Educational only

I’ll respond point by point, since several topics are being mentioned.

Yes, he clearly planned the crime and had already begun preparing before his visit to the psychiatrist. I don’t remember the exact date of the award photo, but it was in the spring. He said he first intended to end his own life, but later decided he wouldn’t leave the world alone. Why he went to therapy is unclear, either his friend pushed him into it, or he still had doubts and hoped something could change. But that would have required active engagement, which he didn’t show. He may have believed in some magic fix and once he realized real effort was needed, he became more convinced there was no point in trying. I also suspect that when he said “you all helped me” he meant that therapy didn’t help, but instead led him to the conclusion that nothing would improve. But this is just my interpretation.

Regarding the “quiet introvert buying weapons” there are some important points. He had been interested in firearms since his teenage years, and both his parents and friends were aware of it. If he had suddenly developed this interest, it would have been surprising, but in this case it all looked quite predictable. I think his friend may have believed everything was under control precisely because he was formally attending therapy, and at that time even strange “signals” that seem obvious didn’t necessarily appear suspicious.

The airport fact is interesting. I also have my own explanation. I’ve already suggested that Kozak might be a control freak who possibly treated the forest killing as a kind of practice. Maybe bringing a weapon to work and showing it was also a form of preparing to do something forbidden, like testing the boundaries, like taking the risk of bringing a weapon into a place where it shouldn’t be. I find it hard to believe that this incident went unmentioned. It’s very likely that his father could have known about it and simply had a conversation with him about it.

First, I don’t understand how Adam supporters interpret what I’m saying, because it’s not the first time you’ve insisted I claimed things I never did. I said he was intelligent, but his arguments weren’t objective for several reasons, yet you respond as if I claimed he was pretending to be intelligent. I never said that. The anonymous user also reacted as if I claimed people can overcome anything through sheer willpower, when I actually said Lanza did not use the opportunities available to him. Second, excessive dramatization is already a sign that emotion is taking precedence over reason. Emotional extremity and rational thinking rarely coexist well.

Anyway, you asked me to point it out, and I will. 1. Нe presented himself as speaking the language of philosophy, using terms that sound philosophical (like epistemology, values, reality, meaning, and so on). This automatically gives the impression of depth, even if the underlying structure of the argument is weak. And who is going to check it if it sounds impressive? Epistemology is, for example, the theory of knowledge and a whole branch of philosophy, and many people may not even be familiar with its definition. It sounds impressive but the question is what he would actually say if his understanding of the terms he uses were properly tested.

Actually, Adam rarely defined his terms in a clear and structured way, and he almost never justified how he arrived at those definitions. It's similar to saying, "I have a theorem" but refusing to show the proof. Without the reasoning, the conclusion alone has little value. He also falls into the zone of pseudo-philosophy, because he takes philosophical questions but instead of exploring them, he simplifies and radicalizes them. When he asks serious questions like “what is value?” he gives simple and extreme answers whose reasoning he does not justify, other than by claiming that these things are imposed (without being able to clearly demonstrate, with evidence, why they are imposed).

He also was not really capable of engaging in debate. Once people start asking questions, it becomes clear that there is no solid structure behind his arguments at all. Adam did not test his views. He just presented them as truths.

2. A confident tone is persuasive because it creates the illusion of correctness, especially when someone presents their conclusions as obvious and leaves no room for doubt. However, confidence is not the same as competence. I could confidently say a few sentences in Spanish, but that would not mean I actually know the language. Many people rely on confidence because others often accept confident statements without examining them too closely.

This also connects to the fact that he writes in a convoluted way. But complexity does not equal intelligence. Sometimes complexity is just verbosity, and in some cases it may even be a trait associated with autistic communication styles. Lack of clarity is not depth, it is simply lack of clarity. One thing he was genuinely good at was rhetoric probably. He had a talent for speaking eloquently, creating compelling images, and sounding persuasive. In fact, he was considerably better at that than at providing evidence or building a strong case for his conclusions.

3. Everything dark and radical tends to create an illusion of depth simply because it is taboo or unusual. In that sense, when someone says things like “culture is a disease” or “values are an illusion” it creates dissonance because it contradicts what people are used to hearing. But not everything that sounds unconventional is profound. Often, it is just an emotionally charged simplification. Intellectual depth comes from coherent, consistent, and verifiable reasoning, not from being unconventional.

