Analysis of Adam Lanza & Eulavism

Adam Lanza could be considered an honorary Pragmatospherian vlogger.

• He managed to independently recognize and describe the philosophical abyss for value all by himself.
• He rejected morality as a cultural delusion.
• He understood that all values spread through force. He accepted that nature and society are violent. Even laws and rights require force for their enforcement.
• He was highly skeptical of modern technology, even going as far to prefer anarcho-primitivism to modernity.
• Although he didn’t seem to know much about biological realism or Pragmatospherian epistemology, I see no reasons to believe that he would be opposed to any of its main tenets.

Lanza developed his philosophy largely independently of efilism. He definitely would’ve came up to the same conclusions as he did, even if he had never heard of antinatalism or efilism. It’s not clear what influence Efilism may have had on Lanza, if any. From what I heard, Efilism might have persuaded him to believe that death is the solution, and it might have influenced his rhetoric. But beyond that, Efilism doesn’t seem to have had much other influence on Lanza.

---

Unlike the Efilists, Lanza independently discovered the Value Abyss all by himself by 19 years old:

’There is no justification whatsoever for negative, positive or neutral attitude’ and I don’t understand why you think that I’m saying anything other than that? There is no justification for anything. I - I believe, I feel that there’s justifications because I’m deluded. I don’t know where I’ve said anywhere that that isn’t the case. Of course there is no justification for anything.“

– Adam Lanza, “To the pro-culturalists 3/3”

I’d argue that this is probably the biggest and broadest difference between Eulavism and Efilism.

Also see: Cultural Philistine Video Transcripts.

Unlike Efilists, Lanza had a clear description and explanation of pain and pleasure, similar to the Drive-Reduction Motivation / Zero Sum Emotions Theory.

“The problem was that I’d not been addressing what happiness is. Happiness is merely the fulfillment of value, I recognized that if cultural values were eliminated, the happiness which results from their fulfillment would not be needed because happiness becomes an unnecessary and incoherent concept when it is removed from its’ concep[sic]-context. A common theme in my quasi-Anarcho Primitivist thought at the time is that non-base values exist only as a consequence of cultural infections, and impede on the happiness which results from the fulfillment of feral values. As if [?] my feral self is - in short metaphysically the real me, whose soul had been devoured by the culturally constructed imposter of the self. But my feral self was also an imposter. Just as I realized that I could eliminate non-base values and have no need for the happiness which resulted from their fulfillment, I could eliminate base-values and have no need for the happiness which resulted from their fulfillment.”

– Adam Lanza, “My Antinatalism”

SomethingSea: “Happiness is merely the fulfillment of value… I disagree. Sometimes you wake up and you’re just happy for no apparent reason, sometimes you just laugh (laughter) for no apparent reason. It doesn’t have to be dependent on a lack of something and the gaining of something, it’s not all about a lack of stuff, it’s not all about being cultural, you attach entirely too much value to culture. Oh isn’t that an irony?”

Adam Lanza: “I agree that happiness isn’t like prayer, where first you pray and then your prayers are answered. Since happiness is just biological, it’s possible to just be happy, but in general the entire point of happiness is to serve as a reward for fulfilling value. First you have this desire, and then when you fulfill the desire, you achieve happiness. So, um… well a lot of the time when you’re randomly happy it’s because you don’t perceive a certain deprivation to be important enough to affect your random happiness. I remember reading that one of the 9/11 hijackers was asked: ‘Why do you never laugh?’ And he responded: ‘How can you laugh when people in Palestine are dying?’ And I think that someone like him wouldn’t, because he has this problem, I don’t think that someone like him would ever, or at least not very often, experience random happiness. I think he would be suffering a lot.”

– Adam Lanza, “SomethingSea Response Part 1-2”

It seems that Lanza never fully rejected hedonism. But that doesn’t really matter. He still would’ve killed himself regardless of whether he values happiness or not. So we could say that he was de facto not a hedonist, since accepting or rejecting hedonism didn’t resolve the crux of his philosophy:

“Okay this is very rare for me… I’m actually in sort of a positive mood, I have, I’m listening to the… the video of me web surfing and of course when I’m, it’s been sufficiently long enough that of course when I’m listening to that it’s almost as if I’m interacting with someone who is exactly like me. And so that gets me into a positive mood and… uh, this is genuinely in as positive of a mood as I get, when I’m… I mean you could call it hopeful but, okay I’ll just go with that, as hopeful as a mood as I ever get in consciously. And so… what do I think about death right now? Well, even in my most pleasurable state I can conceive of, I mean even that I can imagine, I still see death as the solution because happiness… I’ve already explained my position.”

