Does the end justify the means?

[Ad Victoriam]

As the subject suggests, I'm wondering does "the end justify the means" in context of acquiring resources for our individual and collective prosperity as Satanists.

One theoretical example being a company legally sells addictive drugs to people indiscriminately (young, old, gentile, jew and everyone in between). The company doesn't force anyone to buy or sell their drugs, but none the less their customers are satisfied and keep coming for more. Their employees are making triple their previous income and work long tedious hours everyday. Some of their customers spend their monthly income on just one hit, while others request drugs that bring them intense pain and even humiliation. People who consume these drugs are satisfied in the moment, but never seek out more healthy alternatives for their satisfaction. The company uses part of their profits to invest in Satanic programs and organizations like the JoS. The addictive drugs aren't physically harmful unless the customer requests that it is, and that it's harm is psychological. If this company wasn't to sell these drugs, their customers would find other providers.

Personally, I'd argue this transaction isn't immoral. Everyone get's what they want from the transaction, and a company shouldn't be (directly) in a position to control the desires of consumers beyond advertising. People who want to buy drugs badly enough will buy drugs, whether it be through legal or illegal means. Whether people should be buying drugs isn't the concerns or responsibility of a company, but instead the responsibility of the individual buyer and perhaps the government.

I'm definitely interested in having a discussion about this if anyone disagrees with me. If you do agree, what conditions within the context given would result in you not agreeing that the transaction wasn't immoral; ie, addictive drugs caused physical harm, people are forced to consume them, it's illegal? Perhaps this wouldn't be moral either, however there's not a neutral word for this situation (that I know of) as people tend to see things in black and white. I'd say it'd fall somewhere in a comfortable grey margin, probably closer to moral than immoral as part of the money would be going to a good cause that might eventually satisfy their consumers in a healthier way.

HS

 

[Henu the Great]

Would you chop off your foot when it is infected, or would you rather have precise surgery coupled with modern medicine? I would choose the latter. And the reason I make this analogy is that hurting people does not help the overall situation even when there are profits made. Profits can be made in a beneficial way. People want what they want because collectively we have stooped so low, so the argument of satisfying needs does not hold much merit when we look at it that way.

 

[Karnonnos]

Too much of the thing like the company causes complete social disorder and chaos.

Drugs are not a passive thing like the shittier forms of pop music that people choose to engage with based on low levels of refinement (this is also a problem eventually, but it is different). They can physicially, mentally and spiritually enslave. They can also pull people into lower and lower dimensions, and I'm not just talking about tranq, heroin or cocaine, but even painkillers.

Another example - there is nothing wrong with cake, cheeseburgers, candy or whatever. Unlike drugs, everyone has to eat. In a country like Japan where fast food is kept in its margins, this is not such a huge issue. But when this reaches the level where it's like a quarter of children's diets every day, it is catastrophic. Even if they were giving half of their income to the JoS (which they wouldn't because it ties into the same reasons they push too much for more excess), it doesn't benefit any civilization for McDonalds to be the 'easiest' option.

All of this relates to Jupiter. Yes, even warm benevolent Jupiter can kill mercilessly. Running away from Saturn like modern societies do will cut people down to scale.

 

[Way_Seeker666]

We're here to improve the world and Humanity and set people free. Addiction is totally opposite to this. There is no such thing as a drug that is both addictive and harmless. Most mind altering drugs in their pure form are not directly toxic themselves, but they still damage the brain with excessive release and inhibited reuptake of neurotransmitters which themselves become toxic and cause oxidative damage when attached to receptors for too long. And because our bodies always want to maintain homeostasis it desensitizes and kills off those receptors, which reduces the persons ability to feel happiness, pleasure, motivation etc from anything and also reduces functionality of their memory, focus, etc. Harm to the body can come "indirectly" as well such as from increasing the rate and intensity of the heart's contractions for prolonged periods, to name just one of many examples.
Then, addiction itself is harmful pretty much regardless of what the addiction is. It's a time and money vampire, it replaces the need to seek purpose and pursue goals and rewires the brain's functioning to not want such in favour of immediate gratification, even when the addict is consciously aware that said gratification is inferior/not what they truly want/destructive etc, it can take precedence over needs such as healthy eating, exercising, personal hygiene, relationships etc. It's an escape from ones self, leaving issues and problems to be (and get worse) without the intervention the person would otherwise engage in. Remember addiction is RIFE in humanity, even in thinking it's an easy habit and addiction to somehow avoid facing uncomfortable or difficult truths, because in the immediately short term it feels better. Mind altering substances tend to massively encourage fucked up thinking and delusion too.
Addiction is a complex and far reaching disease that can run really deep, and everywhere it reaches, it corrupts.
Then there's the detrimental spiritual effects. Weakness of mind, heart and will. Blockages. Holes in, and the diminishing of the aura, making one far more vulnerable to misfortune of all kinds. I've met a few people, from totally consumed by their drugs, to functional addicts, to ex-users who dabbled, where I not only couldn't sense their aura but felt the distinct absense of it as if they literally didn't have one. Very weird and very revealing. And don't underestimate what "misfortune" encompasses as this can absolutely destroy a life and/or a person.
When drugs are mixed with spiritual practices it is at best a waste of time but most likely a sure way to severe delusion or insanity of some kind. Being totally enslaved and controlled by a more spiritually capable entity is also much easier if one who mixes mind altering drugs and spiritual practices, and if a person doing this comes to have a psychic vampire in their lives they can end up a broken shadow of themselves from being extensively drained and negativity affected.

Our Gods and Goddesses will never approve of the business you hypothesized and I'm sure they would want no part of it. Their getting money from harming innocents would not be a profit.
They might even be insulted or angered by the offer.


The anti-morals of this world have infected your thinking and you need to address this if you want to get anywhere on this path. The fact that an addict will buy drugs no matter what doesn't in any way mean it's OK for you to supply them. You're still in the wrong for aiding their self-destruction and the myriad of problems their addiction can cause to others, as well as perpetuating the sick attitudes the jews have infected Humanity with.
"Who cares if those fuckups are ruining their lives and bringing society down when I can use their afflictions to make money?"
Does this, and justifying that conduct with "using the money for good", sound like the stance of someone the Gods are proud to call their own? Like someone seeking growth and evolution? Like someone who wants to fix the disgusting state of this world?

 

[Blitzkreig [JG]]

...

If your ruin your character, then people will call your entire philosophy into question, therefore jeopardizing your larger efforts. This negativity can be used against you, such as through government legal action, or through information warfare memes or other talking points.

Second, you are connecting yourself to the ruin of other people. From a karmic standpoint, this is unjust, as you have purposely placed a pitfall in front of another person. Just because you did not directly force them does not mean you have zero involvement in their downfall, therefore you are partially liable.

Good luck having fun spending the energy afterwards to remove all this negative damage that you created for these people, despite making a quick buck in the process. Humanity's karma is all connected, and you will have to pay for this in time, such as by having to rehab people who have lost their minds due to your "moral" provisions of drugs or other negativity.

On a broader scale, all you have done is temporarily move some amount of prosperity from them to you, but you fail to recognize the energy required to save a broken person is way higher than the "profit" of the drugs. What happens if the person cannot be saved, and you sold them the majority of these drugs? How do you explain to the family that you were actually trying to "help" the world through this process?

There is no reason to build yourself on such a shitty platform, even if it earns you an immediate amount of cash, of which you will spend many multiples of this trying to erase this damage from your reputation, and from the victims themselves.

 

[Henu the Great]

So what did you mean by what people want and stooping low?

You as a prime example.

 

[Ad Victoriam]

Would you chop off your foot when it is infected, or would you rather have precise surgery coupled with modern medicine? I would choose the latter. And the reason I make this analogy is that hurting people does not help the overall situation even when there are profits made. Profits can be made in a beneficial way. People want what they want because collectively we have stooped so low, so the argument of satisfying needs does not hold much merit when we look at it that way.

Surgery isn't always going to be available for everyone, whether lack of availability or the means of paying for it. There will be cases where someone requires amputation to save their lives, and in this scenario if that service wasn't allowed to take place for moral reasons they could die because of it. In the context I gave, there are drugs that people can't just decide to quit tomorrow like xanax, quitting eruptively can kill them. There's other things like antidepressants and painkillers that are literally addictive, or might as well be, that people might commit suicide without access to it.

Another point I'd like to make is that restricting people's ability to buy products is a loss of their liberty, and will only empower criminal organizations that may not even have moral restrictions at all. There will probably always be people who abuse drugs, at least I see that being true in any realistic and practical future.

