Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list 1

 

From: Sune Nordwall
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 4:13 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

[follow-up in the thread "Sune Nordwall's original post re Peter"]

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

From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 5:06 pm
Subject: Re: Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

Sune Nordwall wrote:

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.

Bradford called it "Ringers".

Thanks for so many things Sune, for years I have wanted to thank-you and I do so now with all my heart.

Why Tarjei, Christine, Daniel, Sune and many of us are looking at the thinking parameters that Steiner gets lumped with, such as superheated sound bytes like ANTISEMITISM, is because it appears that the line of defense is being built for divisions along deep seated racial lines that are not consciously ackowledged conspiracy driven activities by those engaged. The colors of collapsed and feeble thinking have taken out their weapons again.

In other words, in the 5th Post Atlantean Epoch we learn that things are not always what they seem. We learn about self deception, spin, dysfunction and corruption in high places as well as in ourselves. But one man's corruption is another man's sincerity. In other words, by not being conscious of the shadowy subtext of the human being, various STREAMS OF THINKING attract themselves to you or are repelled by you. Attracting the Highest is not what P.S. has any conscious dignity in doing. His attraction is to the fallen dregs that society is outgrowing, but for him, it means a book deal. The audacity and egotism is Typical of every monster that ever grew out of a lie.

To conclude; Ringers of ideologies and Ideologies themselves are just cancerous pockets and clubs of beliefs, soul realms, layers of uncharted being, where the variety of emotional and mental maturity varies. Seeing with cognitive abilities the deceptions which P.S. will not admit to has been proved by anyone with sanity. Yet still he hungers for what he cannot have.

The world has moved to a place where innocent questions, or innocent children or innocent ideologies are no longer innocent but collect votes, are huge voting blocks, or focus sharp knives of heated prejudice, exactly where there was none before. This brings swirling public opinion attracted to over heated sound bytes like ANTISEMITISM into vivid Michael and Ahrimanic lines of division.

Hate groups can martial a whole set of "Ringers" and sound bytes and spin and these have become a science under Karl Rove. Karl or P.S. are cut from the same cloth. Karl is a vicioius scorpian working out of brotherhoods that I recently listed, connected even with Skull and Bones, Frank. Those in the riots or demonstrations against the IMF or WTO have witnessed infiltration in order to bring violence where there was none. These were Politically paid strike breaking, Ringers. Sune is right, P.S. is attempting bring juicy quotes to support his swarmy intentions.

"Ringers" in ideologies are playing in a layer of intellectual soul deceptions, this I'm sure I need not repeat. Indeed John the Baptist only went as far down as the Consciousness Soul Dottie but men have to rise through the debris of a shattered culture to reach the vision of the true Consciousness Soul. To be conscious of what feeds your motives, drives ambitions and fuels your ideologies means that you break with your own self absorbed lies and viciously driven instincts and view humanity from a different perspective. Don't try this at home kids. Nor can anyone Police it without reverting to what happened to John Ashcroft. GALL. Mars.. and pancreas, and the signature of failed Mars in his will- This is all the forced killing of Freedom in "The Patriot Act".

This is all a 5th Post Atlantean mandatory Initiation experience. Motives are real. As real as guns. They are Weapons of Mass Deception. It is sad to say, P.S. has hardened his will into a Weapon of Mass Deception for his own selfish gain. But this confrontation is at our door. Neither Steiner, Sune or anyone here is backing away from coming after him. He declared War on Steiner and he declared War on those who share humanity with him. Like Christine, I do not expect him to turn, review or soften the icy coldness he has tasted of Ahriman.

But, I know one Italian who would like to meet him in the street and exchange...views. But Steiner is shining stronger than I have seen him shine in some time because of the very culprit and the living proof that Steiner asked us to test, meeting us with his inborn soul sickness and his hardened maladaption to Truth or the Living Soul. When asked to find or if Steiner can be proved, well for those who develop Eyes to See with, these Symptomologies are Legion before our very eyes. If anyone had doubts, just stick around.