4. He CONSTANTLY mixes logic and emotion, which creates gaps in his argumentation. He often starts with a logical structure, then inserts emotional metaphors, and ends with a categorical claim. For example, he once described culture as a “thug” that breaks your limbs and then gives you crutches, because сulture doesn’t fulfill values, it creates the need to fulfill values and it subverts the natural processes by which you would fulfill those values.

But what exactly does that mean? He makes a strong, categorical claim without providing any real argument. There is no definition of the concept “natural processes” nor of what is actually considered “natural”. There is an unsupported assumption that values arise ONLY from culture. There is no definition of “values” either. There is a romanticization of the “natural”, and a neglect of what culture is and what its functions are (and how culture subverts the natural processes). Instead, he relies on a striking metaphor that creates the illusion of insight, while actually jumping from reasoning to imagery.

Do you see the issue? Each of his claims can be broken down in this way, because the reasoning behind them is ultimately incoherent.

5. He uses a pseudo-logical structure. He builds chains of causation and conclusions, but with missing steps, conceptual shifts, and implicit assumptions. The overall structure looks coherent because it has a beginning and an end, but the actual reasoning process in between is often absent or inconsistent.

6. He resonates with people who already feel alienated, misunderstood, or angry at society. This is especially visible in the tone of the previous anonymous commenter. When such people are told that culture is the problem, confirmation bias kicks in, because it feels like someone has finally articulated what they already feel.

Hi. Thank you. I’m glad this case is still interesting to people. I really regret not recording videos from beginning to end, but fortunately, I did manage to record some footage from the house and directly from his room:

Here, it's important to distinguish between different aspects of his "intelligence" so to speak. He had strong abilities and was probably even above average in terms of technical knowledge (there is quite a bit of evidence supporting that, at least). However, what he expressed in his Cultural Philistine videos was a mixture of severe cognitive distortions, depressive symptoms, poorly managed autism, and, ultimately, plain demagoguery. Adam Lanza could, in theory, have been good at philosophy because he was intelligent, but in practice he was simply a demagogue.

His admirers consider him intelligent because, first of all, a large portion of his fanbase appears to be made up of minors (and ideally they should be gently shown why this is demagoguery rather than sound reasoning). Second, he was very effective at misleading people through an extensive vocabulary, complex sentence structures, and an abundance of striking, emotionally powerful imagery that falls apart under logical examination but nevertheless leaves a strong impression.

creating a different cultural system that a group of people oppressed by an current cultural system would feel more comfortable existing in IS a form of challenge to prejudice and it IS a form of liberation from social constraints. looking at the cultural system that currently exists and going "This system is oppressive to these other groups and as such must be done away with" is a form of change and liberation. how is it not?

"When you lack the courage to live the way you want and adapt on your own, you start wanting the world to reshape itself around your particular traits."

and why should people not want that? if your environment is making you suffer why should you be forced to endure and become used to the your environment rather then make changes to it so that your suffering can be removed and future generations of people like you don't have to experience the pain that this current environment puts upon you?

"He hated culture because he wanted to belong to it, but he was too weak-willed to make the effort. Instead of adapting and making use of the help that was offered to him, he preferred to push the situation to its absolute breaking point."

"Please don't tell me about how much he suffered. His problem was not autism or anxiety. His problem was a lack of will to take responsibility for his own life"

it's not even possible for everyone to live the way they want in spite of their societies opposing norms. some people CAN'T choose to be themselves, some people CAN'T adapt to their environment. not everything is a choice. we don't have infinite will power. if a person can't be themselves and adapt maybe it's because the conditions of their environment are causing them to experience a level of suffering that that person simply cannot muster up the willpower to overcome. maybe THAT happens to people sometimes.

even some people who DO have the ability to put in some effort and willpower of their own to pursue their preferred lifestyle and adapt better to their oppressive environment will never be able to completely overcome the suffering that their culture has caused them. these kinds of people will still continue to suffer to some degree against their will. people can only do so much. why should they settle for the barest amount of happiness that they can manage to grind out of this life? why shouldn't they demand changes to their environment so that they and future generations don't have to go through the hassle of struggling against their oppressive environment to make something for themselves? you're just forcing people to live off scraps of happiness just for the sake of living at all. why live at all instead of living better? why is the responsibility to live better placed upon victims but the people who create and uphold oppressive cultural systems have no responsibility to change and alleviate the suffering that they cause?

people don't have infinite willpower. not everything can be overcome with enough courage. we are not responsible for everything we do or feel because there's only so much we can do. at some point it's up to THE SOCIETY to change and make accommodations for other peoples limitations because happiness has limits and conditions - limits that the society can push and conditions that the society can fail the meet, and when something horrible happens at that point (murder, suicide) who can truly be blamed the most? who truly has the most responsibility?

