Monday, 28 May 2012
A Short Response to "A Critique of Ben Klassen's Creativity Ideology and Its Relation to Other Religions"
(Aryan Nation/ Critique of Creativity Link)
http://www.aryan-nation.org/a_critique_ ... ivity.html
A Short Response to "A Critique of Ben Klassen's Creativity Ideology and Its Relation to Other Religions"
by Reverend Matt Hale, Pontifex Maximus Emeritus
Ecclesia Creatoris (the Latin name of our church founded as the Church of the Creator in 1973)
Dear Brothers and Sisters! Let me first thank the Aryan Nations for giving me the opportunity to respond to the aforementioned critique by the unknown author, a critique that raises a number of claims about and challenges to my religion, Creativity, that deserve and warrant a response. I do so in the spirit of Racial Loyalist brotherhood, a spirit that those who know me know I have always maintained for all Racial Loyalists of whatever religious faith. In a sense, that spirit is the best response to the critique of all, for if Creativity were really what the critic maintains that it is, namely a religion that is basically crude, totalitarian and oppressive in nature, I as a believer in Creativity would not have the appreciation and love for all Racial Loyalists that I do.
The critic is an intelligent person, but he presumes many things about Creativity that are untrue in nature and that are in fact directly violative of our Creativity religion. I summarize them as follows:
1) That Creators in any way consider themselves "atheists" and/or "materialists".
2) That Creativity means to ever oppress any other religion subscribed to by White people.
3) That Creativity's disdain of belief in an "afterlife" somehow renders Creators less moral and courageous than other people.
4) That Creativity means to make White people less religious.
Any reader of the critique will realize these are the underpinnings of the critic's entire argument that Creativity is somehow harmful to or a danger for our beloved White people. If though the premises of the critic listed above happen to be erroneous as I hope to show briefly, I submit that his negative conclusions about Creativity are in error as well.
The first problem with the critique is that the critic never defines what "spirituality" means and yet it is central to his entire argument. What exactly is he talking about? He seems to imply that spirituality and materialism are opposites and thus can only be for one or the other. Is one required to believe in a deity in order to be "spiritual"? If that is the case, we Creators would admit that indeed, we are not spiritual and in fact disdain "spirituality". Since, on the other hand, we Creators do deeply believe in many non-material values such as honor, love, hope, loyalty, and others, if these are indeed spiritual values -- and many people would say that they indeed are -- we Creators, submit that we are as spiritual as anybody. (We have a print newsletter, for example, called Creator Spirit.) The critic is thus in error that Creativity reduces everything to physicality; rather, we Creators simply believe that physical world is that from which all else follows. Instead of believing in a "supernatural" -- something we deem to be a contradiction in terms -- we believe that everything is in nature. That though does not mean that we disdain the nobel values that I have indicated; quite the contrary is in fact the case. The fact that we Creators consider Creativity a religion at all shows that we disagree with the critic's premise that we are somehow opposed to higher values. Rather, we simply do not hold that one must believe in a god or gods or a personal "afterlife" -- another contradiction in terms -- in order to possess such higher values. Race is thus the foundation of our values, true, but it is not the end of them. For example, the 14th Commandment of our Creativity religion states, "Throughout your life you shall faithfully uphold our pivotal creed of Blood, Soil, and Honor. Practice it diligently, for it is the heart of our faith." We Creators thus believe in our race, the earth, and living an honorable life. None of these things requires believing in a supernatural any more enjoying the Yuletide season requires believing in Santa Claus.
The critic also seems to complain about the fact that Creators wish to convert all White people to Creativity. This though is hardly unusual: Christians wish to convert non-Christians, Muslims wish to convert non-Muslims, and on and on. His inference though that we would ever seek to convert our White people by force is totally false and reveals a general lack of knowledge about our religion. The critic does not seem to be aware that our Founder was fond of quoting the philosopher Voltaire's famous statement, "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend to death your right to say it" when it came to the voicing of different beliefs and that our scriptures state that our religion is against any kind of coercion of anyone to believe as we do. Like Christianity today -- and presumably like the paganism of the critic -- we believing in persuading people, not in twisting their arms. It is from Ben Klassen that I personally learned the old saying, "A person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." In fact, much of Creativity's disdain of Christianity, as outlined especially in The White Man's Bible, is based upon the fact that Christianity historically used a considerable amount of physical force and other oppression in an effort to make small people conform to that particular religion and it's various sects. Thus the critic's claim and concern that Creativity's widespread triumph would mean the oppression of those who disagree with it is simply untrue and is in fact anathema to what we believe in. As far as we are concerned, a man can worship a rock if he wants to. We will try to persuade him otherwise of course but in the end it remains up to him.
The critic also errs in his claim that Creativity has no regard for ethnic distinctions within the White Race. Instead, we simply say that the best interests of our race as a whole must come first. It is Creativity more than any other religion, ideology, or philosophy that took the Second World War to heart: never again must White people wage war against one another due to ethnic differences or rivalries. Our racial tree has many limbs and branches but all are part of and serve that tree. Thus Creativity does emphasize our White Race over that of any particular ethnicity while rejoicing in the uniqueness of them all. Hence Creators everywhere rejoiced in the re-unification of Germany when it occurred, for example, but at the same time urged the greater unity of all White people for our entire White Race. Yes, Creativity is a racial religion through and through but isn't that about time? What Ben Klassen realized is that our race had reached such a threat to it's existence that only a thoroughly racial religion that puts the minds of our people squarely on it could save it. Can anyone really say that Ben Klassen has been proven wrong in that regard? We today have a mulatto president of the United States who was put in office by millions of White Christians. It is precisely because Creativity is indeed a totally racial religion that there is no way that such a thing could have ever happened were those Christians instead Creators.
