Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00079)

Frank, you ask:

"Is it a theosophical duty to protect black magicians like Johnson 
and Muehlegger?"

Frank, I am appalled by your comment. Your comment is offensive in 
the extreme. 

How do you KNOW that they are "black magicians"??? Are you willing 
to admit that possibly you are mistaken in this view? Please EXPLAIN 
why you have labelled them as such.

I append BELOW the email I posted some time back on Theos-Talk. I'm 
sure you will ignore my comments as given below but one can always 
hope that you might reconsider your offensive remarks and apologize 
for them.

Daniel

-------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Dallas Tenbroeck and Frank Reitemeyer on the material by 
Brigitte Muehlegger and K. Paul Johnson

Dear Dallas and Frank,

I know that both of you are sincere students of Theosophy. You have 
both been helpful in assisting me from time to time on various 
research concerning Madame Blavatsky. I certainly appreciate your 
help. But I am concerned about how the two of you have characterized 
the work of both Brigitte Muehlegger and K. Paul Johnson. 

You may not agree with their conclusions concerning various alleged 
activities of Madame Blavatsky. I may share some of your concerns and 
views BUT why must we paint either one of them as bad people?

I've corresponded with both Brigitte and Paul and at no point have I 
had any reason to conclude or even think that they are "bad" people 
or that they are somehow "insincere". I assume that they are both 
sincere seekers of truth. Why ascribe to either of them less than 
good motives? 

If either of you truly disagree with what they say, and feel that 
they have distorted the record concerning Madame Blavatsky, please 
show the illogic, irrationality, etc. of their STATEMENTS about HPB 
rather than suggest nefarious motives on their part.

Also Dallas I think it is really unfair to make the following 
statement as you recently did:

"... I WISH TO PROTEST again in the matter of K. Paul Johnson's 
book: 'THE MASTERS REVEALED' (1944). This book has been written for 
sensational purposes and for profit. As far as I have been able to 
determine it has not[h]ing of value in it."

However much I may have disagreed with Paul Johnson about his thesis 
on the Theosophical Mahatmas, I have never got even the faintest 
glimmer or suggestion that he wrote the book for "sensational 
purposes and for profit." It would appear that I have made more 
money off THE OCCULT WORLD OF MADAME BLAVATSKY (1991) than what Paul 
did on THE MASTERS REVEALED. Does that therefore cast me in a bad 
light, too? :)

I think Paul has had a genuine interest and desire to unravel 
the "mystery" surrounding HPB's Masters. Having said that, I 
certainly don't accept many of his conclusions and I don't always 
understand his reasoning for those conclusions. 

Dallas and Frank, if you see the fallacies in what Brigitte and Paul 
have written about HPB, please present your facts and your reasoning 
and refute their ideas and conclusions. This will be the constructive 
route and will possibly help all interested readers gain a better 
undertstanding of the issues involved.

Daniel H. Caldwell
BLAVATSKY ARCHIVES
http://blavatskyarchives.com