A young Adam fan upset that their “cultural rebel” fantasy collapses into a mentally unstable person who couldn’t adapt. What about his environment is claimed to have made adaptation impossible? I would genuinely love to hear what unbearable environment supposedly pushed Adam toward rejecting help and committing a mass murder. Your position only appears convincing on an emotional level. And I’m not interested in moral dramatizations like “scraps of happiness”. I find that kind of framing just unhelpful.

The claim that if someone is not coping, they are therefore incapable of coping is a conceptual fallacy. Difficulty is not impossibility. Limited resources or willpower do not justify the conclusion that agency is absent. You are conflating degrees of difficulty with a total absence of choice.

Your view ignores variability in human behavior under similar conditions. If environment were truly determinative, we would not see radically different outcomes among people raised in comparable circumstances.

It incorrectly shifts from society influences individuals to society bears primary responsibility for all severe outcomes. Influence is not equivalent to responsibility for specific actions. This would judt erase individual accountability entirely and turn every tragedy into collective guilt.

The idea that society must eliminate all suffering is not a realistic model but a utopian demand. Suffering exists in every system. That does not mean the system is automatically responsible for every resulting consequence.

Overall, your argument repeatedly collapses into extremes: either a person is fully unable to cope and therefore not responsible, or society must be reshaped around individual suffering. In reality, human behavior exists between these poles. People adapt in varied ways by changing environments, building support systems, and adjusting behavior within constraints. Everyone does this, because all people are not the same.

Early developmental and baseline features

Emotional detachment and weak emotional bonding with others; persistent difficulty forming friendships from an early age.

Lifelong social withdrawal with a consistently quiet and inconspicuous behavioural style.

Strong academic performance alongside low social integration.

Highly structured, academically driven upbringing.

Early emergence of depressive symptoms during adolescence, including suicidal thoughts, persistent feelings of emptiness and boredom, and gradual development of anhedonia.

Clinical presentation and symptoms

Suicidal intentions: ⌑ During clinical assessment, he admitted suicidal intent, stating that he had chosen a method and purchased ropes to end his life after completing his bachelor’s degree, but decided to postpone the act and seek treatment. ⌑ Kozak acknowledged the presence of suicidal thoughts but denied having an active plan at the time of evaluation. Treatment with medication and psychotherapy was initiated. ⌑ At the third of four sessions, he reported a subjective improvement in mood, noting a reduction in depressive episodes following medication.

Homicidal intentions: ⌑ During clinical sessions addressing anger and its triggers, Kozák admitted that during episodes of anger he sometimes experienced thoughts of killing his father, describing these thoughts as subjectively relieving. He further stated: “Perhaps in the background of conflicts with my parents, I wanted to punish them… Before committing suicide, I wanted to do something to them first. The opposite motive — to beat them to death. At least one of them… My father.” ⌑ When asked about similar thoughts toward others, he initially denied having them. However, he later mentioned briefly considering harming a random, unsuspecting individual, such as a classmate, while emphasizing that he had no intention of acting on these thoughts.

Existential distress and depressive symptoms ⌑ Kozák initially stated that his difficulties began after starting university, although affective symptoms were present since adolescence. He described a long-standing pattern of boredom and loneliness, with little that brought him joy. ⌑ He reported having no hobbies or close relationships, a persistently low mood, and marked difficulty experiencing pleasure or perceiving meaning in life, consistent with significant anhedonia. ⌑ When asked about sources of pleasure and meaning, he identified only his studies at the Faculty of Arts, which for a time gave him interest and meaning before he lost interest in everything.

Family and interpersonal dynamics

Сomplaints concerned frequent conflicts with his parents. Kozák reported feeling pressured by them to socialize more and declined a family session.

His early upbringing was described as strict, characterized by high academic expectations and punishment for not completing household tasks.

He identified his family relationships as the closest connections in his life, although he characterized them as close but not emotionally deep, noting that his mother and sister were dominant figures, whom he referred to as “generals”.

According to his sister, their parents were generally positive about him developing a hobby and attending shooting ranges, as otherwise he spent most of his time isolated in his room.

Social functioning and social withdrawal

He described persistent difficulties forming peer relationships, stating that he had never been able to establish them, with further worsening after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which he became increasingly withdrawn.

Kozák emphasized his identity as a loner, noting that even his female friend was not someone he considered particularly close. He added that she appeared more concerned about his condition than he was.

