At the end of 2001, I corresponded shortly with Peter Staudenmaier, to ask where his article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" has been published in translation. He then told, that he had written a "revised" version of the article.
Later, during the summer of 2003, he has made the "revised" version available on the net, but only in a far off corner, not at the sites where his article is published in its original version since it was published for the first time, and continues to be published up to this day, more than five years later, with Staudenmaier's full knowledge and clear tacit approval.
In the main, the only "revision" he has made of the article is to make some small changes of the most obvious made up untruths in the introduction to his article.In the introduction to the "revised" version of his article, 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 series was titled "The Mission of National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology." In the Oslo lectures Steiner presented his theory of "national souls" (Volksseelen in German, Steiner's native tongue) and paid particular attention to the mysterious wonders of the "Nordic spirit".
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".
In the new introduction, he has taken away the assertion that the story he has made up as introduction describes the first lecture in the lecture series by Steiner (found here), Instead, he only asserts that it the content of the lecture series in its totality. For an analysis of the lecture series in its totality, that contradicts also this assertion by Staudenmaier, see here.
In the new "revised" version of the introduction, he however for some reason has retained the assertion that Steiner went on a "speaking tour of Norway" during his visit there in 1910 - in spite of that he knows when writing this "revised" version of the introduction, that Steiner did not go on any "speaking tour of Norway", and only held the lecture series he refers to in Oslo during his visit, except for some individual lectures, also in Oslo.
Maybe it is for sentimental reasons that Staudenmaier continues to write this, to minimize the demonstration of how easily he makes up stories, and to see how far he can go in continuing to play mind games with those reading what he writes, and know the actual sources and facts concerning what he writes.
He also in the "revised" version of the introduction continues to assert that Steiner spoke of ""root races" in the lecture series, and to write: "This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the 'Aryan' race" - in spite of that Staudenmaier two years earlier (2001) actually had bought the lecture series in the original language, and knows that this is not true.
As in other discussion with him, it reveals the depth of the repeated boldness of the intellectual con artistry - as with all intellectual con artistry - of Staudenmaier as playfully self proclaimed "historical scholar".
In the correspondence with Staudenmaier, he told that he had sent the "revised" version, to the (anti-anthroposophical combined criticism-hate type of) site of "PLANS". He also told that he had sent it to the one responsible for the site of the institute for social ecology, with which he is associated, and that has published the original version of his article.
But he also told that he, when he saw that none of them had replaced the original version with the "revised" one, he did not bother them abut it again, writing
"I don't take these things nearly as seriously as you do"
The statement by Staudenmaier seems to come directly from the heart in describing how he views the importance that what is found by him on the internet actually is true and corresponds to reality, at least in his own view.
His statement also speaks in the same direction as the documented repeated unreliability of what he has cooked together from the start, as different stories about anthroposophy, to then publish it in different contexts..
In spite of his expressed lightheartedness with regard to the importance of the truthfulness of what he has written and spread in printing and on the internet, he has continued to refer to himself as "historical scholar", and since the Fall of 2004 even actually tries to create the basis for this by studying history at university.
His mail is found below. I republish it here on the basis of a direct question to him in an internet discussion if it was OK to publish it, and he confirmed this, writing that I could post anything by him that I liked. I therefore take it that that also includes a permission by him to publish it here.
If he at any time retracts that permission and tells me about it, I will stop publishing it, and instead tell in my own words that he wrote.
The marking of parts of the text in read has been made by the undersigned for its publication here.
Subject: Re: Translations
>> If you would simply like me to send you a copy of the
>Why not put the revised version in the two places on
the net that still seems to have your original version
I did that quite a while ago (sent it to SIMPOS too). In fact I didn't realize the ISE site had the old version up unitl you alerted me to the fact. I don't know why none of them replaced the older version; I'm guessing they thought it was too much work, and I didn't bug them about it. I don't take these things nearly as seriously as you do; people post stuff by me on the web all the time, and I can't possibly keep track of all of it, much less which version ends up where.
>On your house; I have never read anywhere that your house burnt down. You told that on the WC after I left? If it has I'm sorry.
No, I never mentioned it on the WC list (it happened in February, when you and I were both on the list). I only told people I'm close to personally, though there was a little e-mail campaign to help me out financially. I think Goran Fant knew about it because it interrupted the final preparations for our exchange in Folkvett. Lost much of my library, too, and several manuscripts, along with all my accumulated files and research over the years. I've been trying to re-construct much of my work since then, but it's going to be a long process.