My concern with Theosophy is the implication of the inferiority of any group of people. We don't have to use the word "race" and "racism" to see prejudice against and propositions of inferiority about a particular group of people, which historically is dangerous and is understandably offensive.
Just because a group is purported to be inferior due to culture, history, language, or other ethnic marker, as opposed to biologically (racially), does not make that belief of inferiority any less hurtful, offensive, and potentially dangerous.
So far, Theosophy seems to justify the view of seeing Jews as inferior, even if this is an inferiority related to proposed historical and cultural factors and not due to "race." That doesn't change the view of seeing certain peoples, cultures, or religions as inferior, which Nick himself steadfastly agrees to and sees as a correct view of the alleged history.
In terms of real history, from the anthropological view, there is no evidence of the type of history M. B. proposes, and no evidence that Judaism was a shoot-off from the Aryans in India. Furthermore, the Aryans as they descended into India were conquering farming peoples along the way (as often occurs when a pastoral society meets a farming one) and the amalgam of the farming folks' gods/goddesses and traditions with that of the pastoral Aryans' is what eventually formed Hinduism. This is upheld by linguistic, historical, and archaeological analysis (as well as comparative religious studies).
Quite frankly, the basis of Theosophical thought doesn't jive with anything we have in the known world from any of the sciences or humanities, and so strikes me as fanciful. Unfortunately, it is fanciful in a way that proposes an inferiority of certain people, which to me as an anthropologist is unforgiveable.
As an aside, the most convincing argument I have read for the two accounts of creation in Genesis is also (not surprisingly) the simplest one (thanks Occam's Razor) is one some anthropologists and comparative religion scholars kick around- that the two accounts reflect different influences from two different cultures. As such, they emphasize different things though telling basically the same story. They are not meant to read as one continuous story, but rather as two different myths concerning the same event. The former story emphasizes more equality between men and women, but unfortunately sets humanity farther apart from the rest of creation, encouraging more of a dominion model and making it clear that human beings are super special compared to the rest of creation. The second story emphasizes more of a "stewardship" perspective, leaving the animals and humans as very much alike- Adam is created, then the animals as potential companions for him, and when no suitable companion is found, Eve is created. The downside (from a modern perspective) of this second story is that Eve is not Adam's equal.
Here's one example of such a reading:
Literary Genre
There are more.
Of course, there are many other more complex and less culturally grounded ways to read the divergence between Genesis 1 and 2. There is the idea that the first woman was Lilith and for any number of reasons, she was replaced by Eve. The standard Christian reading is that Genesis 2 simply expounds on the specifics of the creation account summarized in Genesis 1 (which I think sweeps notable worldview differences inherent in the two accounts under the rug). Another view is that Genesis 1 was the account of the creation of humanity at large, while Genesis 2 was the account specifically of the origin of the Jewish people (Adam and Eve, who would be the origin of the Jews).
But to use it to suppose the inferiority of any particular group of people seems, in my opinion as a social scientist, dangerous and offensive. Whether one justifies seeing another group of folks as inferior due to race, culture, religion, language, or other attribute doesn't make much difference- it is still prejudice.
