Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list 1

Sune Nordwall's original post re Peter

 

From: Deborah
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 4:17 pm
Subject: Sune Nordwall's original post re Peter

I am copying and reposting this in case any of the newer members of the list missed it the first time around. I went to Sune's website and read through his material on Peter Staudenmeier. I found it very convincing.

Nana (Deborah)

Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 7:13 pm
Subject: Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

Peter,

Some time around the beginning of 2000, you made public your first story as solo author about anthroposophy and anthroposophical activities. It was published by DD on the WC-list and according to the WC-list of articles it is still found in its pre-publication version at the site.

The article constitutes the possibly worst smear published in English on the internet ever of anthroposophy and anthroposophical activities, with its refined lighthearted and manipulative argumentation, using a mixture of unsubstantiated assertions, untruths, half truths, and twisting of history to paint a picture of anthroposophy and different movements based on anthroposophy as a proto- and pronazi, anti-Semitic and racist movement, in theory and practice. In what you have written after that on anthroposophy and activities based on anthroposophy, you have continued to write in a similar way.

The article was commissioned by the Norwegian secular humanist journal Humanist and published in the 2000/2 issue of the journal and later in the 2001/2 issue of the journal of the Swedish Association Science and Public Education. It is also published by the formed Swedish Secular Humanist Association, and at the site of ISE, with which you are associated, and a number of other places on the internet.

The article starts by a made up description by you of the lecture series "Mission of Folk Souls", held by Rudolf Steiner in Oslo in 1910. The original version of your story about it, that is the one still published at the mentioned sites, contains a number of statements about the first lecture and the lecture series in its totality, like:

"The "national souls" of Northern and Central Europe were, Steiner explained, components of the "germanic-nordic sub-race," 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." "

You also for some reason assert that the lecture series, that was held in Oslo, was held as a "speaking tour of Norway".

At different times, it has been pointed out to you, that your description of the first lecture and the lecture series, that you have made into the foundation store of your further writings on anthroposophy, and continued to defend in principle up to today, four years after its original publication by PLANS, does not correspond to reality in the sense of what Rudolf Steiner actually says in the first lecture and in the lecture series in its totality. As reading of the lecture, found at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/1-GeneralIntroduction.htm tells, it does not say one word about what I quote above from your introduction.

Instead it constitutes a description of among other things the basic nature of man's supersensible being and something of the basic nature of Angels, Archangels and higher beings described in the Jewish-Christian tradition.

When it has been pointed out that your story about the first lecture and the lecture series lacks support in the historically documented lecture and lecture series, you at least up to last year, more than three years after your first publication of it, have made fun of these comments by blowing smoke screens about it in different ways, last year with the added help of DD; see http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html for a number of your different stories about it.

When we corresponded in Nov 2001 about where your article has been published, you told that you at one time had sent a "revised" version of your article to the (I assume webmaster of) the site of ISE, and to PLANS to make them replace the original version with what you called your "revised" version. See http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/pseudovetenskap/Staudenmaier-mail.htm

One may assume that you in the "revised" version had replaced what you had found out was untrue in your original version with what you, when revising your article, thought was true.

Am I correct in assuming that the "revised" version, that you sent to them is the version that you sent to John Holland for publication at his site "OpenWaldorf" last summer?

In that version, you have taken out the reference to the first lecture of the lecture series, that you up to at least last year, two years later, with the support of DD, continued to defend in a circumscribing way on the WC-list as describing reality and making fun of my way of telling that your description of the lecture constitutes a historical forgery, in an especially obvious way in relation to the first lecture of the lecture series.

But you also told, in late 2001, that when you saw that they (PLANS and ISE) had not replaced the original version with the "revised" version, in which it must be assumed that you had replaced what you had found out was untrue with what you then thought was true, you did not bother the webmaster of the sites publishing what you considered untrue about it (again), telling "I don't take these things nearly as seriously as you do", referring to the publication of what you even yourself consider to be untrue on the internet.

At one time in the discussion of the truthfulness of what is found at the site of PLANS, DD added the statement in passing to the site: "PLANS does not necessarily agree with or vouch for the veracity of everything posted in this section" up to this day, as also Gary Bonhiver, as far as I'm aware of have left the original version of the papers by you unchanged at the site.

After almost two more years, last summer, you socially very smoothly then made John Holland, who also still possibly is a member of this list, publish what you called a revised version of your original article at his site. In the "revised" version, you start the article with what I quote at the bottom of http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/pseudovetenskap/Staudenmaier-New.htm

In the new introduction to the article, made available on the net last summer by you through John Holland, you have taken out the reference to the first lecture of the series, that you for then three and a half year had defended vigorously in different ways when its untruthfulness was pointed out by different people.

After you, possibly on a trip to Germany during the summer of 2001, (finally) had gotten a number of versions of the lecture series in their more or less original form, knowing that the lecture series in its totality was held in Oslo, and still without giving any reason or source for it, you continue to write, in a similar way as in the original article:

"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."

continuing to for some mysterious reason indicate that Rudolf Steiner went on a speaking tour around Norway, and that the lecture series in Oslo was just part of this by you indicated lecture tour around Norway, without at any time giving any source for this assertion, that I have found no support for when asking different people if any source indicates that Steiner actually went on such a lecture tour around Norway.

You have also kept basically the whole second part of the introduction, and assert - few months ago; last summer - after you have gotten the whole lecture series and indicated that you actually have read it by telling that you have compared different versions of it with each other:

"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" "

This in spite of - as you would know if you actually had read the series as you indicate that you have - that Steiner neither mentions "root races", tells about "five historical "root races" " or tells in the lecture series that "the " "Aryan" race" constitutes the "superior fifth root race" of the "five historical "root races" ".

It's all made up by you, Peter, and only few months ago - even after having indicated that you have read the lecture series - you assert it to be true. For my comments and demonstration of the untruthfulness of this already in May 2001, see http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier.htm

Some time ago, you told on the WC-list, that you slowly were writing a book on - I think - Steiner's racial doctrines, and after that, you have entered this list, telling what you think of it and asking what different people here on this list - today - think of these "racial doctrines" as you superficially understand and describe them, to my understanding milking the participants for material that you can use in the book you have told that you are writing.

Can you understand, Peter, that you COMPLETELY lack credibility as truthteller in ANY consistent way about anthroposophy and that your publishing record the four last years, after your first solo act on anthroposophy, tells that you repeatedly in a seemingly completely unpredictable make up unfounded and untruthful twissted, malicious and smearing stories about anthroposophy, in a way that indicates that you will continue to do this also in the book you have told that you are writing on.

Your writings so far all the four last years since you started your career as solo writer on anthroposophy outside this list, where you appear very civilized and with an air of scholar, indicate that you - again - will continue to give seemingly credible quotes from Steiner, adding comments like the one on the "voluminous" writings and lectures by Steiner on "race" in John's forum, that I commented on some days ago, neglecting what I have pointed out at for example http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/comments1.htm , mixing what you write with twisted and superficial arguments about different by you superficially understood issues, for some mysterious reason here and there adding some clear untruths and unsubstantiated statements, twisting info from different sources and using different parts of what you have milked out the participants on this list for your presentation as material complementary the quotes you have selected for the purpose out of the published works of Steiner and the rest, while also adding some comments to try to make what you write stand out as a "balanced" and therefore "credible piece of work?

And of course not writing such sentences as I do, but very eloquent ones
...

For the list:

I would suggest that noone comments on anything that Peter Staudenmaier brings up for discussion in terms of "quotes" that he "encourages" people here to read and comment on, until AFTER Peter has told about what he - today - considers to have been true respectively untrue in his original version of the article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism", found at the site of PLANS and a number of places on the internet.

