The Bell Curve vs. Twitchell's Writings on Race

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.


Thanks for your recent post attempting to clarify your reasoning.

I quite clearly defined what I meant by "racism" in my very first
post on the subject. Here it is again:

"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.


Now Mark you may not like my "focusing definition" but the fact
remains I was quite clear by what "I" meant by "racism." Racism may
mean something quite different to you, and that is why I clearly
defined what I meant.

Moreover, you must keep in mind that I was responding to Steve's
allegation that the BELL CURVE had a racist methodology. I was
simply pointing out that "racism" is quite prevalent in Twitchell's
writings. Just read LETTERS TO GAIL, volumes one and two for more
information about such leanings.

I fully realize that "racism" as a buzz-word has a wide spectrum of
possibilities, and it was for that reason that I gave the definition
that I did.

You somehow find the definition I employed "too vague." I don't and
still don't.


Because it is precisely the generalizing tendency in Twitchell's
writings about race which makes them racist. Racism, for better or
worse, starts when we begin to "generalize" about skin color. And
Twitchell is a great "generalizer" of race in several of his books:

If you really want to criticize "vagueness" or "generalities" in
terms of race, then naturally Twitchell is your man.

You have said "shame on Lane" several times.

I don't mind the compliment, but I get this deja-vu feeling
everytime you write it:

I feel like I am back in Catholic grammar school.

Oh the horror of it.... the nuns, the priests, the beatings.....

The Shame?

just teasing.....

But back to your other point:

You mention this thing about "objectification" and the like,
especially in relation to my writings on Twitchell and on race in

All writing is objectification in the sense that we are trying to
convey our thoughts/ideas/feelings in a medium in which others can
recognize or participate.

I see nothing wrong in this endeavor, provided one realizes that
language is a limited medium, but a medium for which we seem more or
less stuck to in terms of day to day communication.

My posts on Twitchell can also be seen, if you desire, as attempts
to show the loopholes in his world-view. Those loopholes
(plagiarism, lying, racist ideology--root races? whites as the first
race? etc.) are exemplified by the many contradictions one can see
in his numerous books. You have even admitted that he writes weird
stuff and that some of it will never come true.

I have simply called him on the carpet for it.

And others on this newsgroup are calling me on the carpet for my
exposure of Eckankar and their founder. They may not like my style
or my approach.

But this is perfectly appropriate and welcome.

This is how critical discourse should be.

I await another "shame on Lane" post with Catholic eagerness.


the truant altar boy from
St. Charles

who never really did like 
Catholic dogma

but dug the nice buildings

E-mail The Neural Surfer directly at

I want to go back to the home base now.