What is also remarkable is that the critic, in his ancillary praise of theism of apparently any kind, never bothers to examine whether the idea that there really is a god or gods is in fact true. Instead, the critic is basically saying that we should believe in a god or gods whether they really exist or not. What about the truth? Doesn't it matter? Are we instead to adopt belief systems based on speculation rather than what we think is actually real? Creativity believes that reality should indeed matter and that is what guides Creators in their lives. Creativity says that we who believe in it are willing to believe in anything provided that sufficient evidence has been presented so as to validate the belief in question. We submit that, that is not much to ask. The critic would have us place our faith in that which we can't see (gods) over that which we can see (our race). We think the reverse makes more sense. On a related note, the critic repeatedly attacks atheism and says that Creativity is "atheistic" without realizing that Creators don't consider themselves atheists due to the fact that "atheism" only indicates what a person doesn't believe in rather than what he does. This too shows that the critic is not very knowledgeable about the religion he is critiquing. Since we hold that the idea of a "god" is essentially devoid of meaning, we see little reason to describe ourselves by a lack of belief in such.
Nor apparently is the critic knowledgeable of who the Mennonites were, when it comes to his unfortunate insinuations about Ben Klassen's ancestry, as he complains that Ben Klassen apparently did not look "Ukrainian" to him. Well, the simple answer is that Ben Klassen wasn't a Ukrainian. The Mennonite community that he was born into in the Ukraine were Germans as most people who know anything about the Mennonites would know. They were welcomed into the Ukraine by the Tsarist government to farm the land along with other German settlers. The critic apparently also did not read Ben Klassen's autobiography, Against the Evil Tide, in which he set forth his family tree for several centuries and puts to rest any aspersions along the lines of the critic. Nor did Ben Klassen even have the physical characteristics that the critic claimed he had. Notably, the critic apparently did not know that Ben (Bernhardt) Klassen as a young man living in Canada applied for and was granted in 1939 permission to study engineering in the Third Reich, this being written about in his first and the seminal book of our religion, Nature's Eternal Religion. Since Jews were banned from German universities at that point, that obviously would not have been possible were he indeed jewish.
Does anyone really think that the Nazi government would allow a Jew to enter the country and study engineering there in 1939? I have met many people who met Ben Klassen and none of them ever had the opinion about his ancestry that the unknown critic claims to have. It is unfortunate that he felt compelled to launch such a low blow personal aspersion upon the man in an effort to buttress his critique. Notably, Ron McVan, who he quotes several times on other points, worked side by side with Ben Klassen for several years. Obviously he didn't doubt his ancestry either.
The critc also claims that Creators attack the very idea of White people having religious beliefs and yet the very first pages of Nature's Eternal Religion state that the intent of Creativity is to make our White people more religious. An anti-religion religion is obviously a contradiction in terms and yet that is what the critic would have people believe is the case here. Ben Klassen thoroughly discusses in our books why Creativity is indeed a religion. The fact that we place supreme value in our race instead of in a speculative deity or deities does not negate our religiosity. Again, we have to wonder just how informed the critic is of Creativity.
Of greater value is the critic's philosophical discussion of the origin of the universe that takes place in the closing pages of his critique. The basic error though is the assumption that there has to be an origin in the first place. Again and again the critic makes the error that physical matter in the universe had to come from some non-physical source. It didn't. Rather, matter cannot be "created"; instead, matter can only change form. Furthermore, Creativity submits that there can be no such thing as thought without a brain. In other words, if thought is to be possible, there must be some kind of mechanism to make it possible. This should not be a controversial proposition. You and I think because we have brains. If our brains were to be damaged in some way, our thought would be damaged too regardless of whatever our alleged "souls" had to say about it. Hence when we die and there is no more functioning brain, there can be no more thinking nor an afterlife where people can think either. Hence were a god or gods to exist, they too would have to have a brain in order to think. The basic error of non-physical theism is that it insists that somehow a non-physical world can somehow control the physical world from whence unknown. Creativity says that the reverse is more likely the case. In any event, Creativity is less concerned with whether there could somehow be a "beginning" to life (life likely in fact always existed) than with whether our beloved White Race will survive the existential threat upon it now, today. As our great Founder said, sure, we can debate how many "angels" can dance on the head of a pin as monks did in the Middle Ages but really, we have better things to do!
When we hear the strains of Mozart, it is because we have brains, physicality, that we can discern and pronounce that they have beauty. When we are embraced by our loved ones, it is because we have nerves, physicality, that we feel joy. When we fight for a future for our White people, it is because they have real, tangible, physical being that we can know whether that future can indeed be ensured. There is no shame in that and nor do Creators feel that they are missing out on anything by pronouncing our love for our White people our religion without supernatural thoughts. Nor do we need some kind of assurance that there is another life when we die for us to do our duty in this one. Indeed, it is the Creators, who have less fear of death because as our Founder quotes of the Roman philosopher and statesman Cicero in The White Man's Bible, we view death as merely a long sleep from which we never wake. We fear death no more than we feared being born. All individual lives come and go but the life of our race remains. I do not believe anyone can say that I myself held back from doing my personal duty for our cause due to any fear of death and it is my hope that our critic and all of our Brothers and Sisters for that matter may likewise experience that peaceful state of mind by actually reading The Books of Creativity.
Rev Matt Hale (Jan 2012)
Pontifex Maximus Emeritus
Church of the Cr**tor
note: Any typographical, spelling, or other errors are that of the transcriber, not that of Rev Hale.