Bradford

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 10:37 pm
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

[Bradford:]

But, I know one Italian who would like to meet him in the street and exchange...views.

Uhu, I'm only taking a little time to find the right stick. I'm uncertain between beech and oak wood. ....... Caveat Pedro! In campana!

A.

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:33 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

At 01:13 10.03.2004, Sune wrote:

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.

I'll go for that. Peter, I'm writing a whole essay in response to those RS quotes of yours, but my schedule is busy, so I would like to take a break while we're waiting for Godot.

So if you're curious about my essay and would like to see it finished, please answer Sune's questions about your so-called "opening device" in your article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism".

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:45 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

Hi Tarjei, you wrote:

please answer Sune's questions about your so-called "opening device" in your article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism".

I've already answered them, over and over, in several different forums. I do not believe that Steiner "went on a lecture tour around Norway", I believe that he gave a series of lectures in Norway. In these lectures he did indeed discuss root races. Yes, I really do believe that these lectures are racist. No, I did not forge the lectures. Is there something else you would like me to answer? I'd be happy to oblige.

Peter

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:02 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

Hi Peter,

I wrote:

please answer Sune's questions about your so-called "opening device" in your article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism".

You wrote:

I've already answered them, over and over, in several different forums. I do not believe that Steiner "went on a lecture tour around Norway", I believe that he gave a series of lectures in Norway.

Then why did you begin your article with this sentence: "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." - ?

Incidentally, the audience was not large at all. It was not a Billy Graham rally type of "event." It was a small gathering of Norwegian anthroposophists. So weren't you sloppy with the facts here?

In these lectures he did indeed discuss root races. Yes, I really do believe that these lectures are racist.

We know that you allegedly believe the entire anthroposophical outline of evolution is racist.

No, I did not forge the lectures.

I don't know anything about lecture forgery (perhaps someone else can explain), but you did lie about their content when you wrote: "This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the 'Aryan race.''" - didn't you?

Is there something else you would like me to answer?

Yes. In the same article, you write: "The particulars of this racial theory are so bizarre that it is difficult for non-anthroposophists to take it seriously, but it is important to understand the pernicious and lasting effects the doctrine has had on anthroposophists and those they've influenced."

What pernicious effects did you have in mind?

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:30 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

----- Original Message -----

[Peter S] wrote:

please answer Sune's questions about your so-called "opening device" in your article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism".

I've already answered them, over and over, in several different forums.

Several different forums ??? We are not on "several different forums" we're on AT and you have to respond here on AT! Don't be afraid to be repetitive.... On the contrary you will show the biggest lack of respect for your dear listmates

A.

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:09 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

Hi Tarjei, you wrote:

Then why did you begin your article with this sentence: "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." - ?

Because that's what he did. The last time I gave a "speaking tour of Maryland", as the organizers termed it, every one of my talks took place within the city of Baltimore.

Incidentally, the audience was not large at all.

Over 70 people certainly counts as large by my standards, particularly in Scandinavian Theosophical circles in 1910. Ever been to an academic conference? You're lucky if you get twenty people to a session.

So weren't you sloppy with the facts here?

No, I don't think I was. But non-anthroposophist readers have made more or less the same remark about the "speaking tour" part; I simply disagree that this wording suggests a multi-city trip.

I don't know anything about lecture forgery (perhaps someone else can explain), but you did lie about their content when you wrote: "This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the 'Aryan race.''" - didn't you?

No, of course I didn't lie. Lying is when I say something that I don't believe is true. I do believe that Steiner portrays Aryans as superior in The Mission of the Folk Souls. You disagree with me. Neither of us is lying.

Yes. In the same article, you write: "The particulars of this racial theory are so bizarre that it is difficult for non-anthroposophists to take it seriously, but it is important to understand the pernicious and lasting effects the doctrine has had on anthroposophists and those they've influenced."

What pernicious effects did you have in mind?

In that article I mostly had in mind the dismal record of too many anthroposophists and anthroposophically-influenced figures during the Third Reich. But I also think these effects continue to this day, and can occasionally be seen right here on this list. A number of anthroposophists hold truly unfortunate beliefs about race and ethnicity, in my view.

Peter

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:05 pm
Subject: Re: Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

Peter:

But I also think these effects continue to this day, and can occasionally be seen right here on this list. A number of anthroposophists hold truly unfortunate beliefs about race and ethnicity, in my view.

Peter, who would those unfortunate souls on this list be Peter? You are just so full of baloney. Really it is pretty embarrassing to watch how you handle yourself here. I don't know why others keep discoursing with you when you continue to speak from both sides of your mouth. You have been shown to be one of the most corrupt minds in discerning a thing I have come into contact with. Seriously. Well, other than Dan Dugan but then again at least he calls it the way he sees it and nothing much changes. Your argument changes from minute to minute depending in what falsehood you have been caught. But then again you have your own determination as to what constitutes a falsehood as well. Utterly ridiculous.

Dottie

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:18 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

Hello Peter,

I wrote:

Then why did you begin your article with this sentence: "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." - ?

You wrote:

Because that's what he did. The last time I gave a "speaking tour of Maryland", as the organizers termed it, every one of my talks took place within the city of Baltimore.

Tarjei:

It looks like you're trying to redefine "tour" here in order to save face. If I had made a trip to Baltimore to speak, perform a play, to sing with a band, I wouldn't call it a tour of America or a tour of Maryland even if more than one location in the city was scheduled. Have you ever considered publishing your own dictionary?

Tarjei:

Incidentally, the audience was not large at all.

Peter S:

Over 70 people certainly counts as large by my standards, particularly in Scandinavian Theosophical circles in 1910. Ever been to an academic conference? You're lucky if you get twenty people to a session.

Tarjei:

A large audience of 70 people? Why didn't you write *that*? The unsuspecting reader not only visualizes a stadium or a huge auditorium with at least 700-800 people; one is also left with the impression that this was only one stop on a tour of Norway with other large audiences in Kristiansand, Stavanger, Bergen, and Trondheim. That leaves me to choose to believe:

1. that you're deliberately misleading your readers
2. that you're describing something you know very little about, pretending to be knowledgeable about details you had not researched
3. that you're so clumsy with your choice of words that your text is understood in a manner that was never intended by you.

I have little faith in the third option. A combination of the first two seems most plausible.

Tarjei:

So weren't you sloppy with the facts here?

Peter S:

No, I don't think I was. But non-anthroposophist readers have made more or less the same remark about the "speaking tour" part; I simply disagree that this wording suggests a multi-city trip.

Tarjei:

In other words, if a Russian ballet does ten performances in different theaters on Broadway in New York, they're touring America? You should publish your own dictionary and advise every reader of your articles to consult it.

Tarjei:

I don't know anything about lecture forgery (perhaps someone else can explain), but you did lie about their content when you wrote: "This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the 'Aryan race.''" - didn't you?

Peter S:

No, of course I didn't lie. Lying is when I say something that I don't believe is true.

Tarjei:

I'm always trying to give you the benefit of the doubt concerning the sincerity of your alleged beliefs, but I find it difficult.

I do believe that Steiner portrays Aryans as superior in The Mission of the Folk Souls. You disagree with me. Neither of us is lying.

Tarjei:

If you had not been as well informed about what Steiner means by expressions like "race" and "Aryan race" and "root races", I might have bought your claim to belief. But you seem too intelligent and well-read not to know better. That's why I don't believe you. That's why I suspect you of lying.

Tarjei:

Yes. In the same article, you write: "The particulars of this racial theory are so bizarre that it is difficult for non-anthroposophists to take it seriously, but it is important to understand the pernicious and lasting effects the doctrine has had on anthroposophists and those they've influenced."

What pernicious effects did you have in mind?

Peter S:

In that article I mostly had in mind the dismal record of too many anthroposophists and anthroposophically-influenced figures during the Third Reich. But I also think these effects continue to this day, and can occasionally be seen right here on this list. A number of anthroposophists hold truly unfortunate beliefs about race and ethnicity, in my view.

Tarjei:

And these "unfortunate beliefs about race and ethnicity" remind you of the Third Reich? Frankly, I don't believe you - unless you have also redifined the words "figures", "anthroposophically-influenced", and "Third Reich" as well, just like you've done above with the words "tour" and "large audience."

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:35 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

Tarjei writes:

It looks like you're trying to redefine "tour" here in order to save face.

I'm not trying to redefine anything. I disagree with you about what speaking tours involve. This has nothing to do with saving face; if I shared your understanding of what a speaking tour means, I would have changed the formulation in the revised version of the article when I made all the other changes.

If I had made a trip to Baltimore to speak, perform a play, to sing with a band, I wouldn't call it a tour of America or a tour of Maryland even

Why not? It is a tour of Maryland. When I go to Frankfurt I frequently tell friends that I'm going to Germany, even though I don't leave Frankfurt -- and Frankfurt is hardly the Oslo of Germany. I think your reading of my sentence is frivolous.

The unsuspecting reader not only visualizes a stadium or a huge auditorium with at least 700-800 people

I think that's ridiculous.

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:26 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

Tarjei:

The unsuspecting reader not only visualizes a stadium or a huge auditorium with at least 700-800 people

Peter Staudenmaier:

I think that's ridiculous.

Daniel:

Then your facility with language is considerably less than I imagined. Your "ignorabimus" defense may actually be sincere, but it hardly changes the meaning of printed words.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:10 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

Peter, you wrote:

I'm not trying to redefine anything. I disagree with you about what speaking tours involve.

No you don't. You only pretend to disagree about this definition; it's an invention of yours that you came up with after being caught in a lie - it's a pathetic trick you're trying to use so you won't have to admit you were mistaken about Steiner's trip to Christiania not being a tour of Norway. Admit it like a man!

Tarjei:

If I had made a trip to Baltimore to speak, perform a play, to sing with a band, I wouldn't call it a tour of America or a tour of Maryland even

Peter S:

Why not? It is a tour of Maryland.

Tarjei:

Bullshit. I've checked a couple of dictionaries. You're barking against the wind here.

Tarjei:

The unsuspecting reader not only visualizes a stadium or a huge auditorium with at least 700-800 people

Peter S:

I think that's ridiculous.

Tarjei:

I'll tell you what's ridiculous: Your article about Anthroposophy and Eco-Fascism is ridiculous indeed. Your current lies and redefinitions to save face are pathetic and shameful.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:43 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

Tarjei writes:

No you don't. You only pretend to disagree about this definition; it's an invention of yours that you came up with after being caught in a lie - it's a pathetic trick you're trying to use so you won't have to admit you were mistaken about Steiner's trip to Christiania not being a tour of Norway. Admit it like a man!

Sorry, I'm not the manly type. But what you say here makes no sense at all. I corrected all sorts of mistakes and infelicities in the revised version of my article. I didn't "correct" this one because I simply don't agree that it is incorrect. I think your notion that speaking tours must involve inter-city travel within the destination country is wrong, just as I think your notion that a "large" audience suggest stadiums and such is wrong.

Peter

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:31 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

At 19:43 12.03.2004, PS wrote:

Sorry, I'm not the manly type. But what you say here makes no sense at all. I corrected all sorts of mistakes and infelicities in the revised version of my article. I didn't "correct" this one because I simply don't agree that it is incorrect. I think your notion that speaking tours must involve inter-city travel within the destination country is wrong, just as I think your notion that a "large" audience suggest stadiums and such is wrong.

Amazing. Unbelievable! You write a polemic article against Anthroposophy and do everything you can think of to link it to Nazism. The article itself is a big deliberate lie, and the introductory paragraph has a handful of factual errors in it. When confronted with these, you decide to redefine every word that nails you, invent meanings of your own and say that you simply disagree about what these words mean!

It's one hell of a pretense to say that you honestly wish to discuss racism and Anthroposophy. For what purpose? To learn more, to understand more? Obviously not. Your approach is reminiscent of some "Young Earth Creationists" who want to learn more about biology and evolution and Charles Darwin. They have a pet theory about the universe popping into existence a little more than 6000 years ago during 7 X 24 hours, and they are not interesting in adapting their viewpoints in accordance with new discoveries and new facts. Your own position is exactly like that of a Young Earht'er, which make it impossible to have a dialogue with you. And when you complain about your difficulties in talking to anthroposophists, it's like hearing a Young Earth fundy complaining about the difficulties in talking with Darwinists.

I once accepted an invitation to visit a Jehovah's Witnesses' temple. They talked a lot about Darwin. It's like hearing the WC people talking about Steiner. The only reason they don't see through your jive is that you seem to be doing a good job talking horseshit, chickenshit and bullshit about Steiner in a manner that is perceived as "scholarly". That's why they applaud you, selling out their own intellectual honesty in the process.

Discussions with you are fruitless and useless, but that is not the fault of any anthroposophists.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:02 pm
Subject: Hitler's reading technique (was: Questions for you, Peter...)

I wrote:

I once accepted an invitation to visit a Jehovah's Witnesses' temple. They talked a lot about Darwin.

The parallel here seems to be more than I bargained for. Come to think of it, there are plenty of Christian fundies who blame Hitler and the Holocaust on Charles Darwin. And Darwinists strike back by blaming the Holocaust on Christianity!

On August 3, 2002, I wrote a comment in a thread that ran through these newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible, alt.religion.christian.presbyterian, and alt.christnet.calvinist.

The thread was entitled "Hitler's Christianity" and counted 275 posts. (What is said here about Hitler's reading technique is eerily reminiscent of Peter S' reading technique.)

[link to original]

John E. Stevenson wrote:

You forgot to mention that Hitler got his idea to get rid of all the Jews from the teachings of Martin Luther. The Luthern Church doesn't want people to know that the founder of their church was a mad man in his last days because the Jews wouldn't convert to his new religion......

Michael Burton wrote:

Hitler's racist religious theology came however, not from Christianity, but from the racists religious teachings of racist Charles Darwin in his book, The Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, adapted by such luciferian teachings as Mme. Blatvosky's Root Race Theory, the forerunner of Hitler's Master Race Theory. These are as anti-Christian as religious beliefs in the occult teachings of evolution, temple prostitutes sacrificing at the altar of sexual immorality, or the idol of self esteem.

Within Christianity, all of the descendants of Israel (which includes, but is not limited to the Jews) are to be servants bringing forth blessings unto all families of the earth, something occultist and probably luciferian Hitler did not favour, and could not tolerate.

Tarjei wrote:

This is completely off the mark. Atheists blame Nazism on Christianity, creation scientists blame it on Charles Darwin and on Nietzsche, and so on and so on. This is bullshit.

It's totally ridiculous and ignorant to make Hitler and the Holocaust into an ethical-ideological football.. What has to be understood in this context is that Adolf Hitler developed a very special reading technique when he was in prison - a method of study which in his case proved remarkably effective. He ensured his readers in "Mein Kampf" that it was his habit to resort to books if he wanted to solve a problem. He insisted that his method of reading, better than any other, consisted of "remembering the essential and forgetting the unessential completely". In practice, this meant defining what is essential, which in the case of Adolf Hitler did not entail logical analysis, but an intuitive and emotional process of comprehension, which he skillfully united with whatever appealed to his own prejudices.

From Schopenhauer he took fatalism and the idea of the will, but he forgot the Buddhism and the pessimism. From Nietzsche he took the concept of evolution, the will to power, and the Übermensch, but he forgot that this Übermensch should not conquer his fellow man, but himself. He took from Wagner the racism, heroism, and paganism, but he forgot the Arianized Christianity. Further, he took from Helena Blavatsky (the pioneer of spiritual evolution) and other occultists what he wanted and conveniently forgot everything that did not harmonize with his own world view.

With this in mind, it should be self-evident what a hopeless waste of time and energy it is to blame Nazism on all kinds of pre-Nazi sources of knowledge, ideology, philosophy, and religion.

Tarjei

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

[follow-up at "On War"]

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 3:54 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

Tarjei writes:

You write a polemic article against Anthroposophy and do everything you can think of to link it to Nazism.

That's silly. There's lots of occultist crap out there that links anthroposophy to Nazism (the kind of authors you gravitate toward, with the opposite spin in this case), and I don't touch any of it in my article. I don't even make much out of historian Anna Bramwell's work, a treasure trove of damning material on anthroposophists and Nazis; instead I draw judicously on her work and clearly state my own skepticism toward her approach.

The article itself is a big deliberate lie

This is a tiresome way of avoiding debate. Since I believe what I wrote in the article, it is obviously not a lie.

When confronted with these, you decide to redefine every word that nails you, invent meanings of your own and say that you simply disagree about what these words mean!

I do indeed disagree with you about what words like "large" mean. I think your expressed position on that question is absurd. Anybody who envisions a stadium full of people at a theosophical gathering in Oslo in 1910 is off their rocker.

It's one hell of a pretense to say that you honestly wish to discuss racism and Anthroposophy.

It isn't pretense. That's what I came here to do. For some reason many of you would prefer to discuss virtually anything else but that topic, from medicine to manliness.

Your own position is exactly like that of a Young Earht'er, which make it impossible to have a dialogue with you.

I disagree that pet theories and false beliefs make dialogue impossible. A number of active listmates here hold pet theories and beliefs that I consider false. This does not prevent me from engaging those theories and beliefs and explaining why I think they are mistaken, without whining that the people who hold them are lying and so forth.

Peter

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

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 4:51 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

At 00:54 13.03.2004, PS wrote:

This is a tiresome way of avoiding debate.

On the contrary. Your idea of debate is extremely tiresome and tedious - especially because it's based upon endless mindgames and semantic drivel without a trace of sincere and honest exchange of views from your side. If you check the body of messages after your arrival here, you can't accuse this list of avoiding debates with you. I'm admirably surprised at the patience some of these people have shown.

Since I believe what I wrote in the article, it is obviously not a lie.

What you believe or don't believe is never obvious. Much of what you claim to believe is contradicted by your knowledge and intelligence. That's why I don't believe you.

I do indeed disagree with you about what words like "large" mean. I think your expressed position on that question is absurd. Anybody who envisions a stadium full of people at a theosophical gathering in Oslo in 1910 is off their rocker.

You did not call it a "theosophical gathering", but "a speaking tour of Norway", lecturing to "a large and attentive audience", almost ringing the bells of Hitler's Nurenberg rallies. Regardless of how many acrobatics you try, you cannot get out of this one.

It isn't pretense. That's what I came here to do. For some reason many of you would prefer to discuss virtually anything else but that topic, from medicine to manliness.

The members of this list have participated in your preferred discussions about your singular interest with a great deal of patience. "For some reason" we share a wide and colorful range of topical interests here.

I disagree that pet theories and false beliefs make dialogue impossible. A number of active listmates here hold pet theories and beliefs that I consider false. This does not prevent me from engaging those theories and beliefs and explaining why I think they are mistaken, without whining that the people who hold them are lying and so forth.

Your bluff has been exposed, and there's no reason for anyone to whine about that except yourself.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

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

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:00 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

Tarjei:

I once accepted an invitation to visit a Jehovah's Witnesses' temple. They talked a lot about Darwin. It's like hearing the WC people talking about Steiner. The only reason they don't see through your jive is that you seem to be doing a good job talking horseshit, chickenshit and bullshit about Steiner in a manner that is perceived as "scholarly". That's why they applaud you, selling out their own intellectual honesty in the process.

"horseshit, chickenshit and bullshit": Thinking, feeling and willing? But which is which?

Discussions with you are fruitless and useless, but that is not the fault of any anthroposophists.

Oh dear, how ungentlemanly of you, Tarjei. Didn't they teach you manners in the WC homo sapiens-shit temple?

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

From: at
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:13 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

Peter Staudenmaier:

In that article [Anthroposophy and Ecofacism] I mostly had in mind the dismal record of too many anthroposophists and anthroposophically-influenced figures during the Third Reich. But I also think these effects continue to this day, and can occasionally be seen right here on this list. A number of anthroposophists hold truly unfortunate beliefs about race and ethnicity, in my view.

Daniel:

Peter, I thought you declaimed proudly that you never, no, never ever, work by implication. But what is this paragraph? What dismal record do "too many anthroposophists and anthroposophically-influenced figures" have during the Third Reich? What is the reader to make of such a paragraph except that the majority of Anthroposophists did truly horrible things, marching to Hitler's orders. Yet you know this is nonsense, and have said so yourself. You do not provided any details here. Every time I have asked you for details, they melt away. You mumble things about Rittelmayer's anti-Semitism, but cannot produce a single example. Sorry, Mr. Implication, but you are truly pathetic as a scholar, and a weasel and a hypocrite as a debater. I've watched you shift positions a dozen different ways to always come off knowing more than your interlocutors, and you don't even realize how often you contradict yourself. It's a sorry thing to see.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 1:48 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

Daniel wrote:

But what is this paragraph?

Peter Staudenmaier:

It's explication, not implication. I don't imply anything at all in the paragraph above. Instead I say what I mean. What did you think I was implying, if I may ask?

New Oxford Dictionary:

explication: explicate analyse and develop (an idea or principle) in detail

Daniel:

Note the "in detail". Peter, your paragraph (reproduced below) is lacking all detail. It is only four lines long, and lacks any example to back up your claims.

This is a typical Staudenmaier move. Pick the lable you would like to apply (the one that proves you right) and use it, whether or not it really does apply to the case at hand. Here it most certainly does not. If you were asked on a test to provide an example of an explicative paragraph and wrote the paragraph below, you would fail, quite simple. But for rhetorical purposes, to score an easy point, the label "explication" is used to show up objection, and demonstrate the ignorance of the accuser. Sorry, won't work. The response only shows the duplicity of the responder.

This also shows the typical Staudenmaier problem with the meaning of words, yet another example of how Peter Staudenmaier has his own personal dictionary.

Peter, I was asking for explication of the overbroad claims thrown carelessly about in the paragraph below.

Daniel Hindes

questions and answers

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

From: at
Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:05 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

Daniel wrote:

What dismal record do "too many anthroposophists and anthroposophically-influenced figures" have during the Third Reich?

Peter Staudenmaier:

Erhard Bartsch had a dismal record during the Third Reich. Margarete and Eugen Link had dismal records during the Third Reich. Franz Lippert had a dismal record during the Third Reich. Johannes Bertram had a dismal record during the Third Reich. Alwin Seifert had a dismal record during the Third Reich. Els Moll had a dismal record during the Third Reich. Hanns Rascher had a dismal record during the Third Reich. Otto Ohlendorf had a dismal record during the Third Reich. Guenther Wachsmuth's record wasn't so hot either. Nor Elisabeth Klein's. Nor Helga Scheel-Geelmuyden's. Nor Rene Maikowski's. Nor Richard Karutz's. You are welcome to disagree with any or all of those assessments. But I don't see what it has to do with implication.

Daniel:

Why are you throwing Otto Ohlendorf back in the mix. I thought you told us he was not an anthroposophist. (See what I mean about consistency?)

So here we have 14 names of "too many anthroposophists and anthroposophically-influenced figures". Without any explication. Simply roll call. How does Peter Staudenmaier know of the deeds of these 14? In most cases because Anthroposphists have kindly done the work of uncovering their deeds and publishing them in a frank assessment of Anthroposophy in the time of National Socialism. Of course, it is not frank as far as Peter Staudenmaier is concerned (even if he relies on it to make his claims). 14 names, some of whom are not even anthroposophists by Mr. Staudenmaier's own account.

Now Mr. Implication says that he is simply explicating when he writes that "too many anthroposophists and anthroposophically-influenced figures" have a dismal record. And from a legalistic perspective, even 14 is "too many". But it is not a balanced historical overview. There were some 20,000 card-carrying anthroposophists at that time, and if only 14 of them have a dismal record, then on the balance this paints a completely different picture. And if you go as far as Mr. Implication and include non-card-carrying "anthroposophically-influenced" figures, then we are 14 for three or four hundred thousand.

So, Peter, for the benefit of the non-German speakers, would you care to detail briefly the record of these dismal 14. After all, you have claimed that enlightening the non-specialist audience is your heart's true concern.

Daniel wrote:

What is the reader to make of such a paragraph except that the majority of Anthroposophists did truly horrible things, marching to Hitler's orders.

Peter Staudenmaier:

Some of the people I just named did indeed march to Hitler's order's, and a couple of them did truly horrible things. But most of them simply were happy to join the Nazi party, or to collaborate with the SS, or announce their sympathy for the Nazi regime, or emphatically distance themselves and anthroposophy from any connections to Jews and declare themselves and anthroposophy perfectly compatible with the Volksgemeinschaft.

Daniel:

Mr. Implication is at it again. Most of whom? Most of these 14? Most of these 14 were not card-carrying members of the Nazi party. Most anthroposophists? Also not card-carrying Nazis. And certainly not happily card-carrying Nazi's. Ohlendorf, whom you threw in here for reasons unclear to me, is certainly the worst of them all by a wide margin. Mixing him up with Wachsmuth's ill-advised attempt to ingratiate anthroposophy to national socialism serves no useful purpose beyond confusing the non-specialist reader. In invite Mr. Staudenmaier to offer a clear explication of the deeds of these 14 and why he feels each one has a dismal record. Taking him at his word, that is.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:27 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

Peter Staudenmaier once wrote:

In that article [Anthroposophy and Ecofacism] I mostly had in mind the dismal record of too many anthroposophists and anthroposophically-influenced figures during the Third Reich. But I also think these effects continue to this day, and can occasionally be seen right here on this list. A number of anthroposophists hold truly unfortunate beliefs about race and ethnicity, in my view.

Daniel later wrote:

Peter, I was asking for explication of the overbroad claims thrown carelessly about in the paragraph below.

Peter Staudenmaier:

Yes, I can see that this is what you were asking for. The reason you asked for this is that you misconstrued the paragraph in the first place. It says absolutely nothing about "the majority of anthroposophists" or about anybody "marching to Hitler's orders". Those notions are figments of your imagination; they do not appear in the paragraph at all. It is neither careless nor overbroad to say that too many anthroposophists and anthroposophically influenced figures had dismal records during the Third Reich. If you would like to disagree with that assessment, as applied to any of the figures I named, feel free to do so.

Daniel:

Well, Mr. Implication, I have previously acknowledged that your paragraph, as written, indeed does not make any claims that you could be held to. However, it is very carefully worded to have the maximum impact with the minimum contavertability. Excellent propaganda, Peter, very well written. Pardon me for shining such a bright light on it. It very successfully conveys the impression that there is something seriously wrong with many, if not all anthroposophists - past and present - in relation to the issue of race. Yet, as you point out, this is accomplished in such a way that no one can object on factual grounds to any part of it. Very well done.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:34 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list

Daniel wrote:

Why are you throwing Otto Ohlendorf back in the mix. I thought you told us he was not an anthroposophist.

Peter Staudenmaier:

Indeed. He was an anthroposophically influenced figure.

Daniel:

And by that definition, so were about half a million other Europeans during that time period. I find it interesting that when we discuss history in detail, you always make the proper and accurate differentiations. But when you go into overt propaganda mode, you freely lump figures like Ohlendorf with anthroposophists for rhetorical effect. Very effective polemic, I must say.

Daniel Hindes

Re: Questions for you, Peter and suggestion to the list 2

Sune Nordwall's original post re Peter

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


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

March/April 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind