|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 VII)
(Continued from here)
On his mailing list, Mr. Dugan, secretary of PLANS,
in June 2005, disclosed that the PLANS web site now publishes yet another
paper by Mr. Staudenmaier, written for a workshop conducted by PLANS during
an "anti-cult" conference in Atlanta in October 2004.
In his new paper, Mr. Staudenmaier -- seemingly
faithful to his habit, rooted in his understandable and justified personal
horror feelings about anything that could even, as theosophy, hint at the
mentioning of the word "Aryan" in any context -- continues
to repeatedly mix truths with untruths in what he writes on anthroposophy,
even as a -- when writing the paper in 2004 -- graduate student of history
For more on this new paper by Mr. Staudenmaier,
and the continued untruthful intricacy of his new writings, published six
months after the publication of the discussions of a number of central
aspects of Steiner's views on "race" in April 2004, found here,
at the site of Waldorf
Answers, see here.
"I don't take these things nearly as seriously
as you do"
After the discussion exposing
his first "Protocol of Steiner" forgery, Mr. Staudenmaier stated in private
correspondence in November 2001 that he, in some undescribed way, had "corrected"
the article in later translations of it, writing that if one searched the
Internet, one would find them (something which -- again -- turned out not
to be the true, when using the major search engines on the Internet to
search for them).
He also wrote -- when pointed to the fact that
his untruthful story continues to be published, both at the site of the
"Institute for Social Ecology" with which he is associated, as also at
the PLANS site -- that he at one time communicated with the web master
of the Institute for Social Ecology site to make the web master "correct"
But he then -- when seeing that the untruths remained
uncorrected -- did not bother the web master again about it, adding:
don't take these things nearly as seriously as you do".
He also did not bother to correct the article with
regard to even the most obvious untruths, described above, at the PLANS
site, with whose secretary he regularly communicates up to this day, until
2005, more than five years after its original publication, four years after
the discussion and documentation of his original untruths.
He then has replaced it with a slightly "edited"
version, to try to avoid a continued discussion of his documented, repeated
and persistent untruthfulness in what he writes about anthroposophy. But
he keeps publishing its basic untruthfulness with regard to the
whole lecture series, to which he refers also in the new introduction,
and has continued to defend by referring to a well documented mistranslation
of lecture six in the series.
Nor did the secretary and web master of PLANS remove
or correct it, consciously continuing to publish and defending the untruths
by Mr. Staudenmaier, documented by the discussions in 2001, described above,
as part of the anti-anthroposophy and anti-Waldorf demagoguery and defamation
cultivated at Mr. Dugan's PLANS the site.
In defense of his documented untruths, Mr. Staudenmaier
in 2003 expressed the view that he can not be accused of having lied, as
he himself has believed that what he has written was true.
This defense does not apply to the time after
he (during a visit to Germany during the summer of 2001) had actually bought
the published source he had argued about, and still continued to defend
the untruths he had written about it, continuing to assert in October 2001:
"The published version of the lecture
doesn't contradict my description of it".
Never ending new stories by Mr. Staudenmaier,
now in 2005 ...
In 2005, the undersigned
became aware that the organizer of the above mentioned
"anti-cult" conference in Atlanta in October 2004, Dr. Langone, seemed
to plan to publish the mentioned new paper on anthroposophy, presented
by Mr. Staudenmaier during a workshop at the conference, in a journal for
which he is editor; "Cultic Studies Review".
I then wrote to Dr. Langone, expressing my surprise
when learning about it, based on my experiences of Mr. Staudenmaier's repeated
untruthfulness as repeatedly self-proclaimed "historical scholar", as documented
at these pages and by the analysis
by Daniel Hindes of the first part of Mr. Staudenmaier's paper from
In the ensuing mail exchange, Mr. Staudenmaier
told and tried to convince Dr. Langone, for which he -- seemingly -- had
a respect, that seemed mutual at the time, of some new interesting stories,
seemingly trying to convince Dr Langone of his own seriousness as "historical
|NEW STORIES SIX, SEVEN AND EIGHT - SEPTEMBER
As comment to my description of Mr. Staudenmaier's
stories "one" to "five", documented above (described at an earlier
version of this article from July 2005), Mr. Staudenmaier in a mail of
13 September 2005 writes to Mr. Langone, with a CC to the undersigned,
on his own earlier published statements as historical documents:
"I don't think it would be helpful
to engage most of those arguments because they are about positions I
don't hold and never have held ..." [bold by the undersigned]
He also writes to Mr. Langone on his own confusing
and contradictory floating position from 1 May to 2 October 2001, story two above, about the lecture he never has found as he describes it
in the introduction to his article, neither as lecture one, nor as lecture
six in the series:
"If you think it relevant, I can also
show you the publicly accessible archived exchanges between me and Sune
(several of which I pointed out to Michael L. a few days ago) where readers
can see that I did not at any point invoke 'a lecture held by Steiner
in Oslo at the time of the lecture series, but not published in the lecture
series', ..." [bold by the
A third new story he tells is:
"I did not at any point refer solely
to a single lecture rather than the full lecture series, ..." [bold
by the undersigned]
As noted, Mr. Staudenmaier has an outstanding way
with words. Taking part in what he writes at different times about Steiner
and on his own earlier writings at different points is an ever new intellectual
If Mr. Staudenmaier objects to these quotes from
a personal mail from him to Dr. Langone, me, and someone else, and tells
me about it, I will replace them with descriptions of them in my own words.
In the exchange Mr. Staudenmaier also compared
his own writings on Steiner to those of
"Galen's polemics against the various
medical sects of his day"
seemingly not taking the distinction between polemics,
and outright untruthfulness about well documented historical sources as
something that needs to be taken that very seriously, and clearly considering
the latter to be something permitted in what he describes as his own "polemical"
writings about anthroposophy, as documented above.
writings from the second century, Kenneth Walker writes (The Story of Medicine,
London: Arrow Books 1959.):
"the stories which from time to time enliven
the endless discussions of Galen are introduced either to show how much
cleverer he was than his colleagues, or at best to exemplify and support
some particular theory." (p. 59)
To what extent Mr. Staudenmaier also compares to Galen
beyond this, I leave to others to judge.
An insult to the concept of "historical scholar"
The preceding discussion
of the misrepresentations by Mr. Staudenmaier about Rudolf Steiner, and
the comments by Mr. Staudenmaier himself, describing his own work as applying
"standard scholarly procedure", in addition to other discussions about
his writings, demonstrates not only the repeated complete unreliability
of what he writes on Rudolf Steiner, depicting him as an Aryan supremacist
and anti-Semite, but it also indicates his seeming profound disinterest
in whether what he writes and publishes on anthroposophy actually is true
or not, even in his own view.
What he has written and continues to write is understandable
on a personal level as an expression of his seeming deep horror and antipathy
behind the surface of anything that could even smack of something related
to the anti-Semitism that later came to expression in the Holocaust, and
arguing for an "Aryan Supremacy" in relation to Jewry and Judaism.
But the repeated untruths of Mr. Staudenmaier,
rooted in this seeming understandable personal horror behind the surface
of his writings are inexcusable, when coming from someone who repeatedly
describes himself as a "scholar", and even a "historical scholar", and
constitute an insult to the concepts of "scholar" and "scholarship" with
which he likes to describes himself and his writings.
For more, on Mr. Dugan's conscious publication
and repeated defense of Mr. Staudenmaier's untruths at his site, continue