Expect more Christopher Mercers

Christopher Harper Mercer, the gunman who killed 9 people at the Oregon community college, will not be the last psycho seeking momentary celebrity. Consider Mercer’s online profile:

Ethnicity: “Mixed Race.”

Have Kids: “no — do not want kids”

I currently live “with parents”

Religious: “Not Religious”

Music: “Industrial, Punk, Rock”

Groups: “Doesn’t Like Organized Religious; Left-hand Path; Magick and Occult”

That’s a sad picture. But you know what? That’s supposed to be the ideal these days. No race. No heritage. No commitments. No desire to have a family. Mercer had no human attachments, no loyalties to connect him to others. No wonder he was described by his neighbors as “full of hate” and “unfriendly and bashful.”

And, yes, there will be many more like him because of the anti-human world we are creating. In an age that has declared war on human nature, the isolated individual is the new norm. Allegiance to family, church, community, and tradition are despised as different flavors of “discrimination” and “oppression” that tie down the so-called “sovereign individual.” Alienation is supposed to be the standard. And nothing is as alienating as being trapped in a randomized collection of unconnected individuals. As sociologist Robert Putnam has observed, “People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ — that is, to pull in like a turtle.” What did Mercer ever belong to? Nothing. And look what he mutated into.

Mercer believed the modern cult of celebrity offered an escape from all of his frustrations and failures. Mercer once wrote online: “Seems like the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.” Forcing his way into that limelight was Mercer’s desperate and final attempt to connect to an otherwise uncaring and remote world.

5 thoughts on “Expect more Christopher Mercers

  1. weavercht

    Mike,

    here’s a quote from libertarian ZeroHedge:

    “We seem to have forgotten that to live as a free person is a basic human right: we are essentially free beings. We are born naked and without certification; we do not belong to any government nor monarchy nor individual, we don’t even belong to any nation or culture or religion- these are all social constructs. We belong only to the universe that created us, or whatever your equivalent belief.”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-08/edward-snowdens-new-revelations-are-truly-chilling

    How are they so different from communists again?

    I continue to believe Anglos have been tricked by ideology. It’s part of the reason we’re on the decline. It’s noteworthy how many declare classical liberalism as traditional conservatism (deny our existence to prevent the category of thought), how both socialists and libertarians tend to unite against “fascists”, and how many modern libertarian-conservatives are racially neutral.

    And the mighty Anglo-libertarians (social Darwinists) do not tend to be at the top in Anglo societies. Jews tend to be at the top partly as a result of ethnic organisation. Whites relative to blacks: The Anglos simply get to work as house-servants rather than out in the fields. They talk of freedom and of ridiculous political ideas that prevent ethnic organisation, will not further their power in the world. It makes me wonder if house-Anglos also like fried chicken and watermelon.

    I’m all for opposing government spying, but rejecting all ties isn’t going to help me with that. And I’m all for “freedom”, but a large, capitalist society is going to trend towards monopoly and concentration of wealth, which tends to be against freedom. It’s not much of a difference, under a late stage capitalist system, between government ownership and corporation ownership, which is partly why so many say capitalism naturally leads to socialism.

    The dream of a free market society so many conservatives like seems to require a remote society like Iceland, as you pointed out in the past, that lacks the size to support a high level of economy-of-scale and an elite class to manage it. So, such a society would require people to move to places like Montana, Canada, Alaska. However, presumably many of these places will develop over time, so they will lose their freedoms with time, inevitably; and there will be growing resource shortages, for example water, in the parts of the US. There’s a pre-Fleming out-of-print Chronicles book on this. As I recall it bemoans population density and economic development as perhaps inevitably undermining the freedoms they cherish, that the colonies were on a set course. And I know you’ve mentioned Jefferson. Also mention of Aristotle is worthwhile on the same warning against size.

    I just continue to come back to how the distributists are better opposites of socialists than are libertarians. Because socialism wants state ownership of the means of production. Whereas distributists say it is ideal to have production spread among many, with a large middle class. In a society like Iceland, this seems to naturally arise on its own (likely partly helped by individuals actively preventing, at various times in Iceland’s history, individuals from buying too much land. I simply doubt the Icelandics are Austrian converts. Usually peasant societies actively oppose excessive accumulation of things like land.)

    Finally, I’ve noticed Iceland’s GDP is officially “growing”, and it is highly in debt. And it has some very alien immigrants. So, I conclude from that that Iceland isn’t faring so well as might appear.

    It’s commonly said how it’s in Anglo blood to be individualistic, but for one thing we have bits of our Germanic history, showing that Anglos society was obsessed with kinship and did not recognise our sense of individuality. It was likely the Church that socially engineered us to be so independent.

    And as stated above, this individualism might make us excellent workers in a society; but it does not make our kinsmen master of the society. So we are not free by it. Libertarianism is largely a slave ideology, in my view. And outside an agrarian society, it makes us into Yankees.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Mike Post author

      weavercht,

      Exactly! Libertarians, Neocons, and socialists reject family and national ties and loyalties. There are no Scots, Greeks, Russians, or Southerners; there is only homo economicus.

      That’s why the term cuckservative is so apt and effective – it reveals the disembodied, globalist for what he is.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s