|Some side comments on the stories told by Mr.
Staudenmaier in his article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" (2000) and his
discussions of it ...
For the main analysis and discussions with Mr.
Staudenmaier about his article, see here.
|SOME UNTRUTHFUL SIDE STORIES
In one follow up article to "Anthroposophy and
Ecofascism", "Anthroposophy and its Defenders", written by Mr.
Staudenmaier in cooperation with a Peter Zegers in the Netherlands, they
refer to Steiner's description of two right-wing personalities at the end
of the 19th century, as part of their "argumentation" that Steiner was,
as they write, an "enthusiastically active pan-German nationalist" and
One of these personalities was a professor of history
at the University of Berlin, Heinrich von Treitschke, and the other was
Julius Langbehn. For a comparison of what Mr. Staudenmaier and Mr. Zegers
assert that Steiner says about them, with what Steiner himself actually
wrote in his autobiography, see here
for case of Treitschke and
for the case of Langbehn.
For a similar analysis and comments by Daniel Hindes
on Mr. Staudenmaier's story about Treitschke, see here.
Reading what Staudenmaier/Zegers write about Steiner's
description of them, and comparing this with what Steiner actually
wrote about them indicates that the lighthearted untruthfulness of Mr.
Staudenmaier's' writings on anthroposophy, as revealed already in the introduction
to his first article, is typical of the "truthfulness" of the writings
of Mr. Staudenmaier and Mr. Zegers, in relation to the alleged actual published
and well documented sources they refer to in their writings.
"Methodically boring and conservative" historical
When Mr. Staudenmaier was
criticized for the way he describes the alleged sources he refers to in
the article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism", he answered in a follow
up article ("The Art of Avoiding History") that the method he has
applied in writing the article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" is
"methodologically boring and conservative".
He also writes that in the article, he was following
"the standard scholarly procedure" in relation to the sources he asserted
that he used and refers to.
In contrast to this assertion, discussions with
the self-proclaimed "historical scholar" Mr. Staudenmaier have shown that
he had read neither the lecture series, nor the first allegedly "described"
lecture in question, when writing the article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism".
In addition, in discussions following the publication
of this article which he introduces with the described "Protocol of Steiner"
forgery, Mr. Staudenmaier has later repeatedly tried to create various
smoke screens to cover up his untruthfulness, when it has been exposed.
The whole affair with the untruthful introduction
to the article and Mr. Staudenmaier's reactions when its untruthfulness
has been documented summarizes in a nutshell and reveals the flippant attitude
and unreliable carelessness and untruthfulness which are repeatedly found
in Mr. Staudenmaier's writings on anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner. This
is all revealed when one takes the time to check them against the actual
sources he says he describes.
Consistent with this, when finally faced with the
challenge to take responsibility to correct his writings on the Internet
so they are truthful, Mr. Staudenmaier has commented:
don't take these thing nearly as seriously as you do".
For a more detailed analysis in full of the first
part of Mr. Staudenmaier's article, and the extent of his fabrications
in it, see a
study by Daniel Hindes.
In discussions of his article "Anthroposophy and
Ecofascism", Mr. Staudenmaier on 1 October 2001 told that he only wrote
the untruthful introduction to his article as "inventory device" to us
"merely for the Norway hook [Comments
by S.N.: where the article was first published.] and to introduce Steiner's
Some comments on this "Norway hook"
An article by the Norwegian
Superior Court lawyer, Cato Schiøtz: "Antroposofin
i Norge - Noen bemerkninger om forholdet til nazisme, rasisme og øko-fascisme"
("Anthroposophy in Norway - Some comments on the relation to Nazism, racism
and ecofascism), shows that picking Norway in trying to depict Steiner
and anthroposophy as anti-Semitic was an especially bad choice.
The article by Schiøtz shows that the leading
anthroposophists there during the Nazi time in Europe, in contrast to many
others in Norway, belonged to those who most clearly criticized the racism
and anti-Semitism cultivated by the Nazis.
In addition, Mr. Staudenmaier (though I cannot
at present find the actual posting by him among the many thousand in the
archives of the discussion to document it) according to my memory in one
comment asked that his introduction to the article be disregarded in reading
the rest of the article.
When later reminded of this (according to my memory)
expressed wish by him that readers disregard the introduction in reading
the rest of the article, he answered that he does not "understand" what
the reminder refers to.
Tarjei Straume (3 Oct. 2001):
"In the discussion of it on this list,
you once asked that Sune did not take it into account when judging your
Mr. Staudenmaier (answer later the same day):
"I don't understand that sentence."
On Hans Mändl
In the continued public
discussions about his article, the question was also raised, where did
Mr. Staudenmaier get the title for the first lecture, The Mission of
Individual European National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology,
as it is not supported, neither by the translation of it, nor by the original?
Mr. Staudenmaier said he only remembers a book
by a Hans Mändl from 1966 as the basic source for what he writes about
the title of his "Protocol of Steiner" forgery in the article.
A check with the book by Mändl, which Mr.
Staudenmaier hints that he has read by pointing to it as the source for
the title he gives for this lecture, confirms the erroneous mentioning
by Mändl of "European" in the title as mentioned in the text. But
it also shows that nothing in Mändl's work supports Mr. Staudenmaier's
assertion that Steiner held the special lecture as described by Mr. Staudenmaier,
that he evidently made up the existence of with regard to both its title
It is also clear from the book by Mändl, that
what Mändl describes and gives the title for is a lecture series,
not a lecture. The correct title for the lecture series also is given at
the end of his book.
In the discussion, Mr. Staudenmaier also asserted
that the description of the lecture he says he describes, even if it is
not published as the first lecture of the series as he states in his introduction,
still very well describes the content of the lecture series as a
An analysis of the
published lecture series itself in relation to his "Protocol of Steiner"
forgery contradicts also this story by Mr. Staudenmaier. The main obsessive
illusion Mr. Staudenmaier has about the lecture series "Mission of Folk
Souls is that when the term "Aryan"
once in passing in the
lecture series is mentioned by Steiner, he refers to the theosophical concept
"Aryan root race.
That is not the case.
On the theosophical terms "root race" and "subrace"
the term "Aryan root race" was and is used to refer to the development
of humanity during some 15,000 years after the end of the last glacial
ages. In Theosophy, it is described as encompassing seven
sequential "sub races".
The five that have developed so far according to
Theosophy are: the Hindus, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks
and Europeans. After this will follow two more periods, when two
more, what in Theosophy are called "sub-races" will develop. The use of
the concepts however is confusing in the works of Blavatski, and it is
difficult to find a more systematic, short overview of the issue in her
The term "germanic-nordic sub-race" is not known
to this author even as a Theosophical term, but seems freely invented by
Mr. Staudenmaier, like many other things that he writes.
For more on the concepts, see here.
The Theosophical "root race" and "sub race" terms,
from about 1906, four years before the lecture series, were criticized
and abandoned by Steiner as invalid in the biological sense for the time
after the last glacial age, and not used as such by him, neither as terms,
nor as concepts in his development of Anthroposophy separate
from Theosophy at the time.
If a term "germanic-nordic sub-race" can be documented
as a Theosophical term somewhere in Theosophical sources, it possibly would
refer to the development of the present cultural epoch, developing since
the 15th century, as one of a series of post-glacial cultural epochs
"sub-races"), in the view of Steiner.
In lecture six, where Mr. Staudenmaier thinks that
he has found a final refuge for his untruthful obsessive illusion and stories
about the lecture series, Rudolf Steiner does not discuss the "Aryan root
race" as depicted by the theosophical tradition.
He discusses the "five main human races", as distinguished
by anthropology, and an "Aryan race" is not one of them.
For more on this, see here.