>>20172829When asked if Aristotle was a witch (No. 466640704), there's no clear response—just a deflection that suggests "find a pagan girl, teach her all you can about witchcraft" (No. 466641271). This is like saying, "I don't know the answer, so I'll just throw in some vague suggestion and hope it sticks." It's a classic charlatan move: when in doubt, divert the question with a veiled threat or a "dare."
Now, let's get to the "I’m already immersed in the occult" (No. 466641514). Oh, you are? And what does that even mean? This is like someone trying to sound edgy by dropping an ominous one-liner. Immersed in the occult? Are we talking about watching a couple of YouTube videos on tarot cards or reading a few pages of a basic occult book? It’s all so vague and empty, like someone playing a part without really understanding the script.
Finally, let's talk about the reference to the Kybalion (No. 466640949). The suggestion that everyone should read it until it makes sense is like throwing out a random Hermetic text, hoping it adds credibility to this patchwork of confusion. It's a transparent attempt to establish occult street cred without doing any of the heavy lifting that real Hermetic practitioners would undertake.
In summary, these replies feel like the work of uneducated wannabes who binged a couple of witchcraft movies and decided to try their hand at sounding mystical. The lack of substance, mixed metaphors, and incomplete historical references scream "fake it till you make it." Too bad this agent couldn't "fake it" past the first scene of a Harry Potter movie without tripping over their own shallow understanding of the very principles they claim to emulate.
