Posts Tagged ‘miscegenation’
Thursday, March 30th, 2017
In dying times, the knowledge of the past is lost, leading to tragedies of displacement within the soul which bring misery:
Overt discrimination has happened sometimes, but the feeling of “otherness” has plagued me all my life. My halcyon memories of holidays in Ireland are marred by occasional smudges. I remember my father building sandcastle forts on the beach in the rain for me and my brother, Mum singing Christy Moore in a pub and cliff walks with my cousins. But I also remember feeling ashamed to lay claim to Irishness. And sometimes, I was reminded that I wouldn’t be able to.
There was the time a group of teenagers at a village festival made monkey noises at me, and the feigned nonchalance I adopted, aged 13, after a boy turned me down for a kiss on the basis that I was “too brown”. Aged 21, I had to laugh when a barely coherent man in a Limerick nightclub asked me if I spoke English as I was just approaching the end of my degree. And as recently as six months ago, an Irishman in New York City told me I “wasn’t really Irish”.
As Irish-Nigerian writer Emma Dabiri notes: “Whiteness is ‘pure’ and doesn’t extend to brown girls, even those who can trace their Irish ancestry back to the 10th century.” It was for that reason I once turned down my mother’s offer of Irish dancing lessons.
To be between tribes is to always be unsure of one’s own identity and place, to never feel comfortable anywhere. In the mad pursuit of the ideology of equality, people are sacrificed, with their contentment and happiness coming first. A person who is half-Irish and half-Nigerian will never have a home, and be doomed to wander alone, wondering where peace can be found.
Thursday, March 16th, 2017
Being a conservative is difficult because the party that in theory represents you is usually doing something stupid and will inevitably let you down. This is why most conservative-leaning voters switched off long ago, realizing that democracy would never work for them and they would do better to focus on local things, in effect handing their votes to the Left.
Today’s “stupid party” hilarity is the bust of an Oklahoma Senator for alleged marijuana and sex for pay with a young boy, which seems to be a typical event for the GOP:
When police went to check on a juvenile at the Super 8 in Moore last Thursday, officers said they smelled a “strong odor of raw marijuana” coming from Room 120.
…The 35-year-old republican is involved with teens on a regular basis through the YMCA Youth in government program and as a senior staffer at Boys State.
When asked why he was in that motel room, he said “he was just there to hang out with his friend.”
The worst aspect of this case is that it looks like a classic setup: the teen’s girlfriend was watching the two enter the hotel, and at about that moment, a phone call was made to police, who showed up a half-hour later. The teen expressed that he expected to receive some kind of payment, and chat logs were leaked either before or shortly after the arrest.
Immoral behavior is one thing, and most conservatives would find it appalling that one of their own was found in a motel room with a teenager. Even worse is incompetence, and leaving oneself open to such blatant extortion attempts suggests incompetence of a vast scale. This leaves conservatives shaking their heads, wondering why we get the stupid party and such idiots in it.
Any answer to this question must be, by nature, multifaceted. The most obvious is that conservatives are by nature more inept at breaking the law. Another is that conservatism attracts people who need order because they feel they are prone to be out of control. And yet another is that the Left, who intend to break the law, make hiding their bad deeds a primary priority.
The latter — that conservatives are accidental lawbreakers, rather than people who structure their lives around lawbreaking — plus the general middle class cluelessness of conservatives in general, might explain why so many of these embarrassing incidents come to light. It also demonstrates why conservatism lives through its best thinkers, and not the rank-and-file politicians.
In any case, the time is now for a discussion and action on the future of conservatism. As a political theory, it is always captured by seemingly the least competent people possible, implying that the thoughtful conservatives stay out of politics for the most part. This tells us that we will always be at a disadvantage in a political system, and why we should thus always act to dismantle such systems.
Further, this incident pushes us to examine what it is to be a conservative. Do we want people who can play the political game, or who are oriented toward conservatism as a “folkway” or outlook and way of life instead of as dogma or ideology? Should we ask whether or not Sen. Shortey has an Amerind in his heritage, as he appears to, and whether that represents us?
