One of the most prolific critics of Anthroposophy working
in English right now is Peter Staudenmaier.
Peter writes quite well, and his articles succeed in making
his polemical points quite effectively. My main problem with
Peter Staudenmaier's writing is his
disregard for the accuracy of his citations; he consistently
his sources to make his polemical points. When called on
this, he invariably responds that he would never do such
but the record speaks otherwise.
I have made an exhaustive study of this in examining Staudenmaier's
and Ecofascism. In introducing my examination I write:
In his article Anthroposophy and Ecofascism Peter Staudenmaier,
who claims for himself the status of an honest and thorough
scholar, gives an overview of Rudolf Steiner, anthroposophy
and anthroposophists during the Nazi era that few scholars
of Rudolf Steiner or his era would recognize.
Staudenmaier seems genuinely concerned with fascism and
it's rise, and I share his concern with, and interest in,
the period. But he seems just as wedded to his misconception
of Steiner and his determination to prove at all costs that
his portrait of the man is more accurate than the one that
most other scholars of Steiner draw. It is not so much the
opposing viewpoints that I object to, it is the "at
all costs" part.
This includes fabricated quotations, intentional mistranslations,
and misrepresented context, as well as partial citations and
a complete and deliberate failure to come to terms with Steiner's
own philosophy. I'm not sure why Peter goes to such lenghts
to misrepresent Steiner, but he does, and stubbornly defends
his distortions when confronted with his them. Clearly he
is unconcerned with accuracy.
For specific instances, see:
Sites that mention Peter Staudenmaier's
I am not the only person to have noticed Peter Staudenmaier's
lack of accuracy. Sune Nordwall has detailed a number of
issues on his web site. His page is titled On
the Stories by Peter Staudenmaier.
Likewise Tarjei Straume shows Peter
Staudenmaier at his usual tricks.