(Se också "Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning - en kritisk granskning")

"Value should be attached solely
to the mutual exchange between individuals.
It is irrelevant whether someone is a Jew or a German ...
This is so obvious that one feels stupid even putting it into words.
So how stupid must one be to assert the opposite!"

Rudolf Steiner, founder of Waldorf education, September 1897
in Collected essays 1887-1901 (Collected works, vol. 31)

"Evil will be openly present in a large number of people
as an attitude, a way of thinking,
not any more covered up or hidden.
The evil ones will praise the evil as something especially valuable.
A certain sensual pleasure in this evil, this demony ...
can already be seen in many people ...
Nietzsche's "blond beast" is for example
only an early ghostly picture, pointing to it."

Rudolf Steiner, lecture 11 Nov 1904 in Berlin on Manicheism

“I’m a person who makes copious use of insinuation and innuendo
in polemical contexts. I’m a big fan of using those
as a way of getting a point across.”

Peter Staudenmaier,
repeatedly untruthful Janus faced intellectual con artist
and assistant professor of history 
at the Jesuit Marquette University
 2013.01.08, in a talk on conspiracies

The main criticism in English on the Internet for an alleged anti-Semitism and racism in anthroposophy can be found in a number of articles by a Peter Staudenmaier. They are published by the small anti-waldorf fringe group "PLANS Inc." in San Francisco at its site and at other places on the Internet.

     While not as extensive in its demagoguery, the group has a similar relation to Waldorf education and anthroposophy as its main philosophical basis as the anti-Semitic hate site Jewwatch.com in relation to Jewry and Judaism. For more on this, see here.
     Up to October 2007, no easily found evidence on the net, nor any info given by Staudenmaier himself in discussions told that he so far had even a basic academic degree in any subject.
    In spite of this, he had the habit of directly and indirectly referring to his work as "scholarship" and to himself as a "historical scholar" as something seemingly to himself self evident. Later, it has turned out that the academic basis for his claim of "historical scholarship" consisted in a B.A. in German literature.

Only after for years having claimed "scholarship" did he in discussions in 2004 tell that he during the Fall of 2004 would start studying at a graduate program at a university, which he then did at Cornell. He has then started to work as assistant professor at the Jesuit Marquette University, whose High School he attended in his younger years, and with the Jesuit Bishop David Malloy as its main teacher.
     Yet, a closer look at a paper Staudenmaier wrote for a conference in 2004 (see below), and that he later got accepted for publication by the not widely known journal "Nova Religio", after it was rejected by "Cultic News", showed that he still did not understand the basic concepts he argues about in Steiner's work (as Steiner used them, for a description of this at this site already in 2001, see here).
     Still today, 2013, nothing indicates that he has understood the basic concepts in Steiner's works, that he argues with such eloquence about, seemingly content to argue demagogically about them as an amateur on the subject.

Some elementary criteria for historical scholarship, as for all scholarship, are:

  1. Truthfulness in describing the primary documentary sources upon which one founds one's judgments, meaning
    a. being truthful about what is stated in the primary sources that do exist, as described by the authors of the primary sources,
    b. telling the whole truth about the content of the primary sources you say you use, and
    c. not adding untruths about nonexistent primary documentary sources.
  2. Demonstrating that one has understood the basic concepts of the subjects one discusses, also as they are understood and used by the authors, whose works you use as primary sources.
  3. Demonstrating some reasonable balance in the judgment one comes to on the basis of the truthful description of the primary sources, the demonstrated understanding of the basic concepts discussed as well as a general overview of the subject one discusses.
One may sympathize or not with the basic works of Staudenmaier, as described at the site of an "Institute for Social Ecology", with which he is associated.
     Scratching somewhat at the surface of his seductively eloquently formulated writings shows he fails on all three points on the subject of anthroposophy in terms of reliability and "scholarship".
     It also shows that what he writes in public discussions repeatedly has turned out to be untruths and developing as demagoguery and different word- and mind games trying to blow smoke screens about the actual truthfulness of what he writes.

