Re: To Peter 1

Re: To Peter 2

From: Patrick
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 5:05 pm
Subject: To Peter

Yes, please respond truthfully to Sune's post.

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 9:56 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Hi Patrick, you wrote:

Yes, please respond truthfully to Sune's post.

I'm not sure what there is to respond to. Anyone with a map can determine for themselves whether Oslo is in Norway. Anyone with a copy of The Mission of the Folk Souls can determine for themselves whether they think Steiner's musings on racial character are racist. They can also very easily determine for themselves whether Steiner "mentions" root races in this book (and for those of you who don't have a copy at hand, here's a hint: the title of chapter 6 is "The Five Root Races of Mankind"). And so forth. What else would you like me to respond to?

Peter

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 11:00 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Peter:

What else would you like me to respond to?

Peter, why don't you try responding to Sune for starters? But then again we know you do not fair well in conversations with him. The best you can do is make fun of how serious he takes the manipulated disinformation you are spreading around about Dr. Steiner and that tends to work against you for the most part.

It's still shocking to see you really just stay above water in these posts. You really have nothing but a repeat over and over again of the few pages you say show him to be racist in your opinion.

I am so glad you and Diana are in the minority of world views. It'd be pretty sad to meet others so stuck in their ways as you two. The idea that one can not even say a good thing about a particular culture or a negative thing bespeaks a lack of common sense. It'd be interesting hearing a debate on this with educated common folk with no apparent religious affiliations. They'd probably be surprised to see such closed minded educated people, as I have experienced the two of you, in this conversation. It's pretty shocking to see such backward thinking as I have seen here in response to Tarjei and others. Seriously you two take the cake.

Dottie

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:45 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

P:

Hi Patrick, you wrote:

Yes, please respond truthfully to Sune's post.

P:

I'm not sure what there is to respond to.

M:

"I'm not sure," Now I have to admit that there is some "truth" to that answer. But for someone who makes bold claims like "Anthroposophy is Racist to the core," I think it is quite lame. Denial is a comfortable and convenient thing ain't it?

P:

Anyone with a map can determine for themselves whether Oslo is in Norway. Anyone with a copy of The Mission of the Folk Souls can determine for themselves whether they think Steiner's musings on racial character are racist.

M:

Thank you. I have read everything that you have posted for the last two years, and I have come to understand for myself that "Steiner's Musings on racial character" are just that - "musings on racial character." And that in consideration of all that he was trying to do with his life and learning; his investigation into the realm of his own imagination, and the relevant relationship that it can have to leading a meaningful and compassionate life (that has been an inspiration for me, to see and *try* to treat all my fellow human beings as brothers and sisters) I have come to know for myself that "Steiner's musings on racial character" are a very small slice of the bigger picture. And that people being fallible, will fuck-up on occasion, and interpret his ideas to mean what they want. But that is not necessarily what RS wanted. Everything that I can discern thus far points to the fact that he wanted a more compassionate world, and that he believed in a Spiritual renewal for the whole of humanity.

And please excuse my personal bias, myself having had a personal "spititual awakening" of sorts.

So thanks again for helping me to sort out my confusion.

P:

They can also very easily determine for themselves whether Steiner "mentions" root races in this book (and for those of you who don't have a copy at hand, here's a hint: the title of chapter 6 is "The Five Root Races of Mankind"). And so forth. What else would you like me to respond to?

M:

Thanks for the "emotionally potent over-simplifications" again. Notice the emphasis of the words "The Five Root Races of mankind" in this "Hint" of yours. Words Like "Racist" and associations like Stiener/Hitler, Steiner/ The third Reich, Steiner/the Holocaust, Steiner/Racist, really do have a way of creating a mind set for those who might not have all the info, or the time to research it.

But that really doesn't matter does it. Were not talking about people, were talking about ideas. And If I understand you correctly, Ideas, and the people that have them are two different things.

Anyway, I might have a bit of good news for you. I was in a gift shop recently and somehow got into a conversation about Waldorf with the cashier. A person in line behind me heard and said:

"Hey, Isn't the guy who started those schools a nazi?"

So keep up the semantically focused propaganda spin, along with a healthy dose of non-compassionate intellectualism - you should do fine.

Good luck

Mike

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:35 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Hi Mike, you wrote:

Thank you. I have read everything that you have posted for the last two years, and I have come to understand for myself that "Steiner's Musings on racial character" are just that - "musings on racial character."

Yes, that is my conclusion as well. I think the question that divides us is: are some of these musings racist?

I have come to know for myself that "Steiner's musings on racial character" are a very small slice of the bigger picture.

I disagree with the "very small" part.

Everything that I can discern thus far points to the fact that he wanted a more compassionate world, and that he believed in a Spiritual renewal for the whole of humanity.

Yes, of course. Lots of racists wanted a more compassionate world, Mike, and very many of them believed in a spiritual renewal for the whole of humanity. In a number of cases that's exactly why they became racists.

Notice the emphasis of the words "The Five Root Races of mankind" in this "Hint" of yours.

Maybe you didn't read Sune's post. He says that Steiner does not mention root races in The Mission of the Folk Souls. He's mistaken, obviously. No wonder he thinks I forged the book.

Words Like "Racist" and associations like Stiener/Hitler, Steiner/ The third Reich, Steiner/the Holocaust, Steiner/Racist, really do have a way of creating a mind set for those who might not have all the info, or the time to research it.

Are you trying to say that you think it would be better not to talk about whether particular racial theories are racist, because somebody might get the wrong idea?

And If I understand you correctly, Ideas, and the people that have them are two different things.

Indeed they are. I think you'll have a much easier time talking about ideas once you recognize this.

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

I'm curious about the nordic-germanic sub-race. I'm afraid I haven't been able to locate it anywhere in the book. Can you perhaps point me to a page number (in English or German)?

Daniel Hindes

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Hi Patrick, you wrote:

Yes, please respond truthfully to Sune's post.

I'm not sure what there is to respond to. Anyone with a map can determine for themselves whether Oslo is in Norway. Anyone with a copy of The Mission of the Folk Souls can determine for themselves whether they think Steiner's musings on racial character are racist. They can also very easily determine for themselves whether Steiner "mentions" root races in this book (and for those of you who don't have a copy at hand, here's a hint: the title of chapter 6 is "The Five Root Races of Mankind"). And so forth. What else would you like me to respond to?

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:38 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Mike:

I have come to know for myself that "Steiner's musings on racial character" are a very small slice of the bigger picture.

Peter Staudenmaier:

I disagree with the "very small" part.

Daniel:

Of course you would. But I must point out, you haven't bothered to read the rest of Steiner, so how could you possibly know what part it plays in the whole?

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:49 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

I must say, I am curious about the whole concept of superiority. I don't find the word used at all in the book (GA 121). Steiner hardly used the word at all; just 30 times in 300 volumes. Perhaps you could point me to the passages that you feel capture the idea that the Aryans are superior to other races.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Hi Patrick, you wrote:

Yes, please respond truthfully to Sune's post.

I'm not sure what there is to respond to. Anyone with a map can determine for themselves whether Oslo is in Norway. Anyone with a copy of The Mission of the Folk Souls can determine for themselves whether they think Steiner's musings on racial character are racist. They can also very easily determine for themselves whether Steiner "mentions" root races in this book (and for those of you who don't have a copy at hand, here's a hint: the title of chapter 6 is "The Five Root Races of Mankind"). And so forth. What else would you like me to respond to?

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:07 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Hi Patrick, you wrote:

Yes, please respond truthfully to Sune's post.

Peter Staudenmaier:

I'm not sure what there is to respond to. Anyone with a map can determine for themselves whether Oslo is in Norway. Anyone with a copy of The Mission of the Folk Souls can determine for themselves whether they think Steiner's musings on racial character are racist. They can also very easily determine for themselves whether Steiner "mentions" root races in this book (and for those of you who don't have a copy at hand, here's a hint: the title of chapter 6 is "The Five Root Races of Mankind"). And so forth. What else would you like me to respond to?

Daniel:

Actually, the title of Chapter 6 is "The Five MAIN Races of Mankind." Root races are not mentioned anywhere at all in the book. Nor is the word "Aryan". The more I look into this, the more problems I am finding. You wrote:

Peter Staudenmaier in the first paragraph of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

"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 "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."

Problems:
Despite being in quotes, the phrase "Aryan race" is nowhere in the book.
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "root races" is nowhere in the book.
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "germanic-nordic sub-race" is nowhere in the book.
(Starting to see a pattern?)
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "Nordic spirit" is nowhere in the book.
The word "Aryan" is nowhere in the book.

Peter, just what book were you reading when you wrote this, because it is not the book you have cited. In fact, I don't think it is even Steiner.

"In Oslo and throughout his Norwegian tour..."

Steiner never spoke outside of Oslo on that "tour", and gave only two lectures beyond the 11 printed in GA 121.

Peter, is this your idea of the "historical polemic" that a half dozen respected authors you refer me to purportedly support?

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:17 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

I'm curious about the nordic-germanic sub-race. I'm afraid I haven't been able to locate it anywhere in the book. Can you perhaps point me to a page number (in English or German)?

He doesn't use the sub-race terminology in the book. That's why I took the term out of the revised version of the article. I pointed this out to Sune last year. You can find the revised version of the article at the openwaldorf site.

But I must point out, you haven't bothered to read the rest of Steiner, so how could you possibly know what part it plays in the whole?

It isn't true that I haven't bothered to read the rest of Steiner (unless you mean the whole rest of Steiner, every last volume in the Gesamtausgabe).

[From "Steiner and the Jews" Mar 10:]

You know, it would be a really interesting exercise to take each of these passages, and then go back two pages and forward two pages, and see how they fit in the train of thought that Steiner was pursuing. Kind of, putting them into perspective. Would that change the meaning of any of them? If it did, is this selective quotation?

I think you mean the bad kind of selectivity. In my view, that very much depends on the text in question. I chose each of those examples because I think they are representative of his train of thought. I encourage you to offer counter-readings if you think any of my choices are misleadingly selective.

[From above:]

I must say, I am curious about the whole concept of superiority. I don't find the word used at all in the book (GA 121). Steiner hardly used the word at all; just 30 times in 300 volumes. Perhaps you could point me to the passages that you feel capture the idea that the Aryans are superior to other races.