Conservatives are the target of the rest of the political system because we are the party of NO. Unlike the Left, we set standards and require purpose and thus direction and hierarchy, and that viewpoint will always be less popular than “anarchy with grocery stores” as the Left promises. This means we have to clean up our act by focusing our action, because we were always the underdog.
Saturday, February 18th, 2017
6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;
8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.
9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.
10 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.
12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:
13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.
It is harder to find a clearer statement against miscegenation. When the tribes are mixed, they lose what makes them unique, and what replaces them is a beige-grey cultureless race that loses out on the specialized traits that made each tribe powerful. As a result, it reduces the beauty in the world and increases ugliness.
No wonder a just and genius God might be wrathful against that.
The Leftists changed the history books to claim that Nationalism arose in the 19th century, when in fact it has been the default state of humankind since the dawn of time. That occurs for a simple reason: tribalism works. It is more efficient to have similar people moving toward the same purpose according to the same principles, than to have to debate each detail of the process.
Even more, tribalism allows a group to break away and develop itself more than others, thus rise to greater heights. Without tribalism, the most productive human groups in all races would not exist. Violating that would incur the wrath of an intelligent god as well.
As the fog of equality is removed from our eyes, people are moving away from the thinking that the individual is the center of the universe, and moving closer to the idea that our success is determined as much by context as ourselves.
Friday, February 17th, 2017
While anti-Semitism makes no sense because it scapegoats one group for the failure of the much larger phenomenon of Western Individualism, it is easy to see how it came about in the modern time because of the unfortunate affinity of a large percentage of Jews for egalitarian ideologies which also reveals the eternal tragedy of the Jewish people in Europe and Eurasia:
In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a “carnival of mass murder,” “fantasy of purges”, and “essianism of evil.” Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.
When 2% of the population represents nearly 40% of the Communist Party, they will be targeted. Herzl recognized this when he noticed that among national populations, those who do not fit the national profile are attacked whenever things go wrong. But even more, when a stereotype becomes somewhat true, the brutality that follows seems justified or at least forgivable to most people, despite being unrealistic.
Naturally the tragedy of the Jews comes into play here. The Jewish diaspora began before the Jewish people were exiled from Palestine. It lies in the mixed-race nature of the Jewish population, who were probably once European but became merged with Asiatics and Asiatic-African hybrids because of Israel’s place as the center of world commerce at the time.
The Jews are a bourgeois tragedy: successful in business, they accepted everyone, which led to them changing from a European population to a mixed one. This guaranteed them a home on none of the continents and, when their homeland in the middle east was dispossessed from them, a wandering group who could never point to an origin and say “there, alone, we belong.”
Like the good businesspeople of the West today, the original Jews accepted diversity because it made good business sense. Thriving businesses do not turn down customers because of their national origin. But in doing so, the Jewish people invited in the hybridization that ensured they would never have a racial home or continental home except themselves.
This fundamental alienation led to a fascination with anti-majority movements for many Jews, explaining their higher participation in Leftist movements. However, their lack of an identity in one of the four root races — Australid, Caucasian, Asian and African — then turned against them, as even the Communists recognized the power of nationalism.
While this seems like a problem without solution, nationalism solves this problem. A new race was made: the Jewish people. It belongs to no one but itself, and it needs its own homeland, whether in Israel or Madagascar. It will never be European again, but it can be the best of what it is, and this begins with a divorce from the alienation that has led it into so many disasters.
In the meantime, these historical events prove how nonsensical anti-Semitism is. Our problem in the West is that we are following the path that the ancient Jews did because, as individuals, we are willing to “succeed” at the expense of civilization. We cannot blame others for our own moral failing, and indeed, doing so obscures what we must do, which is to change our ways.
Saturday, February 4th, 2017
Diversity, or the policy of putting different ethnic groups with their different self-interest vectors into the same group, is a type of genocide, albeit a “soft” or legislative and slow-moving variety:
The United Nations (UN) defines genocide as:
Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.1
Diversity “inflicts on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.” When different ethnic or religious groups have been placed nearby, they have fought each other in a pattern that has been consistent since the dawn of time. Then, as we can see by observing the remains later, the two groups assimilate each other, and in the process lose what made them unique. These leftover groups never attain the characteristics of the original groups and generally fade away, like the ruins of a once-great civilization. This is what our leaders have in store for us.
Our leaders want this because it will make us easy to control. When religion, race and culture are out of the way, they can have a grey tribe with no values in common, which makes it easy to sell products to or manipulate with political ideology. They are the perfect consumers and perfect voters because they have no higher allegiances — like culture, heritage or belief — that conflicts with the government propaganda and advertising. As the Greek philosopher, Plato, wrote 2400 years ago:
And the more detestable his actions are to the citizens the more satellites and the greater devotion in them will he require?
And who are the devoted band, and where will he procure them?
They will flock to him, he said, of their own accord, if lie pays them.
By the dog! I said, here are more drones, of every sort and from every land.2
Those who rule over us are using the same strategy as the tyrant Plato describes: import new people from former colonies, or satellites, and use them to displace the existing population. This new population is chosen because it can be bribed with benefits, sometimes called “welfare” or “socialism,” and it will then always support the tyrant. The problem is, as Plato notes, that it requires bringing in foreign people from many lands. This effectively destroys the ability of a society to have any rules of its own, and through time and interbreeding, it is replaced by a new population.
In the meantime, the invisible rules which one made society livable, called “culture,” have been removed. You cannot have culture when the population is made up of people who did not grow up under this culture, and evolved in their own lands to have different cultures. Culture is in the blood because to succeed in a society, you must be compatible with its culture. After a few generations, only those who took to the culture naturally remain.
The loss of culture through loss of heritage makes society paranoid. People no longer trust each other, and for that reason, they no longer invest effort into the shared future that is our society. As Robert Putnam found:
New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.3
Add it up, and you can see that diversity destroys society. It does not matter which groups are involved and it is not their fault. Diversity destroys any society no matter which groups are involved. So if you think this is about a “bad” religion, ethnic group or race, you have missed the point. The point is that diversity will destroy us because it is genocide of all of our populations.
Like all egalitarian programs, its goal is to destroy those who might rise above the rest. This is the resentful and hence vengeful nature of a crowd of people, which is to scapegoat those who do not share its problems for its problems, allowing it to feel more comfortable with its own degree of mediocrity.
With soft genocide, those who wish to destroy populations have a new weapon: passive aggression. They can avoid direct action, but by offering up their insane ideas as normal and then reacting defensively, as if attacked, when others recoil from the insanity, they can use social guilt to manipulate those others into accepting the insanity.
The only solution is to articulate what is sane and insane, avoiding the emotionality of both hate groups and anti-discrimination groups, and instead to point ourselves toward the solutions that work for every group in every age, starting with a removal of diversity and a focus on excellence instead of scapegoating.
Saturday, February 4th, 2017
As with many Leftist attacks, this one begins with a social appeal, progresses to one fact, then draws overbroad conclusions from that and goes to a crazy place. The headline screams “The future is mixed-race” and it features a picture of a cute, mostly-white kid to make you think everything will be ducky.
But when we look further, we see the usual logical sleight-of-hand and circular reasoning that seems to define Leftist propaganda:
Recent insights from the sequencing of hundreds of thousands of human genomes in the past decade have revealed that our species’ history has been punctuated by many episodes of migration and genetic exchange. The mixing of human groups is nothing new.
What is new is the rate of mixing currently underway. Globalisation means that our species is more mobile than ever before. International migration has reached record highs, as has the number of interracial marriages, leading to a surge of multiracial people such as Shewmake.
It is so subtle you might miss it: in the past, groups which no longer exist today merged to form highly distinctive groups. This happened because they were close to each other and were in the process of improving themselves to the point where ethnic groups are today. In other words, this was evolution.
But now, instead of merging groups in a beneficial way, we are merely mixing randomly, and erasing groups in the process, replacing them with… what?