When asked about a desire for social connections, he stated: “I would like to establish contact with people, but at the same time I wonder what I would get out of it. I would probably get bored quickly. I have no inclination for relationships with anyone; in the end, I am not interested in anything myself”.

Behaviour during clinical assessment

During sessions, he behaved appropriately but was highly passive and uncooperative. The clinician often had to initiate topics, and he was unwilling to discuss his interests.

Complaints of boredom and emptiness did not lead to any attempt at problem-solving. The clinician attempted to explore potential interests, but he showed no engagement and reacted negatively to suggested options.

Psychological testing and diagnostic impressions

At the request of the psychiatrist, Kozák underwent psychological assessment in December 2023, during which testing reportedly indicated traits associated with mixed and schizoid personality disorders.

The psychiatrist noted intact contact with reality, but also observed narcissistic traits, including a tendency to attribute responsibility for his difficulties to others.

Overall, the clinical and biographical information presents a long-standing pattern of social withdrawal, emotional detachment, and interpersonal difficulties, accompanied by persistent depressive symptoms, including suicidal ideation emerging in adolescence and continuing into adulthood.

I don’t know. Probably to ask what he was missing and why, because despite having everything (including people who considered him a friend), he still couldn’t feel any interest, joy, or closeness. His life didn’t seem bad enough to explain what he did.

and why do you think he killed his father and not his mother when he wanted to kill both?

Student Life and University Environment:

Despite long-standing depression and thoughts of death, Kozák maintained strong academic performance.

Kozák noted that studying at the Faculty of Arts was one of the few things that gave him a sense of satisfaction and purpose.

Kozák likely chose history out of personal interest, though his focus on Polish history was never explained. He mentioned plans to continue his studies in Poland, though it is unclear whether he intended to.

He graduated with a bachelor’s degree in History and European Studies, successfully defended his thesis with an excellent grade, and received the Marian Szyjkowski Award from the Polish Institute in Prague.

At university, Kozák remained socially withdrawn. He was described by students as a quiet, unremarkable loner. Quotes: “He was a quiet guy, an introvert. He hardly talked to us”, “I vaguely remember him. He was always such an inconspicuous person who didn't interact with many people”.

Kozák spent most of his time alone at his computer after starting university. He may have lived in a student dormitory for a time, but later returned to his parents’ home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Employment and Workplace Experience:

Kozák worked at an airport for over two years alongside his father and sister, as a terminal service assistant.

He reportedly received positive evaluations: he was responsible, diligent, had no disciplinary issues, and showed no aggressive behavior.

Mostly colleagues described him as restless, and some suspected he might be autistic, referring to his unusual behavior.

In conversations at work, he mainly talked about school, books, and work, and at times about having a firearms license or about weapons.

On one occasion, Kozák brought a long gun to the airport in an unusually large backpack and showed it to a colleague after she asked about it.

Another colleague once heard him say, “I would shoot everyone in Terminal 2”.

It was noted that he regularly worked night shifts, especially in the year leading up to the crime.

Mental Health and Deterioration:

After starting university, Kozák frequently talked to his friends about ending his life. His classmates gave him a list of contacts for help, but he did not use them. As his statements continued, his friends urged him to seek psychiatric help.

Suicidal tendencies intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially from spring 2022. Kozák explained that these thoughts emerged when he had a lot of free time and experienced “boredom”.

His first psychiatric appointment, attended with a friend, took place in September 2023. In total, he had four sessions and one psychological assessment.

His friend accompanied him to the session, as she knew he would not go alone. Kozák said she seemed more concerned about his condition than he was about himself.

The sessions revealed a range of issues, including suicidal and homicidal ideation, existential loss of meaning, depression, lack of socialization, and family conflict.

After four sessions with the psychiatrist and one with another psychologist, both reported that he became withdrawn and either missed or cancelled scheduled appointments.

Kozák did not disclose having a firearms license or plans to obtain one, although he had already received it in spring 2023. He also refused to name the physician (who approved his firearm license).

Over the year preceding the crime, classmates noticed that Kozák became increasingly fatigued. He complained of insufficient sleep due to night shifts at his airport job and began eating less.

According to them, he became noticeably more stressed. For example, he started smoking more heavily. Witness quote: “What struck and somewhat surprised me was that he suddenly smoked about eight cigarettes in a row, within about fifteen minutes”.

The only person Kozák appeared close to before the crime was his female friend. In the final months, he shared his hobby: weapons, shooting ranges, optics, and long-range shooting courses.