Most of chapters four and six. See pp. 74-81 in the English edition, for example, or pp. 102-110.

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:46 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Hi again Daniel, you wrote:

Actually, the title of Chapter 6 is "The Five MAIN Races of Mankind." Root races are not mentioned anywhere at all in the book. Nor is the word "Aryan".

I think you need new reading glasses. The title of chapter 6 is in fact "The Five Root Races of Mankind". The book was published in 1970 by the Rudolf Steiner Press, translated by A.H. Parker. Would you like me to send you a photocopy?

Despite being in quotes, the phrase "Aryan race" is nowhere in the book.

That's true. (It is not true, however, that the word "Aryan" is not mentioned in the book, as you claim above.) Is there some reason you're ignoring the revised version of my article?

Despite being in quotes, the pharse "root races" is nowhere in the book.

That's not true. Could you tell us what edition of the book you're looking at?

Despite being in quotes, the pharse "germanic-nordic sub-race" is nowhere in the book.

That's true. Wouldn't it make sense to take a peek at the revised version of the article?

The word "Aryan" is nowhere in the book.

That isn't true. Take a closer look at p. 106 (that's p. 114 if all you have is the German).

Peter, just what book were you reading when you wrote this, because it is not the book you have cited. In fact, I don't think it is even Steiner.

The title is The Mission of the Individual Folk Souls in Relation to Teutonic Mythology. You think maybe A.H. Parker forged it?

Steiner never spoke outside of Oslo on that "tour", and gave only two lectures beyond the 11 printed in GA 121.

Agreed.

Peter, is this your idea of the "historical polemic" that a half dozen respected authors you refer me to purportedly support?

No, it's my idea of simple reading. What book are you looking at, Daniel?

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:18 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Hi again Daniel, you wrote:

Actually, the title of Chapter 6 is "The Five MAIN Races of Mankind." Root races are not mentioned anywhere at all in the book. Nor is the word "Aryan".

Peter Staudenmaier:

I think you need new reading glasses. The title of chapter 6 is in fact "The Five Root Races of Mankind". The book was published in 1970 by the Rudolf Steiner Press, translated by A.H. Parker. Would you like me to send you a photocopy?

Daniel:

Sorry that I wasn't clear. I have the German in front of me (primary sources). The title of Chapter 6 is "Die fünf Hauptrassen der Menschheit" If it stands as the "Root Races" in the English version, then it has been mistranslated. For some reason I thought you used the original in your essay. Sorry.

Daniel wrote:

Despite being in quotes, the phrase "Aryan race" is nowhere in the book.

Peter Staudenmaier:

That's true. (It is not true, however, that the word "Aryan" is not mentioned in the book, as you claim above.) Is there some reason you're ignoring the revised version of my article?

Daniel:

The word "Aryan" (and I looked for Arier and arische) is nowhere in the German. I'll have to look at this translation.

I am ignoring the revised version of your article only by accident. I did a google search for "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" and took the first search result. If you are concerned with the accuracy of your writing, you might consider insisting that the owner of "waldorfcritics.org" update it.

Daniel wrote:

Despite being in quotes, the pharse "root races" is nowhere in the book.

Peter Staudenmaier:

That's not true. Could you tell us what edition of the book you're looking at?

Daniel:

The 1962 Gesamptasugabe version.

Daniel wrote:

Despite being in quotes, the pharse "germanic-nordic sub-race" is nowhere in the book.

Peter Staudenmaier:

That's true. Wouldn't it make sense to take a peek at the revised version of the article?

Daniel:

If I can find it. Would it make sense to update it on the sites that google findes among the top ten search results? If I were concerned about my good name being damaged by inaccurate versions of my writings, I would go at least that far.

Daniel wrote:

The word "Aryan" is nowhere in the book.

Peter Staudenmaier:

That isn't true. Take a closer look at p. 106 (that's p. 114 if all you have is the German).

Daniel:

I'm not finding it on page 114 (1962 edition). Could you give me the sentence?

Daniel wrote:

Peter, just what book were you reading when you wrote this, because it is not the book you have cited. In fact, I don't think it is even Steiner.

Peter Staudenmaier:

The title is The Mission of the Individual Folk Souls in Relation to Teutonic Mythology. You think maybe A.H. Parker forged it?

Daniel:

I am starting to wonder about the translation. Parker appears to have taken some liberty with the exact terminology.

Daniel wrote:

Steiner never spoke outside of Oslo on that "tour", and gave only two lectures beyond the 11 printed in GA 121.

Peter Staudenmaier:

Agreed.

Daniel:

I take it that sentence has been corrected in the revised version?

Daniel wrote:

Peter, is this your idea of the "historical polemic" that a half dozen respected authors you refer me to purportedly support?

Peter Staudenmaier:

No, it's my idea of simple reading. What book are you looking at, Daniel?

Daniel:

The one that contains:

"It will be seen from the last lecture that if we wish to make an impartial study of the facts underlying our present investigation we must transcend those prejudices which might easily arise on matters which I must now describe objectively. So long as one has the slightest tendency to take personally an objective description of a particular race or people, it will be difficult to reach a unprejudiced understanding of the facts presented in this lecture-course. For this reason these matters can only be discussed in the light of a systematic knowledge of the spirit. For however deeply one may be involved emotionally in a particular people or race, as Anthroposophists we have an adequate counterpoise in the teaching of karma and reincarnation, when rightly understood. This teaching opens a vista into the future and reveals that our integral Self is incarnated in successive ages in different races and peoples. When we contemplate the destiny of our integral Self we may be sure that we shall share not only the positive or perhaps also the negative aspects of all races and peoples; but we may be sure that in our inmost being we shall also receive the countless blessings of all races and all peoples since we are incarnated in different races at different times.
Our consciousness, our horizon, is enlarged through these ideas of karma and reincarnation. Only through these teachings therefore do we learn to accept what is revealed to us at the present time concerning the mysterious relations of race and nation. If we rightly understand the theme of these lectures we shall harbor no regrets at having incarnated in a particular people or race. But an objective survey of national and racial characteristics may, nonetheless, provoke dissension and disharmony unless it is accepted in the spirit I have already suggested. The aspirant for spiritual knowledge will learn through the teachings of karma and reincarnation how every nation, even the smallest nation, has to contribute its share towards the total evolution of humanity. In the second part of this lecture-course I propose to show - and herein lies its real importance - how the particular influences of the missions of the several peoples are merged in the whole of humanity and how even isolated ethic groups which are scattered here and there amongst larger national groups have their part to play in the great harmony of human evolution."


Rudolf Steiner, The Mission of the Individual Folk Souls in relation to Teutonic Mythology, London 1970, pages 82-83.

I would like to emphasize in particular the sentence:

"The aspirant for spiritual knowledge will learn through the teachings of karma and reincarnation how every nation, even the smallest nation, has to contribute its share towards the total evolution of humanity."

This seems to paint a rather different picture than the one you do.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:39 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

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

Hi Patrick, you wrote:

Yes, please respond truthfully to Sune's post.

I'm not sure what there is to respond to. Anyone with a map can determine for themselves whether Oslo is in Norway. Anyone with a copy of The Mission of the Folk Souls can determine for themselves whether they think Steiner's musings on racial character are racist. They can also very easily determine for themselves whether Steiner "mentions" root races in this book (and for those of you who don't have a copy at hand, here's a hint: the title of chapter 6 is "The Five Root Races of Mankind"). And so forth. What else would you like me to respond to?

.......Sure Pedro and anybody is able to see how you' re running away, just in the way you use to do when your lies are discovered.

A.

Peter

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:57 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Hi Peter, I wrote:

Thank you. I have read everything that you have posted for the last two years, and I have come to understand for myself that "Steiner's Musings on racial character" are just that - "musings on racial character."

P:

Yes, that is my conclusion as well. I think the question that divides us is: are some of these musings racist?

M:

The Musings themselves, separate from the personality that spoke or wrote them, might be racist, depending on the person that is musing over them today, and their personal paradigm.

M:

Everything that I can discern thus far points to the fact that he wanted a more compassionate world, and that he believed in a Spiritual renewal for the whole of humanity.

P:

Yes, of course. Lots of racists wanted a more compassionate world, Mike, and very many of them believed in a spiritual renewal for the whole of humanity. In a number of cases that's exactly why they became racists.

M:

Don't fuckin preach at me please. Your sentence implies that Steiner is a racist. You just don't quit do you? I don't think that you have a clue as to what "Spiritual renewal" is. Maybe you should try shooting some dope for ten or so years. If you survive, you might then really know what it means to live a life that is a living hell. The only options that I have seen that have helped hopelessly addicted people stay clean and live a life that is worth living, aside from jails, institutions (heavy meds), or death, are "spiritual" in their nature. "Spiritual" as developing a healthy relationship with one's own thinking, feeling and willing. Can you imagine getting fucked up the ass on a daily basis, so that you could buy your crack? Or being a prostitute with three kids who all got shot and killed (One with a bullet wound to the head, that died in his mothers arms) in drive-by's? These are people that I know, who's story makes my own look like a walk in the park, who are now living reasonably happy and productive lives, and are no longer a liability, or an outright danger to society. They are giving of themselves, time and energy in order to help those who are less fortunate. Why? because they found a spiritual solution, like I did.

M:

Words Like "Racist" and associations like Stiener/Hitler, Steiner/ The third Reich, Steiner/the Holocaust, Steiner/Racist, really do have a way of creating a mind set for those who might not have all the info, or the time to research it.

P:

Are you trying to say that you think it would be better not to talk about whether particular racial theories are racist, because somebody might get the wrong idea?

M:

Wow! you are the king of the red-herring tactic. I was talking about the mechanical associations that you constantly make like the bunny in the ever-ready commercial. If you bothered to show even a little respect for the fact that this guy inspired many people, and might have even had some decent ideas, and were forthright about this in your conversations (and I'm not talking about paying lip-service) I might not see your writings on RS as complete and utter smear, upon a movement that threatens you for some yet unknown reason.

M:

And If I understand you correctly, Ideas, and the people that have them are two different things.

P:

Indeed they are. I think you'll have a much easier time talking about ideas once you recognize this.

M:

Would you mind coming down off the fucking pedestal please. That's a religious notion if I ever saw one, which is quite an irony coming form a devout non-religious guy like yourself. Do you have proof (no theories) to back up that statement?