Let us assume that race-mixing happens all the time and has throughout history, and then look at it as a method of evolution, and compare different results from different areas.
For example, we can look at the Romans, who were a hybrid of Etruscans and ancient Greeks (in theory). Did it work for them? They had a great empire, for a time, and then it fell apart. Were these two groups closely related, or not? History suggests that since there were blonde and red-haired Romans, the Romans were much like modern Western Europeans, which suggests that these groups were more similar than disparate.
But then, we have plenty of other examples of race-mixing. For example, Pakistan is what happens when Muslim invaders mix with local Hindu populations. Vietnam is a merging of Asian groups, Brazil is an ethnic free-for-all, Iraq is a mixture of Persian and Arab, and Eastern Europe shows a mixing of Europeans with Asiatics. How has mixing worked out for those places?
Then we might look at Israel, a group with ancient origins that has steadily increased the amount of European in the mix over the years. Obviously this group was doing well in the past, and is doing even better now. Can we attribute that improvement to miscegenation? Probably not entirely. But the point is that sometimes, blending in other advanced tribes can help a small tribe.
But as far as bigger groups, when they blend, the result is going to be more like Iraq or Pakistan: the attributes of the larger group, formed through aeons of evolution, are adulterated by something different — it does not have to be “bad” or “good,” “superior” or “inferior,” merely different — which removes all of that refinement. A specific thing becomes a generic one.
This is why Vietnamese, Filipinos, Mexican indios, Pakistanis, Brazilians, Southern Italians and Thai people look very similar: they are roughly the same racial recipe, with similar amounts of Semite, Caucasian, and Asian leading to similar appearances. They might have something else in common: none of these societies are particularly functional.
So when you hear the argument that race mixing is inevitable and it is good, reflect on this. No method is universally good, and “good” depends on who is doing it and how, because that is what regulates results. Results are more important than categories like good and bad based on social feelings. And if you look at results, it becomes clear that race-mixing is neither all bad, nor particularly good.
In most situations, race-mixing leads to the death of civilization. The once-distinctive group loses its unique traits, becomes generic, and then creates yet another generic human civilization, which is basically subsistence existence with disorganized social order in the Thirdworld™ style. That is the future of random race-mixing.
Contrary to what the article says, race-mixing is not inevitable because the choice remains up to the individuals involved. Some people will race-mix; some always have. But those who want a non-thirdworld future for their descendants are probably against it. And so instead of our inevitable future, race-mixing looks more like a way of purging some people from among us, as a prelude to sending them away…
Wednesday, February 1st, 2017
In any debate, the party making the first move has the advantage because they define the terms and assumptions that will be used in the debate. They do this by introducing them first and “framing” them, or orienting them toward a certain goal and imposing specific boundaries, which then forces others to react to those terms instead of arguing for their own affirmative position. It forces others into passivity.
This is what the Left has done to the Right since the Great Division after the French Revolution. They define terms, and the Right reacts, trying to recapture the initiative while doing so only in the methods provided by Leftist terminology. No wonder they did not succeed.
We can see the Leftist term-framing attack — a passive-aggressive introduction to circular reasoning — in the wild with the book A Racial Program For The Twentieth Century, written by a Communist to urge others to attack:
We must realize that our Party’s most powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races, that for centuries have been oppressed by the whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party … In America, we will aim for subtle victory.
While enflaming the Negro minority against the Whites, we will instill in the Whites a guilt complex for the exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise to prominence in every walk of life, in the professions, and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negroes will be able to intermarry with the Whites, and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.
The point of this move is classic Leftism: they are going to do something crazy so that non-Leftists will rush in to try to save the day, which will entrap them either as cucks (bipartisans, neoconservatives) or as spergs (reactionaries and other extremists) but either way, dominate the Right by forcing it to adopt a Leftist narrative.
A better way to view this is that we must redefine the narrative for ourselves. The Left says that this is Negroes-Versus-Whites, so by definition, that cannot be true. They will have defined the issue falsely narrowly so that we act to our disadvantage. This means that the issue is always wider than the Left portrays and so an instant losing move is to agree to their definitions.
This means that any variant of the Negroes-Versus-Whites narrative is by definition going to play into the hands of the Left, eventually.
Similarly, the Jews-Versus-Aryans narrative created a situation where whites could either be victims or victimizers, but not victors.
Our goal on the Alt Right is to throw away the rulebook and the Leftist definitions, framing and restrictions on our thought. We must look to the real issue: if nationalism makes thriving societies, why is it taboo in our own dwindling preserve?
Sunday, January 22nd, 2017
In the land of Oregon, the realization has dawned that immigrants are polluting the local bloodline. Once mixed, the population can never go back, and this makes it more effective in the short term but less stable in the long term. In short, genocide will have occurred through replacement of the population by a new one, and that will erase all that was functional there.
Sound far-fetched? It is not, but we are speaking of genetically modified grass seed instead of human beings:
The altered grass has taken root in Oregon, of all places, the self-professed grass seed capital of the world with a billion-dollar-a-year industry at stake. The grass has proven hard to kill because it’s been modified to be resistant to Roundup, the ubiquitous, all-purpose herbicide.
…”We don’t understand the ecological or the economic impact of this,” said Katy Coba, former director of the Oregon Agriculture Department. “We need to figure out the extent of the contamination.”
…Many international buyers will not buy genetically modified products, citing potential safety concerns. Some countries ban them outright. It was just three years ago that some Asian buyers suspended purchases of Northwest wheat after traces of genetically modified strains were detected.
At first, it seemed ludicrous to worry about such things. Why concern yourself with what happens a valley or two away? Look toward yourself, and accept the new arrival. And then, it becomes clear that the new arrival will displace the old. It is resistant to many of the weaknesses that afflict the old, and yet, in the long term, it may be less desirable.
Slowly, the realization dawns that genetic pollution may be the worst form of all because there is no going back, and once it begins, it is difficult if not impossible to stop.
Thursday, December 15th, 2016
As it turns out, adopting a child who is unlike you can kill you:
A 17-year-old boy was arrested in Texas Wednesday for murdering his adoptive parents after a 12-hour stand-off with SWAT teams that ended in tear gas being deployed.
…The reason for the murders isn’t yet known, but a pastor said that Brewer and his two older biological brothers – who were all adopted by Mr and Mrs Brewer at a young age – had a history of ‘outbursts’.
‘They did have outbursts from time to time from what the boys experienced before adoption in Russia,’ said CB Glidden, who had been forced to expel Brewer and one of his brothers from the Nazarene Christian Academy for bad behavior.
Adoption severs the line between a family and its ancestors, much like abortion and miscegenation. In realistic times, these would be seen as undesirable things. Extended family used to take in orphans, and churches would raise those with no other family, which was better than taking genetically extraneous material and giving it a family name that then allowed it to pass for the original.
In this case, a child adopted from Russia — looking more Siberian or Mongolian than European, despite light hair and eyes — turned on his adoptive parents. The most likely reason, in addition to the mental instability which made the act more extreme than the usual rebellion, is that this child was alienated by realizing that he was unlike the people around him, and thus that they were using him for their own ends.
Abortion similarly removes the sexual act from the reproductive consequences which could be anticipated, allowing people to continue having sex with strangers. This in turn further removes them from the real question of sex, which is whether it could lead to a family, since the vast majority of people want to end up happily married with kids and a dog someday.
Miscegenation might be viewed as a tantrum against origins. When someone feels no connection to their family, the best retaliation is to destroy that family line by outbreeding, such that future generations do not resemble what came before. This is also a violent act against the genetic continuity of family and as folk wisdom holds, shows low self-confidence and anger at the parents.
All of these are blights of the modern time, encouraged by a dying society.
Tuesday, December 13th, 2016
Since Amerika specializes in heretical realism, here is a blasphemy against illusion for today: you cannot change what you are.
Biracial actress Meghan Markle is discovering this in her own life, which is why she is writing screeds against it in precious-snowflake magazines for bored lonely white women like Elle:
‘Right, but what are you? Where are your parents from?’ I knew it was coming, I always do. While I could say Pennsylvania and Ohio, and continue this proverbial two-step, I instead give them what they’re after: ‘My dad is Caucasian and my mom is African American. I’m half black and half white.’
To describe something as being black and white means it is clearly defined. Yet when your ethnicity is black and white, the dichotomy is not that clear. In fact, it creates a grey area. Being biracial paints a blurred line that is equal parts staggering and illuminating…
When I was about seven, I had been fawning over a boxed set of Barbie dolls. It was called The Heart Family and included a mom doll, a dad doll, and two children. This perfect nuclear family was only sold in sets of white dolls or black dolls. I don’t remember coveting one over the other, I just wanted one. On Christmas morning, swathed in glitter-flecked wrapping paper, there I found my Heart Family: a black mom doll, a white dad doll, and a child in each colour. My dad had taken the sets apart and customised my family.
There is much to appreciate about the deluge of neurotic chaos that is this article, but it takes us back to an old Leftist trope. Leftists are constantly trying to demonstrate that the exception breaks the rule, when by reflection in the eyes of those outside of the individual, the converse is true: the exception proves the rule.
And thus, the harder they try to show us that “biracial” is an identity, the more clearly they illustrate how it is not because the need for ethnic identity is strong. Take the divided Barbie family: it can have a black mother and white father, but as would be consistent with the thesis of Markle’s article, it should have not white or black children, but grey ones.
She writes about how race is a grey area, but that means we need to add on to the end of that sentence “to her,” or perhaps, “she hopes.” The fact is that she is reminded every day that she is between tribes, and therefore has allegiance from neither. As she writes later in the article:
Being ‘ethnically ambiguous’, as I was pegged in the industry, meant I could audition for virtually any role. Morphing from Latina when I was dressed in red, to African American when in mustard yellow; my closet filled with fashionable frocks to make me look as racially varied as an Eighties Benetton poster. Sadly, it didn’t matter: I wasn’t black enough for the black roles and I wasn’t white enough for the white ones, leaving me somewhere in the middle as the ethnic chameleon who couldn’t book a job.
Markle finds herself belonging to the tribe of no-tribe, and she is crafting this victimhood narrative to — in the usual Leftist way — bully us into accepting her new category as important even though all of us are proud of our tribes. She wants to tell us of her suffering, and then have us accept her, when in fact we are threatened in our identity by her because she represents entryism into two groups.
Later in the article, however, the full story is told. Witness the picture of Markle’s mother:
We are seeing not a black woman, but a mulatto, someone who is half-white (or more; it is hard to estimate). This means that Markle is likely not half-black, but a quarter-black, making her a lot like the people from Cuba, Puerto Rico, and South America who have gone a similar ethnic path. This gives her a new identity, and suggests that, indeed, she should consider those ‘Latina’ roles instead.
Race has been with us from the dawn of time. For some reason, the human race branched into four directions, and all that exists are those and hybrids between them, some of which turn out better than others, but none of which have as much promise as the original undiluted race. As the basis of identity, it is important, because it gives us a culture and thus immutable guidance and security from doubt as far as what we should be doing. Those who argue against race seem to exist, like Markle, in a perpetual miasma of doubt and confusion, and we do not want that for ourselves or our children.
Understood in the transcendental sense that appreciates the wisdom of the universe, race is a gift and a birthright, as is ethnicity. To be born a German means to never be faulted for doing German things; those constitute “the good life” and set the soul’s endless agitation for self-importance to rest, which is a blessing like the obliteration of pain by opiates in time of injury. It also gives that person a set of values to strive for, knowing that whether they succeed or fail in that ambition, they are victorious in the attempt as they have done right by their people.
Modernity has run away from you are what you are into “be what you want to be” (US Army slogan from the 1980s) or “have it your way” (Burger King slogan from the 1990s). The idea is that your intent rules over reality; you formulate a vision of what you desire to be, and then you act like you are that thing, and in the eyes of the herd, you are it. In reality, you are what you are, and deviating from this is a path to misery and confusion.