For  two basic introductions to the works of Peter Staudenmaier on Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy, see

There are two main works by Steiner, mentioned by Staudenmaier, alleged by him to demonstrate Steiner's "racism" and "anti-Semitism".
     One is Cosmic Memory (Aus der Akasha Chronik) found online on the Internet at rsarchive.org, published as a series of articles by Rudolf Steiner in 1904-1908 and later in book form. They were written during a period, from 1902 up to 1912, when Steiner was general secretary of the German section of one of the theosophical societies at the time.
     Already in the articles and increasingly in 1909-1912, during the end of the period in question, Steiner ever more distanced himself from some elements in the Theosophical tradition.
     In 1909, he commented on one of these elements; the simplified way of using the concept of "races" in the theosophical tradition to describe human spiritual and cultural evolution in a mechanical way. Steiner argued that the concept of "race" was basically and ever more irrelevant in describing human evolution since the last glacial ages.
     In Steiner's view, what since the end of the 18th century was described by the father of physical anthropology, Blumenbach, as "five main races of mankind" was something that had arisen before the end of the last glacial ages. But it was also his view that any racial or national differences today between people are mere trifles by comparison with our differences in individual gifts and skills, and that they will have ceased to exist completely as we know them in a number of thousand years. For more on this, see here.
     Instead he argued that human evolution since the last glacial ages follows a pattern of a number of main cultures, up to the Middle Ages developing out of cultural areas and in the main reflected by classical history as the cultures of Ancient India, Ancient Persia, Mesopotamia, Egypt and other cultures of the Fertile Crescent, classical Greece and classical Rome.

Since the Middle Ages, and especially since the globalization of the world during the 20th century, this development of human culture takes place on an ever more global scale.
     In 1917, during the period in Europe when thinking of people in terms or "race" dominated all political thinking, Rudolf Steiner pointed to the ideals of race and nation as decaying impulses of humanity, expressing the opinion that nothing would bring humanity more into decay, than if the ideals of races, nations and blood were to continue.

The other main source referred to by Staudenmaier in his allegation that Steiner was a racist and anti-Semite is the lecture series Mission of Folk Souls by Rudolf Steiner, held in June 1910 in Oslo.  

As the foundation stone and introduction to his first article as solo writer on anthroposophy at the site of PLANS, "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism", Staudenmaier, commissioned by a Norwegian secular humanist journal; "Humanist", untruthfully made up and published a "Protocol of Steiner" con story about the lecture series with the clear intention to (with little justification) infuriate especially people of Jewish origin and orientation against anthroposophy and Steiner Waldorf education.

In the article, that continues to be published up to this day in January 2013 at the site of PLANS and a number of other places on the Internet, with Peter Staudenmaier's clear support and approval as PhD and assistant professor of history at the Marquette Jesuit University, more than twelve years after its original publication, he writes:

"In June 1910 Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a speaking tour of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive audience in Oslo. The lecture was titled ‘The Mission of Individual European National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology.’ [...]

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.’ “

That sounds terrible! There's only one krux ...
     For many of the works, that Staudenmaier refers to as alleged sources of what he writes on Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy, it probably is difficult for most people to find them and check to what extent his descriptions of them actually is true.
     The lecture series, that Staudenmaier asserts that he describes is easy to order in the original since long in paperback at Amazon.de in German (that Staudenmaier speaks fluently) for some 33 USD.
     Reading the actual well documented and published lecture by Steiner, that Staudenmaier asserts that he describes, reveals that the second part of his description of its content is a made up untruth, in a way that constitutes an insult to the concept of "historical scholar" with which he habitually has liked to describe himself long before he actually was one.
     Discussions with him have shown that he, when he wrote the article, just made it up out of his speculative imagination as an “opening device” to "sell in" his article to its readers in Norway, where the article was first published in 2000.
     The lecture that Staudenmaier asserts that he describes (for the actual published translation of the lecture, see here) does not with one word mention neither “root race”, nor an “Aryan race” as a “superior fifth root race” or a “Germanic-nordic sub-race”, or describes it as “the vanguard of the highest of five historical ‘root races’ ” or as “the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group”.
     It's all made up by Staudenmaier.

     What the lecture instead gives is among other things a description, in the tradition of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, of man as a spiritual being.
     It also describes some of the spiritual beings described by the Jewish-Christian tradition as Angels, Archangels and higher spiritual beings, as an introduction -- in the same Jewish-Christian tradition -- to how they, in Steiner’s understanding and view, have interacted with man during different stages of our development as humanity.
    For an analysis of the lacking basis of Staudenmaier’s made up “Aryan horror story“ -- with which he (up to this day in January 2013) introduces his solo writings on anthroposophy, also with regard to the lecture series as a totality -- see another page at this site.