Mike

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:00 pm
Subject: Re: To Peter

P:

Yes, of course. Lots of racists wanted a more compassionate world, Mike, and very many of them believed in a spiritual renewal for the whole of humanity. In a number of cases that's exactly why they became racists.

God you are so full of shit. Do you actually believe this junk you write? Do other people really believe what you write? Seriously Peter, you are so admiring of your self and your beliefs I have to say I rightly called it the Cult of Peter on the critics a few years back. And I would bet my bottom dollar on your cult of the critics having more in common with the definition of a cult than that which you throw at Dr. Steiner. Which leads me to wonder if Dugans cult busting fundie Christians know to what extent the two of you swing beings they are supporting PLANS with money. I never could get why they would jump in bed with you and Dugan knowing you two are atheist and humanist respectively.

I am starting to see what Diana and Dan see in you. It must be they see this kindred spirit, pardon the use of that word, that mindxxxx themselves. It's just constant intellectual bullshit with no meaning. No wonder you go after Dr. Steiner, he makes to much sense for your mind to comprehend on anything that has to do with self reflection. Say what? self reflection, maybe someone could give the dictionary definition for that one as your common sense doesn't really kick into gear when it comes to every day usage of a word. We should have a PETER STAUDENMAIER DICTIONARY that would clear it up don't you think Peter. That way we could have one version that would be Peters definitions and another dictionary that bespeaks the original versions of a word before they meet the lefties and righties of the world. In fact I think it would be a great idea for you to make a disclaimer in your articles that states all words are defined by said author and have no basis on regular every day usage. And then a disclaimer that states all interpretations of this author are his own and may or may not have anything to do with the said subject.

Whew,
Dottie

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:26 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: To Peter Phase Three in Action

P:

Yes, of course. Lots of racists wanted a more compassionate world, Mike, and very many of them believed in a spiritual renewal for the whole of humanity. In a number of cases that's exactly why they became racists.

God I almost missed this: phase three of the Staudenmaeir experience is upon us. This is where all the dogmatic statments are coming from; all the righteous 'these are my conclusions and my absolutes': there are no spiritual realities and cultural significances. All most passed me by. Whew.

Phase three in action folks. See and read all the matter of fact statments now coming into play.

Yeah Peter!, right on time ey?

Dottie

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:31 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

Sorry that I wasn't clear. I have the German in front of me (primary sources). The title of Chapter 6 is "Die fünf Hauptrassen der Menschheit"

I have two German editions: an original printing of the lectures, and the current official Gesamtausgabe edition published by the Nachlassverwaltung (the 1994 paperback edition, which says it is identical to the 1982 hardcover edition). Neither of these German editions gives any titles for the individual chapters. If the 1962 edition that you have does give titles, then that's likely where the authorized English translation came from.

If it stands as the "Root Races" in the English version, then it has been mistranslated.

Why do you believe that "Root Races" is a mistranslation of "Hauptrassen"???

The word "Aryan" (and I looked for Arier and arische) is nowhere in the German.

Yes, it is. On p. 114 Steiner writes of "denjenigen Rassen, die zur Jupiter-Menschheit gehören," and specifies as follows: "Das ist bei den arischen, vorderasiatischen und europäischen Völkern, bei denen, die wir zu den Kaukasiern rechnen, mehr oder weniger der Fall." That's in the latter third of chapter 6, in case your pagination is different. The passage is identical in the original printing that I have as well (though the two editions otherwise diverge at several points).

I am ignoring the revised version of your article only by accident. I did a google search for "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" and took the first search result.

But that's exactly what Sune is complaining about. He's upset because the revised version of my article still contains what he thinks are errors. How did you miss that?

I would like to emphasize in particular the sentence:

"The aspirant for spiritual knowledge will learn through the teachings of karma and reincarnation how every nation, even the smallest nation, has to contribute its share towards the total evolution of humanity."

Why? You think racists don't believe that all racial and ethnic groups have a part to play in the evolution of humanity? Lots of racists believe that. In fact it's a prominent tenet of the specific version of reformulated racism currently popular in the circles of the European New Right.

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:37 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Hi Mike,

I think you are missing the point. Steiner did inspire many people and he did have some decent ideas. That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether some of his beliefs were racist. Lots of good people have held racist beliefs. That's one excellent reason to acknowledge the difference between people and ideas.

Peter

M:

Wow! you are the king of the red-herring tactic. I was talking about the mechanical associations that you constantly make like the bunny in the ever-ready commercial. If you bothered to show even a little respect for the fact that this guy inspired many people, and might have even had some decent ideas, and were forthright about this in your conversations (and I'm not talking about paying lip-service) I might not see your writings on RS as complete and utter smear, upon a movement that threatens you for some yet unknown reason.

M:

And If I understand you correctly, Ideas, and the people that have them are two different things.

P:

Indeed they are. I think you'll have a much easier time talking about ideas once you recognize this.

M:

Would you mind coming down off the fucking pedestal please. That's a religious notion if I ever saw one, which is quite an irony coming form a devout non-religious guy like yourself. Do you have proof (no theories) to back up that statement?

Mike

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

From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:40 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

PS wrote:

Hi again Daniel, you wrote:

Actually, the title of Chapter 6 is "The Five MAIN Races of Mankind." Root races are not mentioned anywhere at all in the book. Nor is the word "Aryan".

I think you need new reading glasses. The title of chapter 6 is in fact "The Five Root Races of Mankind". The book was published in 1970 by the Rudolf Steiner Press, translated by A.H. Parker. Would you like me to send you a photocopy?

Dear Mr.Staudenmaier,

hey, scholar of German, wake up! We've been through this before, years ago. If you care to put on your reading glasses and open the original German book, you will nowhere find the word "Wurzelrasse" (which is the German word for "root race") in the title of this chapter. A.H. Parker unfortunately translated this incorrectly!

I know what you will now say. To shorter the discussions back and forth, I will now take your part. Steiner speaks of five "Hauptrassen". Elsewhere in his work, he also spoke of "Wurzelrassen" as "Hauptrassen". Thus Parker has not made a mistake. Here ends the anticipated PS remark.

It is correct that Steiner also used the word "Hauptrassen" when speaking about "Wurzelrassen" many years before he wrote the book in question. Now words can be used with different meanings in different contexts. Thus an understanding cannot be gained by just staring at words. A little bit of thinking is necessary.

This little bit of thinking even convinced Dan Dugan years ago, at least for a day or two. Fact is, that there are unquestionably seven root races, yet only five "Hauptrassen". So simply counting will already give you a clue that A.H. Parker failed to translate this correctly. Beyond that, it can be observed that Steiner is not saying anything very original when talking about the five "Hauptrassen" the way he describes them. They are identical - down to the very diction - of what can be found in a 1911 American biology textbook, as Sune discovered. This cannot be said of the Theosophical concept of root races, or would you care to disagree? If you show me that textbook, I will eat sand and never write another word on this list!

So we don't even need to mention that in 1909 Steiner considered the root race theory a "childhood disease" of Theosophy. He wrote/edited the book in question in 1910 or 11!

And please don't argue now that I must be mistaken since A.H. Parker was an authorized translator, as you did years ago! Even authorized translators can make mistakes, so that proves nothing at all.

Can you not get this into that little brain of yours? Of course you can. In fact, that brain is quite large and quite capable of much more complex thinking. But you play dumb, pretending that all is missing are Daniel Hind's glasses. You play games. You love playing games with people, and you are hellishly brilliant.

Best regards, Detlef Hardorp

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:11 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Our resident expert in translation writes:

If you care to put on your reading glasses and open the original German book, you will nowhere find the word "Wurzelrasse" (which is the German word for "root race") in the title of this chapter. A.H. Parker unfortunately translated this incorrectly!

The theosophical term "root race" comes from Blavatsky's book The Secret Doctrine. The German translation of that book (the one Steiner read) renders the term "root race" in two ways: "Hauptrasse" and "Wurzelrasse", and sometimes "Wurzel- und Hauptrasse" as well as "(Haupt-)Wurzelrasse". The notion that "Hauptrasse" and "root race" are incorrect translations of one another is ridiculous.

It is correct that Steiner also used the word "Hauptrassen" when speaking about "Wurzelrassen" many years before he wrote the book in question.

Steiner repeatedly used the term "Hauptrassen" to mean root races in his central work Aus der Akasha-Chronik, known in English as Cosmic Memory, which was published in book form in 1909, one year (not many years) before he gave the Oslo lectures on "folk souls". (These passages from Cosmic Memory are among Detlef's favorites, by the way.) Steiner also used "Wurzelrassen" in the same book; the two terms were interchangeable for him.

Fact is, that there are unquestionably seven root races, yet only five "Hauptrassen".

That's nonsense. Detlef hasn't read Blavatsky and hence has no idea what he's talking about. Neither Blavatsky nor Steiner was consistent in their descriptions of the root races, much less in their numbering. The Secret Doctrine refers to both "five races" and "seven races" when discussing the root races, and occasionally says there are only three main racial groups. Steiner's version was similarly all over the map. I encourage Detlef to explain how he came to the conclusion that "Hauptrassen" and "Wurzelrassen" mean different things, even though both Steiner and the German version of Blavatsky he relied on use the two terms interchangeably.

Peter

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

From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:25 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

PS wrote:

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

Sorry that I wasn't clear. I have the German in front of me (primary sources). The title of Chapter 6 is "Die fünf Hauptrassen der Menschheit"

I have two German editions: an original printing of the lectures, and the current official Gesamtausgabe edition published by the Nachlassverwaltung (the 1994 paperback edition, which says it is identical to the 1982 hardcover edition). Neither of these German editions gives any titles for the individual chapters. If the 1962 edition that you have does give titles, then that's likely where the authorized English translation came from.

DH:

I have the 1974 paperback edition, which says that it is identical with GA 121, ISBN 3-7274-1210-0. The title of the lectures are there to be found in the index in the front of the book.


PS:

If it stands as the "Root Races" in the English version, then it has been mistranslated.

Why do you believe that "Root Races" is a mistranslation of "Hauptrassen"???

DH:

Do you suffer from amnesia, PS? Did you really forget the discussion in the WC list some years ago? I suppose it is a question of selective amnesia. It's all in the WC archives. You were not open to clear thinking back then and I doubt you will be now. But you could at least vaguely remember there was something, instead of finishing your disbelief with three question marks.

