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
