(Se också "Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning - en kritisk granskning")
"Value should be attached solelyThe 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 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.
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 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
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.
"PROTOCOL OF STEINER" INVENTOR
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.’ [...]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
his untruthfulness as revealed by the introduction, is a repeated and
characteristic of his writings on Steiner and anthroposophy.
UNTRUTHFULNESS OF PETER STAUDENMAIER
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.
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 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.
MORE TWISTED ARGUMENTATION BY STAUDENMAIER
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.
THE CULMINATION OF THE LECTURE SERIES
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.
MORE UNTRUTHS BY STAUDENMAIER, IN 2005
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.
"I DON'T TAKE THESE THINGS NEARLY AS SERIOUSLY AS
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 enfuriate 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.
AN INSULT TO THE
CONCEPT OF "HISTORICAL SCHOLAR"
STAUDENMAIER AND DAN DUGAN
TO BE NOTED
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.STAUDENMAIER'S CON STORY NOW BROADCAST BY THE BBC
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 or his untruths, Alicia Hamberg, a former Waldorf pupil in Sweden.
SOME MORE COMMENTS ON THE STORIES
BY PETER STAUDENMAIER
After the article on
"Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" has
been published by a Human Ethical respectively a rationalist
in Norway respectively Sweden, they have been answered by other authors.
Staudenmaier answered together with Peter Zegers in Humanist 4/2000.
For two answers by Cato Schiøtz, a Supreme Court lawyer in Norway to the Norwegian journal Humanist, not published by the journal, see
A complementing comment on the article by Staudenmaier was published by Oddvar Granly in the Norwegian anthroposophical Journal Libra.
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.
For some more comments on the writings and argumentation technique of Peter Staudenmaier, based on public discussions with him during 2004, see
SUMMARY ON THE WRITINGS OF PETER STAUDENMAIER
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.