(Se också "Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning - en kritisk granskning") "Value should be attached solely
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.
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
"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) 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 a separate page on the group. 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. Some elementary criteria for historical scholarship, as for all scholarship, are:
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 turns 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. There are two main works by Steiner, mentioned by Staudenmaier,
alleged by Staudenmaier to demonstrate Steiner's "racism" and "anti-Semitism".
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. 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. STAUDENMAIER AS "PROTOCOL OF STEINER" INVENTOR 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 makes up and publishes a "Protocol of Steiner" story about the lecture series. In the article, published up to this day in December 2006, more than five years after its original publication, at the site of PLANS and a number of other places on the Internet with the continuous silent approval of Staudenmaier, 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.’ [...]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 US$ 10. 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 complete untruth, in a way that constitutes an insult to the concept of "historical scholar" with which he habitually likes to describe himself. Discussions with him have shown that he when writing 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 lecture in English translation, 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 December 2006, as graduate student of history at the Cornell University) 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. THE REPEATED UNTRUTHFULNESS OF PETER STAUDENMAIER "I don't take these thing nearly as seriously as you do".STAGES IN STAUDENMAIER'S EFFORT TO COVER UP FOR HIS EXPOSED UNTRUTHFULNESS AND UNRELIABILITY AS SELF PROCLAIMED "HISTORICAL SCHOLAR" 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 in 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: "Antroposofin i Norge - Noen bemerkninger om forholdet til nazisme, rasisme og øko-fascisme" ("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 that 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. ON HANS MÄNDL "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 supporting the existence of the special hoax lecture by Steiner as he describes it, with which he introduces the article, neither as the first lecture of the series, nor as a lecture held separate from the ones published in the lecture series, 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 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 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. MORE TWISTED ARGUMENTATION BY STAUDENMAIER In an answer to criticism by Göran Fant of his article, Staudenmaier again in a follow up 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. The 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. Steiner: "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": What "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 on the lecture series - introduced with his freely made up untruthful demonizing fantasy (see above), that he repeatedly has defended when its untruthfulness has been pointed out to him and never clearly withdrawn by Staudenmaier. As such, the repeated untruths by Staudenmaier, published up to this day (December 2006) 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. MORE UNTRUTHS BY STAUDENMAIER, IN 2005 On his mailing list, Mr. Dugan, secretary of the mentioned anti-Waldorf fringe group, on June 5, 2005, has 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", even as a now - since 2004 - graduate student at Cornell. 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).
"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 communicates with via the mailing list of the Secretary and the webmaster. Neither have the Secretary of PLANS or the present webmaster of the site 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. In defense of his documented untruths, Staudenmaier in 2003 expressed the view that he not can be accused of having lied, as 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. It also constitutes the defense also of among other pathological liars, not being fully able to distinguish clearly between external reality and their inner more or less megalomanic and/or paranoid fantasies about it and not really caring more than superficially about the difference. He also during 2003, three years after the original publication of his article, in a discussion has published a new, slightly "edited" version of the introduction, in which he -- after for years having defended it -- has taken out the above described well documented obvious history forgery with regard to the first lecture in the lecture series, and instead "only" states that the introduction refers to the whole lecture series. For more on this assertion, see here. AN INSULT TO THE CONCEPT OF "HISTORICAL SCHOLAR" ON PETER STAUDENMAIER AND DAN DUGAN 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.
Somehow I doubt Staudenmaier will take Mr. Dugan on his words.
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. Peter Normann Waage:
Staudenmaier answered together with Peter Zegers in Humanist 4/2000. This led to a new answer 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: Cato Schiøtz: A complementing comment on the article by Staudenmaier was published by Oddvar Granly in the Norwegian anthroposophical Journal Libra. Oddvar Granly: 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: Daniel Hindes: For some more comments on the writings and argumentation technique of Peter Staudenmaier, based on public discussions with him during 2004, see Daniel Hindes: Go to the main page on PLANS at this site. |
Kostnadsfria räknaren