Tuesday, 8 December 2015

Critique of a Critique...By Ben Klassen ( Response to Richard S. Hoehler)




Mr. Richard S. Hoehler is a writer and a philosopher who has written several books on the subject of philosophy, Jews and National Socialism. He is domiciled In Colorado and a writer of considerable talent. Recently he submitted an article, a critique if you will, of the Creativity Movement, and since we respect Mr. Hoehler's appraisal we printed the article on the front page of Racial Loyalty No. 19.

We believe that a healthy exchange of criticism is always a constructive process in that it either calls forth a re-examination and correction of any faults, defects or shortcomings, or it provides an excellent opportunity to explain a perfectly valid position, or positions that may be grossly misunderstood or misrepresented by the critic and/or the world at large. After all, nobody is perfect, nobody has all the answers, and least of all the critics themselves. As anyone knows, it is much easier to criticize than to break new ground and build something meaningful, whether it be a skyscraper, or a new movement or a new religion.

Within this framework, I want to answer some of the criticisms that Mr. Hoehler has raised, not so much for Mr. Hoehler's benefit, but for the benefit of all our readers, supporters and members. I want to do so because I feel that the questions raised reflect views that are commonly bandied about, not so much by our active supporters and members, but by spectators on the outside, that group we have often referred to as the arm-chair intelligentsia. Whereas I respect Mr. Hoehler's philosophy and writings, I must make it clear that he is not a member of the Church Of The Creator, and has never made any positive contributions to the movement. His leanings are more towards National Socialism, but I do not know whether he belongs to any such group either.

Be that as it may, let us, in a spirit of good will and with an open mind, take a look at what Mr. Hoehler had to say about CREATIVITY, and what our correct position is towards each issue. Before I do so, I want to make a criticism of Mr. Hoehler's writings in general and the Dec. 1984 article in particular, and it is this: Some of his statements are so vague one is left wondering what he means, or how, if at all, it applies to the question at hand. As we used to say when I was in the Florida Legislature: "Your point is so subtle it completely escapes me." This is, at least one criticism that has never been leveled at me. On the contrary, most people have criticized me by saying that: "You certainly make it perfectly clear as to where you stand, perhaps too clear."

Now we come to some of the points that we do understand, or think we do.

1."One fellow I know claims you are 'too Jewish' for his taste. Curiously enough an objective observer could point out certain features of your stand which are both historically or culturally Jewish in flavor".

Alright, let us look at this general broadside. Let me say at the outset that It to hard to account for some people's tastes, especially when I don't know who this fellow is for whose taste I may be "too Jewish". But tastes come in more varieties than Howard Johnson's 28 flavors of ice cream, and some of the tastes on the modern scene are extremely bizarre and repugnant. We have sex perverts, we have people who "adore" Michael Jackson, people who hate Hitler. Need I go on? We are not going to try to accommodate all tastes, or any, for that matter. If CREATIVITY is not their tasty dish, let them dine elsewhere. The world is full of alternatives, most of which are Jewish garbage. In fact, all I intend to do is call it as I see it, and try to wipe the Jewish pestilence from off the face of the earth. However, the point is that evidently Mr. Hoehler agrees with this "fellow", whoever he is, because he goes on to say:

2."Sarcasm and cynicism are prime Jewish psychological weapons".

Perhaps so, Mr. Hoehier, but no more so than words, propaganda, religion, money, terrorism, military hardware and a million other weapons that are used by Jews and non-Jews alike in order to prevail over their enemies and survive. You yourself extensively use sarcasm and cynicism in your writings. Even our common idol, Adolf Hitler, used them all extensively, all the way from sarcasm to military hardware in order to prevail, and only a fool would allow himself to be willingly divested of all the useful weapons at his disposal because somebody might accuse him of using weapons used by the Jews. We have no intentions of voluntarily disarming ourselves so our enemies can make mincemeat out of us. (Read again "Self Imposed Handicaps" in Issue No. 6 of (Expanding Creativity).

3.This brings me to the crux of Mr. Hoehler's criticism. "Beware in fighting with monsters lest you yourself become a monster!" he says, quoting Nietzsche.

How cute! The alternative that is not mentioned is to evidently let the monster devour you.
So I am glad this issue was raised because it is one of the silliest shibboleths that has ever been bandied about, and in answer let me draw you a picture.

