More distortions by Peter Staudenmaier
Below is what Staudenmaier writes in one of his articles, and a description of the actual source that he asserts that he describes.
Staudenmaier seems particularly obsessed with telling untruths about a lecture series held by Steiner in Oslo in 1910, and titled "Mission of Folk Souls". For the way Staudenmaier without having read it made up stories about its content around 1999/2000, as the foundation stone and starting point of his career as solo writes on anthroposophy with an article titled "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism", see here.
When his untruths about it have been exposed, he repeatedly has made up different other, also untrue stories to cover up for his first untruths. One of his obsessions, that he has continued to try to "prove" in spite of the expositions of his untruths about the lecture series, is that the both the first lecture and the lecture series in its totality somehow -- after all -- as he wrote in his made up fantasy about it without having read it in 1999/2000, describe and argue for "the racial superiority" of "the Aryans" and that this is the "core" of the lecture series.
After Staudenmaier in different Scandinavian articles (in Norway and Sweden) was criticized for the way he has handled the sources he refers to in his Opus Major "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" (except for here, see also here for a detailed analysis of the first part of the article by Daniel Hindes), Staudenmaier in response wrote an article titled "The Art of Avoiding History".
The article, written as an "answer" intended for Goeran Fant, one of those who criticized Staudenmaier, was published in a Swedish translation by the secular humanist missionary journal "Common Sense" (Folkvett 3/2001).
In the "answer", one of the things Staudenmaier writes is:
... the heart of the book is chapter six, titled "The Five Root Races of Mankind" (Steiner’s lecture in Oslo from June 12, 1910). Here Steiner reminds his audience of the racial superiority of "the Aryans," helpfully explaining that he means "the peoples of Asia Minor and Europe whom we regard as members of the Caucasian race" (p. 106) before going on to discuss "the Caucasian race" for several more paragraphs (p. 107). For some reason Fant calls this two-page disquisition a "parenthetical passage."
The heart and culmination of the lecture series is lecture
eleven (see here),
that points to Vidar as someone in Nordic mythology (that is the conceptual
frame of the lecture series) who points to Christ, and RS' prediction in
the lecture, that ever more people in Northern Europe from the middle of
the 20th century will have a similar experience of Christ as the one then
Saul had at Damascus.
The theosophical term "Root races", is not a biological concept, but a concept that refers to the stages of humanity during the development of our present solar system from its very first start, while the "Main races" described in the lecture refer to the anthropological concept "Five main races of humanity" as described by the father of anthropology in 1795, Blumenbach.
The lecture does not describe the "root races" of theosophy.
It describes the anthropological "five main races of mankind" with regard
to their initiation far in the past in Steiner's view.
In the lecture, Steiner does not describe any group of people as "superior" to any another group. Instead, the lecture, see here, describes among other things what makes both the Semites, the Caucasians and the American Indians "great", in relation to respectively Jehova, Zeus-Jupiter and "the Great Spirit", with the Great Spirit of the American Indians in Steiner's view encompassing all of the "Elohim" of the Jewish-Christian tradition.
You will now understand the peculiar character of the Semitic people and its mission. In a profound occult sense the Biblical writer was able to claim that Jahve or Jehovah had made this people his own. If you add to this the fact that Jahve cooperated with the Mars Spirits who worked principally in the blood, you will understand why racial continuity through the blood-stream was of particular importance to the Semitic Hebrew people and why Jahve describes Himself as the God who is present in the blood of generations, in the blood of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 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. Whatsoever works in the blood, whatsoever must be determined through the blood - the cooperation with the Mars Spirits - that is one of the mysteries which give us a deep insight into the wise guidance of all mankind.He later describes the people more under the influence of what in Greek mythology is referred to as Zeus, or "Jupiter":
We must now turn our attention to the Western centre and trace the way in which dynamic forces of the Spirits and Beings who are centred in Jupiter operate in man. These elect to work directly upon the nervous system via the outer life of the senses. This is the one way. In the other, the planetary forces work into the sympathetic nervous system, entering indirectly into the solar plexus through the respiratory system. Now the Jupiter forces 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. Here is the seat of those forces which determine the particular racial character of those races belonging to the Jupiter humanity.He then specifies and elaborates on this somewhat and makes a side comment on "Buddha, Zarathustra or Zarathas in his later incarnation and that great leader of humanity, Skythianos" in relation to this.
In passing Steiner then tells that in his view, European civilization at the beginning of the 20th century not at all in his view was at the "top" with the Germans or "Aryans" of his time, something that was the view of the anti-Semites Gobineau and Chamberlain at the time. Instead he describes the development of the post-glacial cultures as something that already had passed its
"zenith in Europe in the middle of the nineteenth century",that is, with the idealistic tradition at the time of Goethe, telling that it was Steiner's view that the Central European culture at the beginning of the 20th century, with its racist focus, developing anti-Semitism, and argumentation for "Aryan supremacy", was a culture on the decline in relation to its zenith with the development of the idealistic culture 60-100 years earlier.
He then goes on to describe the American Indians:
The Red Indian brought over to the West all that was great in the Atlantean culture (In the explicit view of the late Steiner, human development during what is referred to as "Atlantis" corresponds to the development during Tertiary and Quaternary. Ed. comment). What the Red Indian valued most highly was that he was still able dimly to sense something of the former greatness and majesty of a period which existed in the old Atlantean epoch when the separation of the races had hardly begun, when man could look up to the Sun and perceive the Spirits of Form through a sea of mist.Does this support what PS writes about the lecture?
Here Steiner reminds his audience of the racial superiority of "the Aryans," helpfully explaining that he means "the peoples of Asia Minor and Europe whom we regard as members of the Caucasian race" (p. 106) before going on to discuss "the Caucasian race" for several more paragraphs.In the view of this author, both Peter Staudenmaier's description of the quoted lecture as the "heart" of the lecture series, just because it is the only one of the eleven lectures that once in passing mentions the term "Aryans" as it was commonly used at the time, and the description of the quoted paragraphs as a "reminder" to the audience of "the racial superiority of 'the Aryans'" stand out as obsessive over-interpretations of both the lecture as such, as also of the lecture in relation to the lecture series in its totality.
It hints at a strong personally based bias of Staudenmaier towards the whole subject and the mere mentioning of the word "Aryan" (once in the lecture series), a common cultural-linguistic term at the time Steiner held the lecture series in 1910, and with Staudenmaier's seemingly very personal bias having very little to do with what Steiner actually discussed in the lecture series.
Discussions with Staudenmaier show that he is very good as an actor, player of mind games and twister of words based on his preconceptions and very personal demagogical leanings, putting him in the same league as "Catch me if you can" Frank Abagnale Jr. with regard to the mentioned qualities.
But his writings repeatedly contradict his self-description of himself as "historical scholar" except as a word game, and confirm what he has written in a personal correspondence at the end of 2001 about the importance, that what is published by him when found on the internet actually is truthful, even in his own view:
It indicates that he has a long way to go before he in more than a superficial sense even can begin to claim "historical scholarship" in any serious sense beyond any mental games he may continue to to play.