Welcome to our New Forums!

Our forums have been upgraded and expanded!

Welcome to Our New Forums

  • Our forums have been upgraded! You can read about this HERE

Joy of Satan perspective on Helping the Poor and Suffering?

Eaomonomae

New member
Joined
Jan 3, 2023
Messages
43
What are your guys' perspectives on helping the poor?

The Proto-Christian Roman Empire, it seems like selfless charity didn't really exist. There is a concept of "generosity" for a sense of personal honor, and perhaps broader social duty for generosity to those who deserve it, but all of this was rooted in one's sense of self with one expecting benefits in return for that charity. By no means were the poor viewed as "blessed in spirit" or charity as a means to commune with the divine; the poor were viewed as rabble, weak, wretched, and disfavored by the gods. After all, if they had the gods / goodness favor them, they wouldn't be in the place they were in.

People often viewed the poor as self-infliction; they are in that sorry state of life because they don't have the chops for basic social responsibility. There is a concept of "philanthropy" in Greco-Roman Paganism, via the myth of Prometheus (who is called the friend of humans), but still, it seems that in Ancient Rome, philanthropy was viewed as foolish for those who didn't deserve it and one should perform charity only to the extent that it brought honor and social returns.

Nietzsche - often embraced by most Theistic Satanists - had a view that pretty much lined with this perspective in his view of "Geneology of Morals" and his "Transvaluation of values", identifying weakness and poverty with evil and something to be reviled at.

One of the things that made Christianity so attractive to the masses was their insistence on helping the poor, because the suffering state of humanity was something most people relate to. This was such an issue that Emperor Julian, who tried to bring back the Old Gods, tried to create pagan charities to compete with the Christian charities.

Egyptian Paganism, via the Book of the Dead, on the other hand, seems to view the alleviation of suffering as a must for passage to the afterlife, and that is how the gods will judge you - how much did you perform to alleviate suffering.

Hinduism is somewhere in the middle. The Bhagavad Gita venerates the cultivation of generosity (dana), which should be given only to a worthy person without an expectation of return in the right place and right time. There is corrupt or evil versions of charity, including "rajas" where one gives generosity with an expectation of some return or grudgingly, and "tamas" or dark charity as one giving charity to unworthy people or in the wrong place and time.

Where does JOS stand in this regard? Are Spiritual Satanists more Nietzschean (not my job to help the poor, they are rabble and weak), or are they more Egyptian Pagan (you must alleviate suffering to be saved)? Are they somewhere in the middle?
 
I think you have misrepresented both Nietzsche and the Egyptian Book of the Dead:

Eamonomae said:
Nietzsche - often embraced by most Theistic Satanists - had a view that pretty much lined with this perspective in his view of "Geneology of Morals" and his "Transvaluation of values", identifying weakness and poverty with evil and something to be reviled at.

Nietzsche mostly says that we shouldn't focus on weakness by pitying it like xianity does. He doesn't say that it is "evil" because "evil" according to Nietzsche is exclusively a xian slave morality concept, he even says his philosophy is "beyond good and evil" and wrote a book with this title.

Eamonomae said:
Egyptian Paganism, via the Book of the Dead, on the other hand, seems to view the alleviation of suffering as a must for passage to the afterlife, and that is how the gods will judge you - how much did you perform to alleviate suffering.

The Book of the Dead doesn't say anything about alleviating suffering or any other positive injunctions (i.e. good things that you should do), but it contains only negative ones: bad things that you shouldn't do in order to pass through to the afterlife. These are the 42 negative confessions:

1. Hail, Usekh-nemmt, who comest forth from Anu, I have not committed sin.

2. Hail, Hept-khet, who comest forth from Kher-aha, I have not committed robbery with violence.

3. Hail, Fenti, who comest forth from Khemenu, I have not stolen.

4. Hail, Am-khaibit, who comest forth from Qernet, I have not slain men and women.

5. Hail, Neha-her, who comest forth from Rasta, I have not stolen grain.

6. Hail, Ruruti, who comest forth from Heaven, I have not purloined offerings.

7. Hail, Arfi-em-khet, who comest forth from Suat, I have not stolen the property of God.

8. Hail, Neba, who comest and goest, I have not uttered lies.

9. Hail, Set-qesu, who comest forth from Hensu, I have not carried away food.

10. Hail, Utu-nesert, who comest forth from Het-ka-Ptah, I have not uttered curses.

11. Hail, Qerrti, who comest forth from Amentet, I have not committed adultery.

12. Hail, Hraf-haf, who comest forth from thy cavern, I have made none to weep.

13. Hail, Basti, who comest forth from Bast, I have not eaten the heart.

14. Hail, Ta-retiu, who comest forth from the night, I have not attacked any man.

15. Hail, Unem-snef, who comest forth from the execution chamber, I am not a man of deceit.

16. Hail, Unem-besek, who comest forth from Mabit, I have not stolen cultivated land.

17. Hail, Neb-Maat, who comest forth from Maati, I have not been an eavesdropper.

18. Hail, Tenemiu, who comest forth from Bast, I have not slandered anyone.

19. Hail, Sertiu, who comest forth from Anu, I have not been angry without just cause.

20. Hail, Tutu, who comest forth from Ati, I have not debauched the wife of any man.

21. Hail, Uamenti, who comest forth from the Khebt chamber, I have not debauched the wives of other men.

22. Hail, Maa-antuf, who comest forth from Per-Menu, I have not polluted myself.

23. Hail, Her-uru, who comest forth from Nehatu, I have terrorized none.

24. Hail, Khemiu, who comest forth from Kaui, I have not transgressed the law.

25. Hail, Shet-kheru, who comest forth from Urit, I have not been angry.

26. Hail, Nekhenu, who comest forth from Heqat, I have not shut my ears to the words of truth.

27. Hail, Kenemti, who comest forth from Kenmet, I have not blasphemed.

28. Hail, An-hetep-f, who comest forth from Sau, I am not a man of violence.

29. Hail, Sera-kheru, who comest forth from Unaset, I have not been a stirrer up of strife.

30. Hail, Neb-heru, who comest forth from Netchfet, I have not acted with undue haste.

31. Hail, Sekhriu, who comest forth from Uten, I have not pried into other's matters.

32. Hail, Neb-abui, who comest forth from Sauti, I have not multiplied my words in speaking.

33. Hail, Nefer-Tem, who comest forth from Het-ka-Ptah, I have wronged none, I have done no evil.

34. Hail, Tem-Sepu, who comest forth from Tetu, I have not worked witchcraft against the king.

35. Hail, Ari-em-ab-f, who comest forth from Tebu, I have never stopped the flow of water of a neighbor.

36. Hail, Ahi, who comest forth from Nu, I have never raised my voice.

37. Hail, Uatch-rekhit, who comest forth from Sau, I have not cursed God.

38. Hail, Neheb-ka, who comest forth from thy cavern, I have not acted with arrogance.

39. Hail, Neheb-nefert, who comest forth from thy cavern, I have not stolen the bread of the gods.

40. Hail, Tcheser-tep, who comest forth from the shrine, I have not carried away the khenfu cakes from the spirits of the dead.

41. Hail, An-af, who comest forth from Maati, I have not snatched away the bread of the child, nor treated with contempt the god of my city.

42. Hail, Hetch-abhu, who comest forth from Ta-she, I have not slain the cattle belonging to the god.

SS doesn't have a dogma about this so you should just follow your common sense. Don't be a slave and work for ingrates just because you feel guilt or pity for them. That's the worst you can do. Only help those who show promise and work to help themselves and become independent and not waste your time on parasites who only want to leech from you and exploit you.
 
Eamonomae said:
What are your guys' perspectives on helping the poor?

The Proto-Christian Roman Empire, it seems like selfless charity didn't really exist. There is a concept of "generosity" for a sense of personal honor, and perhaps broader social duty for generosity to those who deserve it, but all of this was rooted in one's sense of self with one expecting benefits in return for that charity. By no means were the poor viewed as "blessed in spirit" or charity as a means to commune with the divine; the poor were viewed as rabble, weak, wretched, and disfavored by the gods. After all, if they had the gods / goodness favor them, they wouldn't be in the place they were in.

People often viewed the poor as self-infliction; they are in that sorry state of life because they don't have the chops for basic social responsibility. There is a concept of "philanthropy" in Greco-Roman Paganism, via the myth of Prometheus (who is called the friend of humans), but still, it seems that in Ancient Rome, philanthropy was viewed as foolish for those who didn't deserve it and one should perform charity only to the extent that it brought honor and social returns.

Nietzsche - often embraced by most Theistic Satanists - had a view that pretty much lined with this perspective in his view of "Geneology of Morals" and his "Transvaluation of values", identifying weakness and poverty with evil and something to be reviled at.

One of the things that made Christianity so attractive to the masses was their insistence on helping the poor, because the suffering state of humanity was something most people relate to. This was such an issue that Emperor Julian, who tried to bring back the Old Gods, tried to create pagan charities to compete with the Christian charities.

Egyptian Paganism, via the Book of the Dead, on the other hand, seems to view the alleviation of suffering as a must for passage to the afterlife, and that is how the gods will judge you - how much did you perform to alleviate suffering.

