Drēogan's Essays

A Call to Specifically Identify the Enemy

An address mainly to Europeans who consider themselves anti-Jewish:

We must understand who the enemy is. Who is it specifically that is bringing the destruction of European culture and morals. Who is causing world terrorism. Who is brainwashing us through the media. Who is playing us off against each other.

They are a group of Khazarian people who converted to Judaism in the Dark Age and practice in the cult of Satan. This is the Jewish cult of Satan, not some cartoonist thing. It is the implementation of the Jewish concept of evil and the complete enslavement of all of humanity.

We think of “ISIS” in the Middle East as Muslim radicals. However, we know there are more moderate forms which Europe can deal with safely (as long as they are in their own lands). We can think of Satanic Jews as radical Jews. This implies there are more moderate forms of Jews. We see these Jews exist, whom don’t have any specific plans of domination etc. However, these Jews have been “kept in line” by their Satanic leaders. Their leaders think of them as servants as well. These Jews have been brainwashed by the Satanic Jews, in essence, through repeated “victimization events” where the Satanic leadership terrorizes it’s own Jewish populace, directly or through proxies, so they develop a complex and become radicalized. (The most well-known example of this is the so-called Holocaust.) So, it is important to consider that when understanding the place of Jews in our world and the future. There can be moderate Jews, who live in their own lands, and who have no place in Europe. And we should think of them just as we would think of moderate Muslims.

Concerning Christianity’s violent conversions during the Dark Age: The Roman Empire was falling, took up Christianity as a new weapon, and used it to try and save their crumbling empire. This operation continued to be run from the Vatican after Rome’s collapse. We saw other European tribes, who were not forcefully converted, convert on their own will for political reasons. The people of these tribes ensured that the traditional European culture was preserved in the “Christian” practices.

So, we know Christianity was originally used as a weapon against Europe. We know the Vatican is involved and is today connected somewhat with the Khazarian Satanic Jewish sect (though they are not always aligned, and there is evidence that they were, at least in part, at war at recent times). We know the Jewish ideas in Christianity are foreign to us. They should be removed. However, this Christianity, while Jewish, does not concern itself with the promotion of the utterly vile ideas of the Satanic Jewish sect most of the time.

The ones who are the root of all our problems today are the Khazarian Satanic Jewish sect and should be dealt with first and foremost, and with absolute conviction, before we concern ourselves with the other, more minor problems inherent in a non-European influence on our culture.

After the complete defeat of the Khazarian Satanic Jewish sect (and possibly the Vatican as well, but they already have diminished influence), we can focus on the purification of the European culture as a top priority (though it certainly would not hurt to do this now as well). We must also think in terms of the future for Europe in a world (whether we like it or not) of ever-advancing technology. For sheer reasons of defense, we absolutely cannot abandon all modern technology. I believe we should remain as close to nature as possible, but our sorcerers (i.e. scientists) should continue to advance Europe’s knowledge to their full abilities. How we chose to utilize this knowledge is a different matter.

Just as some of our forefathers chose to become religious instead of sorcerers and some chose to settle permanently instead of being hunter-gatherers, perhaps today there are other changes to be made. Or perhaps not. Either way, we should maintain all ways of the past as best we can in different parts of Europe. At the same time, we should always chose to understand everything the best we can and not be left open to the perils of change from the outside or inside.

A general diagram of cultural, religious, and political linkages as I understand it:

P.S. A preemptive reply to those who might say that to accept any Jew is to admit treason: Sometimes it is more wise to consider what a total war policy will bring. Is it worth the political and social difficulties to pursue a policy that is not entirely necessary? Would it not be more prudent to behave in a way closest to the reality of the situation? Unnecessarily targeting moderate Jews for persecution will only reinforce their victimization complex and re- or ultra-radicalize them. It has done so before.

In specialibus generalia quaerimus.

Advertisements

Additional Information on the Name “Peordh”

[This was written for those interested in my music project Peordh, but I also included it on this blog because of it’s relevancy otherwise.]

As previously stated in the Statement on the Existence of This Project, the name of this project comes from the rune, in Old English, “Peorð”. I changed the ‘ð’ character to ‘dh’ merely for technical reasons (online searches, readability, computer file character sets, etc). The pronunciation is however the same: [pʲeorð] or [pʲeorθ], depending on dialect (probably), where the last sound is either a voiced dental fricative or a voiceless dental fricative.

The main reason I bring this up is because I’ve read some Russians pointing out it’s similarity to the Russian word “пердеть” (meaning “fart”). Obviously our ancestors would not make a rune out of the concept of a fart, so let’s go backwards in time to discover why there is this similarity. The proto-Indo-European root for “fart” is *perd-. It obviously changed much less on its journey into Russian than it did into English, but the root is the same. Now “Peorð” does not have a known meaning or root according to “scholars”, but after about five minutes of research, I was able to come across the proto-Indo-European root.

The first word I think of that sounds similar to “Peorð” is “fjord”. The only major phonetic differences are the ‘f’ and the ‘p’. But in the ever-changing dynamics of languages, ‘p’ and ‘f’ are very fluidly changed. ‘ð’ and ‘d’ are practically the same, largely depending on dialect. So, the proto-Indo-European root for “fjord” is *pértus. This means a “crossing”. Literally, it is the noun form of “to penetrate” or “to cross (water)” (water of course beings very important as a transitional barrier, a boundary between worlds, a fluid body of dreamlike “inter-land” or Earthly void, as open expanse of liquid incorporeality). Other decedents of this word are Latin “portus”, which English words “port” and “portal” come from. So we can see that the root concept is the notion of crossing from one place to another, like a bridge, portal, or some kind of connecting point between two places.

So that is exactly what “Peorð” means. Is a journey between two worlds. It is the act of crossing over (metaphysically, of course). It is a hike into unknown territory. It is the transportation to a different reality. It is crossing the river Styx. It is the realization of the unreal.

However, all this makes it seem like Peorð is only focused on another world, something incorporeal. In fact it is a connecting point. So it is the focus on both worlds. It is life and death. To understand life, you must understand death. To understand death, you must understand life. Peorð is the connecting point between both opposites, which allows for travel between both sides. You are not just stuck on one side, unaware of what the other is. Peorð is the key to the other side. The door through which you must walk. So if you must translate Peorð into a common word, please consider it “through”.

On Philosophical Paganism

I coined the term “Philosophical Paganism” a while ago, but never really defined what I meant by this. By “Philosophical Paganism” I have always meant intellectual discourse within a Pagan framework, the application of those ideas, and the development of new ideas and methods (whether reapplications/re-adaptations or wholly original) within this framework. “Philosophical Paganism” is NOT anachronistic, in that it does not attempt to recreate an old reality or pretend reality is different so that Paganism of a different time can be seen as relevant. It deals with the Pagan mindset here and now, as a necessary part of our current reality, and therefore has a focus on practicality. (Mental exercises which one may take into the past are seen as unrelated to this point.)

On the term specifically, it is “philosophical” because it is both “the love of wisdom” (which is the direct translation of “philosophy”) and it can be seen as similar to the ancient Greek philosophers’ techniques (and I think they had the same objectives in mind). It is “Pagan” because it is foremost wholly European-rooted (biologically) and uses a hunter-gatherer mindset or viewpoint (as a method of relation to the natural world, which is our reality). In my view, these are both necessary aspects of European Philosophical Paganism.

I consider myself a Philosophical Pagan, and you should as well.  Philosophical Paganism can be applied to any people.  The ideas and methods may vary widely across different types of peoples, but the simple principles I list here are general enough that it does not matter the context.  The only requirement is that you are human and have the ability to view the world as a hunter-gatherer would.

The reason I use “Philosophical Paganism” instead of just “Paganism” is because the latter is a loaded term.  I want to be more specific in what I am aiming for.  I don’t intend to trick myself into believing in physical deities.  I don’t intend to reject real scientific understanding and principles.  I don’t intend to create a dogmatic set of information that all must follow to think like me.  I just intend to live in the most logical way with my place in nature (i.e. reality).

When I say to think like a hunter-gatherer, it is a simple statement, but it’s implications are many.  How do you view nature?  Do you find meaning in a sunrise?  Do you feel the calmness of rain?  Do you feel the rush of the sun?  Do you feel the seriousness of the cold?  You could very well describe the firmament as Zeus and the humus as Gaia.  Or you could think in more abstract terms, where the universe fills the expanse of the mind and dominates our vision.  Where the roots of our beings enter the soil and continue forever.  It is only the way you wish to see it.  Our ancestors had many different methods, but they are all rooted from this hunter-gatherer mentality.  They just had to re-adapt to their reality, as we should today.

When our technological level advanced beyond hunter-gatherer (for whatever the reason), we continued to develop and re-develop our methods and ideas.  But they are all based on this hunter-gatherer framework, keeping us in line with reality.  I don’t propose we go backwards in time.  I propose we continue to develop.  But we must do so with these techniques.

The Inclusive Or

Being a computer engineer, when I see a question that asks “this or that?” I know the questioner means to ask “only this or only that?” but cannot help but think of it as an inclusive or. See, in logic and mathematics, “or” means “this or that or both?”. That is the default. To say “only this or only that?” you must be specific and write your question as an exclusive or. So naturally, when I see a choice between two options, my default decision is “both!”

I bring this up as a topic because I see more in this quirky, nerdy observation than merely a difference in syntax or word-choice; it is philosophical as well. How? Well, let’s inspect the mental state of someone who understands “or” to mean an exclusive or. When posed with the question “this or that?” the understanding is that they must choose one or the other. Their mind begins to immediately consider the differences between the two, as to determine which is more desirable. They start to consider, “How can I tell them apart? In what ways are they less alike? In which ways are they the least in common?” Notice the observations are largely negative in comparison. This then produces a presumption in the mind of this person to the effect of, “Since I am considering the differences between these two choices, the natural state of their relation is largely opposition.” Or in short, “It’s either one or the other. I cannot see them together.”

So, let us consider the mental state of someone who understands “or” to mean an inclusive or. When posed with the same question “this or that?” the understanding is that they can choose “this”, “that”, or both. Their mind considers this in a completely different way than the previous person. They immediately consider the ways in which they are similar. Because they have the third option of choosing both, they will consider if the two are agreeable in nature, if they have a mutual relationship. When viewing the question in a positive way such as this, they may begin the even consider that the idea of having to choose between the two options as faulty and misleading.

After inspecting the mental state and progression of a person who considers choices as an exclusive or and that of a person who considers as an inclusive or, it becomes apparent that the inclusive or provides a more constructive, appropriate, and justified approach. Often, to this person, a quandary is simply not a quandary at all, but a gift of options. Often, this person finds themselves saying, “I’ll do both!” So the next time you are presented with a choice, please consider the inclusive or.