Best regards,

Detlef Hardorp

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:51 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

DH:

Do you suffer from amnesia, PS? Did you really forget the discussion in the WC list some years ago? I suppose it is a question of selective amnesia. It's all in the WC archives. You were not open to clear thinking back then and I doubt you will be now. But you could at least vaguely remember there was something, instead of finishing your disbelief with three question marks.

Must have been Peter Zegers right Peter?

Dottie

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

From: Patrick
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:47 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Dear Dr. Staudenmaier,

Am I addressing you correctly? Do you have a Ph.D.?

Tarjei laid out what you should respond to, so I don't need to do it. I do believe your query to me was redundant as Sune was quite clear in what should be responded to. Allow me a few remarks regarding the situation.

You seem surprised that these questions keep coming up. They keep coming up because it is your veracity that is in question. Because you're someone who plays with the meanings of words, it is important to test your truthfulness. In a court of law the veracity of witness depends a lot on whether or not he or she is generally truthful. Isn't it obvious to you that because,among other things, you are loose with the words "tour" and "large attentive audience" -- how do know they were attentive? Where you there? Did you read an account from an Oslo newspaper?-- your general veracity is suspect. The other things include the length of time it took you to make a revision and lack of interest in seeing that the faulty document be removed. Daniel calls your writing, polemic. I call it rhetoric. I believe that the reason you made these mistakes is because you are a man on a mission and will resort to overstatement "stretching" the meanings of words in order to achieve it. What is your mission Peter?

Your style is to hide behind questions and deflections. Here's a question for you: do you think a person can be a racist and not be racist or vice versa? The important question in all this is, do you think Rudolf Steiner was prejudiced? Did he judge people on the basis of their race?

I can only think of one reason why a person would claim that someone else is "anti-Semitic or racist ", or makes "anti-Semitic or racist" remarks and that is to warn the world that he is dangerous and should be watched. Your "intent" and "mission" is revealed by your association with PLANS. This group is clearly using smear tactics to affect their aims. Why would you join forces with this group except to add to their arsenal? Please disclose your true aims for writing about Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy.

Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Hi Patrick, you wrote:

Yes, please respond truthfully to Sune's post.

I'm not sure what there is to respond to. Anyone with a map can determine for themselves whether Oslo is in Norway. Anyone with a copy of The Mission of the Folk Souls can determine for themselves whether they think Steiner's musings on racial character are racist. They can also very easily determine for themselves whether Steiner "mentions" root races in this book (and for those of you who don't have a copy at hand, here's a hint: the title of chapter 6 is "The Five Root Races of Mankind"). And so forth. What else would you like me to respond to?

Peter

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

From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:51 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

It happened exactly the way I predicted!

I wrote:

DH:

hey, scholar of German, wake up! We've been through this before, years ago. If you care to put on your reading glasses and open the original German book, you will nowhere find the word "Wurzelrasse" (which is the German word for "root race") in the title of this chapter. A.H. Parker unfortunately translated this incorrectly!

I know what you will now say. To shorter the discussions back and forth, I will now take your part. Steiner speaks of five "Hauptrassen". Elsewhere in his work, he also spoke of "Wurzelrassen" as "Hauptrassen". Thus Parker has not made a mistake. Here ends the anticipated PS remark.


So what does PS write? Exactly as I said he would:

PS:

It is correct that Steiner also used the word "Hauptrassen" when speaking about "Wurzelrassen" many years before he wrote the book in question.

Steiner repeatedly used the term "Hauptrassen" to mean root races in his central work Aus der Akasha-Chronik, known in English as Cosmic Memory, which was published in book form in 1909, one year (not many years) before he gave the Oslo lectures on "folk souls".

DH:

"Aus der Akasha-Chronik" consists of articles from the Magazine Luzifer-Gnosis from July 1904 until May 1908. A special printing of the collected essays ("Sonderdruck") appeared in in 1909. The first book form appeared in 1939. You will find this bit of bibliographical information behind the title page of the book in the "Gesamtausgabe".

You will find him writing about root races in the earlier essays. In 1906, Steiner distanced himself from the theosophical root-race concept in writing and never used it again (see Luzifer Gnosis No. 32, Summer 1906, p. 627, printed in: "Aus der Akascha Chronik", GA 11, Dornach 1969, p. 208).

So I repeat again: It is correct that Steiner also used the word "Hauptrassen" when speaking about "Wurzelrassen" many years before he wrote the book in question. Now words can be used with different meanings in different contexts. Thus an understanding cannot be gained by just staring at words. A little bit of thinking is necessary.

This PS refuses to do.

Fact is, that there are unquestionably seven root races, yet only five "Hauptrassen".

PS:

That's nonsense. Detlef hasn't read Blavatsky and hence has no idea what he's talking about.

DH:

PS always pretends to know better. He seems to have no knowledge of the fact that I have read quite a bit of Blavatsky - starting, BTW, in my teens (didn't like it all that much, though). He is now trying to fog the issue. When PS says "that's nonsense" or "that's ridiculous", he is usually trying to escape from an argument he is loosing. It's like the thief that cries "thieves" at his pursuers.

PS cannot (or does not want to) keep two distinct concepts apart. These are: "Wurzelrasse" and "Grundrasse". Of the former, there are 7, of the latter, there are 5. Steiner did indeed also use the word "Hauptrasse" synonymously for both these concepts. That, however, does not create identity between them!

In his 1910 Oslo lectures, Steiner speaks about FIVE "Haupt- oder Grundrassen" ("Hauptrasse" and "Grundrasse" are obviously synonymous terms in these lectures). These five are exactly the same as the system of 5 "main races" that can be found in an American high school text book from the year 1914: In A Civic Biology, author George William Hunter writes about the “Ethiopian or Negro” racial type, the “Malay or brown race,” the “American Indian” or red race, the “Mongolian or yellow race,” and the “Caucasian” or white race, adding: "... at the present time there exists upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instinct, social customs, and to an extent, in structure.” As no one has yet claimed that American high school text books were prone to mix up everyday notions of race with theosophical concepts, it is as clear as can be that Steiner is talking about the then prevalent concept of race when speaking of "Grundrassen".

Anyone acquainted with the theosophical concept of "root-race" knows there are SEVEN root-races within "earth" development, which, in turn, are divided into 7 sub-races. The 7 root-races are

1. Hyperborea
2. Polaris
3. Lemuria
4. Atlantis
5. our modern "root-race" (to which all of humanity belongs!)
6. a future "round" of development
7. a further future "round" of development

Similarities? Ever met somebody of hyperboreic race (or ever read Steiner talk about a hyperboreic race on earth today?!).

Talking about 5 geographic centers on the earth influencing the human constitution is one thing (giving way to the five main races that then spread - independently of these geographical centers through heredity); talking about 7 rounds of development in time is quite another (this is what makes up the seven root races). Steiner distanced himself from the theosophical "root-race" concept back in 1906 (in the essay "The Life of the Earth", later collected in the book "Cosmic Memory"), because it is a misnomer. He had only used the concept for about three years before that. In 1909 he considers the usage of the terms "root-" and "sub-race" as a "childhood disease" of the theosophical movement (lecture held on 4. December 1909, in: Die tieferen Geheimnisse des Menschheitswerdens im Lichte der Evangelien, GA 117, Dornach 1966, S. 152). And in lecture four of the Oslo 1910 series (p. 76 in my 1974 paperback version), he actually says explicitly that the theosophical notion of ever-repeating cycles of "race" (a reference to "root-races", without mentioning the word) is WRONG (he refers here to the book "Esoteric Buddhism" by the theosophist Sinnett).

He also remarks on the same page that "race" only begins to have a meaning in Lemuria (which is already the third of the theosophical "root-races", see the list of 7 above!), and begins to loose its meaning completely in our modern times (although this will still take a while).

Those are the facts.

Thus

THE FACT IS THAT YOU WILL FIND THE WORD "ROOT-RACE" IN THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION - DUE TO AN ERROR IN THE TRANSLATION, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT MANY TIMES ON THIS LIST.

When I posted this to the WC list in October 2001, Dan Dugan commented:

I hear you, it isn't necessary to shout. It's a pity the official Anthroposophical translator A.H. Parker failed to make the distinction.

I responded back then:

It certainly IS a pity and increases the confusion!

Thank you, Dan, for hearing. For the not-so-hard-of-hearing it may not be necessary to shout. But for those as deaf as our "historian" Staudenmaier, even shouting doesn't help. All attempts are in vain. This is my last attempt to convince Mr. Staudenmaier that 5 does NOT equal seven - but I'm sure that I will fail.

When I was a professor of mathematics at Duke University many years ago, I would regularly get visitors who were convinced that they had found a mistake in Einstein's theory of relativity. They would usually come with hundreds of pages of densely scribbled "proofs". "Here", they would say, "you won't be able to find an error in this! Thus Einstein's theory is disproven." It was difficult to discuss anything with them, because they hadn't really grasped the fundamental notions of mathematics and physics, in spite of the fact that they would lecture in detail about complicated equations, using the same words that professionals use. They always had a strange fanatical streak. I tried a few times to communicate with them, but I gave up after a while. It is impossible to communicate with erudite sounding fanatical quacks.

Is Staudenmaier "lying"? He may very well not be. Because "lying" presupposes you know better. The more fanatical you get, the murkier the relationship to truth can turn. I can imagine that Staudenmaier actually believes his own revisionism. This must have been the way Stalin rewrote history: everything is bent and twisted to fit a conclusion that must come out, under any circumstances. If needs be, 5 must equal 7.

I wrote that in 2001. Reruns. Dan was open for a day or two. PS will never be. It's hopeless.

Detlef Hardorp

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:49 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Detlef writes:

In 1906, Steiner distanced himself from the theosophical root-race concept

Gosh, what word do you suppose he used?

He seems to have no knowledge of the fact that I have read quite a bit of Blavatsky

It's a shame you never got around to The Secret Doctrine.

PS cannot (or does not want to) keep two distinct concepts apart.

They aren't two distinct concepts. Your arguments on this make as little sense as your arguments on the "nichts weniger" passage.

Steiner did indeed also use the word "Hauptrasse" synonymously for both these concepts.

Amazing that anthroposophist translators would do the same thing, huh?

Anyone acquainted with the theosophical concept of "root-race" knows there are SEVEN root-races

Anyone who hasn't read The Secret Doctrine. Blavatsky referred to five root races and to seven root races. That isn't surprising, since two of the seven don't exist yet. Hence the five root races that both Blavatsky and Steiner discuss. Is all this math a little too much for you, Detlef?

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 6:33 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Patrick writes:

Am I addressing you correctly? Do you have a Ph.D.?

Hell no. I'm afraid that might change, however.

Isn't it obvious to you that because,among other things, you are loose with the words "tour" and "large attentive audience"

No, that is not obvious to me.

Daniel calls your writing, polemic. I call it rhetoric.

Heavens, not that.

What is your mission Peter?

This might come as a surprise to people who think that whole races have missions, but I don't have a mission.

The important question in all this is, do you think Rudolf Steiner was prejudiced?

Yes, of course. He said that black people don't belong in Europe and that concepts hurt Asian's brains and so forth. Unprejudiced people don't say things like that.

Please disclose your true aims for writing about Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy.

I'll have to check with my handlers and get back to you on that.

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:07 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

Sorry that I wasn't clear. I have the German in front of me (primary sources). The title of Chapter 6 is "Die fünf Hauptrassen der Menschheit"

Peter Staudenmaier:

I have two German editions: an original printing of the lectures, and the current official Gesamtausgabe edition published by the Nachlassverwaltung (the 1994 paperback edition, which says it is identical to the 1982 hardcover edition). Neither of these German editions gives any titles for the individual chapters. If the 1962 edition that you have does give titles, then that's likely where the authorized English translation came from.

Daniel:

Thanks for the information. So regardless of how you translate "Hauptrassen" we agree that the word itself in that work does not originate with Steiner.

Daniel wrote:

If it stands as the "Root Races" in the English version, then it has been mistranslated.

Peter Staudenmaier:

Why do you believe that "Root Races" is a mistranslation of "Hauptrassen"???

Daniel:

Well aside from the fact that we have established that the question is irrelevant, as the word does not originate from Steiner, let us look at the word:

Hauptrassen is a compound of Haupt and Rassen.
Haupt = main, chief, central
Rassen = races

The German word for "Root" is Wurtzel. The formulation in theosophical literature is "Wurtzelrassen."

So you tell me, Peter, why on earth would you translate Hauptrassen as Root Races? I thought you presumed some degree of expertise in this subject area.

Daniel wrote:

The word "Aryan" (and I looked for Arier and arische) is nowhere in the German.

Peter Staudenmaier:

Yes, it is. On p. 114 Steiner writes of "denjenigen Rassen, die zur Jupiter-Menschheit gehören," and specifies as follows: "Das ist bei den arischen, vorderasiatischen und europäischen Völkern, bei denen, die wir zu den Kaukasiern rechnen, mehr oder weniger der Fall." That's in the latter third of chapter 6, in case your pagination is different. The passage is identical in the original printing that I have as well (though the two editions otherwise diverge at several points).

Daniel:

Thank you. I stand corrected. There is one instance of the word "Aryan" in the original (in the form "arischen"). It is on page 110 of the 1962 German edition. The sentence (in English for the sake of the rest of our listmates) is:

"Here is the seat of those forces which determine the particular racial character of those races belonging to the Jupiter humanity. This applies more or less to the Aryans, to the peoples of Asia Minor and Europe whm we regard as members of the Caucasian race. In these peoples the modifications of the generic character which stems from the abnormal Spirits of Form is accounted for by the influence of the senses of the abnormal Spirits whom we may describe as Jupiter Spirits."

I've read around, and I am having a hard time finding any indication that the Jupiter-forces are somehow superior to the Mercury forces, or the Venus forces, or the Saturn forces, or the Mars forces. As I noted, the word "superiority" or "superior" are not present in the text.

Daniel wrote:

I am ignoring the revised version of your article only by accident. I did a google search for "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" and took the first search result.

Peter Staudenmaier:

But that's exactly what Sune is complaining about. He's upset because the revised version of my article still contains what he thinks are errors. How did you miss that?

Daniel:

Um, Peter, you're missing the point again. I am stating that when I look, I find this version of your text. I frankly don't care that Sune finds that your new version also contains (surprise, surprise) further errors. If you took the time to correct the mistakes that you were able to acknowledge, perhaps you might take a few minutes to get your corrected version in place of the even more incorrect version. Unless, of course, you prefer that people read the wrong version.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:43 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Detlef writes:

In 1906, Steiner distanced himself from the theosophical root-race concept

Peter Staudenmaier:

Gosh, what word do you suppose he used?

Daniel:

I don't know Peter. What word did he use? Do you think he really distanced himself from the theosophical root-race concept?

Detlef writes:

He seems to have no knowledge of the fact that I have read quite a bit of Blavatsky

Peter Staudenmaier:

It's a shame you never got around to The Secret Doctrine.

Daniel:

Peter, how do you know that Detlef never got to the Secret Doctrine? Just curious?

Detlef writes:

PS cannot (or does not want to) keep two distinct concepts apart.

Peter Staudenmaier:

They aren't two distinct concepts. Your arguments on this make as little sense as your arguments on the "nichts weniger" passage.

Daniel:

It seemed to make sense to me. Would it help you if I tried to explain it to you? Or you could tell me right now that you have already made up your mind on this and will never change it, and save me the trouble.

Detlef writes:

Steiner did indeed also use the word "Hauptrasse" synonymously for both these concepts.

Peter Staudenmaier:

Amazing that anthroposophist translators would do the same thing, huh?

Daniel:

And what about he question of context? Do you think it is possible to determine the speaker's meaning from context?

Detlef writes:

Anyone acquainted with the theosophical concept of "root-race" knows there are SEVEN root-races

Peter Staudenmaier:

Anyone who hasn't read The Secret Doctrine. Blavatsky referred to five root races and to seven root races. That isn't surprising, since two of the seven don't exist yet. Hence the five root races that both Blavatsky and Steiner discuss. Is all this math a little too much for you, Detlef?

Daniel:

Peter, you are not making sense. There are seven Root Races in every Round, according to Blavatsky. With seven Rounds in every Globe, that makes 49 Root Races in every Globe. We are in the fourth Round of the fourth Globe, so that makes 168 Root Races behind us, and more ahead.

The simple fact is that neither in Blavatsky nor in Steiner do biological race and Root Race correspond. There are 5 biological races, and 168 Root Races in the past. In the current Globe there are 25 Root Races behind us, and we are in the middle of the 26th. In the current Round, we happen to be in the middle of the 5th Root Race, with four behind us. Even and especially in this Round, biological race and Root Race do not correspond. Try reading some Blavatsky before you heap your distain upon Detlef. I expect someone of your intellectual pretentions to be able discern this type of thing.

Daniel Hindes

PS: You can get the whole of The Secret Doctrine online at www.blavatsky.com But try reading it before pretending to mastry of its contents.

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

From: at
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:47 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Peter,

When the topic first came up, you said:

I'm not sure what there is to respond to. Anyone with a copy of The Mission of the Folk Souls can ... also very easily determine for themselves whether Steiner "mentions" root races in this book (and for those of you who don't have a copy at hand, here's a hint: the title of chapter 6 is "The Five Root Races of Mankind"). And so forth. What else would you like me to respond to?

Subsequently you noted:

I have two German editions: an original printing of the lectures, and the current official Gesamtausgabe edition published by the Nachlassverwaltung (the 1994 paperback edition, which says it is identical to the 1982 hardcover edition). Neither of these German editions gives any titles for the individual chapters. If the 1962 edition that you have does give titles, then that's likely where the authorized English translation came from.

Does this not establish that the ONLY instance of the (mistranslated) term "Root Race" DOES NOT originate with Steiner at all? Given that you know this, I find it misleading of you to imply that STEINER mentions root races in the text. He does not, and you yourself know this. If this is an example of the integrity of your discourse with us, it is little wonder that you have the reputation you do.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:10 pm
Subject: Fw: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

In light of some new information I have recieved from Peter Staudenmaier, it is necessary for me to revise my original statements for accuracy. My apologies to Peter for the initially incorrect version (reprinted at the end, for comparison).

Peter Staudenmaier in the first paragraph of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism, wrote:

"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 "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."

Problems:
Despite being in quotes, the phrase "Aryan race" is nowhere in the book.
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "root races" is nowhere in Steiner's original.
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "germanic-nordic sub-race" is nowhere in the book (or anywhere else in Steiner).
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "Nordic spirit" is nowhere in the book.
The word "Superior" appears nowhere in the book.
The word "Superiority" appears nowhere in the book.
The word "Aryan" appears only once in the book, in the following context:

"Here is the seat of those forces which determine the particular racial character of those races belonging to the Jupiter humanity. This applies more or less to the Aryans, to the peoples of Asia Minor and Europe whm we regard as members of the Caucasian race. In these peoples the modifications of the generic character which stems from the abnormal Spirits of Form is accounted for by the influence of the senses of the abnormal Spirits whom we may describe as Jupiter Spirits." (page 110 in the 1962 German edition)

If the superiority of the Aryan race is the main theme of the book, you would expect the term to be employed more frequently than once in 11 lectures, and in a more explicit context.

"...and throughout his Norwegian tour ..." has been corrected in the revised edition (not yet widely available) to reflect the fact that Steiner spoke only in Oslo.

In addition, the entire characterization of the contents of the eleven lectures is grossly incorrect. Despite claiming that "Most of chapters four and six. See pp. 74-81 in the English edition, for example, or pp. 102-110." will demonstrate the superiority of the Aryans, this thought is simply not contained there, as any reader can determine by examining the text themselves.

Daniel Hindes


----- Original Message -----
From: at@ael...
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Hi Patrick, you wrote:

Yes, please respond truthfully to Sune's post.

Peter Staudenmaier:

I'm not sure what there is to respond to. Anyone with a map can determine for themselves whether Oslo is in Norway. Anyone with a copy of The Mission of the Folk Souls can determine for themselves whether they think Steiner's musings on racial character are racist. They can also very easily determine for themselves whether Steiner "mentions" root races in this book (and for those of you who don't have a copy at hand, here's a hint: the title of chapter 6 is "The Five Root Races of Mankind"). And so forth. What else would you like me to respond to?

Daniel:

Actually, the title of Chapter 6 is "The Five MAIN Races of Mankind." Root races are not mentioned anywhere at all in the book. Nor is the word "Aryan". The more I look into this, the more problems I am finding. You wrote:

Peter Staudenmaier in the first paragraph of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism:

"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 "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."

Problems:
Despite being in quotes, the phrase "Aryan race" is nowhere in the book.
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "root races" is nowhere in the book.
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "germanic-nordic sub-race" is nowhere in the book.
(Starting to see a pattern?)
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "Nordic spirit" is nowhere in the book.
The word "Aryan" is nowhere in the book.

Peter, just what book were you reading when you wrote this, because it is not the book you have cited. In fact, I don't think it is even Steiner.

"In Oslo and throughout his Norwegian tour..."

Steiner never spoke outside of Oslo on that "tour", and gave only two lectures beyond the 11 printed in GA 121.

Peter, is this your idea of the "historical polemic" that a half dozen respected authors you refer me to purportedly support?

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Detlef Hardorp
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:35 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

I had written:

Steiner did indeed also use the word "Hauptrasse" synonymously for both these concepts."

PS responded:

Amazing that anthroposophist translators would do the same thing, huh?

I respond:

The level of this discussion has deteriorated to way below zero. I will make only one last comment.

The mistake the translator made was not to translate "Hauptrasse" with "main race". He (or she) translated it with "root race", although, in the context of the "Mission ..." book, it clearly means "Grundrasse" in the sense that the US high school textbook uses the word race, i. e. common day usage back then (the “Ethiopian or Negro” racial type, the “Malay or brown race,” the “American Indian” or red race, the “Mongolian or yellow race,” and the “Caucasian” or white race). That cannot denied! Steiner uses the same words when he describes what he means.

If, as PS claims, the two concepts are identical, then one of the above mentioned races would have to correspond to the hyperboreic root race. Unfortunately, according to Steiner, the "hyperboreic root race" is no longer extant on earth today.

Furthermore, as I have also remarked previously, the concept race in the sense of "Grundrasse" as described in the "Mission..." book only begins to have a meaning in Lemuria, which is already the third of the theosophical "root-races", according to Steiner.

Thus I repeat: Steiner did indeed also use the word "Hauptrasse" synonymously for both these concepts. That, however, does not create identity between them!

The distinction between the two concepts ("Wurzelrasse" and "Grundrasse") are as clear as daylight the moment you look one millimeter behind the words at their actual meaning. This, however, PS refuses to do! Note that he comments on all sorts of details, but ignores the facts staring out at anyone who can read.

This is understandable, however. Because the root-race accusation have always been the core of the leftist attacks on anthroposophy. The situation is identical with Peter Bierl, PS's pendant in Germany. It is the fundamental lie on which the racism charge is built upon. They are not going to give it up, because there are lots of people out there who have never read and who never will read Steiner. For these, PS's arguments, based solely on words with no concepts attached, may blind clear sight. And PS has the added delicacy that a translator managed to confuse the issue still further in the English-speaking world.

To me, this is an interesting study in how the spirit of Stalinist revisionism can be so alive and kicking in a different guise today. With enough audacity, you can make the wildest claims and still score points with people that don't know better. And there are lots out there!

I suggest, however, that we cease to respond to posts by PS below a certain level on this list.

Detlef Hardorp

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:27 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Daniel writes:

So regardless of how you translate "Hauptrassen" we agree that the word itself in that work does not originate with Steiner.

It originated with Blavatsky, who said she found it in an ancient Indian work.

The German word for "Root" is Wurtzel. The formulation in theosophical literature is "Wurtzelrassen."

There is no t in Wurzel. As I've explained several times now, the German translation of "root race" is both "Hauptrasse" and "Wurzelrasse", as well as various combinations of the two.

So you tell me, Peter, why on earth would you translate Hauptrassen as Root Races?

I didn't translate it, several anthroposophist translators did. But in any case, "Hauptrasse" is already a translation of "root races". Are you sure you're paying attention here? Both Steiner and the German translation of Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine use "Hauptrasse" for "root race". I already pointed you and Detlef to the passages in Aus der Akasha-Chronik (Cosmic Memory) where Steiner uses "Hauptrasse" for "root race". Why are you ignoring all that?

I've read around, and I am having a hard time finding any indication that the Jupiter-forces are somehow superior to the Mercury forces, or the Venus forces, or the Saturn forces, or the Mars forces.

That's what we disagree about.

Peter

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

From: Patrick
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:42 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Mr. Staudenmaier,

I am surprised that you did not correct my incorrect use of the word "Doctor" when addressing you. My apologies, it was an incorrect assumption. Though I can see that you are beleaguered and resorting to snide responses, I will try one more time -- probably the last.

Key in my discussion with you is my point that all Rudolf Steiner's remarks about "races" in general and particular are consistent throughout his life. They are consistent with the worldview brought by him and known as anthroposophy. I do not ask you to agree with the view only to entertain the possibility of its fundamental conceptions. Anthroposophy presents the notion that it is the individual spirit of the human being that is of prime importance when considering his actions. Anthroposophy presents that it is absolutely necessary that we look beyond the physical body, the familial traits, indeed, beyond the culture that the individual has grown up in in order to see the true striving of the essence of the individual. It is equally true however that the body, family, and culture of the individual must be understood in order to gain a true understanding of the life and accomplishments of the individual. All of these aspects must be considered when examining the life of J. S. Bach or Desmond Tutu. There is also no doubt that the individual genius of each is paramount. It is absolutely clear that our bodies are a product largely of heredity. It is also clear that the individual spirit of the human being can overcome the limitations and enhance the gifts brought through heredity, accident, and epiphany. Accident and epiphany follow the laws of karma, the plan of the Creator, and the free creative spirit of the individual. Ancient Egyptians and ancient Greeks are different. The differences are the result of the alchemy of geography, people, and forces raining in from the spiritual world. Perhaps the last phrase is the most difficult for you to entertain, but it is key to understanding anthroposophy. If you entertain the notion that human beings should be progressing towards a time when they form a world community full of mutual understanding, then it should not surprise you when Rudolf Steiner takes any individual, group, or nation to task for furthering the perpetuation of racist or nationalist impulses. If you entertain these ideas then in that context, you would not call someone prejudiced who merely points out the differences in peoples, cultures, or nations.

Sincerely,

Patrick

P.S. I don't believe you when you say you have no mission. What about social ecology? Or libertarian communism? Or opposing anthroposophy? You don't guide your life by studied intentions?

From: Peter Staudenmaier

To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Patrick writes:

Am I addressing you correctly? Do you have a Ph.D.?

Hell no. I'm afraid that might change, however.

Isn't it obvious to you that because,among other things, you are loose with the words "tour" and "large attentive audience"

No, that is not obvious to me.

Daniel calls your writing, polemic. I call it rhetoric.

Heavens, not that.

What is your mission Peter?

This might come as a surprise to people who think that whole races have missions, but I don't have a mission.

The important question in all this is, do you think Rudolf Steiner was prejudiced?

Yes, of course. He said that black people don't belong in Europe and that concepts hurt Asian's brains and so forth. Unprejudiced people don't say things like that.

Please disclose your true aims for writing about Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy.

I'll have to check with my handlers and get back to you on that.

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:38 am
Subject: Fw: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Daniel writes:

In light of some new information I have recieved from Peter Staudenmaier, it is necessary for me to revise my original statements for accuracy.

Hi Daniel,

the opening paragraph of the revised version of my article reads as follows:

"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 series was titled “The Mission of National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology.” In the Oslo lectures 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 “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."

You can find the entire article here:

http://www.openwaldorf.com/anthroposophyandecofascism.pdf


In addition, the entire characterization of the contents of the eleven lectures is grossly incorrect.

That is what we should be arguing about.

Peter

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:16 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 6:38 PM
Subject: Fw: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Daniel writes:

In light of some new information I have recieved from Peter Staudenmaier, it is necessary for me to revise my original statements for accuracy.

Hi Daniel,

the opening paragraph of the revised version of my article reads as follows:

"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 series was titled “The Mission of National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology.” In the Oslo lectures 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 “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."

Hi listmates
My dime.

We all know the "Folk Soul's" lectures. What do we see here ? We find a powerful picture about how and when the Hierarchical Beings did cooperate to create the links among races,peoples and earthly environment in order to make possible the development of the I AM power of each every individual. Think also that there is an individual who, in front of such a complex and powerful picture, is able ONLY to look for the words, "aryan" or " superior" in order to gain some "evidence" that the Author was a "racist".and a "proto-nazi"........... Think also that these words were never told during the lectures.... Are you able to find a better example of Ahrimanic deception ?

A.

You can find the entire article here:

http://www.openwaldorf.com/anthroposophyandecofascism.pdf

In addition, the entire characterization of the contents of the eleven lectures is grossly incorrect.

That is what we should be arguing about.

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:55 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Daniel writes:

I don't know Peter. What word did he use?

Hauptrasse. Could you maybe try a little harder to follow the thread?

Do you think he really distanced himself from the theosophical root-race concept?

Yes, several times, from several different aspects of it.

The simple fact is that neither in Blavatsky nor in Steiner do biological race and Root Race correspond.

That's preposterous.

There are 5 biological races

Or three, or seven, or nine, and so forth. Neither Blavatsky nor Steiner presented an internally consistent account of the number or character of the racial categories they used.

In the current Round, we happen to be in the middle of the 5th Root Race, with four behind us.

Yes, that is one of several ways that both Blavatsky and Steiner employed the term root race.

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:55 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Daniel writes:

So regardless of how you translate "Hauptrassen" we agree that the word itself in that work does not originate with Steiner.

Peter Staudenmaier:

It originated with Blavatsky, who said she found it in an ancient Indian work.

Daniel:

Now you're going over the top! Let me rephrase my statement so that it cannot be misuderstood.

"So regardless of how you translate "Hauptrassen" we agree that the word itself IN THAT WORK does not originate with Steiner."

Or put differently, STEINER DID NOT USE THE WORD "Hauptrassen" OR THE WORD "Wurzelrassen" AT ALL IN GA 121.

Daniel wrote:

The German word for "Root" is Wurtzel. The formulation in theosophical literature is "Wurtzelrassen."

Peter Staudenmaier:

There is no t in Wurzel. As I've explained several times now, the German translation of "root race" is both "Hauptrasse" and "Wurzelrasse", as well as various combinations of the two.

Daniel:

Peter, what has been pointed out to you repeatedly is that it is possible to discern which of two concepts is intended with "Hauptrasse" in any given context. If you can't figure that out, you have no business whatsoever claiming any understanding of Blavatsky or Steiner.

However, it does not matter in this case, as STEINER DID NOT USE EITHER WORD IN GA 121. This means that when you quote him as having done so in the context of the Oslo lectures, it is a deliberate fabrication, for you have access to the original and have told us so.

Daniel wrote:

So you tell me, Peter, why on earth would you translate Hauptrassen as Root Races?

Peter Staudenmaier:

I didn't translate it, several anthroposophist translators did. But in any case, "Hauptrasse" is already a translation of "root races". Are you sure you're paying attention here? Both Steiner and the German translation of Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine use "Hauptrasse" for "root race". I already pointed you and Detlef to the passages in Aus der Akasha-Chronik (Cosmic Memory) where Steiner uses "Hauptrasse" for "root race". Why are you ignoring all that?

Daniel:

Peter, you seem to have forgotten what we are talking about. We were discussing your deliberate distortions and fabricatins in your article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism". YOU explained to us that the original German version of GA 121 does not have chapter titles. As the chapter titles are the only place where "Hauptrassen" appears, and the chapter titles were added later, Steiner did not EVER use the term in the volume you are summarizing in the article. All this blowing smoke about how the term is or isn't translated in other contexts is irrelevant. You misquoted Steiner. It's that simple.

Daniel wrote:

I've read around, and I am having a hard time finding any indication that the Jupiter-forces are somehow superior to the Mercury forces, or the Venus forces, or the Saturn forces, or the Mars forces.

Peter Staudenmaier:

That's what we disagree about.

Daniel:

Perhaps if you tried to understand Steiner, it might become clearer. Please tell me how the Jupiter forces are superior to the Mercury forces, or the Venus forces, or the Saturn forces, or the Mars forces.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:17 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Hi Daniel,

the opening paragraph of the revised version of my article reads as follows:

"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 series was titled “The Mission of National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology.” In the Oslo lectures 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 “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."

Peter,

Thanks for providing me with the revised version. After examining it closely, I find the following problems.

The term '"Aryan" race' is nowhere in the book (I noticed you moved the quotation marks over by one word, but it does not change the claim much).
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "root races" is nowhere in Steiner's original.
Despite being in quotes, the pharse "Nordic spirit" is nowhere in the book.
The word "Superior" appears nowhere in the book.
The word "Superiority" appears nowhere in the book.
The word "Aryan" appears only once in the book, in the following context:

"Here is the seat of those forces which determine the particular racial character of those races belonging to the Jupiter humanity. This applies more or less to the Aryans, to the peoples of Asia Minor and Europe whm we regard as members of the Caucasian race. In these peoples the modifications of the generic character which stems from the abnormal Spirits of Form is accounted for by the influence of the senses of the abnormal Spirits whom we may describe as Jupiter Spirits." (page 110 in the 1962 German edition)

If the superiority of the Aryan race is the main theme of the book, you would expect the term to be employed more frequently than once in 11 lectures, and in a more explicit context.

To the statement:

"The “national souls” of Northern and Central Europe belonged, Steiner explained, to the “germanic-nordic” peoples..."

I find no such claim in the lecture.

In addition, the entire characterization of the contents of the eleven lectures is grossly incorrect. Despite claiming that "Most of chapters four and six. See pp. 74-81 in the English edition, for example, or pp. 102-110." will demonstrate the superiority of the Aryans, this thought is simply not contained there, as any reader can determine by examining the text themselves.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: at
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:25 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Daniel writes:

I don't know Peter. What word did he use?

Peter Staudenmaier:

Hauptrasse. Could you maybe try a little harder to follow the thread?

Daniel:

Peter, your snide comments are completely unnecessary. YOU have told us that Steiner did not use the word "Hauptrasse" in GA 121 (I assume you have been following the thread, after a comment like the one above). The word "Hauptrasse" in GA 121 is only in the chapter titles, and these were added after the fact.

Daniel wrote:

The simple fact is that neither in Blavatsky nor in Steiner do biological race and Root Race correspond.

Peter Staudenmaier:

That's preposterous.

Daniel:

Then you have no business whatsoever claiming any knowledge of Steiner or Anthropsophy. You claim your only aim is understanding Steiner's views on race and Jews, but even in this you are lost. Show me ANY citation that indicates that Steiner saw more than 5 biological races, or fewer than 5.

Daniel wrote:

There are 5 biological races

Peter Staudenmaier:

Or three, or seven, or nine, and so forth. Neither Blavatsky nor Steiner presented an internally consistent account of the number or character of the racial categories they used.

Daniel:

If your purported goal is to understand Steiner's views on race, then I would expect a more knowledgeable answer than the evasive and mistaken view above.

In the current Round, we happen to be in the middle of the 5th Root Race, with four behind us.

Peter Staudenmaier:

Yes, that is one of several ways that both Blavatsky and Steiner employed the term root race.

Daniel:

Then why do you make such a ridiculous claim that there are only 5 root races? You have been following your own statements, haven't you?

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:34 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Detlef writes:

The mistake the translator made was not to translate "Hauptrasse" with "main race". He (or she) translated it with "root race",

That is obviously not a mistake. "Hauptrasse" can be translated either as "main race" or as "root race", because Steiner used it interchangeably, as Detlef has already admitted. The only way that Detlef's argument could possibly make any sense is if the theosophical literature on race consistently distinguished between the far-in-the-past sense of Hauptrassen and the currently-existing sense of Hauptrassen. Since it plainly does not do so, nothing Detlef has said supports his bizarre conclusion.

Steiner did indeed also use the word "Hauptrasse" synonymously for both these concepts. That, however, does not create identity between them!

What does identity between the concepts have to do with anything? The whole point is that Steiner and other theosophists repeatedly used a range of related terms to designate several different concepts. Nobody denies that Malaysians are different from Lemurians. Steiner used "Hauptrasse" to refer to both, as Detlef acknowledges. There is thus no mistake in translation involved here.

It is the fundamental lie on which the racism charge is built upon.

That's silly. Most of the leftist attacks in Germany on anthroposophical racism focus on Steiner's later racist lectures, not on the theosophical stuff.

And PS has the added delicacy that a translator managed to confuse the issue still further in the English-speaking world.

This notion of blaming it on a single anthroposophist translator, AH Parker, is foolish. The original English translation of the book uses the exact same term, "root races", in the exact same passages. That translation was published in 1929 by the Anthroposophical Publishing Company in London; the copyright page reads "Authorized Translation Edited by H. Collison". Perhaps Detlef can get to the bottom of the decades-long anthroposophist conspiracy at work here.

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:38 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Daniel wrote:

In addition, the entire characterization of the contents of the eleven lectures is grossly incorrect.

Peter Staudenmaier:

That is what we should be arguing about.

Daniel:

Please. I'm waiting for your explanation as to why the Jupiter forces are superior to the other planetary forces.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:54 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Peter Staudenmaier:

That is what we should be arguing about.

So that you can be more right than wrong by certain words Peter? You want the Steiner students to help you get it right so you can have an air tight article that no one and I mean no one will be able to get around your tightly manipulated words even if they tried.

It was hard enough with your first article, checking all the two and three word quotes, with your own personal dictionary take on the meanings of things, let alone read one that the Steiner students help you make air proof that even they are going to have a hard time showing to be twisted because it will be your 'interpretation' versus theirs. Jeez Peter,

Dottie

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

From: at
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:45 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Detlef writes:

The mistake the translator made was not to translate "Hauptrasse" with "main race". He (or she) translated it with "root race",

Peter Staudenmaier.

That is obviously not a mistake.

Daniel:

Whether or not it is a mistake will be determined by the context, and not by the simple fact that it can be translated that way under some circumstances. Peter, you have a very funny philosophy of translation, if I may say so.

Detlef:

Steiner did indeed also use the word "Hauptrasse" synonymously for both these concepts. That, however, does not create identity between them!

Peter Staudenmaier:

What does identity between the concepts have to do with anything? The whole point is that Steiner and other theosophists repeatedly used a range of related terms to designate several different concepts.

Daniel:

Then Peter, perhaps you might consider trying to achieve clarity on which concept was intended in each instance? Or do you feel that it is merely a matter of which version is convienient to you in a given line of argument?

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:59 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Patrick writes:

Key in my discussion with you is my point that all Rudolf Steiner's remarks about "races" in general and particular are consistent throughout his life.

That's one reason why you get snide responses from me. Steiner's racial doctrines were conspicuously inconsistent.

Anthroposophy presents the notion that it is the individual spirit of the human being that is of prime importance when considering his actions.

Agreed.

If you entertain the notion that human beings should be progressing towards a time when they form a world community full of mutual understanding, then it should not surprise you when Rudolf Steiner takes any individual, group, or nation to task for furthering the perpetuation of racist or nationalist impulses.

This doesn't surprise me, in fact it forms an important part of my analysis of Steiner's racial and ethnic doctrines. Since Jewry as such did not in fact further the perpetuation of racist or nationalist impulses, the claim that they did is obviously untrue. But it's also antisemitic. This very notion was one of the most prominent antisemitic canards about Jews during Steiner's lifetime.

Peter

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

From: Patrick
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:59 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Mr. Staudenmaier,

Rudolf Steiner is consistent if you see his remarks in the context of the worldview of anthroposophy. You don't, therefore the snide remarks.

Since Jewry as such did not in fact further the perpetuation of racist or nationalist impulses, the claim that they did is obviously untrue.

You are here making an assertion and basing your conclusion on your assertion! Let's put it this way, Rudolf Steiner thought that it was best for the progress of humanity for any leanings toward separatism, nationalism, or Zionism that existed to ultimately disappear. What do you think he meant by Jewry? Did he mean all Jewish people as a collection? I don't think so.

Patrick

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Patrick writes:

Key in my discussion with you is my point that all Rudolf Steiner's remarks about "races" in general and particular are consistent throughout his life.

That's one reason why you get snide responses from me. Steiner's racial doctrines were conspicuously inconsistent.

Anthroposophy presents the notion that it is the individual spirit of the human being that is of prime importance when considering his actions.

Agreed.

If you entertain the notion that human beings should be progressing towards a time when they form a world community full of mutual understanding, then it should not surprise you when Rudolf Steiner takes any individual, group, or nation to task for furthering the perpetuation of racist or nationalist impulses.

This doesn't surprise me, in fact it forms an important part of my analysis of Steiner's racial and ethnic doctrines. Since Jewry as such did not in fact further the perpetuation of racist or nationalist impulses, the claim that they did is obviously untrue. But it's also antisemitic. This very notion was one of the most prominent antisemitic canards about Jews during Steiner's lifetime.

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:27 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Daniel writes:

Or do you feel that it is merely a matter of which version is convienient to you in a given line of argument?

I don't see what convenience has to do with it. I think that Steiner's post-theosophical statements on race are at least as racist as his 1910 statements. I also think your idea (if I got it right) that the far-in-the-past sense of root races did not include biological races is completely wrong. You say you've read The Secret Doctrine. Do you mean that Blavatsky's use of root races in that text excludes biological races?

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:49 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Daniel writes:

Daniel wrote:

Or do you feel that it is merely a matter of which version is convienient to you in a given line of argument?

Peter Staudenmaier:

I don't see what convenience has to do with it. I think that Steiner's post-theosophical statements on race are at least as racist as his 1910 statements. I also think your idea (if I got it right) that the far-in-the-past sense of root races did not include biological races is completely wrong. You say you've read The Secret Doctrine. Do you mean that Blavatsky's use of root races in that text excludes biological races?

Daniel:

Peter, I really wish you would quit the selective quotation.
For review:

Detlef:

Steiner did indeed also use the word "Hauptrasse" synonymously for both these concepts. That, however, does not create identity between them!

Peter Staudenmaier:

What does identity between the concepts have to do with anything? The whole point is that Steiner and other theosophists repeatedly used a range of related terms to designate several different concepts.

Daniel:

Then Peter, perhaps you might consider trying to achieve clarity on which concept was intended in each instance? Or do you feel that it is merely a matter of which version is convienient to you in a given line of argument?

Subtlties, Peter, subtlties. Blavatsky's use of root races sometimes corresponded to elements of biological races. But this is not a one to one, or strong correspondence. An issue like this deserves in-depth examination, and not some silly back and forth over which gross oversimplification is more wrong. Check back with me when you have finished The Secret Doctrine.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 4:11 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

I wrote:

Since Jewry as such did not in fact further the perpetuation of racist or nationalist impulses, the claim that they did is obviously untrue.

And Patrick replied:

You are here making an assertion and basing your conclusion on your assertion!

Yes, I am indeed making an assertion. I urge you to contest that assertion in any way you see fit. If you believe that Jewry as such furthered the perpetuation of racist or nationalist impulses, go ahead and say so, and maybe explain why you believe that.

Let's put it this way, Rudolf Steiner thought that it was best for the progress of humanity for any leanings toward separatism, nationalism, or Zionism that existed to ultimately disappear.

Sure. And for Jewry as such to disappear.

What do you think he meant by Jewry? Did he mean all Jewish people as a collection?

Yes, that is what "Jewry as a people" means, by my reading.

I don't think so.

Why not? You think he meant Belgians?

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 4:55 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Peter Staudenmaier:

You can find the entire article here:

http://www.openwaldorf.com/anthroposophyandecofascism.pdf


Daniel:

Peter, I'm curious why it is so hard to find the revised version of your article. Do I understand correctly that you have no interest whatsoever in updating the sites that are currently hosting the earlier version?

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:01 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Daniel writes:

Peter, I'm curious why it is so hard to find the revised version of your article. Do I understand correctly that you have no interest whatsoever in updating the sites that are currently hosting the earlier version?

No, you definitely don't understand correctly, Daniel. If you're having some sort of trouble following the link I've provided several times now, you can download adobe acrobat for free any time. If you would like my article to receive a wider audience among anthroposophists, I encourage you to distribute it far and wide.

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:11 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Daniel writes:

Peter, I'm curious why it is so hard to find the revised version of your article. Do I understand correctly that you have no interest whatsoever in updating the sites that are currently hosting the earlier version?

Peter Staudenmaier:

No, you definitely don't understand correctly, Daniel. If you're having some sort of trouble following the link I've provided several times now, you can download adobe acrobat for free any time. If you would like my article to receive a wider audience among anthroposophists, I encourage you to distribute it far and wide.

Daniel:

Avoiding the question again, I see. HAVE YOU ANY INTENTION OF UPDATING THE SITES WITH THE OLD VERSION? If not, why?

Daniel Hindes

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

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sat Mar 13, 2004 11:46 pm
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Staudenmaier

So basically, it doesn't bother you that writings of yours that you acknowledge to be incorrect are more widely available than your corrected version.

I'm not sure if that's meant to be sarcastic or not, but for what it's worth, I definitely do not think this is a tragedy. Web publishing is not a big concern of mine.

OH:PINOCCHIO !!!!

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:40 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

HAVE YOU ANY INTENTION OF UPDATING THE SITES WITH THE OLD VERSION?

I already sent the revised version to SIMPOS, PLANS, and the ISE a very long time ago. Did you read Sune's post or not? What he's upset about is that I didn't keep pestering the respective webmasters of those sites after I sent it off to them. If you're asking if I intend to start pestering them now, the answer is no. Authors like that are annoying. It's hard for me to see why this would make a significant difference to you, since the revised version still contains all sorts of errors, in your view. You and I look at the same Steiner text and come to opposite conclusions about it. I think the notion that black people are substantially determined by childhood characteristics is racist. I think the notion that Native Americans were destined to die out because of their racial character is odious. It seems to me that this is what we ought to be discussing.

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:01 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

So basically, it doesn't bother you that writings of yours that you acknowledge to be incorrect are more widely available than your corrected version. I suppose it is a real tragedy, really just too bad, that institutions with whom you are closely afiliated continue to publish the incorrect version instead of the corrected one. Really just too bad. Deplorable. Oh well, what can a simple writer do? Asking a fellow-traveler to protect your integrity is just, well, impolite. Yes, really impolite.

I noticed that the ISE has a new on-line forum.
http://www.social-ecology.org/forums/

Perhaps I should go over there and mention the problems with the posted version of the article. After all, you yourself have already acknowledged them. Anyone else care to go over there and make your views on Peter Staudenmaier's articles known? The forums there don't seem to be getting that much traffic.

Daniel Hindes

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2004 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

HAVE YOU ANY INTENTION OF UPDATING THE SITES WITH THE OLD VERSION?

I already sent the revised version to SIMPOS, PLANS, and the ISE a very long time ago. Did you read Sune's post or not? What he's upset about is that I didn't keep pestering the respective webmasters of those sites after I sent it off to them. If you're asking if I intend to start pestering them now, the answer is no. Authors like that are annoying. It's hard for me to see why this would make a significant difference to you, since the revised version still contains all sorts of errors, in your view. You and I look at the same Steiner text and come to opposite conclusions about it. I think the notion that black people are substantially determined by childhood characteristics is racist. I think the notion that Native Americans were destined to die out because of their racial character is odious. It seems to me that this is what we ought to be discussing.

Peter

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

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:30 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

So basically, it doesn't bother you that writings of yours that you acknowledge to be incorrect are more widely available than your corrected version.

This bothers me about as much as the fact that the publishers of the Ecofascism book got the title of my chapter wrong. When I run out of important things to do in life, perhaps I'll get around to these burning issues.

I suppose it is a real tragedy, really just too bad, that institutions with whom you are closely afiliated continue to publish the incorrect version instead of the corrected one.

I'm not sure if that's meant to be sarcastic or not, but for what it's worth, I definitely do not think this is a tragedy. Web publishing is not a big concern of mine. I pay little attention to the stuff on the web about me, pro or con, as well as the stuff by me. Sune's pages are overflowing with silly claims about me, for example, and it wouldn't occur to me to put effort into changing that.

I noticed that the ISE has a new on-line forum.

I don't think it's new, it's been around for years. That would be a fine place to debate politics, economics, anarchism, and so forth, as well as anthroposophy, for anyone interested.

Perhaps I should go over there and mention the problems with the posted version of the article.

That would be great. The new webmaster is a friend of mine, and maybe he'll get around to posting the revised version.

Anyone else care to go over there and make your views on Peter Staudenmaier's articles known? The forums there don't seem to be getting that much traffic.

Quite true. I don't think I've seen a substantial exchange there in a long while. Maybe one of you would prefer to take advantage of that forum and explain why you think the idea that black people are substantially determined by childhood characteristics is not racist, for example.

Peter

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

From: at
Date: Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:28 am
Subject: Fw: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Daniel wrote:

In addition, the entire characterization [In Anthroposophy and Ecofascism] of the contents of the eleven lectures [in GA 121 - The Mission of Folk Souls] is grossly incorrect.

Peter Staudenmaier:

That is what we should be arguing about.

Daniel:

Please. I'm waiting for your explanation as to why the Jupiter forces are superior to the other planetary forces.

Peter,

I still have no answer to this question. You provided me with one citation where Steiner characterized Jupiter consciousness as "high" in a completely unrelated context. I want to understand how planetary forces work so that their correspondance with racial forms magically becomes "racist".

Daniel Hindes

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

From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:44 am
Subject: Re: Fw: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Daniel to Peter:

Please. I'm waiting for your explanation as to why the Jupiter forces are superior to the other planetary forces.

Hold on a second, we may have to duke this one out Daniel. I am still waiting for Peter to respond about Mr. Farells and Mr./Ms. Walden regarding 'Intellectual Dishonesty, Simple Dishonesy or the third way which is one says a think but doesn't know it's wrong.

I sense a line forming,

Dottie

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

From: Mike Helsher
Date: Thu Mar 18, 2004 3:06 pm
Subject: Re: Fw: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Peter

Daniel to Peter:

Please. I'm waiting for your explanation as to why the Jupiter forces are superior to the other planetary forces.

Hold on a second, we may have to duke this one out Daniel. I am still waiting for Peter to respond about Mr. Farells and Mr./Ms. Walden regarding 'Intellectual Dishonesty, Simple Dishonesy or the third way which is one says a think but doesn't know it's wrong.

I sense a line forming,

Dottie

Hey, I'm waiting too. He still hasn't answered some of my questions.

Kinda like standing in line at the circus.

I anticipate a great show.

Mike

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


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