If you were part of an army that was provided with nothing more than slingshots and you were engaged in a life and death battle with an opposition army that was armed with machine guns, you would, I believe, be at a serious disadvantage, to say the least. Now if your dumb leader said to you "yes, we too could obtain machine guns, but heaven forbid, we don't want to be like our enemies, and we will therefore do the honorable thing. We will faithfully stick with our slingshots, even though we are wiped out to a man".

That would be pretty dumb, wouldn't it? In fact, suicidal. We CREATORS don't intend to commit suicide and we are not dumb enough to have our prime weapons struck out of our hands. (Read again "Knocking the Key Weapon from out of the Enemy's Hands", in R.L. No. 17 ). Knocking the Key Weapon from out of the Enemy's Hands..By Ben Klassen
 No indeed, if the enemy is using machine guns and has weapons superior to ours, we want to make damn sure we not only avail ourselves of machine guns too, but also that ours are superior to the enemy's, and add to that a whole shop- ping list of other superior weapons — mortars, cannons, tanks, aircraft, bombers, or whatever it takes. That is, in fact, our position: we will do whatever it takes, and to hell with the slingshot advocates.

It is here that I want to reveal a crucial observation to Mr. Hoehler: I have learned more from the Jew*, from Jewish weapons and tactics than I have from all the White scholars, presidents and philosophers pit together, and I have no hesitation, apologies and no compunction about saying so.
The Jews, a small parasitic minority, have survived for 5000 years and now own and control the world. It behooves us to study how they have done it and utilize the same effective and
and powerful weapons.
This I have done and it is all polarized into a White racial religion. If that is "too Jewish" for some fellow's "taste", that is too bad, but I say to hell with hanging onto the slingshots. We are determined to SURVIVE AND WIN, and use whatever weapons it takes.

4. We now come to one of the weakest and most indefensible of all charges leveled at us, and that is Mr. Hoehler's criticism of our SALUBRIOUS LIVING approach to good health and a sound mind. Evidently such an attitude, too, is Jewish, and see, therefore we should not "concern ourselves with dietary rules".
Why? Because Mr. Hoehler says, it is Jewish brain-rot and as conclusive evidence he cites Ralph Waldo Emerson's quotation: "A good mind can nourish himself on a broth of boiled shoes, if need be!" Well, I didn't know Emerson said that, but I'll take Mr. Hoehler's word for it, and make a comment of my own. If Emerson did say that, it was one of the most stupid remarks he ever made, and evidently Emerson was completely ignorant of the scientific information now available about how to nurture a healthy body and a sound mind. He evidently was also grossly ignorant about certain rules of living that can ruin not only a healthy body, but also the mind that inhabits that body.
Surely, even the most naïve and uninformed will admit that such rules exist. Surely no Individual is indifferent as to whether his mind and body are in excellent health, whether they are functioning efficiently and effectively, as to whether they are imbued with a good feeling of energy and well being, or whether on the other hand they feel sick, despondent, suicidal, their body racked with pain and lethargy. There is a difference, isn't there? And surely, what you ingest into your body makes a difference.
 How you treat your body, whether you treat it intelligently or abuse it like a wanton fool, does make a difference, doesn't it? Whether you "nourish" your body with boiled shoe leather, cocaine, smoke pot, smoke tobacco, or consume 100 to 200 pounds of sugar a year does make one hell of a difference. We CREATORS call that difference "Salubrious Living". We have reviewed just one chapter, namely Chapter 8 of our book of the same name on this important subject. We hope it will help some uninformed people to begin educating themselves for their own benefit.

But let us not be too hard on Mr. Emerson. He is not alone among the intelligentsia who are completely screwed up in their approach to health and common sense. There are millions of them still wandering the earth today who may know everything about the 18th Dynasty that ruled Egypt several thousand years ago, but are completely ignorant regarding the first constructive rule about taking care of their own bodies, the same bodies that house their closed minds, and both suffer much as a result. There are more hundreds of millions meandering the face of the earth who gorge on toxic junk foods, overfed and undernourished. Most of them are obese, lethargic, loaded with chemical toxins, inviting
cancer and all the other degenerative diseases of civilization. As George Dietz has said repeatedly, 'Those who will not read have no advantage over those who cannot".

No indeed, Mr. Hoehler, SALUBRIOUS LIVING is NOT Jewish. It is just plain, good common sense. The A.M.A. and their medical dogma of drugs, chemicals, poisons and the whole mess of unnatural toxins is Jewish. It causes cancer, diabetes, heart disease and a whole plethora of so-called degenerative diseases that our "civilization" is afflicted with, but rarely found among the primitive races of mankind. The "approved" A.M.A. treatment of cancer, for instance, i« cut, burn, and poison. THAT IS JEWISH.

But living in accordance with, and in harmony with the Laws of Nature, and taking care of our health, our mind, our society, our gene pool and our environment is about as un-Jewish as you can get. It is strictly CREATIVE, strictly all White, and that is what CREATIVITY is all about. The fact that the primitive ignorant Jews may have imbedded some stupid dietary superstitions in their perverted gutter religion does not in the least deter, or discourage us from using common sense in understanding and applying the Laws of Nature. My only regret is that I was not apprised of this extremely important body of knowledge when I was a child, instead of being misled by Jew-trained doctors for most of my adult life. I sincerely regret that only late in life did I stumble onto this vital area of human knowledge, when I could have enjoyed the benefits thereof from the day I was born. But as Adolf Hitler said — 'There are truths lying around on the streets, but few people will recognize them." Let us repeat: those who will not read — the closed mind — the sick mind.

We now come to the allegation that CREATIVITY has something in common with Judaism because somehow we embrace "monotheism". This is exceedingly strange since this implies that we CREATORS too embrace the "One God" thesis, when we are one of the foremost advocates of dumping spookcraft — all spookcrafts. Not only that, but evidently when we try to solve an over- whelming world problem — namely the Jewish pestilence — by using logic, by being rational, by using our brains, by trying to organize a systematic and effective counter-force to the Jewish power establishment, this is evidently deemed extremely bad, and brands us as being cold and unemotional. Evidently, Mr. Hoehler
goes along with other similar critics and implies that we should be irrational, illogical and silly about the whole thing, play childish games instead and employ the help of imaginary spooks to do the job for us. If we don't we are cold and unemotional. Not only that but the more of a
muddled mish-mash we can drag into the picture, why the happier everybody will be, whether we get the job done or not. That seems to be the
implied alternative to

Well, we will not be hoodwinked or misled down a blind alley. (Read again: "A Polyglot Mind and a Polyglot Society — Who Needs Them?" in Issue No. 10 of Expanding Creativity). For too long the White Race has been aimlessly wandering in a pointless disorganized sea of confusion, a muddled mish-mash of meaningless Jewish shibboleths, and it has led to nothing but unmitigated disaster for the White Race. Believe me, just because we are trying to be rational, factual, logical, organized and systematic in solving a dire problem does not mean we are unemotional. By no means. We CREATORS can get as fired up as anybody, if not more so. But that doesn't mean we must be silly and confused about it. We aim to concentrate and direct that fire effectively at the target. (Read again "The Time has come for the White Race to establish its own Pole Star")
In conclusion, let me say this: We CREATORS are not in the business of trying to impress anyone, or to entertain anyone. We mean to get an important job done, and sacrifice whatever it takes, do whatever it takes. If we have learned some successful tactics from the Jews and use their own weapons against them, why that's great. That does not make us Jewish in the least. It only means that we deplore the slingshot syndrome. There is one major difference between the White Race and the Jews that will always remain — and that is: The Jews are eternal parasites and can only survive on the backs of a productive boat. On the other hand, we CREATORS are builders and producers and need no help from any of the other races, least of all parasites and other mud races, and we seek to build a Whiter and Brighter World for our own kind.

This attitude will make a lot of Christians, bleeding hearts, muddle-headed hypocrites, mealy-mouthed sentimentalists, dopeheads, cowards and sycophants mad.
That's too damn bad. But now that we have found our Pole Star we will remain on our course, we will remain factual, rational, logical and determined to do the job that must be done.  

We are interested only in those stout hearts that will help us get that awesome job done, and have little interest in those who have nothing better to do than throw roadblocks in our way.

We Creators would rather be promoting a cause that may be unpopular at this time but will win in the end, than one that may be popular now but lose in the end. The biggest problem we have to contend with (and correct) is the screwed up thinking of the White Race itself.

Ben Klassen
Founder Church of the Creator



                                Article taken from Racial Loyalty # 21
                                                   Feb 12AC (1985)




1 comment: