Survive The Jive & The Golden One. Traditionalism, Paganism, Islam, Evola, Guenon, The Cheddar Man
STJ is a good m8, subscribe to his channel for +10 in Wisdom. Also check out his new documentary on India: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WxtDribi7I
☩ The Greatest Instagram: https://instagram.com/thegloriouslion
☩ Glorious Garments: https://legiogloria.com/
☩ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thegoldenone
☩ MakerSupport: https://www.makersupport.com/thegoldenone
☩ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheGloriousLion
☩ The Golden One: https://thegoldenone.se/
☩ Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheGloriousLion
☩ Gab.ai: https://gab.ai/TheGoldenOne
☩ Minds: https://www.minds.com/TheGloriousLion
☩ Financial Contributions: PayPal to thelegion@thegoldenone.se
☩ Hatreon: https://hatreon.us/TheGoldenOne/
☩ Tumblr: https://thegloriouslion.tumblr.com/
☩ Legio Gloria Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/legiogloria/
You have the charisma of a Saxon chieftain and the appearance of a European gentleman.
That was my Nigel Farage, but in a good way, obviously introducing my man Surai al-Daib.
So first and foremost, before you watch this video, Tom has just gotten back from good old India and made a very good documentary, which you can watch below.
First link in the description, give him a subscription as well.
Anyway, I thought to have a little conversation with Tom regarding some things which might be interesting for you all to partake in.
So yeah, welcome, first and foremost.
Thank you, Marcus.
Good to be on the channel.
Yeah.
Okay, so I've talked about this in a few videos, in a few podcasts, but I haven't addressed it directly to the actual channel and my audience.
So, and that's obviously about traditionalism because a lot of people they misunderstand the meaning of traditionalism with a big T like Evola in Gunon, etc.
So, do you have anything to add to that?
I know that you've been talking a bit about that earlier on as well, but to keep people up to date, do you have anything to add to my?
So the word tradition is obviously has a wider understood meaning, or which can be literally any custom that is preserved between generations and traditionalism, then people will assume, is any any ideology that is in favor of the continuation of this tradition.
But there is another meaning to traditionalism, that we're capital T, as you say, which is associated with a specific school of thought, sometimes called Sophia Perennis or the perennial philosophy, and in that there isn't really a major concern with the continuation of all of it, of any specific custom, of just random customs.
Rather, there's an eye it's about, centered about the idea that well, it's synonymous with the word truth.
Tradition in that context means truth and it's basically centered around the idea that different traditions and in that is specifically referring to religious traditions each of them are centered around the same truth and therefore all legitimate, but that they each reflect different peoples and different perspectives on the world and being in the world and therefore are proper and distinct to different peoples,
but that they are all legitimate for their own parts of the world and for their own types of people and that tradition is is basically the preservation of your people's tradition, which is its own, is the correct way for your people to engage with.
That one truth yeah, and a note there.
You probably all heard me say this, Jonathan Bowden quote, and it's like yeah, you've heard me saying like A thousand times.
I always greet him with it, so and it's like, and this I'm quoting now, and this is true for quite a lot of rightist and perennially minded people.
I'm not philosophical or perennial, but many right-minded people are actually admire elements of Islam for their strength, for their belief, for their ferocity, for the knowledge of who they are.
End quote.
And that he says philosophically perennial, and that is what Thomas is talking about now with the perennial truth.
So a truth that is, yeah, goes for most cultures.
So Baud, like he read some perennial philosopher like Julius Evela, but he wasn't necessarily a perennial, he wasn't perennially minded, as he says himself.
Many people nowadays often are interested in the right in general.
They'll be also reading Julius Evela, but they're not so much interested in Sophia Perennis.
There are many authors within that school.
None of them are associated particularly with right-mean politics, except one, Julius Evela.
The rest weren't really in any way associated with politics.
There are some even today who are quite well known.
Professor Nasser is in Canada.
He's an Iranian who lives in Canada.
He teaches Islamic studies at a university there.
He's quite a famous perennial philosopher.
The main names in the school are René Guanon from France, Fridof Schön, who's a German, and Julius Eveler, of course.
Martin Lings is a more recent one.
I think he only died quite recently.
He was in contact with the Prince of Wales, who is in fact the patron of a perennial philosophy school in the United Kingdom called the Telamos Academy.
Telamos Academy, sorry.
And that has various speakers on different traditions and religions and tries to bring people into that philosophical worldview, which Prince Charles is sympathetic to.
Alright, right.
So René Gounon, obviously, he admired elements of Islam, if I've understood the things correctly.