HS.

 

[Ad Victoriam]

Too much of the thing like the company causes complete social disorder and chaos.

Drugs are not a passive thing like the shittier forms of pop music that people choose to engage with based on low levels of refinement (this is also a problem eventually, but it is different). They can physicially, mentally and spiritually enslave. They can also pull people into lower and lower dimensions, and I'm not just talking about tranq, heroin or cocaine, but even painkillers.

Another example - there is nothing wrong with cake, cheeseburgers, candy or whatever. Unlike drugs, everyone has to eat. In a country like Japan where fast food is kept in its margins, this is not such a huge issue. But when this reaches the level where it's like a quarter of children's diets every day, it is catastrophic. Even if they were giving half of their income to the JoS (which they wouldn't because it ties into the same reasons they push too much for more excess), it doesn't benefit any civilization for McDonalds to be the 'easiest' option.

All of this relates to Jupiter. Yes, even warm benevolent Jupiter can kill mercilessly. Running away from Saturn like modern societies do will cut people down to scale.

People who take drugs, and those who abuse them are the ones that choose to do so. A company in normal circumstances isn't in the position of forcing consumers to use their products, I don't think any form of this should be the case btw. People buying MacDonald's aren't forced to eat it and feed it to their kids and become obese and develop diabetes, they buy it because they don't care or aren't educated. There's very few examples where a company is literally able to force people to buy their products, and in every case I can think of that is only possible through corruption on a government level, for example Pfizer and other vaccination companies. Another case would be cigarettes and vaping, people understand that these products will give them cancer yet they still smoke them, is that a company's fault or the consumers fault? I'd say in this case especially, when cigarette boxes need extensive health warnings, that the consumer is to blame even more so when programs to help them quit are available.

Just like Henu's point, some people can't afford healthy food. Would it be better that they starve instead of eating garbage food? Is it macdonald's fault people can't afford healthy food? Btw, I actually strongly dislike mcdonalds based on how poor their food quality is, but I don't blame mcdonalds when I see someone who can't get out of bed because they weight 1000 pounds, I blame the individual.

HS

 

[Ad Victoriam]

We're here to improve the world and Humanity and set people free. Addiction is totally opposite to this. There is no such thing as a drug that is both addictive and harmless. Most mind altering drugs in their pure form are not directly toxic themselves, but they still damage the brain with excessive release and inhibited reuptake of neurotransmitters which themselves become toxic and cause oxidative damage when attached to receptors for too long. And because our bodies always want to maintain homeostasis it desensitizes and kills off those receptors, which reduces the persons ability to feel happiness, pleasure, motivation etc from anything and also reduces functionality of their memory, focus, etc. Harm to the body can come "indirectly" as well such as from increasing the rate and intensity of the heart's contractions for prolonged periods, to name just one of many examples.
Then, addiction itself is harmful pretty much regardless of what the addiction is. It's a time and money vampire, it replaces the need to seek purpose and pursue goals and rewires the brain's functioning to not want such in favour of immediate gratification, even when the addict is consciously aware that said gratification is inferior/not what they truly want/destructive etc, it can take precedence over needs such as healthy eating, exercising, personal hygiene, relationships etc. It's an escape from ones self, leaving issues and problems to be (and get worse) without the intervention the person would otherwise engage in. Remember addiction is RIFE in humanity, even in thinking it's an easy habit and addiction to somehow avoid facing uncomfortable or difficult truths, because in the immediately short term it feels better. Mind altering substances tend to massively encourage fucked up thinking and delusion too.
Addiction is a complex and far reaching disease that can run really deep, and everywhere it reaches, it corrupts.
Then there's the detrimental spiritual effects. Weakness of mind, heart and will. Blockages. Holes in, and the diminishing of the aura, making one far more vulnerable to misfortune of all kinds. I've met a few people, from totally consumed by their drugs, to functional addicts, to ex-users who dabbled, where I not only couldn't sense their aura but felt the distinct absense of it as if they literally didn't have one. Very weird and very revealing. And don't underestimate what "misfortune" encompasses as this can absolutely destroy a life and/or a person.
When drugs are mixed with spiritual practices it is at best a waste of time but most likely a sure way to severe delusion or insanity of some kind. Being totally enslaved and controlled by a more spiritually capable entity is also much easier if one who mixes mind altering drugs and spiritual practices, and if a person doing this comes to have a psychic vampire in their lives they can end up a broken shadow of themselves from being extensively drained and negativity affected.

Our Gods and Goddesses will never approve of the business you hypothesized and I'm sure they would want no part of it. Their getting money from harming innocents would not be a profit.
They might even be insulted or angered by the offer.


The anti-morals of this world have infected your thinking and you need to address this if you want to get anywhere on this path. The fact that an addict will buy drugs no matter what doesn't in any way mean it's OK for you to supply them. You're still in the wrong for aiding their self-destruction and the myriad of problems their addiction can cause to others, as well as perpetuating the sick attitudes the jews have infected Humanity with.
"Who cares if those fuckups are ruining their lives and bringing society down when I can use their afflictions to make money?"
Does this, and justifying that conduct with "using the money for good", sound like the stance of someone the Gods are proud to call their own? Like someone seeking growth and evolution? Like someone who wants to fix the disgusting state of this world?

The scenario I gave was obviously not entirely realistic, since almost anything can be abused and give resulting negative symptoms. You could drink too much water and drown, or eat so much food that your organs fail, for example. A company doesn't usually control the amount of substances people purchase and consume in one sitting, unless there's laws forcing them to, like serving limits at bars. Even in the case you gave where it wasn't exactly the context I was trying to propose, I'd still blame the consumer for abusing these drugs. A literal drug dealer selling illegal hardcore drugs can't force you to take large amounts or come again for seconds, that's still a choice the consumer makes. A government can do it's best to restrict people's access to harmful drugs, but as we see in the US where drugs are strongly restricted, people still have the desire to consume them and often do.

HS.

 

[Ad Victoriam]

" post_id=437332 time=1681864667 user_id=21286]

...

If your ruin your character, then people will call your entire philosophy into question, therefore jeopardizing your larger efforts. This negativity can be used against you, such as through government legal action, or through information warfare memes or other talking points.

Second, you are connecting yourself to the ruin of other people. From a karmic standpoint, this is unjust, as you have purposely placed a pitfall in front of another person. Just because you did not directly force them does not mean you have zero involvement in their downfall, therefore you are partially liable.

Good luck having fun spending the energy afterwards to remove all this negative damage that you created for these people, despite making a quick buck in the process. Humanity's karma is all connected, and you will have to pay for this in time, such as by having to rehab people who have lost their minds due to your "moral" provisions of drugs or other negativity.

On a broader scale, all you have done is temporarily move some amount of prosperity from them to you, but you fail to recognize the energy required to save a broken person is way higher than the "profit" of the drugs. What happens if the person cannot be saved, and you sold them the majority of these drugs? How do you explain to the family that you were actually trying to "help" the world through this process?

There is no reason to build yourself on such a shitty platform, even if it earns you an immediate amount of cash, of which you will spend many multiples of this trying to erase this damage from your reputation, and from the victims themselves.

I guess that depends on whether the company cares or not. You could do everything by the book and still get shit on, I'm sure the JoS has problems like this.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "karmic standpoint", would it then be bad karma to be a fast food employee who sells people greasy disgusting food that makes them sick? Is it bad karma for mcdonalds to feed people their shitty excuse for hamburgers? Would it be better that food was always high quality but wasn't always affordable, therefore people just starve instead? I'm not really a fan of the concept of karma, especially if you mean the three fold law crap wiccans and new age pagans preach about.

I'd rather have people use safe and legal drugs than them purchase from foreign terrorists or whatever, at least then there's some control of the situation. If the theoretical company decided to put funds towards rehabilitation of addicts, they'd be using funds that would have very likely been used for other nefarious purposes.

I'd tell the family I never forced anyone to consume anything, I only made something available that was already available to people who already wanted it. You don't blame a hospital every time a suicidal teen steal medication from their parents and overdoses, just as you shouldn't blame a drug dealer for selling meth to junkies. Governments, not companies, determine laws and restrictions regarding drug use. In the context I gave which you mostly ignored, the government didn't restrict these drugs and the consumers bought it, so who's fault it when the consumers are responsible for electing their government and are purely responsible for purchasing it themselves?

When we don't recognize the responsibilities and power of choice we do have, we often can't assert control in our lives at all. In the case of junkies smoking meth everyday and starving themselves because buying groceries would mean one less hit, nobody forced them to make these decisions and nobody can force them not to. Rehabilitation would require that they understand they have a choice and for them to decide not to do it. It's entirely the consumer's fault, nobody here has given a single practical refutation on this. If we recognize that people are sentient creatures with freewill, then they have the responsibility to choose what they consume. That's it. You can't make the arguments you're making and then say people have any freewill at all, because clearly people are controlled by their environment completely and have no choice in their own actions.

This is clearly something we'll have to figure out some day. Modern society has failed miserably on this, at least we can decide not to continue the many mistakes we've already made.

HS.

 

[existentialcrisis]

If you're slinging dope, you're capitalizing on people's pain and misery, especially when as you say you "keep them coming back for more". That is wrong and jewish parasitic behavior. That shit ruins lives and if you contribute to the supply then you are contributing to the ruination of people's lives and by extension humanity. That is an insult to the satanic ethos, and claiming you do this "for" Satan is a stain on his name.

If a toddler licks the spoon you cooked dope with, overdoses and dies, that's on you, it doesn't matter if they licked the spoon before and was "satisfied in the moment" and kept "coming back for more", neither does it matter if the toddler had "free will" to lick the spoon or not, nor whether they would have ingested someone else's drug paraphernalia "anyway".

The only way this can ever be excusable is if it's part of a treatment program to get people OFF the shit, FREE from addiction and NOT keep them "coming back for more". We're here to bring our people up, not weigh them down as they drown.

Hail Satan.

As the subject suggests, I'm wondering does "the end justify the means" in context of acquiring resources for our individual and collective prosperity as Satanists.

One theoretical example being a company legally sells addictive drugs to people indiscriminately (young, old, gentile, jew and everyone in between). The company doesn't force anyone to buy or sell their drugs, but none the less their customers are satisfied and keep coming for more. Their employees are making triple their previous income and work long tedious hours everyday. Some of their customers spend their monthly income on just one hit, while others request drugs that bring them intense pain and even humiliation. People who consume these drugs are satisfied in the moment, but never seek out more healthy alternatives for their satisfaction. The company uses part of their profits to invest in Satanic programs and organizations like the JoS. The addictive drugs aren't physically harmful unless the customer requests that it is, and that it's harm is psychological. If this company wasn't to sell these drugs, their customers would find other providers.

Personally, I'd argue this transaction isn't immoral. Everyone get's what they want from the transaction, and a company shouldn't be (directly) in a position to control the desires of consumers beyond advertising. People who want to buy drugs badly enough will buy drugs, whether it be through legal or illegal means. Whether people should be buying drugs isn't the concerns or responsibility of a company, but instead the responsibility of the individual buyer and perhaps the government.

I'm definitely interested in having a discussion about this if anyone disagrees with me. If you do agree, what conditions within the context given would result in you not agreeing that the transaction wasn't immoral; ie, addictive drugs caused physical harm, people are forced to consume them, it's illegal? Perhaps this wouldn't be moral either, however there's not a neutral word for this situation (that I know of) as people tend to see things in black and white. I'd say it'd fall somewhere in a comfortable grey margin, probably closer to moral than immoral as part of the money would be going to a good cause that might eventually satisfy their consumers in a healthier way.

HS

 

[Ad Victoriam]

If you're slinging dope, you're capitalizing on people's pain and misery, especially when as you say you "keep them coming back for more". That is wrong and jewish parasitic behavior. That shit ruins lives and if you contribute to the supply then you are contributing to the ruination of people's lives and by extension humanity. That is an insult to the satanic ethos, and claiming you do this "for" Satan is a stain on his name.

If a toddler licks the spoon you cooked dope with, overdoses and dies, that's on you, it doesn't matter if they licked the spoon before and was "satisfied in the moment" and kept "coming back for more", neither does it matter if the toddler had "free will" to lick the spoon or not, nor whether they would have ingested someone else's drug paraphernalia "anyway".

The only way this can ever be excusable is if it's part of a treatment program to get people OFF the shit, FREE from addiction and NOT keep them "coming back for more". We're here to bring our people up, not weigh them down as they drown.

Hail Satan.

As the subject suggests, I'm wondering does "the end justify the means" in context of acquiring resources for our individual and collective prosperity as Satanists.

One theoretical example being a company legally sells addictive drugs to people indiscriminately (young, old, gentile, jew and everyone in between). The company doesn't force anyone to buy or sell their drugs, but none the less their customers are satisfied and keep coming for more. Their employees are making triple their previous income and work long tedious hours everyday. Some of their customers spend their monthly income on just one hit, while others request drugs that bring them intense pain and even humiliation. People who consume these drugs are satisfied in the moment, but never seek out more healthy alternatives for their satisfaction. The company uses part of their profits to invest in Satanic programs and organizations like the JoS. The addictive drugs aren't physically harmful unless the customer requests that it is, and that it's harm is psychological. If this company wasn't to sell these drugs, their customers would find other providers.

Personally, I'd argue this transaction isn't immoral. Everyone get's what they want from the transaction, and a company shouldn't be (directly) in a position to control the desires of consumers beyond advertising. People who want to buy drugs badly enough will buy drugs, whether it be through legal or illegal means. Whether people should be buying drugs isn't the concerns or responsibility of a company, but instead the responsibility of the individual buyer and perhaps the government.

I'm definitely interested in having a discussion about this if anyone disagrees with me. If you do agree, what conditions within the context given would result in you not agreeing that the transaction wasn't immoral; ie, addictive drugs caused physical harm, people are forced to consume them, it's illegal? Perhaps this wouldn't be moral either, however there's not a neutral word for this situation (that I know of) as people tend to see things in black and white. I'd say it'd fall somewhere in a comfortable grey margin, probably closer to moral than immoral as part of the money would be going to a good cause that might eventually satisfy their consumers in a healthier way.

HS

Did you entirely ignore the context I was trying to make? I'm not going to write the same thing for the 6th time.

 

[Blitzkreig [JG]]

...

As far as I can tell, you are letting your frustrations from a debate set the stage for what you believe JoS offers in its entirety. This is a false assumption that ignores our community's unique role in spiritual development. If you go along with your detachment, due to annoyance over a single matter, then you would be basically shooting yourself in the foot.

It is normal that people will make claims, assumptions, or create other false notions during conversation, especially during debates and other passionate exchanges. Try not to let this bother you, although you should still call it out. Nobody is a perfect communicator, so that is why that happens.

In regards to your perception of justice and personal responsibility, you must understand that society acts like a web. The prosperity of one of us impacts all of us. This makes the case for supporting BOTH individual and group-level development, as well as in regards to applications of justice.

Nobody was saying that personal responsibility should be ignored, as it is a large factor in these situations, but that doesn't mean other people bear zero responsibility for their actions either. Many of these companies know that their products create negative consequences, such as health problems, yet make little effort to change this. In fact, they may even hide this fact from the public, including through information campaigns and other propaganda. This is the opposite of acting in a just or responsible manner.

Look no further than the legal system to understand the "justice" is a very complicated topic which cannot be fully discussed within the limits of a few days on an internet forum. I can understand your frustration in regards to this, but I would highly advise you not using that as a reason to avoid JoS as a whole.

 

[Karnonnos]

I feel as if I entirely outgrew this place, much like I experienced previously with mundane society.

Many of you aren't capable of critical thought, you read "drugs" and immediately go off about nonsense I wasn't even talking about. People also pay to be castrated, not even just people with gender dysphoria but others as a sexual fetish. Unless you're wanting to create a dictatorship in order to suppress every degenerate desire humanity has, then these people will continue to do as they please. We don't decide what is right and wrong, and our intentions aren't reflected on a universal scale.

One would have to entirely ignore reality to suggest anyone other than ourselves are to be blamed for our hardship. It's our responsibility to correct ourselves and overcome challenges, not the Gods or any other force such as a government or business. Anything other than this would result in a complacent society, much like the one we exist in today, where people never accept this responsibility and are subjected to hardships and are dependent on inefficient institutions.

There's no higher truth than this on the matter, as far as I can tell.

Just because you are libertarian and going full pelt on this doesn't mean you are 'outgrowing' us.

Yes, it is our fault whatever happens to us (which should not inspire guilt or fear). I am not denying individual responsibility, but there are levels to 'fault' that go beyond the conscious, beyond momentary decisions and into categories of existences. The problem of libertarianism is that it assumes every free man is an equal actor in every situation which is not true. There is the fault of the person imbibing the poison and the fault of the entity supplying it, the responsibilty of each of these can vary to dramatic extents in individual cases, and sometimes this is an inevitability of the situation (low consciousness on both sides). There is no 'perfect formula' here.

