Sune Nordwall's original post re Peter

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

 

From: Sune Nordwall
Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 5:16 pm
Subject: On the writings of the "catch if you can" con "historical scholar" Peter Staudenmaier (I/II)

In a posting Thu, 8 Apr 2004 22:19:40 -0400 Daniel - in a response to a posting by PS - comments on what I have at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html at my site on PS:

[from the thread "Sune Nordwall's original post re Peter"]

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!

It is interesting to notice in retrospect over the past years - having discussed with PS on different occasions since 2000 - how very confusing the discussions with him on anthroposophy repeatedly tend to become, even on simple points, and how easy it is to be dragged into this confusion when trying to answer and sort it out.

In the case of PS' con story about the lecture series 'Mission of Folk Souls' one such confusing point develops as a concern regarding what single 'words' the published, by RS himself edited lecture series, as such first published in 1922, contains.

This tends to divert from an overview of the more overall issue on this point, being the whole untruthful story in the second part of the introduction in PS Major Opus on anthroposophy, that he invents and adds as second part to the first still somewhat truthful part in the introduction.

The mixture of the roughly truthful first part of the introduction by PS in his article AaE on the lecture series, only containing 'minor' errors, with the smashing and selling more or less complete untruths in the second part of the introduction, that together in a nutshell summarize the nature of stories by demagogues, repeatedly, and smoothly when like Peter Staudenmaier acting as a con 'historian', mixing truths with untruths, at first glance usually are very difficult to look through.

Just as a summarizing overview after the extensive discussion on it on this list:

PS in the introduction:

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." In the Oslo lecture and throughout his Norwegian tour Steiner presented his theory of "national souls" (Volksseelen in German, Steiner's native tongue) and paid particular attention to the mysterious wonders of the "Nordic spirit."

The 'minor' errors in this part concern the nature and title of the lecture series;

- It was a lecture series held in Oslo, not a lecture tour of Norway. While PS in the discussion on this list has argued for the view that it is proper to describe a lecture series in Oslo as a lecture tour of Norway, writing in the introduction: In the Oslo lecture and throughout his Norwegian tour indicates that he erroneously - when writing it - thought that only the first lecture in the series was held in Oslo, and the rest of the lectures in other places than Oslo.

When 'revising' the article, he hasn't corrected this misdescription, just applied a different meaning of 'lecture tour' than he probably meant from the beginning, and kept the description of the lecture series in Oslo as a 'lecture tour of Norway', to cover up for his original untruthfulness.

- The title for the lecture series given is erroneous with the primary source for the error being the text part (p. 9) of Hans Maendl's book 'Der Geist des Nordens' from 1966. But the correct title is given in the literature list at the end of the book by Maendl (p. 143), that PS seems to imply that he has 'read' when referring to it.

But then comes the by PS made up smashing and selling but profoundly untruthful story, that the last years has been published and with his knowledge and silent approval continues to be published at a number of places on the internet, and that does not only concern single words, but the story in its totality, that he makes up, whose untruthfulness has been extensively documented and discussed on this list:

PS:

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."

This description is completely untruthful with regard to the first lecture, that in the first part of the introduction is implied as one source of what PS writes in the second part in the introduction.

The errors with regard to the first lecture are:
- The first lecture does with one word mentions The "national souls" of Northern and Central Europe.
- It also does not say one word about a "germanic-nordic sub-race".
- It also does not - not mentioning a "germanic-nordic sub-race" - assert that it is the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group.
- It does not mention "root races".
- it does not tell that there are five historical "root races."
- It also does not describe the - not mentioned - "germanic-nordic sub-race" as the vanguard of the highest of five historical "root races."
- In the lecture, Steiner also does not tell his Oslo audience that 'naturally', the - also not mentioned - Aryan race is the superior fifth root race.

Instead the lecture (http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/1-GeneralIntroduction.htm) gives a basic introductory description of among other things the spiritual nature of man and of some characteristics of the spiritual beings that in the Jewish-christian tradition are described as Angels and Archangels.

Just as a small reminder of PS' different positions, when caught with his untruthful false description of reality:

When seeing that his smashing made up intentionally selling, but untruthful story is untrue and this is told on the WC-list, PS on 1 May 2001 asserts that the 'lecture' he 'describes' in the introduction not is found in the lecture series, but is a lecture held by Steiner in Oslo, not published in the lecture series. He also asserts that his description of the 'lecture' to which he refers - according to him being something else than the 'book', that according to him is 'based' on the (imaginary) 'lecture' he refers to - is well supported by the book.

(For the following story by PS, when seeing that he cannot document the by him 'described' lecture as a lecture held separate from the lecture series either, see http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html)

PS on the WC:

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. Even so, my description of the lecture is, contrary to Sune's strenuous objections, well supported by the book. ...

and adding - in the tradition of good con artistry - that is, seemingly innocently and self assuredly:

I once again urge anyone who finds Sune's arguments here compelling to consult this version, the book version, in order to check my paragraph against Steiner's text.

implying (as every con artist when caught red handed) that his story - in this case about the first lecture and the lecture series in its totality - is 'true'.

and

PS:

Everything I wrote in my paragraph was based on secondary sources, several of which do not agree with Sune's claim. If Sune can explain what on earth this has to do with either my credibility or the substantive dispute between us, I will gladly look into the matter and try to find out why there are differing accounts of Steiner's 1910 itinerary. But it is difficult to imagine why this would be important to anybody.

According to what he writes, and in contrast to his otherwise seemingly well developed imagination - he does not 'see' that not only writing and publishing untruths (but also repeatedly defending them in different ways when their untruthfulness is demonstrated), has implications for the credibility of the one writing and defending them in the further discussion, especially when the person in question repeatedly - like Peter Staudenmaier - in different ways refers to himself as 'historian' and 'scholar'.

To any normal person, it is clear that the assertion by PS that he does not 'understand' what the actual truthfulness of his writings on well documented and published historical sources has to do with his credibility as self proclaimed 'historical scholar' are vain efforts at damage control smoke screens regarding his reputation as 'scholar'.

He also on 1 May 2001 tells that he has sent an 'updated' implicitly 'corrected' version to PLANS, that he - when writing it - seemingly thinks is published at PLANS website, not being the case up to this day, one reason probably being that it would reveal to the WC and others, that PS' repeated defense on the WC of the untruths in the introduction, with the support of Dan Dugan - while on the periphery on the net with the help of John Holland of 'OpenWaldorf' having made public a small effort to correct the most obvious ones - just has been a repeated diverting song and dance performance for the galleries.

In addition he also - again untruthfully - asserts:

Steiner uses the term "root races" throughout this book

and, commenting on me in an earlier posting, quoting PS in his introduction:

This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the "Aryan race."

with (me) commenting:

Again, this is a total fantasy by Staudenmaier. In the lecture series, Steiner not once mentions neither "root race", nor "fifth root race", nor "superior fifth root race".

PS answering:

Readers can easily see for themselves that "root races" are "mentioned" throughout the book.

That is, not only in the two chapters/lectures (six and seven), where Hauptrasse erroneously is mistranslated in the 1970 English translation with the theosophical concept and term 'root races', but throughout the book. As the discussion on this list has indicated, a check of the published lecture series reveals also this to be an untrue assertion by PS.

This just as a small reminder of how - as repeatedly demonstrated on this list - difficult it not only is here, but has been for years to discuss the relation of what PS writes in different contexts with him to the sources he says he refers to, and being a reason I try to avoid it as much as possible, and also have done on this list, as it repeatedly turns out to be just tiring, time consuming and leading nowhere.

(Continued)

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

From: Sune Nordwall
Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 5:18 pm
Subject: On the writings of the "catch if you can" con "historical scholar" Peter Staudenmaier (II/II)

The two postings with the above subject are an exception, that I make mainly to exemplify the repeated untruthfulness and unreliability of PS in what he writes in this case in one more instance (below) on me - again - indicating his nature as con 'historian'.

For a more full description of the different turns of the twisting by PS, see http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html with regard to the first lecture in the series and http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier.htm with regard to the lecture series in its totality.

The latter link in the main documents that the introduction, as with regard to the first lecture of the series, also is untruthful on the following points with regard to the series as a whole:

- The lecture series in its totality does not only not at any point mention a "germanic-nordic sub-race".
- It also does not - not mentioning a "germanic-nordic sub-race" - assert that it is the world's most spiritually advanced ethnic group.
- It does not mention "root races".
- it does not tell that there are five historical "root races."
- It also does not describe the - not mentioned - "germanic-nordic sub-race" as the vanguard of the highest of five historical "root races."
- In the lecture series, Steiner also does not tell *his Oslo audience* that 'naturally', the - not mentioned - Aryan race is the *superior fifth root race*.

That Steiner would have said what PS untruthfully asserts also stands out as improbably in the perspective of that Steiner half a year earlier (http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/GA117-1909-12-04.htm) specifically had criticized the way of using the concepts of 'root races' and 'sub races' in the theosophical tradition as an expression of a 'child illness' of the tradition, that it was necessary to overcome - which he then did in continuing to develop anthroposophy separate from theosophy, for example demonstrated by his written work 'Occult Science - An Outline' published the same year as he held the lecture series on 'Mission of Folk Souls'.

What PS writes and puts in the mouth of Steiner as a scandal story about 'the superior Aryan race' is just one big bluff, that he in the main has kept also in his 'revised' version of the article. Ant it needs to be noted that in the 'revised' version, PS has made public what he writes in it AFTER - in contrast to when writing the first version of the article - he during a trip to Europe has gotten hold of and possibly also read the whole lecture series in the original, by RS himself corrected version in German.

It means that when PS in the 'revised' version of his article - in the name of 'free speech' made public and published by John Holland at his 'OpenWaldorf' site last summer - writes things like: This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the "Aryan" race", this stands out as a - this time clearly conscious - lie by PS, who as one of his 'urges' to 'anthroposophists' has expressed his wish (approximately) that they 'honestly' discuss the 'racial doctrines' of anthroposophy - implicitly with him, and implicitly based on his descriptions of them ...

As I've pointed out before: what PS writes constitutes an insult to the concept of 'historical scholar' with which he so self flatteringly seems to like to describe himself.

Daniel quoting PS:

[from the thread "Sune Nordwall's original post re Peter"]

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.

When I - as Swede and non American, never having even visited the U.S. - have used the word 'forgery', I have done it in the broad sense of 'untrue description of history' that it is used also for example by the Swedish branch of the CSISOP at its site.

I think it can be assumed that PS understands this quite well, when repeatedly having made fun of it on the WC as efforts at damage controlling smoke screens to try to cover up for his repeated well documented untruthfulness, both with regard to what he writes on a number of points on anthroposophy and anthroposophically based activities, as also his description of himself as 'historical scholar'.

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.

I have checked this description by PS against the archives of the WC-list from the first publishing of his con story on 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism' on the list and up to the time I was unsubbed by Dan Dugan from the list in September 2001 for telling that checking what PS writes in the story against the sources he says he refers to tells that he is a liar (with regard to a number of the things he writes in the story).

On this point, PS has argued that 'lying' implies that someone consciously is telling what he or she knows is untrue. Even with this narrow interpretation of the concept 'lie' in relation to 'untruth', it applies to what is published by PS at a number of sites on the net - that he is well aware of - _after_ the time he has found out it is not true, and not seeing to it that it is corrected, which easily is done if you take the truthfulness of you write and publish seriously, being - in stages - from probably before 1 May 2001 and up to the present, three years later with regard to the article AaE by PS.

For the way PS has acted with regard to this, see a mail by him on Thu, 29 Nov 2001 to the undersigned, found reproduced at the bottom of http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/pseudovetenskap/Staudenmaier-mail.htm and telling in his own words, that he does not take it very seriously that what is published by him on the net actually is truthful, when found. It supports the impression he gives in different other discussions about his writings, like on this list.

(If you disapprove of me at my site publishing and here republishing mails by you, Peter, tell me and I will replace them with descriptions of them instead.)

With regard to what PS writes about my description of his introduction to what he has made into the foundation stone of his musing on anthroposophy, as a 'forgery':

PS:

[from the thread "Sune Nordwall's original post re Peter"]

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.

The archives of WC does not support this description by PS.

They only document one instance in the discussion, where I in a mail have mentioned the word 'forgery' with regard to PS writings. But the mail in question is not a posting by me to the WC list. Instead it is a personal mail 15 Nov 2001 to PS and DD, not the WC-list, from which I then had been unsubbed by Dan.

The mail can be found reproduced at [long link]

Also, a posting from PS the same day, on Thu, 15 Nov 2001 21:16:51 -0600 where he comments on my personal mail to him, quoted by Dottie in an earlier posting the same day (15 Nov 2001 10:29:51 -0800 (PST)), is the only posting that I find on the WC-list, where PS directly answers a (the one, off-list) mail from me found in the archives of the WC, where I call his description of 'Mission ...' a 'forgery'.

Like in many discussions through different phases with PS, what refers to what, is or becomes increasingly difficult to sort out. This is the case with the different senses of the word 'existence' with regard to the 'lecture' that PS asserts that he describes in the introduction to AaE.

In 1910, RS held the lecture series, that PS refers to in his introduction. Of course the lecture series has a first lecture. In that sense the first lecture 'exists' (in the reflected form of the published transcript of it).

But no more well known source tells that it exists as described by Peter.

What I have referred to is this second meaning of the term 'existence' with regard to the lecture. No source I've found tells that it exists as PS describes it, except in his own - repeatedly published - fantasy.

Seeing the way PS has made fun of my way - as non American - of expressing myself, I have tried to make clear the way I use the word 'existence'; that the lecture does not exist _as described by PS_, and that what he writes about it, and the lecture series in its totality, naturally not constitutes a forgery in the physical sense, but in a spiritual sense of an untruthful description of history.

As documented above, PS also at one stage asserted that the lecture he 'describes' in the introduction 'exists' (in the sense actually was held by RS) as a lecture in Oslo in 1910, separate from the published lecture series. I have really tried to check this out with different people and found nothing that supports this assertion by PS, indicating it is one of the many by PS - again - untruthful stories, made up by him to save his reputation as self proclaimed 'scholar'.

In a mail dated Sat Dec 22 15:49:15 2001, he then - again, after having had two years after the first publication of his article to check up closer on its actual basis - tells another untruthful story about the lecture series, being:

... since the transcripts of the lectures themselves have never been published, I did what you're supposed to do in such cases: I relied on secondary sources, written by anthroposophists and published in anthroposophist periodicals, for my description of the lectures' content.

Except for the fact that PS never has told more specifically what the sources are (both authors, periodicals, and titles of the articles in question) that he says that he refers to, he at that time ought to have known - if he had been the careful and knowledgeable 'scholar' he likes to depict himself as - that the first publication of the lecture series was published as transcript in 1911, and then repeatedly later in a by RS himself corrected form, as also - if he had understood some of the basic ways to find publications in German - that one source, accessible to everyone with an internet connection, on this is the German http://www.amazon.de that, all the times I have checked it, has told that the lecture series, that PS describes in such untruthful detail in his major opus 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism' - if used by PS - for some $10 + stamp costs in few days would have provided him with the source he up to this makes up such stories about.

Above and at my site, I have focused on what everyone for him- or herself can check out what PS writes with regard to the sources he says he refers to, as they can be found on the net, or have been put there by me or others. But it indicates the nature with regard to truthfulness that he continues to write in the article, in other articles, on the WC, and here on this list on anthroposophy and anthroposophically based activities.

http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Steiner-on-Heinrich-von-Treitschke.htm and http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Steiner-on-JuliusLangbehn.htm document this with regard to two instances in the writings of PS(/PZ), chosen because the source they say they refer, being the autobiography of RS can be found on the net, and therefore checked out for everyone with internet access.

A consistent strife for careful truthfulness is necessary to start to understand on more than a superficial level what anthroposophy is, as also to become an actual scholar on any subject.

PS repeated well documented problem with this possibly is one of the central factors that has prevented him as con historical 'scholar' from having acquired even a by himself on the net documented B.A., even though he - like con persons like the 'Catch me if you can' Frank Abagnale Jr. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264464/ - seems to like to hang out and play a 'professional' in milieus he feels drawn to, like the by him mentioned history department of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, on the WC, and on this list.

Peter Staudenmaier's repeated combination of careless untruthfulness and ping-pong mind- and word games in his numerous postings to this list as con 'historical scholar' does not more than as superficial stand up comedy contribute to an understanding and development of what anthroposophy is and persistently diverts the intercourse from its topic and draws it into his superficial and distorting word and mind games about anthroposophy.

I therefore seriously suggest that the list - however difficult it might seem at first - like Deborah Kahn ignores and completely stops answering to his postings to this list, and only again do it if and when he has corrected his published writings on the internet in accordance with the sources he writes that he bases them on, leaving him free to search for other playgrounds for his different mind and word games until he has done it.

For some comments on the issues of what anthroposophy - in my view - is, see http://www.waldorfanswers.com/Anthroposophy.htm

For the situation for anthroposophical activities in Germany during the time of the Nazis, see http://www.waldorfanswers.com/AnthroposophyDuringNaziTimes.htm

And for the myth about anthroposophy, that PS seems obsessed with, see http://www.waldorfanswers.com/ARacistMyth.htm

In a posting: 'On PS on decadence, and non-comment on his repeated untruthful demagoguery he last years', Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 23:26:21 +0100, I have commented on what PS has described as the basic view of RS on 'higher' and 'lower' races, trying to support this with a quote from 'Knowledge of Higher worlds'.

As the posting in conjunction with http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/comments1.htm tells, the temporal context of the quote from 'Knowledge' indicates that it not refers to 'the five races of mankind', being the normal sense that 'race' refers to, but the successive human forms during Cenozoic times, from the beginning of Tertiary up to the end of Pleistocene, being what RS during the conferences with teachers in general identifies as the time of 'Atlantis' (and thereby the 'sub races of Atlantis') discussed in 'Cosmic Memory', at about the same time as writing the article, that then was published in 'Knowledge' as one of its chapters.

This just as one of a number of possible examples indicating the superficiality, with which PS repeatedly argues on the subject of 'races' in connection with anthroposophy.

I expect he will comment on this and the mentioned pages, and therefore expressly again repeat my suggestion: _don't answer him however tempting it may seem_ but leave him free to leave this list and return to the WC or search for other playgrounds for his games.

Greetings,

Sune

(As a P.S.: I don't read mails to the above mail address, just use it for sending postings.)

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:42 am
Subject: Sune's confusion

Speaking of reading comprehension.... Sune writes:

When 'revising' the article, he hasn't corrected this misdescription

That isn't true. I did remove the phrase "throughout his Norwegian tour", precisely because it indicates a multi-city trip, which the mere mention of "speaking tour" does not. This is exactly why Tarjei's argument on this point is obviously wrong: if I agreed with Tarjei about what a "speaking tour" is, I would have removed that phrase, as well, in the revised version.

The title for the lecture series given is erroneous with the primary source for the error being the text part (p. 9) of Hans Maendl's book 'Der Geist des Nordens' from 1966.

Yep. Hence if Sune considers this title erroneous, I recommend he address his complaint to Mandl's departed spirit, not to me. (I also recommend he take a peek at the revised version of my article...)

PS on 1 May 2001 asserts that the 'lecture' he 'describes' in the introduction not is found in the lecture series, but is a lecture held by Steiner in Oslo, not published in the lecture series.

That isn't true. The lectures I referred to are published in the book. Sune just thinks I described them inaccurately.

What PS writes and puts in the mouth of Steiner as a scandal story about 'the superior Aryan race' is just one big bluff, that he in the main has kept also in his 'revised' version of the article.

Yep. Funny how different people can read the same text differently, huh?

I think it can be assumed that PS understands this quite well

Yes, I understand what forgery means. You don't. That's the problem. Untrue claims about history are a dime a dozen. They have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with forgery.

On this point, PS has argued that 'lying' implies that someone consciously is telling what he or she knows is untrue.

Yes, that is what lying means. If I agreed with your reading of Steiner, then I would indeed be lying in describing this text as racist. But I don't agree with your reading of Steiner. I think the text is racist. Get it?

the temporal context of the quote from 'Knowledge' indicates that it not refers to 'the five races of mankind', being the normal sense that 'race' refers to, but the successive human forms during Cenozoic times, from the beginning of Tertiary up to the end of Pleistocene, being what RS during the conferences with teachers in general identifies as the time of 'Atlantis' (and thereby the 'sub races of Atlantis') discussed in 'Cosmic Memory'

Hmmm.... you'd better check with Detlef on that, Sune, lest you fall into "error"....

Yours for reading comprehension,

Peter

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

From: danifyou
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 2:42 pm
Subject: Rép. : On the writings of the "catch if you can" PS

What about adding a 'me' to this sentence...
So to have a real fiction to appear patent
Lo the Steven Spielberg's
'Catch Me If You Can'
Of Peter's Akashic Record!? ;)

What about Dugan as 'The Saint'?...
In the Astral we get a reverse;
Yet remains the image crooked!

My photographs pals.
Dan

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


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