Personal Note XLIV

Yahweh in (יהוה‎):
Moses and the Burning Bush

My Views on Fundamentalism |
Tuesday – April 14, 2026

Fundamentalism, why is it so salient? First of all, while this may be a common question, I actually do not agree that fundamentalism is salient right now, but I do believe that it would be quite accurate to instead propose that what modern people believe to be "fundamentalism" is salient right now, and the main reason for this is of course because many modern people do not understand the primordial doctrines, which means that they tend to default to some kind of assumption that aligns with the many absurdities of people who rightly should be labeled fundamentalists, and yes these people are real and they are fundamentalist, but not in any way pertaining to real doctrine, and quite often these people will be selective in their performance of belief and religiously, something that has nothing to do with doctrine, and this is why groups that claim such things as Jihad (جِهَاد) or "holy war" are at the forefront in these considerations, but there are many other groups outside the Islam that also quite rightly should be considered fundamentalists, fundamentalists of a sort of false teaching and practice. It is also the case that most people that are fundamentalist are entrenched in this modern thing called "belief"; these people do not know, they only believe, thus they are also very much susceptible to all sorts of malign influences and teachings that have nothing to do with pure doctrine, and to a certain extent this is the case with Protestantism, which tends to attract attention from unbelievers and infidels because of the many denominations and quite frankly obscene practices based on nothing but lies, and really Protestantism is a sign of our times and a result of individualism: to become a member of the clergy, one no longer requires proper qualification. So why not just make a democratic spectacle out of it all? Well, this is already the case, I'm afraid. Another thing you see with fundamentalists, and this again is somewhat tied to individualism, is the proclivity towards sectarianism, and it is within this sectarianism where most things go wrong. I should add here that I am sure that there are qualified persons within the ranks of many sects, but these people need to understand that their sect has led them astray, and that they are quite frankly mistaken. Of course, most members of a sect will never emerge in the world again, as they tend to lose themselves in the shamanism and the mysticism of the confusion, but of course this confusion is utterly unqualified and void of any knowledge, and only chance may bring any light upon the world for these people. So yes, I am not someone that approves of these kinds of people, because they are wrong and they are wrong because they are confused; these things happen when people follow charlatans: they lose sign of reality and become swept up in a kind of Bible-thumping fever, as the words from the bully pulpit follow the rhythms of Satan in the name of free inquiry. It is also a sign of our present and severe deviation away from the primordial and the proper, and may I add in terms of cults and sects there is of course a certain element of appeal, and it would be quite impossible without the concept of "preferences" to rely in this kind of appeal on the individual level, as if each man is qualified enough to be his own God. Essentially, one must seek to understand fundamentalism as another form of hubris, and really when you consider the difference between religious fundamentalism and ideological dogma, it becomes clear that they are essentially inseparable, and they are both a kind of hubris very peculiar to the modern world. This is also why most so-called "Jihadists" originate not from the East but from the West, where this kind of stuff tends to run rampant, often as a reaction to the imposition of multiculturalism; of course, there are exceptions to every rule, not that I consider this last statement a rule, and my usage of that idiom is a sign of my own laziness, because it is simply not the case that there can be such a thing as an exception to a rule: if a rule is to be considered a rule, then it has to be "extra-exceptional" and infallible, otherwise it may not be considered a rule, but this idiom is itself also deeply entrenched in a kind of individualism based on the assumption of the infinity of perfection, really that everything substantial must exist in the foreground and that exception is only available beyond the infinite, in a parallel universe as the modern saying goes.

    Again, I do not approve of fundamentalists, nor do I approve of any other modern deviation: it would be perfectly fine for men to believe, to sincerely believe, especially if they are presently unqualified, but belief itself must be qualified, and it must be shepherded by men of ascendant rank, in true harmony with the doctrine; only then may belief serve any purpose. Of course belief alone is useless, and the most radical proponents of the current deviation will quite rightly rip it apart: why should belief without substance, as the moderns would call it, be considered at all? Indeed, but the problem is not that belief lacks any kind of substance, because substance is quite impossible without essence. Indeed, belief lacks essence, and for the most part and especially within the Imperial Core, belief is either held in private or serves some political and material agenda, and this is particularly the case with fundamentalism. Why should the state and religion be separated, as the founders of the United States put it? You may say that religion should not impact or affect temporal power, and this is of course the common humanist assumption, but it would be just as true to assert the malign influences upon religion that the state holds, and the foulness, really the profanity, of moralizing and Bible-thumping politicians can only be described as a true metaphysical monstrosity, truly a sign of metaphysical inversion; politics and metaphysics do not belong together, because the former proceeds strictly as a deviation and bastardization of the latter.

    So, fundamentalism must be understood as a deviation and as something quite unnatural, and indeed it is true that fundamentalism as a phenomenon can only be found quite recently in the history of the West. It would be right to think that the ascetic dimension in particular tends to be the most extreme, or at any rate the most expressed, and this is because suffering seems to be held as a kind of virtue among many of these groups. Of course, a man of truly ascendant rank would not suffer, only Satan suffers. Yes, the whole thing is nothing but a vast error!

Reginald Drax – April 14, 2026.