Starting with the introduction to the article in question and continuing with the rest of the article:

What do you today, Peter - after having gotten a number of versions in German of the lecture series "Mission of Folk Souls" - consider to be true, respectively untrue in your original introduction to the article, and can you substantiate what you think is true and giving the source for - you assertion that Steiner went on a lecture tour around Norway, and - what lectures and part of the lectures you base your view on in the lecture series in its original form with regard to your "description" of it, in the original version, and in the revised version of your article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism"?

The first lecture is found in English at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/1-GeneralIntroduction.htm and in German at http://www.anthroposophie.net/steiner/ga/bib_steiner_ga_121_01.htm and the whole lecture series at http://www.anthroposophie.net/steiner/ga/bib_steiner_ga_121.htm I'll help you with the English translation of the source you refer to as support of your description of the lecture series.

Could you start with the source for your assertion, both in the original and the "revised" version of your article that Steiner went on a lecture tour around Norway during his visit there?

Also, list members, consider what you write here from the perspective: How will Peter use this in what he writes on anthroposophy?

Sune

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 6:10 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Sune Nordwall's original post re Peter

Hi Deborah, you wrote:

I went to Sune's website and read through his material on Peter Staudenmeier. I found it very convincing.

You did? Then maybe you can explain how I managed to travel back in time and forge Steiner's 1910 lectures on national souls. That would clear up a whole lot of confusion. Thanks,

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: Sune Nordwall
Date: Sat Jul 20, 2002 11:20 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Sune Nordwall's original post re Peter

Do you ever stop playing mind games?

What did you write in our discussion last summer: "Lies, damn lies, and diversions"?

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 9:36 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Sune Nordwall's original post re Peter

Hi Deborah, you wrote:

I went to Sune's website and read through his material on Peter Staudenmeier. I found it very convincing.

Peter Staudenmaier:

You did? Then maybe you can explain how I managed to travel back in time and forge Steiner's 1910 lectures on national souls. That would clear up a whole lot of confusion. Thanks,

Daniel:

You don't have to go back in time to create a forgery. Simple mischaracterization will accomplish the same thing, and can be done from the present.

Daniel

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 11:03 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Sune Nordwall's original post re Peter

Hi Daniel,

at last, somebody willing to come forward and explain what they think Sune means! You wrote:

You don't have to go back in time to create a forgery.

If the document in question was published long in the past, then yes, you do need to go back to the time it was published in order to forge it. Are you sure you know what forgery is?

Simple mischaracterization will accomplish the same thing, and can be done from the present.

Yes, mischaracterization is something we can do right now, in the present. But this is not what Sune says I did. Try to remember that Sune and I have discussed this thoroughly in several public forums. Each time I have told him that what he really means is that I simply mischaracterized the content of Steiner's 1910 lectures. But Sune always rejected this idea, and insisted that I committed forgery, which is of course something else altogether. Recently he has taken to calling this "spiritual forgery", whatever that might be. If you think that forgery and mischaracterization are the same thing, Daniel, perhaps you could say so. Thanks,

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Sune Nordwall's original post re Peter

Hi Daniel,

at last, somebody willing to come forward and explain what they think Sune means! You wrote:

Daniel wrote:

You don't have to go back in time to create a forgery.

Peter Staudenmaier:

If the document in question was published long in the past, then yes, you do need to go back to the time it was published in order to forge it. Are you sure you know what forgery is?

Daniel:

Ah, yes. Staudenmaier Logic. All forgeries require time travel.
I suppose I have to travel back in time to forge a Vermeer painting.
I have to travel back in time to forge an early printing of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.
I could never just "discover" it and then pass it off as authentic. Oh no, time travel is required.

Daniel wrote:

Simple mischaracterization will accomplish the same thing, and can be done from the present.

Peter Staudenmaier:

Yes, mischaracterization is something we can do right now, in the present. But this is not what Sune says I did. Try to remember that Sune and I have discussed this thoroughly in several public forums. Each time I have told him that what he really means is that I simply mischaracterized the content of Steiner's 1910 lectures. But Sune always rejected this idea, and insisted that I committed forgery, which is of course something else altogether. Recently he has taken to calling this "spiritual forgery", whatever that might be. If you think that forgery and mischaracterization are the same thing, Daniel, perhaps you could say so.

