|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)
|BASIC UNTRUTHFUL STORY TWO - MAY 2001
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
"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",
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,
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
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
|BASIC UNTRUTHFUL STORY THREE -- 1 OCTOBER 2001
-- REPEATING STORY TWO
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
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
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
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.