Checking further on what Staudenmaier writes, in relation to the sources he allegedly refers to, indicates that his untruthfulness as revealed by the introduction, is a repeated and typical characteristic of his writings on Steiner and anthroposophy.
    Like in the case of the made up untruthful introduction and foundation stone of all his later writings on the subject, it probably is difficult for most of the readers to check what he writes against the actual sources he writes that he refers to in his argumentation, in a way that would make it possible to come to a judgment of what he writes.
     For some sources, found on-line on the Internet, that however is possible. One of these sources is Rudolf Steiner's autobiography, that Staudenmaier uses in his argumentation against him.
    In one article; "Anthroposophy and its Defenders", written by Staudenmaier in cooperation with a Peter Zegers in the Netherlands, they allegedly refer to Steiner's description of two right wing personalities at the end of the 19th century as part of their "argumentation" that Steiner was, as they write, an "enthusiastically active pan-German nationalist" and anti-Semite.
    One is a professor of history at the University of Berlin, Heinrich von Treitschke, and the other is a Julius Langbehn. For a comparison of what Staudenmaier/Zegers assert that Steiner writes about them, with what Steiner himself actually writes in his autobiography, see here for case of Treitschke and here for the case of Langbehn.
    Like the untruthful introduction to his first article, the examples stand out as typical of the "truthfulness" of the writings of Staudenmaier (/Zegers) in relation to the sources, he (they) allegedly refer to in his (their) writings.

When Staudenmaier has been criticized for the way he describes the sources he allegedly refers to in the article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism", he in a follow up article ("The Art of Avoiding History") has answered that the method he has applied in writing the article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" is "methodologically boring and conservative". He also writes that he in the article has been following "the standard scholarly procedure" in relation to the sources he has asserted that he has used and refers to.
    In contrast to this assertion, discussions with Staudenmaier have shown that he, playing “historical scholar” when he made up the untruthful, but “selling”description of the mentioned lecture series, neither had read the lecture series nor the first allegedly "described" lecture in question, when he wrote the article.
    In addition, Staudenmaier in the discussion following the publication of the article which he introduces with the described "Protocol of Steiner" hoax, later repeatedly has tried to create different smoke screens to cover up for his untruthfulness, when it has been exposed.
     The whole affair with the untruthful introduction to the article in a nutshell summarizes and reveals the extremely light hearted, distorting, unreliable carelessness and untruthfulness, repeatedly found in the writings on anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner, that Staudenmaier has produced, when checking them against the actual sources he says he describes.
     Consistent with this, Staudenmaier also -- not unexpectedly -- when in the end faced with the question to take responsibility to see to it that what is found by him on the net actually is truthful, commented:

"I don't take these thing nearly as seriously as you do".
After Staudenmaier in the discussions about his article realizes that the alleged content of the lecture he says he describes in the widely translated and published article not corresponds to the actual documented and 1922 published first lecture of the lecture series, he starts to try to get out of his untrue made up "Protocol of Steiner" story, written in the same vein as the "Protocol of Zion" forgery 100 years earlier, then produced to incite hatred against Jews.
     Staudenmaier does this by producing a number of new stories, without being able to document their truth either.

     An early version of his efforts to produce the smoke screen cover ups of his untruths is that the "Protocol of Steiner" story he has made up -- even if the "lecture" he "describes" in the introduction to his article not is found as he describes it in the published lecture series -- yet constitutes the basis for the whole published lecture series.
     In a discussion in May 2000 he asserts, implying that the lecture exists as he describes it, that it is a lecture held by Steiner in Oslo at the time of the lecture series, but implicitly not published in the lecture series.
     He also tries to play down the importance of the "Protocol of Steiner" story with which he has introduced his solo career as writer on Steiner, and in October 2001 asserts that it "merely" was an "opening device" used "for the Norway hook" (the publication in Norway of the article, of which it constitutes the introduction) and "to introduce Steiner's terminology".
     An article by the Norwegian Superior Court lawyer, Cato Schiøtz: "Anthroposophy in Norway - Some comments on the relation to Nazism, racism and ecofascism", shows that picking Norway in trying to depict Steiner and anthroposophy as anti-Semitic was an especially bad choice.
     The article shows that the leading anthroposophists there during the Nazi time in Europe, in contrast to many others in Norway, belonged to those who most clearly criticized the racism and anti-Semitism cultivated by the Nazis.
     In addition, Staudenmaier in one comment asks that his introduction to the article be disregarded in reading the rest of the article.
     When later reminded of this expressed wish by him that readers disregard the introduction in reading the rest of the article, he answers that he does not "understand" what the reminder refers to.

In the continued public discussions about his article, Staudenmaier says he only remembers a book by a Hans Mändl (for more on him, see here) from 1966 as the basic source for what he writes about the title of his "Protocol of Steiner" story in the article.
     Checking with the book by Mändl, that Staudenmaier hints that he has read by pointing to it as the source for the title he gives for the untruthfully described lecture, shows that what Mändl describes and gives the title for is a lecture series, not a lecture.
     In the discussion, Staudenmaier also asserts that the description of the lecture he says he describes, even if it not is published as the first lecture of the series as he states in his introduction, yet well describes the content of the lecture series as a whole.
     An analysis of the published lecture series itself in relation to Staudenmaier's  "Protocol of Steiner" hoax contradicts also this story by Staudenmaier. The analysis was originally published as three postings May 1, 2001 on a waldorf-critical discussion list, where Staudenmaier's article was first published. At this site, I have edited it slightly to hopefully make it clearer to people who, in contrast to the undersigned, have English or American as their mother tongue.
     In spite of the total lack of documentation for the existence of the alleged special "lecture" as "described" by Staudenmaier, he continues to defend its "existence" as he describes it.
     In October 2001 on the discussion list of Dan Dugan, after Staudenmaier actually has bought the published lecture series during a trip to Germany during the summer, and probably read it, at least superficially, he denies that the analysis published 5 months earlier of his "Protocol of Steiner" story reveals any basic difference between his hoax and the lecture series, going for a new "bold" con story:

"The published version of the lecture doesn't contradict my description of it"
He also asserts that the "sole discrepancy" between his "Protocol of Steiner" story and the published lecture series as a whole is "the word 'sub-race' ", and ends his comment with
"Yours for historical scholarship".
When he in the end realizes that he does not seem to be able to find any documentation that supports the existence of the special hoax lecture by Steiner as he describes it he -- again -- tells a new story seemingly in an effort to finally find a refuge for his untruthfulness and get out of the exposition and discussion of it.
     The new story consists in asserting that the lecture "described" by him -- after all -- is published in the lecture series, only in an "edited" version, as lecture six in the series, asserting that what he describes in the introduction to his article is what Steiner actually expresses in the lecture in question.
     For the actual lecture six in question in the lecture series, see here.
     In the untruthful made up introduction to his article, Staudenmaier with the term "germanic-nordic sub-race" of the "superior" "Aryan" "root race" seems to refer to the development of the present cultural epoch since the 15th century in the view of Steiner, as one of a series of post-glacial cultural epochs.
     Reading the actual sixth lecture in the series reveals that it does not describe, neither the cultural epochs in question in general, nor the present cultural epoch in the view of Steiner, seemingly referred to by Staudenmaier.
     Instead it constitutes a description of the nature of the "five races of mankind" in Steiner's view at their time of initiation far in the past, that in his view started to fade as a reality with the end of the glacial ages.
     It reveals that Staudenmaier's new assertion, that the sixth lecture in the lecture series constitutes an "edited" version of the alleged "lecture" he describes in the introduction to his article not is very different from an assertion that cats are a cultivated breed of dogs, or that hens are a form of books (based on their generally similar size and the fact that both usually are found on some form of horizontal surfaces).
    It also again reveals the superficial understanding, alternatively the not more than superficial interest of Staudenmaier in actually understanding a number of the central concepts he extensively and with such eloquence argues about, being satisfied with playing repeated word games about them.


In an answer to criticism by Göran Fant of his article, Staudenmaier again in a follow up article, titled "The Art of Avoiding History
", asserts that lecture six in the lecture series, which is the only lecture in the series, that in passing once mentions the word "Aryan", that at the time of the lecture (1910) commonly was used to refer to, in Steiner's words,

"the peoples of Asia Minor and Europe whom we regard as members of the Caucasian race"

pushes for his repeatedly defended untruthful description of the lecture series, untruthfully describing lecture six as

"the heart of the book"

self assuredly writing:

"Here Steiner reminds his audience of the racial superiority of 'the Aryans' ..."

Looking at the actual published lecture, that Staudenmaier asserts that he describes, shows that it stands out as an extreme argumentation by Staudenmaier to assert that the lecture describes "the racial superiority of the Aryans". Actually reading it shows that it instead, as one of a number of other points on different ethnic groups, gives a short, very carefully balanced and restrained description of how the "Aryans" belonging to the Caucasians, in Steiner's view, are more or less determined by forces, that

"work indirectly through the sense impressions and from there radiate to those parts of the central nervous system which are situated in the brain and spinal cord"

He also describes how in his view, European civilization had passed its "zenith in Europe in the middle of the nineteenth century", indicating that in Steiner's view, European culture, with its racist focus, developing anti-Semitism, and argumentation for "Aryan supremacy" at the beginning of the 20th century, was a culture on the decline in relation to its zenith with the development of the idealistic culture 60-100 years earlier, that he connected to and worked to continue to develop with anthroposophy.

This is preceded by a description of what makes Semitic peoples great, and is followed by a description of what makes the American Indian people great.


"the Biblical writer was able to claim that Jahve or Jehovah had made this [the Semitic] people his own",

"When he declared himself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
, He proclaimed that He was present in the blood-stream of the Patriarchs."

and describing this as something that reveals

"one of the mysteries which give us a deep insight into the wise guidance of all mankind."

After the description of the Caucasians as more or less "determined by the senses", he describes the greatness of the American Indians, in their relation to the Great Spirit, that in Steiner's view was their way of describing the Elohim of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and the untruthfulness of what was presented to them by the invading Europeans, as described by the, in Steiner's words, "last of the great chieftains of the Red Indians


"makes the Brown Man great; it is the Great Spirit who speaks to him in the soughing of the wind, in the murmuring of the forest, in the surging of the waves, in the purling of the brook, in thunder and in lightning! That is the Spirit who to us speaks truth. Yes, from the lips of the Great Spirit comes truth. But your spirits [those of the invading Europeans] here on paper and who express what to you is great, they do not speak the truth."

For a more detailed documentation of the twisted argumentation by Staudenmaier on this, 
see here.

It constitutes his last defense line in his repeatedly untruthful argumentation about the lecture series - introduced with his freely made up untruthful demonizing fantasy, that he repeatedly has defended when its untruthfulness has been pointed out to him and never withdrawn by Staudenmaier.

As such, the repeated untruths by Staudenmaier, published up to this day (January 2013) by the small anti-Waldorf fringe group PLANS Inc. in California, as part of its anti-Waldorf demagoguery, constitute one of the most marked rhetorical tools of the group, in its way of seemingly trying to incite rage and anger in especially the Jewish community against Waldorf education, that is marked by among other things the way people of Jewish origin have contributed to its founding and development up to this day, and by the important role played by the history of Jews and Judaism in its curriculum, as part of understanding the history of humanity.

For more on the untruthful demagoguery spread by PLANS about this to different media, see here.

In contrast to Mr. Staudenmaier's claim that lecture six in the series constitutes the heart of the lecture series, the heart of the lecture series and its culmination is its last lecture, lecture eleven.
     In the lecture Steiner points to the gestalt of Vidar in Scandinavian mythology as a Folk Spirit who points to Christ and predicts the increasing occurrence from the middle of the 20th century of a similar experience of Christ as that experienced by Saul at Damascus, the Saul that after that describes Christ as someone who does not distinguish between Jew or Greek, slave or free, man or woman.

Those who are open to the stimulus of Spiritual Science will, from the middle of the twentieth century on, gradually experience a renewal of that which St. Paul saw in etheric clairvoyance as a mystery to come, the 'Mystery of the Living Christ'. There will be a new manifestation of Christ, a manifestation which must come when human capacities develop naturally to the point when the Christ can be seen in the world in which He has always been present since the Mystery of Golgotha

It is difficult to imagine a greater distortion as "description" of the lecture series than that produced and repeatedly defended by Staudenmaier, when his untruthfulness about it has been exposed.

On his mailing list, Mr. Dugan, secretary of the mentioned anti-Waldorf fringe group, on June 5, 2005, told how he at his "PLANS" site now publishes yet another paper by Staudenmaier, written for a workshop initiated by PLANS during an "anti-cult" conference in Atlanta in October 2004.
     In his new paper, Staudenmaier continues to repeatedly mix untruths into what he writes on anthroposophy, in his strangely Janus faced writings as self proclaimed "historical scholar" up to 2010, when he actually got a PhD in history, when he turned into an actual Janus faced intellectual con artist by continuing to publish his earlier con stories, as a now PhD in history.
     For more on this new paper by Staudenmaier, and the continued
superficial untruthful intricacy of also his new writings (published 5 months after the publication of the discussions of a number of central aspects of the issue of Steiner's views on "race", found here, here, here, and here at the site of Waldorf Answers) see here.

