N A:
Tom M A:
What is so racist about that? I'd say that it would be an extremely superficial conformist PC intrepretation to say the guy was being racist.
This is racist:
and yet the degrees of that power vary widely among the different races of men.hope that helps. I don't really understand the rest of your post.
Just for fun, here's more William Walker Atkinson. From http://www.psitek.net/pages/PsiTek-mind-power-Contents.html :
In the heart of Africa today, we find the Voodoo men, or conjurers, or medicine men, well versed in the application of Mind-Power. It was also known among the early American Indians, although their degenerated descendants seem to have lost the knowledge, except in a few instances.
From http://www.psitek.net/pages/PsiTekTSOSContents.html
This Desire-Force is a primitive, elemental thing. It is found in the animal kingdom, and among the lower races of men
*eyeroll*
Maybe you're just reading too much into it. I'm sure he was using the word race as it was used back then, as in breed. The term was applied to those of colour, those of locality, those of culture, etc. What is the problem with that? That's the way people categorised themselves - and still do.
Atkinson would not have embraced the cultures and teaching of the East if he were a racist, just as Hitler would never have embraced the culture or teachings of the Jews due to the fact he was racist.
As I said, some people do believe they belong to different races/breeds/kinsfolk/cultures/groups/gangs. So we've got all these branches of humanity calling themselves african, asian, caucasian, whatever. In days of old it was more strightforward as it was simply the tribe. So the tribe were all one... one colour, one religion, one ideal.
I'd say it is excruciatingly obvious that some people/races are in a very low state of being; hence the warring tribes, hence the domination of women, hence the glorification of brute power in some cultures. Even in the UK and USA we see that the so-called leaders are but brutes of low intellect and even lower emotional equilibrium. Humanity is in a sad state of degenration, who would dare argue against that fact?
His teaching is not about race, but the potentialities of the mind.
I was reading J. Krishnamurti's books this morning and he often refers to sir, to men, was he a sexist? Yes, it can all get just a bit silly. The first few words of the introduction to The First and Last Freedom were writen by Aldous Huxley and are… Man is an amphibian. I can just hear some feminists screaming “misogynistic bastard”.
There was a very well educated guy who could have used the word Humans rather than Man, but the collective term of the day did obviously include women, and yes, children.
So really, we can all read too much into things, but only when we read through the coloured glasses our own prejudice. The essential point to consider is, does his teaching enslave or emancipate, are they exclusive or inclusive? If they are designed to emanicipate and are inclusive how could they possibly be racist in any way?