Tarl doesn’t seem to read enough.
As traditionally occultism is a subversive set of ideas, methods, etc. to transgress against the Divine. (Meaning: “one light”)
This definition assumes that to control/direct divinity is to put one’s self over goodness, which would only be good if you believe you are inherently good. Most people don’t believe people are good, hence why occultism is seen by many as subversive to goodness, self serving, etc. or just downright evil (as it is in opposition to God or goodness).
I only assume he believes in goodness AS HE STATES ITS REQUIRED TO DO THE MAGIC. So you could say for the magic to follow any logical rules, the divine probably exists. (Aka God, or some variation of Goodness as an absolute)
Divinity in a classical sense (and in the sense that I believe it is) suits itself nicely to a singular God who is the progenitor of all that is good. Not just in Christendom but in other philosophical systems this idea of divinity exists, even within most occultism this is downplayed a bit but it exists as a concept at least.
As an aside, since there are some parallels that we can draw from with these types of rituals, divination (being one of them) is often believed to be seeing the future (artificial divination is the act of divining the future through ritual), but in its most base sense, it is an attempt to use the divine to shine light into that which is unseen. Very troublesome in the event that you believe in God as being the source of all goodness. How could God be used in such a way that allows a wicked person, who has seen the future, to take advantage of those who don’t know the future? Well the answer, if you are consistent, is that He doesn’t and they are liars, pawns of another spirit in some game. As Tarl pointed out, people believe Angels exist, so why not demons? Heavily implying demons can do a “suicide” and that they are distinct from angels. If demons are complicit in this category of ritual, then we can assume that their actions are transgressive towards goodness. Most occultism associates divining with spirits/demons (another definition: “guiding spirit”); he also implies chaos magic utilizes demons as well… the underpinnings are similar.
Of course it’s hard to pin down one definition I’m just trying to get close to what I think he’s saying.
He seems to be casting a rather large net, we can presume that he is also talking to people, some Christians when he mentions that some believe in angels while referring to others when asking, “Why not demons?”
Demons can be defined as “lesser gods” or a “lesser deity”; it seems that he ascribes to this definition. Though what good is it to speak of those who believe in angels, while arguing demons can do “good” things? What then sets angels and demons apart? Why the comparison which implies the opposite to the audience?
The core contradiction being that putting someone through such torment as they would kill themselves doesn’t seem very good, yet demons did it, and they will only do it if Tarl means well.
The fuck is he on? His inability to stay remotely consistent is baffling.
Typical 110 IQ bro, the worst IQ to have (as Sam would say), above average but below reason.
Also he’s probably a psychopath, narcissistic as well. His blatant mischaracterization of the spiritual, whether you believe it or not, seems indicative of that suspicion.
Also I’m sorry, if anyone reads my attempt at analysis, I understand it’s confusing as I’m thoroughly baffled while trying to understand what he believes.
I could conclude that I believe him to be a satanist in an abstract sense, since most true occult bros tend towards believing goodness is a relative concept and that demons just help who they like.
He definitely seems to be holding to the 666 in his name, I was wrong to guess it was ironic, or just edgy.
TL;DR: he’s so confusing, he is a psycho, probably narcissistic, and he’s def going to hell if he doesn’t cut this bullshit out.
