|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 V)
(Continued from here)
|NEW, BASIC UNTRUTHFUL STORY FOUR, ALREADY THE
FOLLOWING DAY - 2 OCTOBER 2001 ...
The new story, after he had asserted the easily
documented obvious untruth on 1 October 2001, still clinging to
a variant of his first story (the original article), that
"The published version of the [first]
lecture doesn't contradict my description of it"
is, that the [first] lecture "described"
by him implicitly not -- after all -- is published as the
lecture in the published lecture series.
He also now starts to abandon his story from 1
May, that there exists a special lecture, implicitly not published in
the lecture series, but that -- according to Mr. Staudenmaier -- still
somehow constitutes the basis for the published lecture series,
and that -- according to Mr. Staudenmaier -- was held by Rudolf Steiner
in 1910 in Oslo.
Neither in May 2001, nor in October 2001, or at
any later time, has he however been able to find and document the existence
of it anywhere as such as he describes it, except in his own fantasy.
(Later, in September 2005, he in a mail even completely
denies, that he has invoked the lecture he asserts he is describing as
something else than the one published in the lecture series,
the first one, or ... the sixth one?, see below and later.)
Only one day later, 2 october 2001, the following
day, he has changed his mind about this. He then tells that he has
found it, though not as the first lecture in the published
lecture series, nor as a separate lecture, implicitly not
published in the lecture series, but as another lecture in
the published lecture series (and thereby implicitly not as the first
lecture in the published lecture series).
But that lecture is not the actual lecture he has
referred to in his introduction to his article either, but only a "revised"
version of the lecture he persists in having in his fantasy, described
in the introduction to his article.
He now asserts that what he describes in the introduction
to his article is what Steiner actually expresses in that
first, sorry sixth, lecture, but still without any documentation
of where it has been in the mean time, except in his fantasy.
Mr. Staudenmaier 2
October 2001 to Tarjei Straume:
"The lecture is included, in
revised form, at the site you point to above. It's chapter six in
the book version, based on Steiner's lecture of June 12, 1910. In
the English edition, that's roughly pages 90-110 or so." [bold added
by the undersigned, S.N.]
The actual "lecture" that Mr. Staudenmaier
in his mind here refers to as "Steiner's lecture of June 12, 1910"
(the sixth in the series) however -- according to Mr. Staudenmaier -- is
not the published lecture by Steiner from that day, as documented
by probably all published editions of the lecture series from 1911 up to
The "actual" lecture that Mr. Staudenmaier continues
to hold on to in his mind, is the fantasy lecture that continues to only
exists in his own mind, and for which neither he nor anyone else at any
time has shown that it exists or ever has existed anywhere else.
He here once again tries to force his (behind the
surface horrified, or as he himself maybe would say, "justifiedly biased")
fantasy on reality, in terms of the actually published, in this case sixth
lecture in the series, by writing as if the lecture Steiner held
that day - the sixth in the lecture series - not is the one
actually published in the lecture series, but implicitly the fantasy
lecture that Mr. Staudenmaier has produced in his own mind, based
on loose reading of journals.
Not only the published first lecture in the series
is a whitewash of the lecture Mr Staudenmaier has had in his mind about
it. Also the published sixth lecture of the lecture series somehow is a
whitewash by Steiner himself of what he actually said in the lecture, and
that Mr. Staudenmaier is completely sure that he truthfully
describes in the introduction to his article.
After all discussions and search in different lecture
lists, and different published editions of the published lecture series
for a number of years by Mr. Staudenmaier himself and others, it seems
clear that he still is (or at least was up to September 2005) convinced
that he and he alone is the one who knows (based
on among other things loose reading of journals) what Steiner actually
said in the first (sorry sixth) lecture of the series on ... 12 June 1910.
(The first lecture in the series was held on 7 June, 2001.)
In his mind, it seems, everybody else is wrong
about what Steiner actually told his audience during that special lecture
(the first one in the series according to his introduction
to his article in 2000, and according to his comments up to 1 October 2001,
then, in the comment on 2 October 2001 to switch to the sixth
lecture in the series, held on 12 June, 1910, in Oslo).
The actually published lecture from that day is
just a fake, a "revised" version of the lecture actually held by Steiner
that day, seemingly produced to fool everyone else about what Mr. Staudenmaier
and he alone knows what Steiner said that day, based on a loose reading
of journals, that he has told is the source of what he writes in the introduction.
While Mr. Staudenmaier often seems very clear sighted
on different issues and expresses his thoughts very well, somewhere one
may also have the impression that there is a distinctive cleft between
smaller or larger parts of Mr. Staudenmaier's mind and the reality most
other people live in, and take to be probably real, a cleft that mostly
is difficult to discover, as he formulates both his truths and his untruths
and illusions equally well.
For Mr. Staudenmaier's position on these flippant
stories four years later, in 2005, see later
|AND UNTRUTHFUL STORY FIVE ...