“Happiness is not really happiness, happiness is actually the cessation of deprivation. Any happiness that you experience is a consequence of your enculturation. I mean any happiness in a cultural context is a consequence of your enculturation… so what do I feel right now? Do I feel none of that matters and I can just enjoy my happiness? Um, basically no, fuck life, I should kill myself (laughter) this is me in my happiest mood.”

“Because there is no happiness. I mean happiness is death, I’ve already outlined in my previous videos, my previous rambling, vlog, whatever videos today… that life is suffering and death is happiness. And it makes perfect sense to me right now, it always makes perfect sense to me, and so even when I’m… there’s not really a difference in my actions based on whether I’m in my worst or best mood. I still persist in just going through the motions and I never pursue death…and I never pursue life, I’m just kind of in an intermediate state. But I am in a good mood so don’t let anyone tell you that I am… I want to die because life is so miserable, because that’s not my position, I’ve said this so many times. Life is a great thing and that’s the problem, and if you don’t understand what I mean by that then…everything that I’ve…it, and if you’ve listened to everything I said earlier then I’m not going to be able to communicate right now, maybe in the future I’ll be able to express that more coherently but… guess that’s it.” (video ends)

– Adam Lanza, “(Pointless) CulturalPhillistine The Movie Part 5/6”

The second and third paragraphs from Lanza’s “SomethingSea Response #2: A difference of perspectives?” talk about the self and property rights.

Lanza explains the difference between the feral self and cultural self around ~10:00 of this video: “SomethingSea Response Part 1-2”.

Lanza provides good evidence in favor of his view that culture imposes deprivations, and doesn’t really allow fulfillment of anything:

“However, if that child were encultured, he would develop innumerable goals to achieve various things. Culture did not allow the feral child to discover the pleasure which he can achieve from experiencing any of those things, culture imposed the deprivation of not achieving those things, and thus created out of nothing, the pleasure which results from fulfilling that deprivation. Culture is masochism. Since life seeks to propagate itself, I suspect that culture emerged to prevent human intellect from enabling feral people to lose their aversion to death. Ted Kaczynski’s experience is an example of this happening. When he had spent enough time alone in his cabin, he said that he became okay with dying at any moment because he was happy with his life.”

“My interpretation of this is that he had sufficiently overcome his enculturation to the point where he was no longer being hurt by it. Since he wasn’t hampered with the deprivation which culture imposes, he was not afraid of dying. In the past, the cultural reason why you couldn’t kill yourself was because God said so. Or because it will continue some metaphysical cycle of suffering, or because your parents own your body and suicide is dishonorable. These days, the dominant cultural justification for life is this belief that you can’t kill yourself because there are things that need to be accomplished in life. But you do not live for the achievement of your goals, you have goals so that you will continue to live and thus will continue to propagate life.”

“I used to distinguish between the fulfillment of cultural and feral values, but then I realized that feral values are just as coercive of a delusion as cultural values are. I still emphasize cultural so much because of how prominent it is, and once you understand that culture is a disease, you can recognize that life itself is a disease. The deprivation which results from the existence of both cultural and feral values are the only reason why anyone wants to live. Life is suffering, everyone has heard that statement, but they don’t accept it at face-value. They interpret it to mean that life has suffering, but life is suffering, and suicide is the solution.” (video ends)

– Adam Lanza, “Suffering is life-affirming-Life is suffering”

Lanza is correct that everybody is trying to force their values on others. However, a person is always free to reject any values that are suggested to them. A person must accept other people’s values when does values are imposed on them by force. However, if a person is wanting to cooperate with the system, long enough, they could hypothetically reach a point where they could impose their values on others. However, due degeneration differences, a child may never be able to force their parents and their accepting their values and a student may never be able to force a teacher and accepting their values since the old generation may die out before then or since the younger generation may have learn to accept the values of the generation. Thus the younger generation we get, it’s revenge on the old generation, but that generation would be free to impose. It values onto the next younger generation, especially if they decide to have children of their own I place themselves into some sort of position as an authority figure or someone with great power.

Lanza was so against people imposing values on others, he went as far as to say that even feral values are all a delusion. Since all values are a delusion and he does not want to value anything, he chose death. But if he is against anyone imposing their values on others, that would be hypocritical with how he tried to impose his values on the others by killing all those children or by knowing his thoughts on YouTube. And if someone is going to be one silently against a posting values on anyone, then aren’t they taking a more passive stance towards values that whatever a persons values are should be whatever is natural. But whatever a person’s natural feral values are would ultimately be whatever values are forced on them, since no one can have values within a vacuum. We’re always affecting each other both ways. So it’s inevitable that we will all have some influence of each other and what values we have.

Traditional Efilism has fallacies in its theory of value, since it assumes that morality and value(s) are objective. It also takes altruism and hedonism for granted, without ever recognizing that they can be reasonably rejected. Eulavism has a paradox in its theory of value (valuing having no value), but Eulavism is otherwise vastly more rational, since it acknowledges and accepts the Abyss.

NOTE: I think that the last paragraph / segment of the “SomethingSea Response Part 2-2” explains why Lanza killed himself. I don’t think Lanza ever had the self-discipline to commit suicide, otherwise he would’ve easily done it within a year before or after he made the YouTube recordings. He personally said himself that the second way of overcoming an addiction (to life, in this case) were to be forcibly pushed out of one’s comfort zone.

If Lanza was willing to move out of his room and into the trailer, then he probably could’ve remained a child even to this day (i.e. not get a job, that is). His time as a child wasn’t really over, he just couldn’t and wouldn’t accept the change in his circumstances, so he took his own life. But of course, he didn’t want to be a child forever, nor did he want to be an adult. He just wanted to die. And he eventually got what he wanted.

Also see: How do we know that fuckcomments was Adam Lanza?

Adam Lanza enjoyed being rejected for violating taboos, like how he wrote the pedophilia essay and some other things. He also enjoyed interacting with people who are just like him. violating a taboo, and he was with someone who did not approve, he would enjoy provoking that person and rejecting him. And if you were there acting with someone who agrees with him, then he would enjoy finding someone who he relates to who he has a lot in common with. So either way he wouldn’t enjoy talking about things that break taboos. He would enjoy talking about it no matter what. And he would probably enjoy talking about these things with Blithering Genius, Zero Contradictions (myself), or someone else.

It seems that that the crux of many or maybe even most of Lanza’s arguments is that even if a pedophile could impose the tags on the children, it’s no different how parents impose their values on the children by force. Neither set of values is neither objectively wrong or objectively better than the other set. However, one that is always affirmed by society, whereas the other one is always harshly rejected. This helps to propel the dominant set of values and culture of the society which tends to be aligned with the biological value for what enables life to propagate.

What are the demographics of pedophiles? If we had to estimate, what percentage of the population do pedophiles make up? How many known pedophiles are there in the United States? What are the most common occupations of pedophiles if I had to guess, perhaps it would be Prius, teachers, and other jobs that involve being around children.

If a legal code was hypothetically formed by the Pragmatosphere is meant to be explicitly philosophical, then it would just say that it was pedophilia should be illegal because it violates civilization, the values of behold. It wouldn’t appeal to intuition or make other irrational in fallacious appeals. It would just explicitly say its values and state that anyone who oppose those values will be opposed and punished. It would use rationality and explicit premises to persuade a more intelligent population into accepting them. A Pragmatosphere society is implicitly assumed to be intelligent. And the hope is that everybody would agree with it because everybody else would hold some values and or stuff about the distinction between cults, culture, and force.

[I haven’t finished compiling the best quotes yet. It takes time to do stuff.]

Efilists anthropomorphize DNA, evolution, etc, whereas Lanza anthropomorphizes culture. Lanza takes all the agency out of agents and pushes it onto memes instead.

This quote from Lanza’s “SomethingSea Response #2: A difference of perspectives?” seems overly rhetoric to the point of being informally illogical:

My position is that we are on a path and we can potentially experience more, but we have not and would not have discovered any of it, we have and would create all of it out of nothing. More awareness does not allow the discovery of any higher experiences, it creates the experiences out of nothing. Think of it in this cultural context, a feral child does not have the desire to read a great novel. If you are encultured, you would subsequently be able to experience the pleasure of reading it, but culture did not allow the discovery of the experience. Culture created the greatness out of nothing. Culture imposed the deprivation of not having read the great novel and thus created the pleasure which had resulted from fulfilling this deprivation. That is why I refer to culture as masochism, which I had described better in my “Suffering is Life-Affirming” video that’s linked below.“