Theos-Talk Archives (January 2005 Message tt00806)

Daniel, you address a good point.

The Conger-/Long conspiracy in hte Point 
Loma-Covina TS in 1946 was dealt with in 
Theosophical History magazine by Kenneth Small as 
a reply to the gross misleadings - if not to speak 
of deliberative lies - in the TUP pamphlet about 
Conger.

As Charles Ryan, a pupil of HPB in London, puts 
it - quoted in TH - he was reminded of the Besant 
actions against Judge some years before. In fact, 
if you study both conspiracies, you will notice 
the striking similarity of both cases. Conger made 
the same esoteric claims which Annie Besant made. 
Those with higher esoteric knowledge were 
persecuted, etc.
What is the rationale for such coincidences?

GdeP was training chelas to be able to recognize 
the Insignia Majestatis or the next messenger. One 
of the chelas was the prominent W. Emmett Small, 
the late father of the rebuttal article in TH.
According to him and his eyewitness reports in TH 
Conger and Long were frauds, or at least, 
self-deceivers.

This shism of 1946 resulted in the branching out 
in the same way as the shisms of 1895 and 1898. 
One lineage followed Hartley, who finally flew to 
the Netherlands, establishing a counter HQ, a 
lineage in which Jan Venema played a leading role. 
Others followed Conger and his phantastic claims. 
This rebellion of Conger and Grace F. Knoche could 
also be regarded as an inner fight of the 
exotericists vs. the esotericsts, no matter that 
some of the rebels were in the lower lay E.S. 
degrees.

Read careful Emmett's patience and warnings that 
they do not understand what they were doing. It is 
a repeat of the many appeal Judge made in his 
private letters to Besant and of which some Adyar 
officials hope they get roppen by sun and dust. A 
striking coincidence, which Ryan noted so well. 
The result of the rebellion against the higher 
esotericists (one is also reminded to the 
persecution of the gnostics by the pseudo-Christs) 
that around 60:40 followed the pseudo-leader 
Conger. In his so-called "E.S."-meetings he did 
not know what to teach, therefore he closed the 
E.S. within two years.
When Annie Besant in 1895 assumed a teaching role 
in the E.S. and appointed herself O.H. of her 
"E.S.", she also did not know what to teach.

It is no wonder as HPB has told us that a 
candidate who breaks the pledge looses his/her 
knowledge. So within two years, in 1897 she closed 
her so-called E.S. Again a striking coincidence to 
Conger's closing in 1947, only 50 years later. 
BTW, you know Ab later re-opening the E.S., only 
to be found by Steiner that they were lying on the 
ground, making hatha yoga breath training, up to 
1931 when Ab again closed the "E.S." only to 
re-open it until today.

There was again a shism when after Conger's death 
this type with the criminal looking face named 
Long claimed the headship in 1949. As the result 
with the little rest of Purucker's pupils Long 
founded in 1951 the Pasadena body and closed all 
sections and lodges, sold all international 
properties and bought a big villa with a big 
swimming pool were he was often seen in close 
realtionship with Grace F. Knoche.

In the 1970'ies this Pasadena body, which has 
destroyed as much as they could from within (note 
that both Long and Conger were government 
officials, Conger was already in the early 
1920'ies, when he was posted in Berlin, Germany, 
the leader of the military intelligence. I have 
found information about his background work about 
President Wilson's policy on the Versailles treaty 
against Germany. I was a little bit shocked). When 
Long his girl-friend Grace F. Knoche claimed 
headship. They found out that all the money they 
made was consumed and they had a clever new idea. 
Suddenly they claimed to be a TS and launched 
sections and a few lodges to get donations. 
Whereas in the past they did not allow to speak 
out the very name of GdeP they now began to 
proclaim that they were his true followers. And 
whereas in the past they did not want to hear 
anything about Point Loma (which they have 
destroyed), they now began to claim to be the 
direct successor of Point Loma, GdeP and KT!!!

This was the reason that Emmett started as an old 
man in the 1970'ies together with Helen Todd and 
Iverson Harris and some other pukka pupils of KT 
and GdeP in his garage Point Loma Publications as 
he felt that he was indepted to his teachers to 
defend them and their true message.

I have just read a privat letter of Emmett about 
that. I will look for it and give you some 
interesting quotes.

The officials of this new so-called Pasadena TS 
then were jealousy that Emmett as the main printer 
of Point Loma was still in possession of unique 
manuscripts. One day two Pasadena members went to 
him, pretend to have a small-talk while drinking 
coffee. As they were gone Emmett had to notice 
that they have stolen GdeP's manuscript of his 
"Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary". This was end 
of the 1970'ies/early 1980'ies. That is the 
background for Emmett's regularly private and open 
requests in his Eclectic magazine to Grace F. 
Knoche about the publication date, of which he 
never got an answer.

According to Emmett the mansucript was finished 
and ready for the printer. But it took some 20 
years before Pasadena published around 2001 a much 
misleading and falsified version of it:
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/etg-hp.htm

To make this long story short, I personally do not 
believe that Long or Conger were true messengers 
and successors to GdeP. To me the esoteric lineage 
is broken with him. No one else kept the link 
unbroken, at least no one who is public known 
among Theosophists. To me the incidents after 
GdeP's death from 1942-46 are an occult test, like 
the Judge case was a test and also a selection.

As I openly answer all your questions, please 
allow me to ask back what your opinion is about 
the successor/messenger case.

Daniel, do you think that Besant was right in 
accusing Judge for the precipitation of Mahatma 
letters?
And do you believe that Conger, Long and Knoche 
are rightful successors of GdeP?

Frank



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel H. Caldwell" 
<danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 11:12 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Frank on "poppycock 
speculations" in article "Madame Blavatsky's 
Occult Status"




Frank,

Thanks for your reply to my questions.

Actually I have a good number of comments to
make on your reply but don't have the time
right now to put all my thoughts in a posting.

But here is one comment:

You write:

==================================================
But logic says that when false messengers exists,
then there must be also true messengers, leading
the Theosophical Movement.
=================================================

I am assuming that you believe this statement
is true.

So when HPB died, I assume you believe there
was a "successor" or "true messenger" and that
was W.Q. Judge. I am also assuming that you 
accept
the Judge-Tingley-de Purucker lineage.

If my assumptions are correct, then what happened
when de Purucker died? Upon his death, who was
the successor or true messenger?

Daniel








Yahoo! Groups Links


theos-talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com