Daniel:

Peter, your original article invented new content for Anthroposophy (such as the non-existent "nordic-germanic sub-race", which only exists in your article). This new content was produced as "evidence" of racism in Anthroposophy. That seems pretty close to forgery to me. It is not the word I would have used, but I can understand why Sune chose it.

Daniel Hindes

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 9:23 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Sune Nordwall's original post re Peter

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

I suppose I have to travel back in time to forge a Vermeer painting.

If the painting has been hanging in a museum for eighty years, then yes, you would indeed need to travel back in time in order to have forged it. Steiner's 'folk souls' lectures were first published more than eighty years ago. If you think I forged them, that means you think I traveled back in time to do so. Misinterpreting or misrepresenting an authentic text has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with forgery.

I could never just "discover" it and then pass it off as authentic.

I did not discover Steiner's 'folk souls' lectures. If you think the published versions of these lectures are not authentic, go ahead and tell us why.

Peter, your original article invented new content for Anthroposophy (such as the non-existent "nordic-germanic sub-race", which only exists in your article). This new content was produced as "evidence" of racism in Anthroposophy. That seems pretty close to forgery to me.

It does? Then you don't understand what forgery is. All you say above is that I misrepresented the content of a text that Steiner wrote and published. You do not say that I wrote and published the text myself under Steiner's name.

It is not the word I would have used, but I can understand why Sune chose it.

I thought I originally understood his choice of words as well, and I said to him what I just said to you time and time again. Each time he insisted that forgery was at stake, not misrepresentation. That is why the whole topic is a waste of time, as I have also frequently pointed out. Aside from Sune, as far as I can tell, all any of you really thinks I did was misread and misportray an authentic text. You do not really think I faked a non-existent text.

Peter

[continued in the thread "On the writings of the "catch if you can" con "historical scholar" Peter Staudenmaier"]

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 7:19 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Sune Nordwall's original post re Peter

Daniel wrote:

I could never just "discover" it and then pass it off as authentic.

Peter Staudenmaier:

I did not discover Steiner's 'folk souls' lectures. If you think the published versions of these lectures are not authentic, go ahead and tell us why.

Daniel:

In those lectures you did "discover" the nordic-germanic sub-race as well as references to the "aryan race". You made them up! They are not in the original. You have even admitted as much!

Daniel wrote:

Peter, your original article invented new content for Anthroposophy (such as the non-existent "nordic-germanic sub-race", which only exists in your article). This new content was produced as "evidence" of racism in Anthroposophy. That seems pretty close to forgery to me.

Peter Staudenmaier:

It does? Then you don't understand what forgery is. All you say above is that I misrepresented the content of a text that Steiner wrote and published. You do not say that I wrote and published the text myself under Steiner's name.

Daniel:

I note that you are not denying making up references to the nordic-germanic sub-race and the "aryan race". You can haggle over the use of the word "forgery". I conceed the point (for the third time) - it is not technically forgery in the conventional sense. But it is dishonest.

Daniel wrote:

It is not the word I would have used, but I can understand why Sune chose it.

Peter Staudenmaier:

I thought I originally understood his choice of words as well, and I said to him what I just said to you time and time again. Each time he insisted that forgery was at stake, not misrepresentation. That is why the whole topic is a waste of time, as I have also frequently pointed out. Aside from Sune, as far as I can tell, all any of you really thinks I did was misread and misportray an authentic text. You do not really think I faked a non-existent text.

Daniel:

I agree, your treatment of the lecture cycle "The Mission of Folk Souls" in you article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" is not forgery. It is simply misrepresentation. Malicious misrepresentation, probably inadvertent and careless originally, but defended almost to the death since then.

Daniel Hindes

...................................................................................................................................

On the writings of the "catch if you can" con "historical scholar" Peter Staudenmaier

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

April/May 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind