Thoughts On Adam's Beliefs/Views? ( Anti-Natalism, Culture, Nihilism )

For any half-intellectual people here.

( His "Beliefs/Views" pertain more to the philosophical side of things. )

They're no different to what people post on this forum today. He was no ground-breaking philosopher to say the least.

Adam's views on pedophilia are often overlooked (apart from people accusing him of having some latent attraction to prepubescent children), but I've always believed his "On pedophiles and children" videos were incredible, even if I disagreed with some of his points. I would have loved to see that 'pbear' essay completed, too bad the more "refined" version was on the scratched HD.
Oh, no! now I'm in the red zone for pedophilia accusations, aren't I?

In trying to distance himself from the ever-loathed "culture", he's only ended up promoting (((their))) ideals. His views on pedophilia will surely become the norm in 10 or 20 years, give or take. America barely HAS its own culture nowadays, outside of what JewTube talking heads proclaim the current thing to be. And Anti-Natalism is rife, at least in some form; look at how many people are more content with raising an animal than a child. It's actually quite funny, the poster-child for what people will unironically believe in once the NWO is established killed 27 whites at an elementary school, but hear the system tell it, that Bushmaster just floated in on it's own!

Modernity blows.

I don't think they're anything groundbreaking, but I do agree that culture is coercive. The only winning move is not to play, or at the very least minimize your participation.

  

He basically has very similar views too the uni bomber

I think his views are correct. All of them.

NEXT STEP UP wrote:

In trying to distance himself from the ever-loathed "culture", he's only ended up promoting (((their))) ideals. His views on pedophilia will surely become the norm in 10 or 20 years, give or take. America barely HAS its own culture nowadays, outside of what JewTube talking heads proclaim the current thing to be. And Anti-Natalism is rife, at least in some form; look at how many people are more content with raising an animal than a child. It's actually quite funny, the poster-child for what people will unironically believe in once the NWO is established killed 27 whites at an elementary school, but hear the system tell it, that Bushmaster just floated in on it's own!

Modernity blows.

You exacerbate the exact thing he was criticizing by blaming the issue on a specific group of people's values. Would this world and all of its "degeneracy" (whatever that even implies) just disappear given a different system takes over? Since all of your values are subjective, this "NWO" is essentially no different that any other arcane system which you deem to be admirable.

You are criticizing one culture so that your own may thrive, when both are equally harmful and detrimental to humanity as a whole. Your cause is not noble, and at the end of the day, you're no better than the harbingers of this "NWO" you speak of.

I mean hes right on some stuff like culture and anti natal-ism. We do force culture onto kids at a young age.

Ahead of his time on a certain topic

Carnations wrote:

They're no different to what people post on this forum today. He was no ground-breaking philosopher to say the least.

I think most people, when they come across Adam for the first time, have never heard these kinds of beliefs before and ascribe great insight on Adam's part when the reality is much of it has been said before, particularly by Ted Kazcynski.

Shouberty wrote:

Would this world and all of its "degeneracy" (whatever that even implies) just disappear given a different system takes over?

This implies that different systems all act the same such that it would have no impact on human behavior, when the reality is that different systems can and do have dramatic consequences on how people interact with each other and how they live their day to day lives. Even "small" changes like altering divorce law or self defense statues has massive consequences on the way we think and act.

It's never been anything groundbreaking he's just rehashing shit other people have already said but Adams philosophy has this kind of mysticism around it cuz it's legitimised by the fact he murdered 27 people. Kind of like how Mainländer is remembered not really for his philosophy but more the fact he put it into action by hanging himself.

Antinatalism and nihilism contradict each other, I don't believe Adam was a nihilist since he had some morals, for example, "culture is bad."

He made some good points, nothing special though except for on pedophilia.

QuestionMark wrote:

Carnations wrote:

They're no different to what people post on this forum today. He was no ground-breaking philosopher to say the least.

I think most people, when they come across Adam for the first time, have never heard these kinds of beliefs before and ascribe great insight on Adam's part when the reality is much of it has been said before, particularly by Ted Kazcynski.

Shouberty wrote:

Would this world and all of its "degeneracy" (whatever that even implies) just disappear given a different system takes over?

This implies that different systems all act the same such that it would have no impact on human behavior, when the reality is that different systems can and do have dramatic consequences on how people interact with each other and how they live their day to day lives. Even "small" changes like altering divorce law or self defense statues has massive consequences on the way we think and act.

The impact on human behavior is irrelevant, as the produced behavior is achieved through the exact same means regardless of what system takes hold. Yes, differing values thrive dependent on the system which has been established, but they act as harmful vessels of value all the same.

I agree with a lot of his views, but I'm self aware enough to admit that his views were definitely heavily influenced by his mental issues and his childhood. Going through horrible things, or at the very least, living with multiple clashing untreated mental conditions, already will make someone not want to live. Put them into a home with a mother who is assuring you that the only help you need is her, and youll probably grow up thinking there really isn't all that much wrong with you, there's something wrong with the world. At least, that's the bluepill way of looking at it in my opinion. I think both things can be true at the same time, depending on who you talk to. But I could talk about this for hours.

He was right about sexuality, romance and culture.

i agree with a lot of his views including propedo statements

He definetely had some very interesting and smart ideas, 99 % of people don't even understand they are completely influenced by culture and completely made up religious or social values. These are the reasons we have so much hate and conflicts in the world. But I think the shooting and his beliefs are separate, nothing he said would lead the average person into homicidal thought, if someone really believes 100 % of what he is saysing the only logical response would be to kill himself immediately. The fact that Adam didnt do that (and even admitted in his videos he is too much of a coward and addicted to life) shows that this was just talking to gather an audience and appear smart. You definetely need a bit of intelligence to understand these topics, but he was by no means this gifted child some seem to make out of his online presence.

Could have been a sociologist instead of a mass shooter but you can't reverse time.

Is it even possible to have an original philosophy nowadays? I perceive philosophy in the same way I would in any other construct that can be developed, in which your new idea would have to rely on what others have already thought of and make something new of it. Take music for example, new music is being created everyday but it nearly always adheres to what has already been produced. There have been as few cultural revolutions in music, which could be akin to the renaissance, which served as some sort of incentive for highly intelligent people to develop a philosophy unique enough to the point where it's not just mashing two already existing viewpoints together.

Eulavism is really just Inmendham's efilism with the value aspect added so he could stand out in some sort of way. I don't really understand Eulavism, because I view it as mostly an explanation of a different philosophy rather than an entirely new philosophy. I couldn't find the exact video where he mentions how his philosophy differs from Efilism, but from what I remember, if suffering was somehow eliminated from life there would still be an issue (however ridiculous that sounds because suffering is an innate part of life). The issue in this case would be value, and Lanza mostly describes value as a delusion or a warped perception of existence. That value mostly serves as a reward mechanism because it diverts attention away from the fact that life if suffering. Or the fact that there is something at all and being reminded of it is the cause of suffering, that people are biologically coerced into accepting it, but that's just how I interpret it.

Edit: I actually get Eulavism now, I think it's cool and stuff

CaneBread wrote:

Is it even possible to have an original philosophy nowadays? I perceive philosophy in the same way I would in any other construct that can be developed, in which your new idea would have to rely on what others have already thought of and make something new of it. Take music for example, new music is being created everyday but it nearly always adheres to what has already been produced. There have been as few cultural revolutions in music, which could be akin to the renaissance, which served as some sort of incentive for highly intelligent people to develop a philosophy unique enough to the point where it's not just mashing two already existing viewpoints together.

Eulavism is really just Inmendham's efilism with the value aspect added so he could stand out in some sort of way. I don't really understand Eulavism, because I view it as mostly an explanation of a different philosophy rather than an entirely new philosophy. I couldn't find the exact video where he mentions how his philosophy differs from Efilism, but from what I remember, if suffering was somehow eliminated from life there would still be an issue (however ridiculous that sounds because suffering is an innate part of life). The issue in this case would be value, and Lanza mostly describes value as a delusion or a warped perception of existence. That value mostly serves as a reward mechanism because it diverts attention away from the fact that life if suffering. Or the fact that there is something at all and being reminded of it is the cause of suffering, that people are biologically coerced into accepting it, but that's just how I interpret it.

I didn't even read this shit bruh. Bro think he Adam [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

purpp wrote:

CaneBread wrote:

Is it even possible to have an original philosophy nowadays? I perceive philosophy in the same way I would in any other construct that can be developed, in which your new idea would have to rely on what others have already thought of and make something new of it. Take music for example, new music is being created everyday but it nearly always adheres to what has already been produced. There have been as few cultural revolutions in music, which could be akin to the renaissance, which served as some sort of incentive for highly intelligent people to develop a philosophy unique enough to the point where it's not just mashing two already existing viewpoints together.

Eulavism is really just Inmendham's efilism with the value aspect added so he could stand out in some sort of way. I don't really understand Eulavism, because I view it as mostly an explanation of a different philosophy rather than an entirely new philosophy. I couldn't find the exact video where he mentions how his philosophy differs from Efilism, but from what I remember, if suffering was somehow eliminated from life there would still be an issue (however ridiculous that sounds because suffering is an innate part of life). The issue in this case would be value, and Lanza mostly describes value as a delusion or a warped perception of existence. That value mostly serves as a reward mechanism because it diverts attention away from the fact that life if suffering. Or the fact that there is something at all and being reminded of it is the cause of suffering, that people are biologically coerced into accepting it, but that's just how I interpret it.

I didn't even read this shit bruh. Bro think he Adam  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Maybe I am

CaneBread wrote:

purpp wrote:

CaneBread wrote:

Is it even possible to have an original philosophy nowadays? I perceive philosophy in the same way I would in any other construct that can be developed, in which your new idea would have to rely on what others have already thought of and make something new of it. Take music for example, new music is being created everyday but it nearly always adheres to what has already been produced. There have been as few cultural revolutions in music, which could be akin to the renaissance, which served as some sort of incentive for highly intelligent people to develop a philosophy unique enough to the point where it's not just mashing two already existing viewpoints together.

Eulavism is really just Inmendham's efilism with the value aspect added so he could stand out in some sort of way. I don't really understand Eulavism, because I view it as mostly an explanation of a different philosophy rather than an entirely new philosophy. I couldn't find the exact video where he mentions how his philosophy differs from Efilism, but from what I remember, if suffering was somehow eliminated from life there would still be an issue (however ridiculous that sounds because suffering is an innate part of life). The issue in this case would be value, and Lanza mostly describes value as a delusion or a warped perception of existence. That value mostly serves as a reward mechanism because it diverts attention away from the fact that life if suffering. Or the fact that there is something at all and being reminded of it is the cause of suffering, that people are biologically coerced into accepting it, but that's just how I interpret it.

I didn't even read this shit bruh. Bro think he Adam  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Maybe I am

i feel scared for your former elementary school and the current 1st graders at said former elementary school

suzuhiro wrote:

CaneBread wrote:

purpp wrote:

CaneBread wrote:

Is it even possible to have an original philosophy nowadays? I perceive philosophy in the same way I would in any other construct that can be developed, in which your new idea would have to rely on what others have already thought of and make something new of it. Take music for example, new music is being created everyday but it nearly always adheres to what has already been produced. There have been as few cultural revolutions in music, which could be akin to the renaissance, which served as some sort of incentive for highly intelligent people to develop a philosophy unique enough to the point where it's not just mashing two already existing viewpoints together.

Eulavism is really just Inmendham's efilism with the value aspect added so he could stand out in some sort of way. I don't really understand Eulavism, because I view it as mostly an explanation of a different philosophy rather than an entirely new philosophy. I couldn't find the exact video where he mentions how his philosophy differs from Efilism, but from what I remember, if suffering was somehow eliminated from life there would still be an issue (however ridiculous that sounds because suffering is an innate part of life). The issue in this case would be value, and Lanza mostly describes value as a delusion or a warped perception of existence. That value mostly serves as a reward mechanism because it diverts attention away from the fact that life if suffering. Or the fact that there is something at all and being reminded of it is the cause of suffering, that people are biologically coerced into accepting it, but that's just how I interpret it.

I didn't even read this shit bruh. Bro think he Adam  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]  [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Maybe I am

i feel scared for your former elementary school and the current 1st graders at said former elementary school

Don't worry I'm not going anywhere