Twithcell's Racist Writing

Author: David Christopher Lane
Publisher: Alt.religion.eckankar
Publication date: 1996

E-mail David Christopher Lane directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.

Does Eckankar Literature Contain Racist Passages?

A reply to Steve's concern about the BELL CURVE and other research.

1.  Twitchell categorically accepts the division of races and their
respective traits due to the color of their skin. His ideas are
thoroughly racist in the sense that he believes that race indicates
temperament: intellectual/emotional/spiritual.

Compare Twitchell's "findings" in THE ECK VIDYA, particularly pages
163-177, with any of the "findings" of the BELL CURVE.

I think you will find the BELL CURVE much less racist.

Of course, that's not saying much.



Thanks for your note responding to my post,

"Does Eckankar Literature Contain Racist Passages?--The Bell Curve
vs. The Eck Vidya"

1. Your claim that I have somehow taken Twitchell's words out of
context is completely untrue. All I did, if you remember, was tell
you to read a large section (indeed, the entire chapter) in the ECK
VIDYA where Twitchell quite clearly states his position on race. I
also precisely stated why Twitchell was racist: he believes that
there are certain behavioral traits related to race. That's what I
said. He wrote it; read it again for yourself. I didn't hold this
against Twitchell like you implied. I simply stated the obvious and
then said compare Twitchell's work to the BELL CURVE (I know it is
an exceptionally long work). 

I have found the BELL CURVE much less racist than Twitchell's own
writings on race. But, as I mentioned before, that's not saying much.

2. You also state that I am misrepresenting Eckankar by saying that
its literature contains racist passages. Read it for yourself, it
does. You want me to comment on the BELL CURVE and somehow say it is
a racist book or contains a racist methodology, but when I do the
same to Eckankar (which has, to be sure, much more explicitly racist
things to say in its literature--via ECK VIDYA) then I am somehow
misrepresenting them. No, all I have done is simply stated the
obvious: Eckankar literature contains racist passages.

Now if you want to counter-argue that many religious books have
passages that are racist, then go right ahead. I wouldn't disagree
for a second.

3. You seem to think that I am approaching Eckankar like a
sociologist or like a professional researcher, as if this kind of
work is part of my academic standing.

No, I have no such grand design. Remember, I simply started this
project as a 19/20 year old doing a term paper. When I found out
lots of funky stuff about their history, Eckankar threatened to sue
me (and please never forget Jim Peebles.... poor chap).

So I have kept up the investigation on the "hidden" or "untold" side
of Eckankar. I was not the first to do it, by the way. Professor
John Sutphin, former Eckist and former Chairperson of the Philosophy
Department at Mississippi State University, did some groundbreaking
work in this area in the mid-1970s. He helped me out tremendously back

4. I have never considered myself an "objective or neutral"
researcher. I just happen to have fun digging up forgotten
information about the life and work of Paul Twitchell and Eckankar.

As I have repeated over and over again (mantra 109), it does not
matter how biased you may think I am. The point is always the same:

Can you replicate what I have stated for yourself?

If Albert Hoffman was the worst and most biased researcher in the
world, but he still accidentally discovered LSD, nobody would care
about his motivations.


Because in other labs, one can duplicate his findings.

So, here we go again:

No matter how biased I may or may not be, the point is that for the
major findings I have unearthed about Twitchell I have given you the
sources (the formula in this analogy) so that you can see for
yourself in your own lab whether they can be duplicated. Unlike
Twitchell, I have given you pages numbers, books, magazines, cited
interviews, etc.

Take the following sample:

1. Plagiarism. Steve, you can say all you want, but just use
Twitchell's own criterion or Eckankar's own criterion (try
cribbing from Klemp's books the same way Twitchell did from Johnson
and see what happens) for what constitutes plagiarism (don't forget
the J.R. episode)...... It does not take a rocket scientist to see
the similarities. If J.R. had done the same thing to Twitchell that
Twitchell did to Johnson, then you can rest assured that Eckankar
would have sued. Why? It's called literary piracy. 

Yet, despite our differences, I have made these findings public, so
that interested readers can make their own appraisements.
Twitchell did not afford his readers the same courtesy.

2. You can rant on and on about "fraud" or about "bias" or what you
wish about me personally (i shall not mind), but that does not
disqualify (as you imply) what has been uncovered.


Because now that the cat is out of the bag, anybody can compare
Twitchell's accounts with the historical record. Anyone can check
the formula.

Now we may disagree on many things, we may even have heated disputes
over interpretations and the like, but that's what is supposed to

So go right ahead and say I am biased, slanted, unethical, scum,

I will simply go right ahead and present more plagiarism, more
cover-up, more biographical inconsistencies, so that interested
readers who want to check the information and comparisons for
themselves will have the opportunity to do so.

That modus operandi is why footnotes were invented, something
that Twitchell didn't enjoy doing himself.

Keep ripping, I will keep writing, and the public will at least now
have the opportunity to make a much more open-minded decision about
Twitchell and Eckankar's history.

P.S. Why was the FAR COUNTRY taken out of circulation? 

This is a serious question, I really don't know. 

Couldn't be because it was plagiarized, since Steve said Twitchell
only copied 1% of his stuff......

just curious.

E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.