To all who wonder about Adam ... a guy put up a hoax, making Adam into an "anarcho-Marxist".
This was a hoax, as pointed out by the following:
conspiracycritic729 January 2013 07:05
The guy responsible is named Cole Bartlromo...you can Google this guy to see his background as a scammer, I also have a post showing screen caps from the Facebook post where he admits it's not real. Also some Lanza comparison photos collaged together...looks to me like 3 different kids. Let me know what you think...keep up the great work!
My points below, due to the important way people get worried about groups or, on the other hand consider these radical forms of groups to be something worthwhile is worth reading. A lot of people jump into assumptions about the person if they're "a Marxist", "a neo-Nazi", "an Anarchist", "an anarcho-Libertarian", "a Militia Radical", "a John Bircher" or whatever.
So, please read the following so you might not be as worried in hearing of some radical type or other, and fall into predictable thinking, which the managers of such groups for false flags, WANT you to be thinking:
To all who might freak out about his saying he's an Anarcho-Communist (just as those other people might freak if they saw "neo-Nazi" or "Conservative Radical") ...
let's remember what these groupings mean.
Most inside each grouping think they're economically and socially saving the world.
The Communists in general point to inequality of top vs. bottom economics; some get radical and WHEN RADICALIZED AND FIGHTING will fight all order, as "Anarchists", thinking it's good to get rid of (or complain about) all governance and corporate economic power.
Same thing occurs, with different overtones, with neo-Nazis and also Conservative radical Liberty/Anarchy groups, again WHEN RADICALIZED AND FIGHTING, will also fight order.
But in the case of neo-Nazis, people think, in general, that the economic and social inequality would be solved with brief anarchy of the streets but organized with intense government crackdowns (in a way, like radical Communists); they also tend to mix it with xenophobia an bigotry in many cases, against the slave class of immigrants or ghettoized poor in their region or a group (often race) through another country, if they think that country is bringing their own down. The neo-Nazis are the least socially liked in their non-radical forms, but my point is that they are seeing an economic problem and social distress; they do, however, blame the victims of the system (immigrant low-wage earners, for example) for being part of what ends up ruining the other victims (higher wage earners). The real solution is not to hate the other victims. (For the accused lone nutter gunman of the Norway bombing and shooting, as an example of a probable nut who was part of a ring: http://www.globalresearch.ca/norway-s-terror-as-systemic-destabilization-breivik-the-arms-for-drugs-milieu-and-global-shadow-elites/26154 and for the photo from a helicopter which supposedly wasn't in the air that day, NOW TAKEN DOWN, and the police uniform: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/04/17/brevik-whitewash-begins-in-norway-murdochs-hand-seen/ --- and note the confusion in this article about "Christian Conservatism", as if that's a good thing not a bad one, but in many cases these groups, WHEN RADICAL overlap in ideology: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/24/christian-anarchism-blows-the-lid-off-anders-behring-breivik/ )
The lattermost (the most radicalized "militarized right wing liberty talkers", such as Tim McVeigh was supposedly -- though that doesn't mean he did the damage to Oklahoma City Murrah Building as accused: http://radiofetzer.blogspot.ca/2010/04/chris-emery.html ) tend to call for revolution (a form of brief anarchy) and even to topple all large-scale government permanently (making them different than the Communist and neo-Nazi anarchists, ironically). But in their case, the flavour comes in that business without government plans telling anybody what to do is fine -- that business, left unfettered, that this is "liberty" in the end, for people, that all government restrictions are mere impostitions.
NO ONE GROUP IS ALL RADICAL AND CRAZY; THEY ALL HAVE POINTS ABOUT REALITY, BUT MIS-ASSIGN THE MEANS TO CHANGE THINGS AND SOME OF THE SOLUTIONS ARE OVER-STATED. That's what is the problem, as to why these groups attract some people who would otherwise not think to do wrong. So a person can be right to point out some of the points the groups make, but if they fall into these things as a group (often infiltrated, even controlled and used), without seeing the whole picture of where their leaders might take them, in a more RADICAL form, they can end up espousing the worst elements.
These are the generalizations which describe these ideologues, when they are RADICALIZED AND FIGHTING. They end up having quite a few similar aspects, in results. Each type is not worse or better, when extreme.
Thus, a young person (or older) who falls into trying to "help" the world and falls in with ANY group which is often controlled or infiltrated by very manipulative ideologues and rogue agents (sometimes the same thing), can end up participating in an operation or fall prey to being a patsy.
Thus, let's not say that Adam is particularly wilder than ANY radicalized and possibly fighting member of a group. Let's understand the kinds of groups that could be behind the Sandy Hook thing, if any.
These groups intermingle in ways which would surprise some of their members. See my posts on Columbine and Satanism, and Columbine and neo-Nazis for examples. ( http://youcanknowsometimes.blogspot.ca/2012/12/satanism-at-columbine.html