
> get the better of 
> them, they simply ignore that person, and start all
> over again. How 
> many times have you tried to go against Daniel, when
> all the 
> ammunition you [Paul Johnson] have in your arsenal
> is the truth? And 
> what good has it done?"
> 
> It is not often that I find statements which jump
> out at me and take 
> my breath away! Bart's statement above is one of
> those rare gems.
> 
> For those readers who would like to have a different
> perspective on 
> Paul's "arsenal of truth," I suggest they read and
> study the 
> following essay:
> 
> "The Theosophical Mahatmas: A Critique of Paul
> Johnson's New Myth"
> by David Pratt.
> See: 
>
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/johnson.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com