He also writes (2
October 2001) about lecture six:
"If you disagree that Steiner here
designates the "Aryans" as superior to the other "root races" he describes,
then by all means present an argument to that effect. It's childish to
pretend that the lecture doesn't exist if all you mean is that you read
its content differently."
Now, is this new story by Mr. Staudenmaier true as
he tells it in relation to his freely invented introduction to his article?
In the introduction to his article, Mr. Staudenmaier
asserts that he is describing an actually published source by Steiner (the
first lecture in a repeatedly published lecture series by Steiner, ...
though not really, as the first published lecture in the
lecture series, according to Mr. Staudenmaier is not the actual
lecture held by Steiner as the first in the series.
The lecture he asserts that he describes in the
introduction is something else, of unclear origin, and only is found as
"described" by Mr. Staudenmaier in his own -- rich, but behind the surface
clearly horrified -- fantasy. From 2 October 2001, Mr. Staudenmaier has
changed his mind and tells that the lecture referred to in his introduction
not is the first, but the sixth lecture in the series, but that the published
sixth lecture in the series -- also -- is a fake of what Steiner actually
said in the actual lecture that day).
The anthropological terms "main races of mankind"
The central focus of everything
Mr. Staudenmaier writes about the series clearly is the theosophical,
not anthroposophical, concept "Aryan root race", a concept
early on criticized as being part of a childhood illness of the theosophical
movement, and that he therefore did not use when developing anthroposophy,
separate from theosophy. And further, Mr. Staudenmaier, as a self-described
"historical scholar", fabricates a number of fantasies at various times
about things not even contained in the lecture series, to try to "prove"
how disgusting anthroposophy is.
Mr. Staudenmaier's apparently deep
personal feelings of horror about the propagation of a view of some "Aryan
supremacy" is fully understandable and justified. But it is not applicable,
either to anthroposophy or to the lecture series by Steiner in 1910, which
Staudenmaier (untruthfully) tries to use as the introduction to his article
"Anthroposophy and Ecofascism", and which he has continued to argue untruthfully
about for years when his initial untruthfulness about it is pointed out
He's barking up the wrong tree, as also someone else
has told him.
Nor is a concept of "Aryan supremacy" applicable
to any significant part of the anthroposophical movement, either
before or during the Nazi period, especially not in Norway, and especially
not after the Nazi period in Europe, as he untruthfully tries to imply
in his article.
Reading the actual sixth lecture in the series
reveals that it does not describe what is termed in theosophy (but not
in anthroposophy) an "Aryan root race", as untruthfully stated by Mr. Staudenmaier.
For more on the theosophical concept of "root races",
that not refers to biologically defined groups of humans, but to the stages
of humanity during the development of our present solar system from beginning
to end, see here.
Nor does lecture six describe the cultural
epochs in general. It also does not describe or the present
cultural epoch in the view of Steiner, as one might (incorrectly)
deduce this idea from the (by Mr. Staudenmaier made up) apparent theosophical
term "germanic-nordic sub-race", as he writes in his introduction. But
that term does not appear in the lecture either as Mr. Staudenmaier now appears
to indicate, with his "Story four" (2 October), about which "lecture" by Steiner
he actually refers to in the introduction.
Instead the sixth lecture contains a description
of the nature of the anthropological "five races of mankind"
in Steiner's view at the time when they began far in the past. (And "Aryans"
not is not one of these "five main races" according to Blumenbach,
the father of physical anthropology, who described them as Ethiopians [Africans],
Malayans, Mongols, Caucasians, and Americans [red Indians]). Moreover,
in Steiner's view, these races began to fade as a reality with the end
of the ice ages, though Steiner at one time described them as developing
up to the Middle Ages.
As a complication, the English translator of these
lectures in the version published in 1970 (a source which Mr. Staudenmaier
had not read when writing about it in 2000) also erred in making the translation,
and had not understood the difference between the theosophical
concept of seven "root races", which refers to the stages
of humanity during the development of our present solar system from beginning
to end, and the anthropological concept of "five main
races" of mankind, which dominated discussions of race from the
late 1700s to the middle of the 20th century. It is this latter concept
of the "five main races" that is the actual theme of lecture six in the
In addition, a reprint in 2005 of the 1970 edition
of the lecture series has been made without reviewing and correcting the
errors in the 1970 translation.
This clear mistranslation by the translator has
then been misused up to at least 2005 by Mr. Staudenmaier, who is clearly
intelligent enough to understand the difference, as a continued defense
of his repeatedly documented untruthful argumentation about the lecture
"Story four" and "story five" as part of Mr.
Staudenmaier's last line of defense for his untruthfulness, for the time
being (2001) ...
an answer to criticism by Göran Fant of his article, Mr. Staudenmaier
also, in a follow up article titled "The Art of Avoiding History",
pushes for "story four", without with one word mentioning that he has made
up the whole second part of the introduction to his original article, and
now -- again untruthfully -- asserting as a form of revised "new" "opening
"the heart of the book is chapter six"
Why does he put forth this new "opening device"?
For more on this, take a break ..., and then continue