Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list
Some time around the beginning of 2000, you made public your first story
as solo author about anthroposophy and anthroposophical activities. It
was published by DD on the WC-list and according to the WC-list of
articles it is still found in its pre-publication version at the site.
The article constitutes the possibly worst smear published in English on
the internet ever of anthroposophy and anthroposophical activities, with
its refined lighthearted and manipulative argumentation, using a mixture
of unsubstantiated assertions, untruths, half truths, and twisting of
history to paint a picture of anthroposophy and different movements
based on anthroposophy as a proto- and pronazi, anti-Semitic and racist
movement, in theory and practice. In what you have written after that on
anthroposophy and activities based on anthroposophy, you have continued
to write in a similar way.
The article was commissioned by the Norwegian secular humanist journal
Humanist and published in the 2000/2 issue of the journal and later in
the 2001/2 issue of the journal of the Swedish Association Science and
Public Education. It is also published by the formed Swedish Secular
Humanist Association, and at the site of ISE, with which you are
associated, and a number of other places on the internet.
The article starts by a made up description by you of the lecture series
"Mission of Folk Souls", held by Rudolf Steiner in Oslo in 1910. The
original version of your story about it, that is the one still published
at the mentioned sites, contains a number of statements about the first
lecture and the lecture series in its totality, like:
"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." "
You also for some reason assert that the lecture series, that was held
in Oslo, was held as a "speaking tour of Norway".
At different times, it has been pointed out to you, that your
description of the first lecture and the lecture series, that you have
made into the foundation store of your further writings on
anthroposophy, and continued to defend in principle up to today, four
years after its original publication by PLANS, does not correspond to
reality in the sense of what Rudolf Steiner actually says in the first
lecture and in the lecture series in its totality. As reading of the
lecture, found at
tells, it does not say one word about what I quote above from your
Instead it constitutes a description of among other things the basic
nature of man's supersensible being and something of the basic nature of
Angels, Archangels and higher beings described in the Jewish-Christian
When it has been pointed out that your story about the first lecture and
the lecture series lacks support in the historically documented lecture
and lecture series, you at least up to last year, more than three years
after your first publication of it, have made fun of these comments by
blowing smoke screens about it in different ways, last year with the
added help of DD; see
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html for a number
of your different stories about it.
When we corresponded in Nov 2001 about where your article has been
published, you told that you at one time had sent a "revised" version of
your article to the (I assume webmaster of) the site of ISE, and to
PLANS to make them replace the original version with what you called
your "revised" version. See
One may assume that you in the "revised" version had replaced what you
had found out was untrue in your original version with what you, when
revising your article, thought was true.
Am I correct in assuming that the "revised" version, that you sent to
them is the version that you sent to John Holland for publication at his
site "OpenWaldorf" last summer?
In that version, you have taken out the reference to the first lecture
of the lecture series, that you up to at least last year, two years
later, with the support of DD, continued to defend in a circumscribing
way on the WC-list as describing reality and making fun of my way of
telling that your description of the lecture constitutes a historical
forgery, in an especially obvious way in relation to the first lecture
of the lecture series.
But you also told, in late 2001, that when you saw that they (PLANS and
ISE) had not replaced the original version with the "revised" version,
in which it must be assumed that you had replaced what you had found out
was untrue with what you then thought was true, you did not bother the
webmaster of the sites publishing what you considered untrue about it
(again), telling "I don't take these things nearly as seriously as you
do", referring to the publication of what you even yourself consider to
be untrue on the internet.
At one time in the discussion of the truthfulness of what is found at
the site of PLANS, DD added the statement in passing to the site: "PLANS
does not necessarily agree with or vouch for the veracity of everything
posted in this section" up to this day, as also Gary Bonhiver, as far as
I'm aware of have left the original version of the papers by you
unchanged at the site.
After almost two more years, last summer, you socially very smoothly
then made John Holland, who also still possibly is a member of this
list, publish what you called a revised version of your original article
at his site. In the "revised" version, you start the article with what I
quote at the bottom of
In the new introduction to the article, made available on the net last
summer by you through John Holland, you have taken out the reference to
the first lecture of the series, that you for then three and a half year
had defended vigorously in different ways when its untruthfulness was
pointed out by different people.
After you, possibly on a trip to Germany during the summer of 2001,
(finally) had gotten a number of versions of the lecture series in their
more or less original form, knowing that the lecture series in its
totality was held in Oslo, and still without giving any reason or source
for it, you continue to write, in a similar way as in the original
"In June, 1910, Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a
speaking tour of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive audience
continuing to for some mysterious reason indicate that Rudolf Steiner
went on a speaking tour around Norway, and that the lecture series in
Oslo was just part of this by you indicated lecture tour around Norway,
without at any time giving any source for this assertion, that I have
found no support for when asking different people if any source
indicates that Steiner actually went on such a lecture tour around
You have also kept basically the whole second part of the introduction,
and assert - few months ago; last summer - after you have gotten the
whole lecture series and indicated that you actually have read it by
telling that you have compared different versions of it with each other:
"The "national souls" of Northern and Central Europe belonged, Steiner
explained, to the "germanic-nordic" peoples, 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" "
This in spite of - as you would know if you actually had read the series
as you indicate that you have - that Steiner neither mentions "root
races", tells about "five historical "root races" " or tells in the
lecture series that "the " "Aryan" race" constitutes the "superior fifth
root race" of the "five historical "root races" ".
It's all made up by you, Peter, and only few months ago - even after
having indicated that you have read the lecture series - you assert it
to be true. For my comments and demonstration of the untruthfulness of
this already in May 2001, see
Some time ago, you told on the WC-list, that you slowly were writing a
book on - I think - Steiner's racial doctrines, and after that, you have
entered this list, telling what you think of it and asking what
different people here on this list - today - think of these "racial
doctrines" as you superficially understand and describe them, to my
understanding milking the participants for material that you can use in
the book you have told that you are writing.
Can you understand, Peter, that you COMPLETELY lack credibility as
truthteller in ANY consistent way about anthroposophy and that your
publishing record the four last years, after your first solo act on
anthroposophy, tells that you repeatedly in a seemingly completely
unpredictable make up unfounded and untruthful twissted, malicious and
smearing stories about anthroposophy, in a way that indicates that you
will continue to do this also in the book you have told that you are
Your writings so far all the four last years since you started your
career as solo writer on anthroposophy outside this list, where you
appear very civilized and with an air of scholar, indicate that you -
again - will continue to give seemingly credible quotes from Steiner,
adding comments like the one on the "voluminous" writings and lectures
by Steiner on "race" in John's forum, that I commented on some days ago,
neglecting what I have pointed out at for example
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/comments1.htm , mixing what you
write with twisted and superficial arguments about different by you
superficially understood issues, for some mysterious reason here and
there adding some clear untruths and unsubstantiated statements,
twisting info from different sources and using different parts of what
you have milked out the participants on this list for your presentation
as material complementary the quotes you have selected for the purpose
out of the published works of Steiner and the rest, while also adding
some comments to try to make what you write stand out as a "balanced"
and therefore "credible piece of work?
And of course not writing such sentences as I do, but very eloquent ones
For the list:
I would suggest that noone comments on anything that Peter Staudenmaier
brings up for discussion in terms of "quotes" that he "encourages"
people here to read and comment on, until AFTER Peter has told about
what he - today - considers to have been true respectively untrue in his
original version of the article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism", found at
the site of PLANS and a number of places on the internet.
Starting with the introduction to the article in question and continuing
with the rest of the article:
What do you today, Peter - after having gotten a number of versions in
German of the lecture series "Mission of Folk Souls" - consider to be
true, respectively untrue in your original introduction to the article,
and can you substantiate what you think is true and giving the source
- you assertion that Steiner went on a lecture tour around Norway, and
- what lectures and part of the lectures you base your view on in the
lecture series in its original form with regard to your "description" of
it, in the original version, and in the revised version of your article
"Anthroposophy and Ecofascism"?
The first lecture is found in English at
and in German at
the whole lecture series at
help you with the English translation of the source you refer to as
support of your description of the lecture series.
Could you start with the source for your assertion, both in the original
and the "revised" version of your article that Steiner went on a lecture
tour around Norway during his visit there?
Also, list members, consider what you write here from the perspective:
How will Peter use this in what he writes on anthroposophy?
- --- In email@example.com, "dick.richardson@..." <dick.richardson@...> wrote:
>F: Depends what you mean by "mystic". From Greek "mustikos" = initiated person. By that definition, Steiner certainly was a mustic...er...mystic.
> Rudolf Steiner
> Never read Rudolf Steiner for I was not interested, all I ever read was
> a wee bit about him some place. But from what I did read it struck me
> that Steiner was not a mystic but a philosophical writer about mysticism
> who had met a real mystic on a train, was impressed and then carried on
> along those lines excuse the pun; intended :- )
D: > However, OK, and most writers about mysticism and transcendence were not
> mystics, but of a similar ilk of academic writer. Generally speakingSteiner did not waffle. He was a self-proclaimed initiate and preferred his syncrenitic waffles with chocolate ice cream and sprinkles.
> mystics do not write. But they can soon tell who is and who is not one,
> and that is all too easy. But if any academic does write about mystics
> and mysticism and makes a good job it (a few have but not many) then
> that is fine, so long as they put folks in the picture and let them know
> the truth of their stance and position. I have had lots of arguments and
> fights about this over the last forty years. Also syncretism does not
> help the cause if they also delve into that bag of nauseating mess. Just
> tell it as it is and then quit waffling.