Yeah, he did.
He was, when he wrote the first book, was about Hinduism, and I made a video on that book.
But he was at the time a Catholic, he was raised in France as a Catholic.
Later, he decided that the traditional virtues in Catholicism had been compromised, and therefore he decided it was better to look for a more well-preserved tradition.
And he became a Sufi.
It's a form of Islam practiced in the easternmost regions of Europe.
It's a mystical type of Islam which is less concerned with the letter of the law of the Quran and has some more nuanced conceptions of divinity and also is within Sufism there is the potential For appreciation of other traditions,
whereas Islam more broadly as a religion has no appreciation, especially for the pre-Abrahamic traditions.
Yeah, and also when René Gunon admired elements of Islam, this was obviously before this whole invasion of Europe, so it's not that he cocked to Islam or anything, it was just a scholar on the search for truth, and that was beforehand.
Well, he did become a Muslim, and he did move to Egypt and leave Europe.
Yeah, I mean, a bit cockish, but it's still not.
And married an Egyptian, and yeah.
Okay, a bit of a heretic, everybody's but I mean, it's not my place.
I'm not going to say what's right and what's wrong, but he tries to do that.
And I think Shun as well became a Muslim.
Many of the original traditionalists became Muslims, but not all.
There was also a whole collection of European traditionalists in Thailand for a while who became Buddhists.
And there are also, I mean, Evala was originally he called himself a Catholic pagan, pagan, but he moved away from paganism a bit, but he was never a Christian.
But in regards to Gunnon, I'd say it would have been worse if he did it today, because now we're like the West and Islam is today in a bit more of a metaphysical boxing match than say 50 years ago.
So I mean, I'm just pointing out that I'm not condoning of his behaviors, but well actually in a way I am, because he was obviously on the quest for enlightenment and it took him there.
And he shared his wisdom and his teachings with us.
So we have that.
He was correctly recognizing a problem in the West which was growing and had been growing for a long time.
And his ultimate diagnosis was that it was not likely to be solved.
He predicted two likely outcomes for the West.
One, or two, one, the more preferable one would be that the West would be spiritually renewed by an understanding of spiritual tradition which it learned from other cultures it came into contact with.
It doesn't necessarily mean that they have to become Hindus or Muslims, but that they would learn from the need for the tradition.
Alternatively, if that never was achieved, he predicted that it would be that the West would be absorbed by the neighboring civilizations which had traditions, most likely Islamic civilization, because that was the closest one.
And if that was written in the 20s or something, I'd say about 90 years later, close to 100 years later, and it seems like he was onto something there.
And also, I don't know if I've ever said this in a video.
I know I've said it in a speech at least.
I might have said it in a podcast.
I don't know if I've said it in an English podcast, but just to clarify, I have expressed admiration for Islam for the same reason Bauden says some of them.
For all their knowledge of who they are.
Exactly.
And he has a point.
But what I mean then is not that I want white sharia and that I want us to become Muslim.
I want to see what makes them strong.
Okay, because they are very passionate about what they're doing.
And like you said, in the first alternative that we learn from other cultures, see how strongly passionate they are.
They have a fire within them.
I want the same thing, but perhaps in, for us, a pagan, pagan version.
So that is why I, if I say I admire elements of Islam, it's not that I want northern European women to have like burqas or anything because that's not our way, but I want to see it's almost like if you have a guy with a magic sword on flame and then I want like okay I want the same sort of sword.
I can't have that sword because it's suited to his hand and everything, but I want to know the ingredients, what kind of metal, what kind of magic does he use.
So I think it's, and this is also, we're talking about these counter-Jiadist individuals who are just finding faults with Islam all the time and criticizing Islam from the wrong perspective.
Say like, oh, Islam is too traditional.
And it's like, there are good things with Islam, then there are bad things with Islam.
Yeah, as I was saying, what I want to see is that, okay, they have something, I want to know what it is, and I want to utilize it to revive our own spirituality, our own culture.
And this is also something Jonathan Bowden said, I know, and that's Europe will completely disappear unless we revive.
Basically, I don't know which speech it was, but it was really good, and I totally agree.
We need to revive.
And the sort of counter-Jiadist mindset that, oh, everything Islam does is wrong, and we have to do the opposite.
It's really not particularly glorious, in my humble view at least.
Well, it overlooks some of the problems, and it's kind of indicative of a tendency to look at the symptoms rather than the causes of problems that we have as Westerners.
Things were on their way to the current conditions before they reached the state that they're currently in.
