Intentions Unintentionally Spoken Page 1

INTENTIONS UNINTENTIONALLY SPOKENCopyright 1999 by -wolf-

Those that have known me forsome time have observed thatsometimes I respond politely to adirect insult. They have also ob-served that sometimes I react withhostility towards a seemingly inno-cent or even nice remark.

In particular, it is those thatfind their applause met with con-tempt that do not understand myreaction. Lest people I respect alsofind my behavior odd, let me ex-plain. This document is not neces-sarily intended as advice on howone should deal with those thatone encounters on ones path. In-stead, it outlines some of my obser-vations.

I cannot offer additional in-sight into the nature of shit-disturb-ers as High Priestess Blanche Bar-ton explained in Sycophants, Unite!in The Black Flame, intellectualblack holes, as Magister PeterGilmore coined them in a TheBlack Flame editorial, or Klippothsas especially Magistra Tani Jantsanghas explained in numerous places,including the Satanic doctrinesavailable from Magister Phil ipMarsh. Instead, I will provide a fewaddi t ional h ints that g ive thespoiled goods away.

If anything were to be clarifiedin Sycophants, Unite! and Intellec-tual Black Holes, it is only that thebehavior of these waste productsdoes not appear to be conditionedby a display of intellectualism. Thefundamental behavior of these talk-ing garbage bins is identical acrossintellectual barriersit is only thatthe intellectually adept ones aremore apt at fooling productivepeople than are those of limited in-telligence.

My focus here will be on niceremarks that I answer with con-tempt. As far as insults go, I wasgiven an excellent piece of adviceby Danish Capt. Mogens FrohnNielsen, who became famous forrectifying young men through hardwork on his vessel. Capt. Nielsenadvised me never to be insulted,based on a simple philosophy: ifthe person did not intend to insultyou, it is counter-productive to beinsulted. If, on the other hand, theperson did intend to insult you,you should not give him the plea-sure of succeeding.

At this point, Christian rene-gades will probably conclude thatif one is to behave nicely to insults,similar arguments must exist whyone should behave with hostilitytowards applause. That would be arather simplistic conclusion, how-ever. The correct explanation isthat when communications appearas insults or applause, sometimes adifferent message is conveyed thanis immediately apparent in thecommunications. Thus, what ap-pears to be an insult may simply bea lack of information on the of-fending partys side; and a seem-ingly polite remark may be linedwith malice and spleen. The dis-tinction lies between the lines.

At the risk of sounding child-ish, it is the way they say it. It is assimple as an argument between amother and her six-year-old daugh-ter that I once overheard. Themother was taken aback by herdaughters angry reply to a ques-tion that the mother had posed, anindignantly asked her daughter:

Why do you answer me likethat?

The daughters answer camepromptly:

Because you ask like that!

What happened was that themother had not just asked a merequestion, but had squeezed in asnide remark that offended thechild.

This is the hallmark of the ver-bal sniper: they deliver vicious at-tacks enveloped in seemingly inno-cent messages so that they inflictdamage without revealing the as-saulter. As the sniper speaks nicelyto you, he squeezes in a snide re-mark that is intended to hurt yourfeelings, make you seem inferioramong your peers, or diminishyour self-confidence. A classic re-mark is: Best of luck at your ex-ams! Youll need it!

In writing on the Internet, of-ten the sniper writes one nastycomment after the other, trailingeach with a smiley: Youre notsmart enough to know this. :)

When challenged why theymade those remarks, they typicallybail out by saying they were onlyjoking. This renders their victimvirtually defenseless, because inour society, if a person says he/shewas only joking, the victim be-comes an evil aggressor for at-tacking the sniper. The snipers thususe jokes and smileys as emotionalcondoms protecting them frombearing the responsibility of theirassaults.

In our society, it is frownedupon to launch a rampant verbalassault on a person, but it is social-ly acceptable to pass snide remarksthat hit the target between the ribsfrom behind and hurt for days. It is

Intentions Unintentionally Spoken Page 2

a socially respectable behavior tohide in a tree and snipe at people.

Yours truly had the unfortu-nate experience of having a profes-sional sniper, M , as co-work-er. A single example of his snipingwill suffice: at lunch, another of myco-workers, J , was tellinghow she had her face torn open bya dog as a kid. It had been a trau-matic episode, taking hours beforeshe was taken to hospital and giv-en a sedative. M then crackedthe joke: so, was that yesterday?and laughed. Everyone laughed ex-cept J and me. If not for thejoking tone, it would be a down-r i gh t awful comment . Jlaughed meekly with the others,but the expression in her faceshowed all to clearly that the snip-er had truly hurt her feelings. Sinceeveryone knew he was only jok-ing, she could not complain.

Some may argue that thesesnipers may be genuinely joking,and that their targets are simply be-ing over-sensitive. However, thequestion is then: why do they al-ways tell this kind of jokes?

The simple answer is that theyare not joking. They cannot speakfrom their hearts. They genuinelyhate your guts, but do not evenknow it themselves because theirhearts are closed. Instead, they dis-tort their hate into polite or jokingremarks that are dripping with poi-son. As Wilhelm Reich explained inhis discussion of apparent and de-monic selves, these people main-tain a polished faade or characterarmor, but suppress an unbal-anced, lascivious, malicious, spite-ful, and hateful demon within.They cannot do or say a single nicething, because every impulse theyhave within them must force itselfthrough their character armor andis distorted into destructive tenden-cies along the way.

Their apparent selves may bea joking, polite armor, but theirtrue Will shines through: theywant you to fail the exam, theywant you to not be smart, and theaforementioned sniper wantedJ s face to be ruined. Theymean everything they say in theirsnide remarks, except the polite-ness and the jokes. They are totalshits, malicious assholes.

As snipers go, generally themost effective medicine is to imme-diately repeat the sniping remark inthe same tone as it was said, as ifan echo of the sniper. It should fol-low promptly, interrupting oneselfin the middle of a sentence if nec-essary. When the snipers attentionhas been caught, request that hestate what he really meant to say.If the sniper brushes it off, repeatthe request, and continue to do soas long as he wards off your re-quest. Ifor whenhe says hewas merely joking, appreciate thejoke, but continue to press him forwhat he really meant to say. Typi-cally, the sniper either backs off orlaunches a full frontal attack, dis-playing his true intent. This ap-proach usually works, becausesnipers have only a thin layer ofverbal cosmetics to cover their ma-levolence. A snipers assault usual-ly comes in burstshigh intensitylasting for a short time, typicallyconcentrated within a single sen-tence or two. This characteristicmakes it relatively straight-forwardto spot the attack.

This kind of people does notalways downright snipe. A lessrampant, but otherwise identical,display of their Will is that thesepersons somehow say everythingin a negative way, being compara-ble to poisoners rather than snip-ers. An example involving a cabalof people dubbed the gangserves to illustrate how a poisonermay phrase a statement in a de-

meaning or degrading manner. Thegang communicated via email,but also received postal mail fromT , who did not have emailaccess. Instead, T sent themail to a member of the gang whoforwarded it via email to the rest ofthe gang. T was uncertainwho to send it to. K suggest-ed that I forward the mail it insteadof P , who was too busy.However, K s Will was toconvey a different message, phras-ing it approximately as follows:T should send it to Ole, be-cause if P does it, it mighttake years before we get them.With this phrasing, P wasportrayed as a slow or lazy person,not the busy person that P is.I t made P look bad, andthere was no need for that.

Another example illustratesthe how the simplest event isturned negative: J is to informsomeone that T works in thenight. However, his Will shinesthrough, so he says T sleepsall day instead of stating thatT works in the night. Withthis phrasing, it sounds as if Tis lazy, far from portraying a per-son that is active at night.

Compared to the sniper, thepoisoner does not assault withhigh-intensity bursts of aggression.Instead, the poisoner deliverssmaller doses that are dispersedover several sentences or para-graphs. Because each dose haslower intensity than those of thesnipers burst-like attacks, they maybe less evident. However, severalsmall doses from a poisoner maycause the same fatal effect as awell-aimed shot from a sniper.

Like the sniper, the poisonerWills you to fail and Wills you tolook bad. Their methods are notrestricted to verbal communicationonly. On the Internet, a striking ex-ample is Where the Wild Things Are

Intentions Unintentionally Spoken Page 3

by John Raptis. Originally a tributeto Dr. LaVey, this Web site soonbecame a warts and all portrait ofDr. LaVey with a strong focus onany warts one might imagine.Raptis invited enemies of Dr. LaVeyto speak out on Where the WildThings Are, providing them with achannel for slandering the personwhose honor the Web site wasoriginally intended to exalt. If Rap-tis intents may have been said tobe noble, his deeds tell a differentstory.

The above example illustrateshow a poisoner focuses on aspectsthat put others in an unfavorablelightincluding those that the poi-soner believes to revere. The ex-ample also serves to introducesome characteristics of a third classof destructive personality: the ob-structer.

The obstructer is more subtlethan the sniper and the poisoner.The sniper and poisoner launchtheir assaults within a relativelynarrow geographic locality, typi-cally within a sentence or a fewparagraphs. The obstructer, howev-er, distributes the intensity of hisassault over several documents ordiscussions, making it difficult tospot hostility in the same manneras one would spot a snipers shotor poisonous remarks. Recall thatthe poisoner may vent the sameamount of wrath as a sniper de-spite the poisoners individual as-saults having lower intensities thanthose of the sniper. Similarly, theobstructer uses low-intensity, non-localized hostility, typically withfew out-and-out negative com-ments or none at all. As the ob-structers acts of hostility accumu-late, they can inflict as much dam-age as the other two. A skilled ob-structer may in fact cause more de-struction than either the sniper orthe poisoner, because the ob-structer is more difficult to spot.

One indication was given inthe previously mentioned example,where Raptis provided a channelfor our enemies. It is a classic tech-nique used by obstructers to inviteour enemies under our tent flaps.For example, they pose questionson alt.satanism that they know ourenemies are interested in, causingthem to come forth and start to de-bate. They Will our enemies to ap-pear. For example, when R. Merci-less wanted to discuss John FowlesThe Magus on alt.satanism, heknew he was invit ing MichaelAquino to say something, know-ing the book to be a literary fetishof Aquinos. Merciless thus did notjust ask about The Magus , butWilled to give Aquino a chance tosay something thatin the eyes ofthose that cannot seewould en-able Aquino to pose as a literaryintellectual.

At times, obstructers do notmerely open discussions that inviteour enemies to speak, but some-times attempt to create debates be-tween the Church of Satan and ourenemies, dragging us into mean-ingless struggles that were notasked for. A mailing list invitingopposing fronts to enter a smallroom where they soon find them-selves rubbing elbows is one suchattempt to create trouble wherenone should exist.

Obstructers do not always in-volve enemies, but obstruct underthe guise of cooperation or offeringhelp. Jill and Carl, also knownas Underground Panther andPwwcaman are an example ofpeople that have attempted thisform of obstruction. Before the duoset feet on the path to Calvary asavatar Nazarenes, they had becomeacquainted with that of MagistraJantsangs writing that is availableon-line on Rev. Hr. Vads Web site.As some will agree, Magistra Jant-sangs writings bypass the minds of

the readers and speak directly tovital existence. Those whose carnalna tu re i s damaged f ee l con -demned, and Underground Pan-ther, as the duo would later use asshared pen name, were no excep-tion. This was not as evident at thattime as it is today, when even op-ponents of the Church of Satanhave begun to consider Under-ground Panther to be in a pro-gressed state of mental instability.Rev. Hr. Vad and I know MagistraJangsang, a fact well known by Un-derground Panther. Carl Pwwca-man sent us an email, suggestingthat some of Magistra Jantsangswriting was somewhat inaccessi-ble by scholarly standards of writ-ing (a skill that Magistra Jantsangmasters to perfection when appro-priate). Rev. Hr. Vads Web site, atthat time, was rather poorly struc-tured. This, combined with the factthat some of the articles, essays,and letters were originally intendedfor former participants on alt.satan-ism that few newcomers knew, ledCarl Pwwcaman to suggest thatRev. Hr. Vad delete a selection ofMagistra Jantsangs writing from hisWeb site.

As noble as Underground Pan-thers intent might seem, little hintsthat unfortunately were too ob-scure to be spotted individually,gave them away. They were not in-terested in improving Rev. Hr.Vads Web site. Instead, Under-ground Panther desired that Rev.Hr. Vad remove those essays thatreminded them of their torturedstates of being. (Recognizing Un-derground Panthers agenda, Rev.Hr. Vad apparently followed mysuggestion to give his Web site abadly-needed face lift, but not de-lete any information.)

Obstructers often (albeit notalways) display above-average in-telligence, and are masters of lieswith an insatiable appetite for at-

Intentions Unintentionally Spoken Page 4

tention. Their lives revolve aroundstrife, typically manifest in the formof intellectual debates. As Magis-ter Gilmore noted in IntellectualBlack Holes, their banner is an eter-nal question mark. A literary refer-ence is never enough for thesepeoplethey are not truly interest-ed in learning, only in debatingwith a live person, posing ques-tions only so that they can arguethe answers.

A debate with such people isfruitless. Whenever they have beenprovided an adequate, irrefutableanswer to a question, they attemptto invalidate the answer. Usuallythey attempt to do so by bringingup a seemingly relatedbut in factquite unrelatedissue.

When two orthogonal issuesare amalgamated as if they werethe same, single issue, the ob-structer will have you debate the ir-relevant one while slowly phasingout the real issue. This works aslong as you do not realize that thenewly introduced issue is unrelatedto the issue being discussed. Thisway, the obstructer drags you intoa non-discussion about non-issuesand non-being.

When the obstructer is ad-dressed by more than one oppo-nent, often the obstructer attemptsto create strife between his two op-

ponents. Typically, the obstructerpoints out a minor discrepancy be-tween the opinions of his two op-ponents. If not both opponents areaware of the obstructers intent,soon the opponents find them-selves spending energy resolvingtheir conflicting opinions, even ifthe resolution is inconsequential tothe original issue discussed, as isusually the case. The obstructermakes dual profit: firstly, heat isdrawn from the obstructer; andsecondly, the obstructer managesto give the impression that theproblem is not the obstructer him-self, but to be found among his op-ponents. This behavior is related tointroducing unrelated topics, asdiscussed above, in that a disagree-ment between the opponents doesnot prove the obstructer right butonly shifts attention from the origi-nal issue.

Snipers and poisoners typical-ly back off or launch a direct attackwhen confronted with someonethat can see right through themand recognizes what they are do-ing. Obstructers may display out-bursts of rampant wrath, but evenin their outbursts bring about newnon-issues.

When challenged, often ob-structers start to arbitrate. Theytry to protect the Church of Satanfrom the person that exposes them,

typically by stating that the personis dishonoring the Church of Satanvia foul language, lack of interestin discussing interesting topicsand thereby displaying poor scien-tific principles, etc. By temporarilyfalling back on a poisoner behav-ior, the obstructer tries to harm theChurch of Satan by attempting todiscredit one if its productive mem-bers.

Given any chance, they willobstruct our work. Few of themknow it themselves. That is whywe see some people joining theChurch of Satan, starting out as ifthey are vigorously on our side;but soon their Will prevails, andthey turn against us and becomedestructive.

I have become a senior in rec-ognizing the nature of human moti-vation, and I have seen all their an-t ics before; I have seen themmany times, and no one is foolingme anymorealthough sometimesI do cut people some slack untilthey show it so clearly what theyare doing that I can show it to oth-ers. As a Satanist and alt.satanismveteran with an exterior like that ofa Teflon bullet, I spot snipers, poi-soners, and obstructers at a glance.Hopefully this document may be ofhelp to those less seasoned.