After the discussion exposing his first "Protocol of Steiner" hoax, still published by him today, 13 years later, after the detailed exposition of it as a hoax, Staudenmaier told in a private correspondence that he (in some not described way) had "corrected" it in later translations of it, telling that if one searched the net, one would find them (something -- again -- not turning out to be the true, when using the major search engines on the net to find them).
     In the correspondence, Peter Staudenmaier -- when pointed to 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 site of PLANS -- in the personal communication in November 2001 wrote that he at one time communicated with the webmaster of the site of the Institute for Social Ecology to make the webmaster correct the article. But he then -- when he saw that the untruths remained uncorrected -- did not bother the webmaster again about it, adding:

"I don't take these things nearly as seriously as you do".
He also has not bothered to correct it at the site of PLANS, whose Secretary and webmaster he regularly up to this day, thirteen years after he wrote the article, communicates with via the mailing list of the Secretary and the webmaster.
     Neither have the Secretary of PLANS done it, consciously continuing to publish the demonstrated untruths by Staudenmaier as part of the anti-anthroposophy and anti-Waldorf demagoguery and defamation cultivated at the site, to with little justification infuriate especially the Jewish community against anthroposophy and Steiner Waldorf education.
     In defense of his documented untruths, Staudenmaier in 2003 expressed the view that he not can be accused of having lied, claiming that he himself has believed that what he has written was true.
     The "defense" in question constitutes a principal defense of the untruthfulness not only of children, at times making up stories for different reasons.
     If he actually believed in 2003 -- even after he had actually bought the published lecture series during a trip to Germany during the Summer of 2001, and probably at least partly had read a least the first lecture, that he repeatedly has argued about -- that he was telling the truth about both that lecture, that he -- after indicating that he had read it -- claimed that it did not contradict his description of it, and the lecture series in its totality, there's something really weird going on in his mind beyond his normal consciousness, making him write what he does.

     He also during 2003, three years after the original publication of his article, in a discussion published a new, slightly "edited" version of the introduction, in which he -- after for years having defended it -- had taken out the above described well documented obvious con story with regard to the first lecture in the lecture series, and instead "only" states that the introduction to his article refers to the whole lecture series. For more on this assertion, see here.

The described discussion of the introducing untruths by Staudenmaier about Rudolf Steiner, and the comments by Staudenmaier himself, describing his own work as applying "standard scholarly procedure", in addition to other discussions about his writings, demonstrates his not only unpredictable complete unreliability in what he writes on Rudolf Steiner, depicting him as an Aryan supremacist and anti-Semite.
     It also indicates the profound non interest by Staudenmaier in whether what he writes and publishes on anthroposophy, when found on the Internet, actually is true or not, even in his own view.
     Had Staudenmaier been the "scholar" he likes to picture himself as, he probably would have been kicked out of University for his con stories.
     As someone who seems content to play polemical word games as self described "scholar" for different demagogical purposes, he can continue his games and make up stories, admired, published and supported by the small anti-Waldorf group PLANS in San Francisco, and other small missionary secular humanist groups and associations in different countries, like Norway and Sweden.

In 2001 the undersigned in a discussion on a "waldorf-critics" (WC) mailing list, moderated by Mr. Dugan, Secretary of PLANS and originator of PLANS' website and secular humanist missionary since long, at one time pointed to the untruthfulness of the writings of Staudenmaier, telling that Staudenmaier on the basis of the demonstrated untruths found in his writings, linking to the documentation demonstrating it, could be called a known liar.
     Telling the truth about the writings of Staudenmaier however was not permitted by the moderator of the discussion, who considered this to be an impermissible "ad hominem" comment (a comment on Staudenmaier as a person), and permanently unsubscribed the undersigned from all further discussions on the list, leaving the "Protocol of Steiner" fraud uncorrected at the site of PLANS, and later threatening to unsubscribe also others from the discussion, if they told the list about the demonstrated untruthfulness of what Mr. Staudenmaier has written.
     Mr. Dugan also in discussions in May 2003 on his list has tried to cover up for the untruths of Staudenmaier by producing a smoke screen of his own, asserting that the lecture that Staudenmaier describes as introduction to his article "was easily available both in print and on the web", meaning either the first lecture of the series, as untruthfully described by Staudenmaier in the article, or the sixth lecture, similarly untruthfully described by Staudenmaier as an "edited" version of the by himself made up hoax "lecture" in terms of its alleged content.
     On the imaginary hoax lecture (the "lecture" made up by Staudenmaier as introduction to his writings on anthroposophy), Mr. Dugan also adds the smoke screen: "I have that lecture here in the PLANS library".
     It tells that he probably realizes that his awareness of his and the webmaster of PLANS; Gary Bonhiver's, continued publication of the untruths by Staudenmaier -- if admitted -- would reveal the profound non-interest of Mr. Dugan and other representatives of PLANS -- with the vice President of PLANS Lisa Ercolano even working as a professional journalist -- in whether what is published at the site of PLANS actually is true or not, as long as it can be used to defame and demonize Waldorf education and anthroposophy, superficially covering up for this untruthfulness with a disclaimer in the articles section of the site, added after the exposure of the demonstrated untruths published at the site, in passing stating: "PLANS does not necessarily agree with or vouch for the veracity of everything posted in this section."
     Mr. Dugan also writes in the May 2003 posting, commenting on a quote on the WC-list by someone (a 'Percedol') from the main page on PLANS at this site, exposing the untruths by Peter Staudenmaier, that he (Mr. Dugan) considers the quoted description of Staudenmaier's writings to constitute grounds for an action of libel by Staudenmaier against the undersigned.
     Mr. Dugan also writes that in his view the one quoting the page in question ('Percedol') has exposed himself to the same possibility of being sued for libel and adds as threat that if he continues to make what Mr. Dugan describes as 'ad hominem' posts, he will be unsubscribed from the discussion, telling that 'Percedol' should consider the comment by Mr. Dugan as a warning.

I'd be more than happy to meet Mr. Staudenmaier in court in Sweden in a libel case on this point after having discussed the issue in detail with him on the WC-list and analyzed his writings in relation to the sources he says he describes.

     A defense by Staudenmaier in court of the "Protocol of Steiner" con story, would have a similar character as a defense of the "Protocol of Zion" forgery, published c. 100 years earlier, by trying to argue for its truthfulness on the basis of other, also more or less truthfully or untruthfully described Jewish and other writings.

Somehow I doubt Staudenmaier will take Mr. Dugan on his words.

This just describes the very first untruths in Peter Staudenmaier's article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism", followed by a number of further untruths and twisted stories in the same vein in the rest of the article.
     For an analysis and comments on some of the things he continues to write about anthroposophy and Steiner Waldorf education in the article, see the analysis by Daniel Hindes, mentioned below. See also
"Humanist at war again" below by Oddvar Granly
     In the introduction to his analysis he writes on Staudenmaier's article:

I went carefully through Staudenmaier's arguments paragraph by paragraph, citation by citation, in an attempt to determine whether the source material actually supports his conclusions.
     It was clear from the outset that Staudenmaier was heavily spinning his findings, but I was shocked by the level of inaccuracy and even outright fabrications that I found.

     In addition to some deliberately misleading and inaccurate translations and a number of quotes grossly out of context, Staudenmaier actually invented new content for anthroposophy - among other things the existence of a nordic-germanic sub-race. This was necessary in order to make anthroposophy fit his portrait of an Aryan-suprematist religion.
On a purely personal note (admittedly having lived in Sweden most of my life), I have never met anyone who so repeatedly and lightheartedly lies people straight in the face with a smile on his lips as Peter Staudenmaier, especially not someone claiming to be a "scholar", before he actually got a PhD. After that, he can now formally be described as a scholar in one sense, only now a Janus faced intellectual con artist scholar, employed by and working at the Jesuit Marquette University, as he continues to publish his earlier con stories for use by others in anti-Waldorf campaigns, referring to his later, present status as an actual PhD as implicit argument for the credibility of his pre-PhD con stories.
     Maybe he was hurt by my description of him and his writings as an insult to the concept of scholar, and decided to show that he can fool anyone if he wants, and the Cornell University bought it, even though it was aware of his con stories.
     And he has been sucessful.
     Last November (2012) his original very first, last year 12 year old con story as solo author on Rudolf Steiner, analysed and exposed in detail above, was broadcast as a corner stone in a BBC film, BBC Inside Out Southwest, based on his continued publication of it since then by a small fringe anti-Steiner group in the US, whose mailing list he uses as a main discussion forum, and incomplete background research by the BBC on what it broadcast. The description of Peter Staudenmaiers untruths would not be complete without a mention of one of his always supporting admirers, most faithful defenders of his untruths on the net and essential contributor to the broadcasting by BBC of his untruths, Alicia Hamberg, a former Waldorf pupil in Sweden.

For more comments on the carelessness with which Staudenmaier writes about the "lecture" and lecture series by Steiner, that he "describes" as starting point to and foundation stone of his solo writings on anthroposophy, and his way of describing Hans Mändl as a source for the title of the alleged "lecture", see another posting on it to the WC-list.
     For a comment on the confused way Staudenmaier projects a hierarchical view of the relation between races, dominant during the first part of the 20th century in the West, on anthroposophy, see here.
     On the allegation by Staudenmaier and others that Rudolf Hess was an 'anthroposophist', see a letter from his wife, Ilse Hess, in 1984 on the issue.
     Though Staudenmaier normally never admits to at any time have been wrong or mistaken, with regard to Rudolf Hess, he actually recently has expressed a change of mind about what he wrote now (2013) 13 years ago about him.
     In 2011, he admitted that his earlier description of Hess as a "powerful" and "fervent Steinerite" and "practicing anthroposophist in his own right", based on his dietary habits of eating organically grown food promoting organic farming was wrong.
     He also now, (Ecofascism Revisited, New Compass Press 2011, p 156)
12 years after he forcefully claimed that Rudolf Hess was a "fervent Steinerite" and "practicing anthroposophist in his own right", thinks that "Hess' occult interests were too diffuse to be specifically identified as anthroposophical" and that he cannot be seen "as an anthroposophist himself". 
     For more on the way the "Protocol of Steiner" mythology, to which Staudenmaier tries to and continues to contribute to to this day, and which is used as one of the mythologies about Rudolf Steiner and Waldorf education, cultivated by PLANS, see here.
     For more on some of the historical and conceptual background of the demagogical campaigns and writings of Staudenmaier and PLANS, see here.

After the article on "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" has been published by a Human Ethical respectively a rationalist organization in Norway respectively Sweden, they have been answered by other authors.
     After the article 'Anthroposophy and Eco-Fascism" was published in "Humanist" 2/2000, organ of the Norwegian Human Ethical Association, it was answered by Peter Normann Waage, former waldorf pupil and now journalist at the main left oriented daily in Norway; "Dagbladet" (The Daily):

Peter Normann Waage: 
(Humanist 3/2000)

Staudenmaier answered together with Peter Zegers in Humanist 4/2000.

This led to a new answer
Peter Normann Waage: 
(Humanist 1/2001)

For two answers by Cato Schiøtz, a Supreme Court lawyer in Norway to the Norwegian journal Humanist, not published by the journal, see

Cato Schiøtz:
Noen bemerkninger om forholdet til nazisme, rasisme og øko-fascisme
Some comments on the relation to nazism, racism and ecofascism, and

Cato Schiøtz:

A complementing comment on the article by Staudenmaier was published by Oddvar Granly in the Norwegian anthroposophical Journal Libra.

Oddvar Granly: 
(Libra 3-4/2000)

The article by Staudenmaier at the site of PLANS has also been published by "Folkvett", organ of "Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning" (Association Science and Common Sense) nr 2/2001.

It has also been republished by the association in late 2003. See here for some comments in Swedish about the publication and republication of the article by Staudenmaier.

In the same issue, an answer was published by Göran Fant, long time Waldorf teacher and historian of literature and music.

Göran Fant:
(Folkvett 2/2001, s. 42-58)

Daniel Hindes:
For a detailed paragraph by paragraph analysis and documentation of the extent of Staudenmaier's fabrications in his article, see
from 2004.

For some more comments on the writings and argumentation technique of Peter Staudenmaier, based on public discussions with him during 2004, see

Daniel Hindes:


The safest and best advice, based on extensive reading and checkups on the sources Peter Staudenmaier gives for what he writes, that one can give to anyone who reads anything by Peter Staudenmaier that he wrote before he later actually got a PhD in history, but in spite of his PhD continues to publish on the internet is:

Don't believe a word of it until you yourself have checked any source he seems to give for what he writes.

Go to the main page on PLANS at this site.

Nedstat Basic - Gratisräknaren hemsida statistik Kostnadsfria räknaren för privata webbplatser
Kostnadsfria räknaren