Hinduism is somewhere in the middle. The Bhagavad Gita venerates the cultivation of generosity (dana), which should be given only to a worthy person without an expectation of return in the right place and right time. There is corrupt or evil versions of charity, including "rajas" where one gives generosity with an expectation of some return or grudgingly, and "tamas" or dark charity as one giving charity to unworthy people or in the wrong place and time.

Where does JOS stand in this regard? Are Spiritual Satanists more Nietzschean (not my job to help the poor, they are rabble and weak), or are they more Egyptian Pagan (you must alleviate suffering to be saved)? Are they somewhere in the middle?
The gita offers the correct perspective.
 
Eamonomae said:
What are your guys' perspectives on helping the poor?

The Proto-Christian Roman Empire, it seems like selfless charity didn't really exist. There is a concept of "generosity" for a sense of personal honor, and perhaps broader social duty for generosity to those who deserve it, but all of this was rooted in one's sense of self with one expecting benefits in return for that charity. By no means were the poor viewed as "blessed in spirit" or charity as a means to commune with the divine; the poor were viewed as rabble, weak, wretched, and disfavored by the gods. After all, if they had the gods / goodness favor them, they wouldn't be in the place they were in.

People often viewed the poor as self-infliction; they are in that sorry state of life because they don't have the chops for basic social responsibility. There is a concept of "philanthropy" in Greco-Roman Paganism, via the myth of Prometheus (who is called the friend of humans), but still, it seems that in Ancient Rome, philanthropy was viewed as foolish for those who didn't deserve it and one should perform charity only to the extent that it brought honor and social returns.

Nietzsche - often embraced by most Theistic Satanists - had a view that pretty much lined with this perspective in his view of "Geneology of Morals" and his "Transvaluation of values", identifying weakness and poverty with evil and something to be reviled at.

One of the things that made Christianity so attractive to the masses was their insistence on helping the poor, because the suffering state of humanity was something most people relate to. This was such an issue that Emperor Julian, who tried to bring back the Old Gods, tried to create pagan charities to compete with the Christian charities.

Egyptian Paganism, via the Book of the Dead, on the other hand, seems to view the alleviation of suffering as a must for passage to the afterlife, and that is how the gods will judge you - how much did you perform to alleviate suffering.

Hinduism is somewhere in the middle. The Bhagavad Gita venerates the cultivation of generosity (dana), which should be given only to a worthy person without an expectation of return in the right place and right time. There is corrupt or evil versions of charity, including "rajas" where one gives generosity with an expectation of some return or grudgingly, and "tamas" or dark charity as one giving charity to unworthy people or in the wrong place and time.

Where does JOS stand in this regard? Are Spiritual Satanists more Nietzschean (not my job to help the poor, they are rabble and weak), or are they more Egyptian Pagan (you must alleviate suffering to be saved)? Are they somewhere in the middle?

Our stance on helping the poor is an available one and we help the poor.

We help them as our HP HoodedCobra stated in one of his topics, with money and also with knowledge.

By helping the poor we are doing a good deed, and also a by Gods encouraged deed.

We are trying our best even in the outside of the ancient forums lives to help the poor, like me, I personally help the poor when I have some credible campaigns organized in Italy and I manage to donate a decent part of my money to some good causes.

Still, the best money I donate is to the Joy of Satan and even though I don't have too much resources to do it constantly, I so it when the time strikes in a favorable way for me. If monetary resources would be very high, I would donate 24/7.

Also, regarding your other statements in this posts, we are not on the Xian stance on donating to the poor. The poor aren't intentionally weak, it is because of the Jews and their systems and, moreover, if you don't donate to them, you won't go to some fiery pit of brimstone as the Jews state in their Bible :lol: .

Be sure to do kind acts when you have time and resources to do and, if you want to do some very kind acts, here is a link to the JoS donation web page and donation guide:

https://satanisgod.org/www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/Donate.html
 
All of this stuff about 'Egyptians' this and 'Rome' that is complete garbage. Jews and their pets can barely speak Ancient Egyptian and translate the texts however they want to, namely in a communist direction mirroring the bible. Nearly everything written about Julian the Hellene is by the enemy and full of lies.

Regardless, Egypt was a more charitable and broadly speaking egalitarian society (in how a modern person would interpret this, although this is highly misleading given Egypt was basically autocratic) than Rome, yes, but Rome didn't have the luxury of largely developing in isolation. Rome had to fight constant wars since the beginning just to survive. Rome developed out of a martial warrior and rustic farmer society with Andras and Eligos as major Gods. Rome was not 6,000+ years old by the time of the fake 'christ'. In addition it was bombarded endlessly by enemy curses at the end stage of the enemy's 'Age of Fortifying', which even drove several Emperors insane.

In going from zero to an Empire of marble in 1,000 years, "mistakes" could be made.

This is like how people come to the JoS angry at or trying to evade the subject of why NS Germany, a society coming out of the worst Depression in history, led by hardened WW1 veterans and preparing for a major confrontation with the enemy, was not willing to spend massive amounts of money on the upkeep of slaves, retards and invalids, schizophrenics, non-workers, mongrels, antisocials and drunkards who raped their daughters. They COULDN'T and besides this they really were not WILLING TO!!!! Sorry if anyone finds that cruel or offensive, but if they had done so, Germany would've gone bankrupt very quickly. The Weimar Republic was bleeding from every orifice financially.

For all the benevolence and being highly civilized in every aspect.. where's Egypt nowadays? Oh yeah, it was race-mixed to hell and back even by xian times, with Alexandria, the jewel of the Empire, being a massive portion jewish. You can in fact civilize yourself to death. Now whatever is called 'Egypt' in its place is highly dystopian and one of the most rigidly islamic societies on Earth.

Xianity had not a whole lot to do with poverty or destitution in itself, this is part of the great myth the church fathers created about Rome collapsing due to 'cruelty', 'slavery' (which oddly enough, xianity did nothing to outlaw) and holocausting 6 million xian martyrs. This is about as realistic and sane as saying "we are all slaves" nowadays because George Floyd happened or because UBI doesn't exist enough. By the back end, in manipulating history, this ends up glorifying poverty as beautiful and wonderful on an occult level, part of the heritage and foundation myth of a 'New Jerusalem', tying into the biblical curses that locks the Gentile in.

The enemy always shits on and spites a society they have successfully destroyed. NS Germany is just obvious. If and/or when the USA falls, the jewish tomes will say the same thing: muh transatlantic slavery, muh exploitation of third world, muh inequality, muh McCarthy "nightmare", etc. Until the Rosetta Stone this is how people thought of Egypt because of the "Moses" fable.

Cruel things exist in any society, slavery seems very unseemly to modern people, the enemy as part of their hatred of life makes 'cruelty' against slaves into the whole defining condition of a society (because it reflects the fact the enemy scum is a slave race of parasites). Oh yeah... except when it comes to actual groups that are destructive from top to bottom with unlimited cruelty like migrants living in five star hotels, Gypsies or primitive apes like Yanomamo, then these are 'holy' and we have to think on the good sides, like 'diversity', Django's guitar and how slitting a child's penis in two length-wise is 'beneficial and holistic wisdom of the ancient sages'.

There are countless plinths and stones from Sardinia showing commemorations of men who created orphanages and cared for children personally. This side of Rome, the enemy is not very invested in propagating. It isn't interested in Soranus' detailed descriptions of gyneacology.

Xianity in Rome caused untold suffering for the poor. Temples which functioned as banking systems and nexuses of poor relief were terrorized and destroyed. So if Rome was 'lacking' in welfare, that's also because xians destroyed and appropriated any of this that did exist. The same as why any Casa Pound giving food to the Italian homeless is disrupted by communists wearing masks screeching about why they're fascist for not giving food to refugees. Then people wonder why far-right organizations are not so big on charidee?

Monks were so despised for their thieving from the poor that on the streets of Thessalonica and Athens they were beaten to death and burned alive by mobs. Many xian converts were wealthy and sought to destroy pagan rivals by denouncing and expropriation of land - what attracted many Gentiles to xianity was not poverty of means, but a poverty of the soul, namely resentment.

That is what Nietzsche relentlessly attacks, not being poor necessarily. For example Nietzsche told factory workers of his time with any will to power to stop working for a machine, just go to some far-flung frontier and become master elsewhere. Others like the bourgeoisie of his time he had endless hatred for as he felt their wealth was mostly useless and reflective of the meagerness of their soul. Nietzsche characterized the superman as having a poverty 'within reason'.

The point Nietzsche makes is that alleviating someone's suffering should not come out of pity which nauseates the soul or hateful resentment ideology that causes one to become a lunatic that wants to burn everything but out of one's own benevolence and desire to create nexuses of power, as well as organic connections to that person like passion. This is the Solar and Jupiterian principle which is what the Gita teaches as well. When something is made into a general rule that everyone is OBLIGED to follow via pity, this is totally catastrophic for society and the soul.

Another point Nietzsche makes:

For a young man, precisely these negative advantages are the richest birthright of good fortune; a very poor man with a noble nature usually destroys himself: he does not advance and acquires nothing; his race is not viable.

This is true. One cannot do anything without wealth.
 

Al Jilwah: Chapter IV

"It is my desire that all my followers unite in a bond of unity, lest those who are without prevail against them." - Satan

Back
Top