The stories and mind games of
Mr. Staudenmaier
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.


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 anti-Semite.

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 here 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 method

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:

"I 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 it

"merely for the Norway hook [Comments by S.N.: where the article was first published.] and to introduce Steiner's terminology".

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 article."
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 and content.

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 whole.

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"

In Theosophy, 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 works.

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 (not "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.