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 IV)

(Continued from here)


An early version of the efforts by Mr. Staudenmaier to produce a cover up of his untruths is that the lecture about which he has made up his "Protocol of Steiner" story, even if the first "lecture" as he "describes" it in the introduction cannot be found as the first lecture in the published lecture series as he seems to assert in his article, is to assert that it however does exist as he describes it and constitutes the basis for the entire lecture series.

In a discussion in May 2001 he asserts that the lecture he refers to and "describes" in his introduction to the article was a lecture held by Steiner in Oslo at the time of the lecture series, but implicitly not published in the actual published lecture series, and tells the following story about it.

Mr. Staudenmaier (1 May 2001):

"Sune and I are talking about two different things. He is referring to a book published in 1918 [comment by the undersigned: the lecture series was first published as a book in 1922, while a first transcript of the lecture series was published in 1911], and I was referring to a lecture given in 1910. Those two things are closely related (the former is based on the latter), but they are not identical. Even so, my description [comment by the undersigned: Mr. Staudenmaier's "description" of the "lecture", found here] of the lecture is, contrary to Sune's strenuous objections, well supported by the book."
According to the introduction to the article by Mr. Staudenmaier, the lecture he refers to is the first lecture of the series, found here in translation.

As it will turn out, that however is not what he -- now, after he wrote and published the article -- slowly starts to mean, as he has found out that the first lecture not at all corresponds to, or supports his description of it in the introduction to his article, and he needs to find some other "lecture" to refer to with his introduction.

But he does not give it up that easily, or actually at all, if you read him closely. For the time being, he only somewhat losens his assertion that he is talking about the first lecture in the series, and states that the whole lecture series in the form of the book that publishes it "supports" his fantasy story about it.

But he continued to try to play down the importance of his "Protocol of Steiner" forgery, with which he has introduced his career as writer on Steiner. As he at the time has not -- yet -- found another lecture to refer to as source of his fantasies in the second part of his introduction to his article, he also again, in October, continues to defend what he has written as a -- well, at least in his own mind -- true description of the first lecture in the series, though he now is fully aware that his seeming description of the first lecture in the series not at all corresponds to, or is supported by the published first lecture in the lecture series.

At no time, however, does he document a source, that describes the content of the fantasy lecture he asserts that he describes in the introduction to his article, as he describes it, and that is not published as he describes it, in the published lecture series.

Five months later, he at first can seem to start to give up his fantasy about the imaginary lecture he in May 2001 invents the existence of as something somehow "else" than the published lecture series, and that he refers to in his comment (a lecture, held by Steiner in Oslo in 1910, that according to Mr. Staudenmaier constitutes the "basis" for the published lecture series, but that is not "identical" to it), but that he somehow cannot document the existence of, except as something he has a picture of in his own fantasy.

Looking closer, it however turns out that he does not do it. Instead he -- at first -- untruthfully persists in asserting his view that the first lecture in the published lecture series -- somehow -- IS the lecture he describes in his introduction, and that the "only" difference between it and his fantasy is that the word "sub-race" is missing in the published lecture.

He thereby -- almost two years after he wrote and published his article -- continues to untruthfully imply that the first lecture, that among other things describes the Angels, Archangels, and Archai of the Judeo-Christian tradition, contains all other parts of his fantasies about it, and that Steiner in the lecture does speak of "the Aryan race" as "the highest of five historical 'root races.'".

For some check on this, see the published lecture.

During the summer of 2001, Mr. Staudenmaier visited Germany, and actually bought the published lecture series, seemingly thinking he had to go to Germany to do it, and probably has read it, at least superficially, in the original.

In spite of this, on his return to the U.S. he continued to deny that an analysis by the undersigned of his "Protocol of Steiner" forgery in relation also to the whole lecture series, published five months earlier, revealed any basic difference between his hoax and the lecture series in its totality.

In a posting 1 October, he also asserts that what he had written in the introduction to his article "merely" was an "opening device", "for the Norway hook" (the publication of the article in Norway, where it was first published, and of which it constitutes the introduction) and "to introduce Steiner's terminology".

From the discussion:

Tarjei Straume (28 Sep. 2001)

"The virtual "lecture" by RS in Oslo that you describe as an intro to your article about anthroposophy and ecofascism is presented as the centrally explanatory (or descriptive) core of your article."
Mr. Staudenmaier (1 Oct. 2001), answering Tarjei Straume
"No, it isn't. Writers call this an "opening device". I don't refer to it in the body of the article and it plays no role in my argument. I used it merely for the Norway hook and to introduce Steiner's terminology." [bold by this commentator S.N.]
He also reasserts his untruthful story two from May 2001, only now after probably actually having read the lecture he refers to in the original (the first in the series ...). While his posting of 1 May does not explicitly state which lecture he actually refers to, and he soon - the following day (2 October) - will change his mind about this, he in the posting of 1 October 2001 explicitly refers to the first lecture in the published lecture series, as he comments on the contents of it as it is published.

Mr. Staudenmaier (1 October):

"The published version of the lecture doesn't contradict my description of it. The sole discrepancy is the word 'sub-race'." [bold by this commentator S.N.]
Maybe one can be allowed, reading his introduction to his article, and the first lecture he refers to in the lecture series, to consider his use of the concept "sole discrepancy" -- as repeatedly documented by Mr. Staudenmaier's writings -- to be not very "truthful". He ends his comment with:
"Yours for historical scholarship".
For some comments on what Mr. Staudenmaier describes as "the Norway hook", see here.

In the continued public discussions about his article, the question was also raised, where did Mr. Staudenmaier get the title for the first lecture, given by him as The Mission of Individual European National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology, as it is not supported, neither by the original publication of the lecture series, nor by the published translation of it?

As answer, 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.

For some comments on this, see here.

For Mr. Staudenmaier's basic next, untruthful story four, already the following day, 2 October 2001, continue here.