Lanza's denial of culture was just a shadow of his real sexuality.

was watching the channel produced by him that you can find the content in this link. literally in essence two things are discussed. Culture as oppressor and source of manipulation and the issue of pedophilia.  :https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17vc_AGOQV8JMwApVU5WG1bnyhlqDqyWk
but if you pay attention, Lanza wanted to destroy the culture because then he would be able to socially justify pedophilia and that could only be done for him if he had a sexual interest in it. It is very interesting that in fact, Lanza's entire intellect was a way of justifying his desires commonly denied by society. first of all it is important to understand that knowledge is emotion, and that ideas are just a way of conveying such emotions to other people. if so, then in reality Lanza was wanting more than justifying, legitimizing this practice.In the end, all he did was mix repressed sexual desires, radicalism against the culture due to this and violent manifestation through precisely an act of attack on minors that was Sandy Hook.

He couldn't come in terms with the fact that he was actually gay.

Wanderer wrote:

He couldn't come in terms with the fact that he was actually gay.

Damn shame, I'm built different though 

Pekka wrote:

Lanza wanted to destroy the culture because then he would be able to socially justify pedophilia and that could only be done for him if he had a sexual interest in it.

Yeah, I think you're onto something. I mean, the whole "Eulavism" thing definitely seemed like something he WANTED to believe in really badly (possibly to justify his pedophilia), and not something he actually came to naturally. My main point against his justification of pedophilia within "Eulavism" was that it was that he held pedophilic values in high regard, but other values in low regard. It was a really weird double standard because he claimed to hate all value, pedophilic acts are obviously rooted in value, which he thought was inherently bad, right? He could've just left it at "pedophilia is just as bad as indoctrinating children in school" which would've at least been intellectually consistent. Rather, he plays up how bad school is for children, but plays down and defends pedophilia. But why not just say both are bad because both are rooted in value? He wasn't pushing a real philosophy that made sense, he just wanted a reason to justify pedophilia.

transcendentalauracel331 wrote:

Pekka wrote:

Lanza wanted to destroy the culture because then he would be able to socially justify pedophilia and that could only be done for him if he had a sexual interest in it.

Yeah, I think you're onto something. I mean, the whole "Eulavism" thing definitely seemed like something he WANTED to believe in really badly (possibly to justify his pedophilia), and not something he actually came to naturally. My main point against his justification of pedophilia within "Eulavism" was that it was that he held pedophilic values in high regard, but other values in low regard. It was a really weird double standard because he claimed to hate all value, pedophilic acts are obviously rooted in value, which he thought was inherently bad, right? He could've just left it at "pedophilia is just as bad as indoctrinating children in school" which would've at least been intellectually consistent. Rather, he plays up how bad school is for children, but plays down and defends pedophilia. But why not just say both are bad because both are rooted in value? He wasn't pushing a real philosophy that made sense, he just wanted a reason to justify pedophilia.

exact.

transcendentalauracel331 wrote:

Pekka wrote:

Lanza wanted to destroy the culture because then he would be able to socially justify pedophilia and that could only be done for him if he had a sexual interest in it.

Yeah, I think you're onto something. I mean, the whole "Eulavism" thing definitely seemed like something he WANTED to believe in really badly (possibly to justify his pedophilia), and not something he actually came to naturally. My main point against his justification of pedophilia within "Eulavism" was that it was that he held pedophilic values in high regard, but other values in low regard. It was a really weird double standard because he claimed to hate all value, pedophilic acts are obviously rooted in value, which he thought was inherently bad, right? He could've just left it at "pedophilia is just as bad as indoctrinating children in school" which would've at least been intellectually consistent. Rather, he plays up how bad school is for children, but plays down and defends pedophilia. But why not just say both are bad because both are rooted in value? He wasn't pushing a real philosophy that made sense, he just wanted a reason to justify pedophilia.

As I said: Intellectualism is emotion. the point of him having made a channel to express ideas was because he obviously wanted for a more select group, to make people accept these personal values ​​of his that are not the same as those of society. there is no person without existential values. there are people whose existential values ​​do not match social laws.

Pekka wrote:

the point of him having made a channel to express ideas was because he obviously wanted for a more select group, to make people accept these personal values ​​of his that are not the same as those of society. there is no person without existential values.

Yes. I think Adam points out a few times that many people who claim to be anti-culture or whatever, are really just counter-cultural, they just have values that are anti-social. A shred of self-awareness creeps in as well when Adam acknowledges that the videos he makes are also just him trying to "coerce" you to complying with his values.
However, this acknowledgement really doesn't go anywhere lol. He could've explored that a bit more, but he's basically just like "durr ik these videos are an exchange of value, and that everything is futile and I should just kms"