I wasn't 'going off about nonsense' - I was making a comparison. Drugs are not necessarily unique. There are a lot of social ills plaguing society right now like obesity, race mixing, debt, cigarettes, video game addiction, social media, the trans hysteria, alcoholism, pornography, sex-inhibition and plenty more. But drugs can really fuck someone up quicker and deeper than most of these can, especially on the occult level.

Consider what Spiritual Satanists are meant to be doing. We are meant to be uplifting at least a certain amount of people among our own race. Pushing drugs onto them can hook them into endless enemy bullshit, making them go into cloud cuckoo land and become servants of the jew via endless means. People who take drugs aren't just low minded peasants or silly nitwits with the minds of toddlers, many of them are advanced, high-earning and sophisticated people with a specific deficiency (often honed by the enemy by breeding dysgenics into people through xianity, which links into drugs via Neptune) or cursed by the enemy (the enemy relentlessly curses bright Gentiles) who fall HARD.

Does the occult jew tolerate anyone peddling crack in an orthodox neighborhood? NO, because this is like poison for any race. No rabbi will be like "I let my son be sold crack because Murray Rothbard told me it was his own choice to do it!" The 'rebbe' knows that if one domino in their community falls, they will not give them the commission or 'tithe' which is a precondition for their society to exist. So, the jewish religious police will locate the drug dealer and bury them alive. The host country doesn't know and doesn't care because they're bribed off because 'muh freedumbz and sheeit, that's why we circumcise kids like jews'. If dealer is a non-jew, the community the drug dealer belongs to will be loaded with 9,999 curses until it's a clump of rubble, Funyuns and HIV. Also, you won't see a McDonalds built in an orthodox community either.

So why would we sell drugs TO OUR OWN to empower Satanism? It's just pointless.

 

[Way_Seeker666]

The scenario I gave was obviously not entirely realistic, since almost anything can be abused and give resulting negative symptoms. You could drink too much water and drown, or eat so much food that your organs fail, for example. A company doesn't usually control the amount of substances people purchase and consume in one sitting, unless there's laws forcing them to, like serving limits at bars. Even in the case you gave where it wasn't exactly the context I was trying to propose, I'd still blame the consumer for abusing these drugs. A literal drug dealer selling illegal hardcore drugs can't force you to take large amounts or come again for seconds, that's still a choice the consumer makes. A government can do it's best to restrict people's access to harmful drugs, but as we see in the US where drugs are strongly restricted, people still have the desire to consume them and often do.

HS.

Don't bullshit and apply your own mental gymnastics to my answer, I am trying to help you realise something that's holding you back and if you don't want to grow I don't know what you're doing here if not trolling. I pointed out that the concept you proposed is not possible to ethically apply and question you were asking in the context of your example can only be answered by "no". There are scenarios in which a seemingly immoral or otherwise negative means is justified by the end.

You specifically talked about selling addictive drugs, now you say anything can be abused. You're contradicting yourself and indicating you either never wanted an answer to your question but only verification of your being correct, ir that you can't accept you are wrong, or that you're here for nefarious purposes. Your giving ridiculous examples to aid your argument such as "even drinking too much water can be harmful" is just a bullshitting tactic. Realistically, the two cannot be compared at all.

And it's really not a choice to "come back for more" when we're talking about an addict. That defies the very definition. Even if it's their first time that makes them come back, the drugs only trigger what was already there.

Something you either fail to understand or are ignorant of, or perhaps choose to ignore, is that there is a reason people use drugs despite the harm and risks involved. An ongoing study is revealing that every single addict they have so far examined has unresolved psychological trauma, mostly due to suffering some kind of abuse or neglect in their early years. They are damaged people and most don't even realise this due to the effects of the very damage done to them. Do you blame a child for being molested or beaten up by an adult? Do you blame a girl for being raped?
These are not thick skulled morons arrogantly inviting trouble and deserving what they get, they are victims without the means to fix problems you likely cannot comprehend.

Your idea may show good intentions and a realization that this organization is of extreme importance, but the idea itself is not a good thing. Don't take it personally as that's immature and against your own best interests. Instead, grow.