And that's what needs to be addressed.
And that's one of the problems with the more broadly understood meaning of tradition.
And conservatism.
It doesn't really want to.
It's a reflexive desire to preserve something just because it's familiar, which isn't good at all.
And that is not what I mean when I talk about tradition and preserving tradition.
If a beautiful house is destroyed and an ugly one is built in its place, and then people, at first they hate that ugly building, but over time they become to find it familiar.
Then if someone says, I wish to rebuild a beautiful building where this ugly one currently stands, there will be those who, having grown so attached to this familiar, ugly building, will say, no, let us preserve this ugly building.
They are not traditionalists.
They're just reflexive conservatives, and I have nothing to do with that ideology.
I have no interest in that kind of perspective, resisting change because it's unfamiliar.
Yeah, it sort of reminds me about the sort of capitalist American conservative who view America's in the 50s as the epitome of and they don't understand that capitalism, communism,
it's and I mentioned this in one of my recent videos as well, that it's sort of I wouldn't say like if you have a horseshoe theory and you can have the I'm just throwing something up a pyramid theory where you have socialism and capitalism on the bottom and then you have traditionalism on top because traditionalism is more concerned with the higher values,
metaphysical qualities, whereas socialism is here to the left, capitalism is here, it's still based upon money.
And then if I compare certain Islamists or Muslims, and obviously this is controversial to say, but if I compare them, and I know we talked about this in a car about half a year ago or something, I don't know if you remember, but I was on the way to training.
But anyway, if you compare like a Muslim man who lives for something higher, a set of metaphysical ideals he's striving to watch, compare that to a Western man that perhaps his main interest is to watch American football every Sunday or even British football.
He shares for a team and without any real connection to it.
I'm not opposed to sports, but I'm opposed to that sort of false identity kind of thing.
And that is what I mean with, I can always admire someone that dedicates themselves to higher ideals and doesn't have to be a Muslim.
It can be anyone really.
It can be a Christian monk, a Christian priest or a Buddhist monk.
Yeah, and I'm the same.
But I also feel though that it is not desirable for people to adopt the traditions of other peoples.
And this is something that the Dalai Lama has said recently.
He said, I'm against conversions because the conversion puts an unnecessary strain on the culture of the people around, on the people of that culture.
No man is an island.
You don't exist as an individual, in the liberal perspective.
You exist as an amalgamation of the cultural components of your family and your nation and your people or your tribe or whatever.
You live as part of other people.
You're not an atomized, single, complete unit.
Man has never existed in that way.
It's a fiction.
There you have it, liberals.
Sorry, Saraghan.
But it's...
Okay, so the Dalai Lama said that this means that when some of a Westerner converts to Buddhism, what happens to their Christian family when...
When a Buddhist converts to Christianity or whatever, the same problems happen.
Even if there's nothing wrong with that tradition in itself, it can create these problems.
Now, there are instances where perhaps it has to happen, there's no other option.
That's what Grunon believed.
That's why he converted to Islam, because he thought that the Catholic Church was the only legitimate Western tradition remaining, and that that was then compromised, leaving no Western traditions left.
And therefore, he decided he had to move to the next nearest thing, which is Sufi Islam, the closest Eastern tradition for the Western mindset, because he thought that the next closest thing was the Arab tradition, and among the Arab tradition, the Sufi one was the nearest to Europe.
But yeah, he wasn't anti-pagan.
He wrote great things on the Celtic paganism.
He was respectful of his Celtic ancestors, but he decided that in his view, not mine, that the Celtic tradition was done for and there was nothing remaining of it, and that the Catholic tradition had gone the same way, and therefore that was the only option.
I would say, I personally believe that we know enough about European traditions in general, and specifically ones local to us, like the Nordic Germanic tradition, that we can properly practice a sincere and complete tradition, our Indo-European tradition today.
But it does present problems that aren't there for Christians.
However, those that choose to be Christians have to recognise that they're not living in 14th century where Catholicism or the old Christian values are ubiquitous and all dominant in every kind of society.
And much of the infrastructure and the power, the powerful, the power level hierarchies in the Catholic Church are completely compromised and anti-traditional.
So you're fighting an uphill struggle whether you choose to be a pagan or a Christian at this stage.
Yeah, so basically I've said in Sweden's case at least, or perhaps all of Scandinavia, that Christianity is dead.
Like the link has been cut like 50 years ago or so, more or less dead.
I know some Christians will obviously not agree with me here, but it doesn't permeate the society like, yeah, you said Catholic Church during the Middle Ages.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, you said this before in a private conversation that that was like it permeated the entire society.
