In his article on "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" at the site of PLANS, Staudenmaier untruthfully makes up a fake story about a lecture series by Steiner on 'Mission of Folk Souls" to make it stand out as in essence a description of the visions of Himmler and Hitler. He then in a note (1) writes: "The "Nordic spirit" of Scandinavia continues to fascinate German anthroposophists; see, for example, Hans Mändl, Vom Geist des Nordens, Stuttgart 1966'.
Later, in a posting on the WC (waldorf-critics) -list Staudenmaier had changed his mind and described Mändl as a "a Norwegian anthroposophist'' and his work as the source for his falsely given title of the lectures.
The posting demonstrates Staudenmaier's serious carelessness on both points in mentioning, describing and discussing Mändl.
Some slightly deeper investigating of and knowledge about Mändl than demonstrated by Staudenmaier would have shown Hans Mändl was a Jew, in 1938 fleeing Austria and the persecutions of Jews to become one of the leading anthroposophists in Sweden from the end of the 50s to his death in 1972.
The small example stands out as typical for the unpredictable
superficial carelessness and unreliability below the surface of the work
Subject: Re: Steiner on the Archangel Michael
It's hard to believe this sermon on the archangels was intended as a response to the Steiner quotes on a race war between white and dark humanity, but I guess it was. Mind boggling,One day when I have the time to write a km long posting to this list, I'll try to go through all the twists and untruths by PS in the articles and on this list and comment on them.
As I've demonstrated in postings to this list, my experience of what Peter writes 'quoting' or paraphrasing Steiner has - regrettably - taught me to seriously distrust everything he writes on the subject and wanting to see the original myself. As to the specific lecture series he refers to in this case, I don't have it yet.
The last time I checked PS' story of what he described as a 'lecture' by Steiner, it turned out, not only that what it probably referred too in its essence described the opposite of what PS wrote, but also that everything points to that what PS refers to as the special lecture he described and then again in his answer to my comment asserted the existence of, with
Sune and I are talking about two different things. He is referring to a book published in 1918, and I was referring to a lecture given in 1910. Those two things are closely related (the former is based on the latter), but they are not identical.'does not even exist.
As to what PS writes on
My source for the title of the lecture, as I have explained before, was Hans Mandl's book Der Geist des Nordens ...When checking up on it, it shows the title is erronously given as PS says on p 9 of Maendl's book, and not corrected by a proof reader as it should. But it also turns out that the sentence before clearly describes that it is a lecture series, not a lecture, and a note at the end of the text bloc on the same page points to the literature list at the end of the book (p. 143), giving the correct title.
It hints at Staudenmaier not having read the book either when referring to it as the source for the title, and that his primary and in the main only source for his 'fantasy' about the 'lecture'/lecture series too, is what he at times describes as 'reliable'(?) 'historical'(?) sources, without describing the specific 'reliable' source (Bierl?) he actually used as a base in concocting his story about the lecture series 'Mission of Folk souls'.
As to [PS]:
(Mandl was a Norwegian anthroposophist);Hans Maendl (Mändl) was a Jew who came from Vienna to Sweden in 1938 to escape from the Nazi persecutions. He lived in Stockholm, was one of the most prominent anthroposophists in Sweden during his life time and from at least the end of the 50s' to his death in I think 1972, was editor of the Swedish anthroposophical journal 'Antropos', published by the Anthroposophical Society in Sweden.
He was accompanied by another Jew, Emarie Vidakowitch, who later became the central founder of the largest Waldorf school in Stockholm, Kristofferskolan, the main model for all waldorf schools in Sweden, out of which later others were born, founded by teachers who had worked there.
This just as some small examples that demonstrate the serious and repeatedly unpredictably unreliability of what Peter writes.
What my posting showed was the sharp contrasts between the way Steiner consequently pointed to and described Michael as his reference point and leading picture throughout his work, and Peter Staudenmaier's way of painting his personal version of what Steiner said and meant in the lecture.
You call what _I_ write 'Mind boggling'?