The elusive lecture

An analysis of Mr. Staudenmaier as "Protocol of Steiner" forger and the stages in his efforts to cover up his untruthfulness as self-proclaimed "historical scholar" (part III)

(Continued from here)


As the central thesis and introduction to his first article as a writer on anthroposophy, "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism", Mr. Staudenmaier, commissioned by a Norwegian secular humanist journal, "Humanist", presents what amounts to a forgery about a lecture series titled "Mission of Folk Souls" held by Rudolf Steiner in Oslo 1910.

The forgery is on a par with the "Protocols of Zion" forgery used to demonize Judaism 100 years earlier, and is therefore here dubbed the "Protocol of Steiner" forgery.

The Staudenmaier article is still published by Mr. Dugan, secretary of PLANS Inc. in San Francisco at his PLANS site and at a number of other places on the Internet, with Mr. Staudenmaier's continued tacit approval, despite repeated objections as to its falsehood. Only five years after the article was written in its original form has it been replaced (some time around or after July 2005) with a slightly edited version, that has removed some of the most obvious untruths, repeatedly defended by Mr. Staudenmaier, described below.

Mr. Staudenmaier begins the article in the version, that has been published from the beginning of 2000 up to at least July 2005 at the site of PLANS with his clear approval:

"In June 1910 Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a speaking tour of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive audience in Oslo. The lecture was titled 'The Mission of Individual European National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology.' [...] 

"The 'national souls' of Northern and Central Europe were, Steiner explained, components of the 'germanic-nordic sub-race,' the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of the highest of five historical 'root races.' This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the 'Aryan race.' "

What Mr. Staudenmaier writes implies that Steiner toured Norway, to lay the groundwork for an Aryan supremacist style ideology, implying that Steiner was the forerunner of Nazi racist and anti-Semitic ideology. (For the opposite view by the Nazi authorities on this in 1935, when they prohibited the Waldorf schools from taking on more pupils, and prohibited and dissolved the Anthroposophical Society in Germany for constituting a threat to Nazi ideology, see here and here.)

Checking the facts, it turns out Rudolf Steiner did not even make a speaking tour of Norway at the time, but only held the lecture series referred to and two additional lectures in Oslo.

Many of the works, to which Mr. Staudenmaier refers as sources of what he writes on Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy, are probably difficult for most people to find, in order to check the extent his descriptions of them are actually true.

The last printed edition in English (1970) of the lecture series, that Staudenmaier asserts he describes has been out of print for many years. (Only the last year was it republished, however without any review and correction of errors in the 1970 edition.) It has been possible for a number of years, however, to order it in paperback at in German (which Mr. Staudenmaier speaks fluently) and get in a week for about US$10.

Reading the actual well documented and published lecture by Steiner, that Staudenmaier asserts that he describes, shows that the second part of his introduction is a complete fabrication by Staudenmaier of the first lecture and the lecture series in its totality, in a way that constitutes an insult to the concept of "historical scholar" as he prefers to describe himself.
Discussions with him have shown that, when writing the article, he just made up the introduction out of his speculative imagination on the basis of loose reading of journals, as an "opening device" to "draw in" his readers in Norway, where the article was first published in 2000.
The lecture, which Mr. Staudenmaier asserts he describes, the first lecture in the lecture series (for the actual lecture in English translation, see here) in no place mentions either "root race", or an "Aryan race", or describes it as a "superior fifth root race" or a "Germanic-nordic sub-race", as "the vanguard of the highest of five historical 'root races' " or as "the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group". This is all a fabrication by Mr. Staudenmaier.
What the lecture instead gives, among other things, is a description, in the tradition of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, of man as a spiritual being.

It also describes some of the spiritual beings described by the Jewish-Christian tradition as angels, archangels and higher spiritual beings, as an introduction -- in the same Jewish-Christian tradition -- to how they, in Steiner's understanding and view, have interacted with man during different stages of our development as humanity.

For a more detailed analysis of the deficient basis for Mr. Staudenmaier's fabricated "Aryan horror story" -- with which he introduces his first writings on anthroposophy, also with regard to the lecture series as a whole -- see here.

The repeated untruthfulness of Peter Staudenmaier

A further check of what Mr. Staudenmaier writes, in relation to the sources he claims to refer to, indicates that the untruthfulness demonstrated by his introductory paragraphs, is a repeated and typical characteristic of his writings on Steiner and anthroposophy.

As in the case of the fabricated, untruthful introduction to his article, it probably is difficult for most readers to check what he writes against the actual sources to which he claims he refers in his argumentation, in a way that would make it possible to come to a judgment of what he writes.

For some sources, found on-line on the Internet, however, that is possible. Among these sources are Rudolf Steiner's autobiography, which Mr. Staudenmaier uses in his argumentation against Steiner.

For an introduction to some untruthful side stories to his main story, by Mr. Staudenmaier and a Mr. Zegers, see here.

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".

For some comments on this specific story, as one of the many stories by Mr. Staudenmaier, see here.

For a description of the first stage in the efforts by Mr. Staudenmaier to cover up his untruthfulness as self-proclaimed "historical scholar" and "Protocol of Steiner" forger, documented by his introduction, continue here.