But the hierarchy of medieval Europe was entirely built around God.
The legitimacy of the king, the nobles, everything was believed in a notion of Christian morality.
The Arthurian chivalric culture, the courtly courtly culture that is depicted in medieval romance is structured around Christian virtues.
Although Evolo has pointed out there are many elements in that taken from the warrior pagan religions that preceded Christianity, that doesn't change the fact that this was an entirely Christian culture.
Now Christianity does not have the same sway and hasn't done for several decades.
So yeah, you're no longer, I mean we can say the West is Christian, it certainly was, but you're not supported by a Christian society when you practice Christianity now.
In fact you're very often actively opposed by the society around you, by politicians, by other powerful forces, the media.
So yeah, I mean I'm not saying don't be a Christian.
If you want to be a Christian be a Christian.
I'm not a Christian, I'm a pagan.
And obviously because I believe that the pagan tradition is legitimate.
Yeah, Samir, I might have mentioned this sometime somewhere as well that for me growing up I am not baptized, I'm not confirmed, I don't really have any connection with the Christian church.
So for me it was choosing between the religion that best suited me and I mean Germanic paganism is more attractive and I've been a firm supporter of Christianity, of Catholicism.
But when push comes to shove, I'm obviously gonna be closer to a tradition, a truth that is more in line with our values as Indo-Europeans.
I'm thinking about the sin of the Christian world versus the shame of the it's two completely different things.
Because in Christianity, it's almost like you're always guilty.
There are no good Catholics because they have inherited a sin.
A good Catholic knows he's a bad Catholic.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Whereas for us as pagans we have shame as a barrier towards the enemy's behavior.
So we're not guilty until we are guilty and we have shame as a sort of regulatory thing there.
And then also something I think Stefan McNallen wrote in his book Also True and was like a key difference is how we view life.
Christians view it as you get your reward if you're a good boy, you get it in the next life.
Whereas pagan, be a force of nature right now, live life to the fullest right now and obviously not live life like oh YOLO, you should do a lot of drugs and be a hedonist.
It's not that sense but it's about enjoying yourself still while obviously continuing align etc.
Yeah, yeah and and I think the pagan perspective also recognizes reward in a more immediate sense.
So in paganism you don't just you can pray for things in this life.
So you don't just pray for salvation.
In fact, you don't pray for salvation, really.
You can pray to be wiser.
You can pray, I wish to have greater knowledge.
I wish to be a wiser person now.
And yeah, and that's normal.
as long as you perform the rites in the prescribed traditional way and that you pray sincerely and give offerings and then you can expect to become wiser as long as you're dedicated to that endeavour.
Whereas, I don't know, Christianity is...
You don't pray...
I mean yeah, it's a bit different for Christianity what you can and can't pray for.
I mean in, in practice, people pray very much like pagans.
Anyway, in Mexico, Catholics are very, you know, they do things with very much like pagans did, and same in Europe, because I think pagan religion doesn't come from the traditions of paganism, don't come from a dis, from design.
No one has sat down and designed the pagan religion it is.
It comes naturally from how people actually behave.
People will naturally behave as pagans because it is a religion that is innate in human nature, whereas prescribed religions like communism, for example, which is essentially like a religion.
It's written down, it's been constructed from the start to the beginning, as this is a logical way that one man has, or several men have, perceived men should live.
But obviously, when you try and impose that onto them, it isn't actually, it doesn't work, because that's not actually naturally how they choose.
They want to behave.
Yeah, on our semi-related topic and I think since I have you on the channel, you might want to utilize this opportunity to dispel some blasphemies.
That has Cheddar man.
Cheddarman.
So I saw an article the other day saying that it was they were wrong or something.
you any insights into yeah well there's the initial I knew before that article came out as wrong I'd done a lot of videos about Western hunter-gatherers.
And already I knew what could be expected from the study.
There was, for example, there have been other, before, originally Europe was populated quite homogeneously with a single basic population of hunter-gatherers that geneticists call Western hunter-gatherers.
And whether you take a sample of one of these from Spain or Britain or anywhere else in Western Europe, it's pretty much the same.
There's not a great deal of genetic drift.
There's some, but they all form one genetic cluster.
There's no living population on earth today that is exactly in that cluster because they don't exist as they did then.
However, they're very close to modern Europeans and that they're closer to northern Europeans than to southern Europeans because northern Europeans today have more genetic similarity, more descent from the original indigenous hunter-gatherers of Europe than southern Europeans do.
No other race in the world has any genetic affinity with them except Europeans.
None at all.
So we can say that they're Europeans, although they're a type of archaic European that no longer exists.
However, studies on some samples from Spain, or a sample from Spain and some other ones, they determined that although every single Western hunter-gatherer so far with their DNA has been sequenced entirely and looked at it, they all had blue eyes.
So they were all homogeneous in the fact that they all had the same colour eyes.
But they lacked the genes that we associate nowadays with lighter complexions in Europeans.
So previous studies have therefore concluded that he must have been darker than a European today.
That's about that's all they've said.
This later study found the same exact thing, no news there.
Yes, those genes for light skin were absent and yes, the blue eyes were there, same as that's exactly what we expected to see because he's just, Cheddar Man is just another Western hunter-gatherer.
But then they did something very unusual.
They therefore claimed that he was black, or that they assumed that the default complexion of a human being is as dark as a sub-Saharan African, which isn't the case, because sub-Saharan Africans have evolved to become darker for necessity, for that environment.
And also, they didn't actually even look for the genes associated with African complex dark African complexions.
Nor did they indeed look for the genes associated with light skin that are present in Asians.
So what complexion Cheddar Man was, we can't say for sure.
We can presume he was darker than the European.
He might not be.
He may have had the genes associated with light skin that Asians have.
But we don't know, because that wasn't actually looked at.
It's most likely he was around the same complexion as a Middle Easterner.
That's far more likely.
That's far more likely.
I'm not saying we can rule out the possibility that he was as dark as an African, but that hasn't been proven.
That hasn't even been looked for.
So no one can say that.
But not only did the study itself say that he was that dark, but then the people who did the facial, the man who did the reconstruction of the face chose to make him very, very dark.
And actually, he didn't make them as dark as the media darkened the images of the reconstruction to make it look yet darker.
And then the media chose to use headlines, not describing as having darker skin than Europeans, but describing him as black.
And not has black skin, but he is black.
Which, of course, in popular parlance, everyone understands that meaning means a sub-Saharan African, which he absolutely was not in any respect at all.
In complexion, in genetics, in facial construction, in heritage, he was not a sub-Saharan African.
And no one has ever argued that he is.
So what they've done there is extremely misleading and unscientific and dishonest.
Yeah, and something I said in my Cheddar Man video as well was that if there has been a scientific find, like one must always go to the source and see what the scientific report actually says because the media, yeah, they take something and perhaps it's not entirely false, but it's so misleading it might as well be false.
And I mean fake news, they have used up all of their credibility by now.
So yeah.
Alright, cool.
Some people want to say, oh, what if he wasn't related to us or something?
What if he was a foreigner?
No, he was related to us and he wasn't a foreigner.
I mean, he was a native European hunter-gatherer.
They're all like that.
But it doesn't matter, even if they did find out that they did have that dark complexion, which they haven't determined exactly how dark.
It still wouldn't matter because you're still a European genetically.
His closest living relatives in the world today are probably from Estonia.
If you take an Estonian and take away the genes that are in an Estonian for light complexion, what do you get?
You get a dark-skinned Estonian.
You don't get a black person.
It doesn't make any sense to say that he's black.
Or it doesn't make any sense if you're looking at a rational perspective.
It makes perfect sense if you're looking at how can they use ancient population genetics to manufacture an overall opinion or rather sentiment among European populations that their heritage is illegitimate and that their claim to any kind of ancestral connection to the lands which their cultures have emerged in are also illegitimate.
And that's a form of psychological terrorism that should not be forgiven by anyone.
Yeah, I agree.
And here's something to keep in mind also, regardless if we're talking about politicized science or even such a thing as supplements or anything.
There are people who, like, they want a conclusion and then they try to fit the science to that conclusion instead of the other way around.
Like, a true scientist, someone who's out for the truth, will obviously look at, okay, what does the find say, what does the archaeology say, what does the biology say, and then they draw a conclusion.
For these heretics, it's the other way around.
They want to say, like, oh, look, you have no claim to this land.
Okay, scientists, find something that suits our narrative here.
So yeah, very dishonest people.
So instead, look at all your population genetics directly from the sources or at least from Survive the Jive.
So anyway, we're gonna hit the Temple of Auris now actually.
So but yeah, this was just a I had the camera with and I decided to throw up the camera and have a regular conversation.
So this wasn't anything more formal than that.
But yeah, anyway, thanks Survive the Jive and link in the description.
So be sure to check his India video out and also subscribe to his other content.
