Edit: Here’s a link to what is most likely the real manifesto: https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/luigis-manifesto
Ken Klippenstein is a very reliable journalist and this version of the manifesto contains the snippets that have been released by law enforcement. Also, considering the thing was hand-written, that very long version involving his mom is dubious. (And there’s not any good evidence that his mom is in anything besides decent/good health)
Interesting article and yeah, a lot of mass shootings in the US were in some way related to the shooters wanting to go out with fame.
Luigi showed a new kind of fame. To be clear, I’m all against any form of violence, I want it avoided whenever and wherever possible. Having said that, I am very much reminded of this little comic I saw yesterday
I detest violence, I detest murder. But if murder do happen, I prefer to see single greedy CEO’s killed a hundred times over all those school children.
I detest violence, I detest murder. But if murder do happen, I prefer to see single greedy CEO’s killed a hundred times over all those school children.
Honestly I think that’s a big reason people are seeing Luigi Mangione as a hero, no innocent victims. He had a target. He killed that target and no one else. No kids. No innocent wage slaves. Just one bastard.
If violence is the only way a message will get through to our oppressors let it be as little violence as necessary.
The author here knows what they’re talking about, and while not explicitly saying it, they’re saying there will be more Luigi’s, Adjusters, whatever attention grabbing description you like.
More business execs will be recognized as the tyrants they are, and shot. Because the entire world just taught all the school shooter types that shooting a business exec will turn you into a folk hero. It will get you fame and admiration. It will get people trying to send you money for your legal defense. It will get you people spreading the word about jury nullification to use the system against itself.
This month taught would be school shooters to instead go for board members, ceos, and billionaires. And it’s a far better lesson.
The assassination of Shinzo Abe did more to get rid of a decades-long cult than anything else ever done in Japan.
Unfortunately school shooters want to hurt society, they aren’t interested in fame. They want notoriety.
Unfortunately school shooters want to hurt society
Some of them, sure, but not all of them. Some of them just want a “high score”, some of them just want to hurt somebody, some of them just want their name in the history books.
they aren’t interested in fame. They want notoriety.
It doesn’t matter what you call it. They want attention, and they’ve been shown new way to get a shit load of attention, much of it positive.
I expect school shootings to continue to happen at the same rate, where we might see someone have a crack at a single CEO or Director in the next year.
It doesn’t matter what you call it.
It does because it speaks directly to the motivation for the act.
I think a lot of school shooters don’t care if they get fame or infamy, they just don’t know how to get fame, but do know how to get infamy.
I’m hoping for widespread property damage crimes. IEDs and arson at tesla charging stations and dealerships.
“peaceful protest is outright ignored, economic protest isn’t possible in the current system, so how long until we recognize that violence against those who lead us to such destruction is justified as self-defense.”
🤘
So… Pain makes people radical.
Solution: Let ban pain!
How do we ban it? Well Universal Socialized Healthcare of course!
Pain makes people desperate. Desperate people are not known for being particularly calm about things, and it is entirely unreasonable to expect calm and decorum from someone in constant pain (that can be improved if not eliminated by certain treatments that are unfortunately usually quite expensive).
Just saw a post about companies firing people for being disgruntled in a survey.
Nothing radical about the class war. They’re always fighting it, we should too
If he is the shooter, than we can also confirm he chose to act out by targeting an insurance.
A grammar error, good to see this was human written. Less good to see that they’re just trying to pull stuff out of their ass to fluff the article.
So Doctors, take note of this when sending authorization requests: corporate executive homicide is now a known symptom/side-effect of untreated or insufficiently treated pain and mental health issues.
Unfortunately, that would end up under the Tarasoff precedent and we would be required by law to report it to police and the intended target. There’s better ways to weasel around this when filing insurance paperwork, but we’ll have to have a designated person in the clinic whose job it is to fight with the insurance companies.
Headache? Report to police.
Back Pain? Report to police. (That nearly 30% of all Americans have suffered from)
You get a police report. You get a police report! Everybody gets a police report!!! - Oprah Winfrey the MD
You have to make a report if the patient expresses homicidal ideation, intent, and a plan with a specific target or targets in mind. If the target is a particular person (like a partner or friend) you are supposed to notify that person directly or ensure that the police notify them.
Establishing any kind of precedent that chronic pain = homicidal ideation and intent is an extremely bad idea, and not something I’m even willing to joke about.
Yeah I get it, as a doctor your professional rep is on the line, inserting casual threats to insurance execs is not something to do (unless you can somehow organize it across a large group to keep insurers’ feet to the fire).
For me, it’s not the professional reputation, but the second that kind of thing gets tagged onto a patient’s chart, it becomes extremely hard to expunge. There are a lot of patients with mental illnesses (some which are misdiagnoses) that face significant problems because of that diagnosis. If a chart gets flagged with “homicidal ideation” at any point, that patient will forever be flagged as dangerous and people will be suspicious of them immediately.
Robert Evans is so great.
Well put together piece. Im saddened at my impression that this will largely change nothing in the insurance industry besides executives funneling off money to hire security rather than funneling more of that money into patient care
Such security has its limits.
Sure, but it’s still resources used for something other than patient care
It will be. But because it has its limits, eventually they would opt to just not fucking be dirt bags in the first place.
Would you choose to be a ceo if you knew there was a chance you’d get shot, drone bombed, poisoned, etc?
there was a chance you’d get shot, drone bombed, poisoned, etc?
Two of those haven’t happened yet, right?
I feel like a CEO dying because someone took a job as a caterer and poisoned him would be hilarious, but probably not as evocative as shooting him dead on the street.
Drones would probably be terrifying. Would the authorities even be able to trace it back to you? I don’t think you can just buy a murder drone but you could probably make one with an explosive or chemical payload. I’d love to see CEOs flinching every time they hear something outside.
Two of those haven’t happened yet, right?
Not to my knowledge. Though it’s only a matter of time.
Would the authorities even be able to trace it back to you?
If you built the drone entirely on your own with 3d printing and spare parts, I’d imagine it would be much harder.
I don’t think you can just buy a murder drone but you could probably make one with an explosive or chemical payload
It’s definitely something you’d have to [REDACTED]
I read the entire article for once. It was good, and seemingly objective and intelligent. I’m surprised.
I understand why he did what he did. It won’t change the American society. In two weeks, this is forgotten and replaced by something else.
It’s sad but true.
I understand why he did what he did
I’d like to add that he hasn’t been found guilty for anything, for all we know he could be a completely innocent person who just happened to fit the profile of someone they could pin it on.
A lot of the discourse seems to revolve around why he did it (e.g. from the article: “nothing he read or posted explains why he gunned down an insurance executive better than this single image in the background of his Twitter profile”) but it’s important to remember that there’s a reason we have presumption of innocence, especially when it comes to how many innocent people have spent their life behind bars or even gotten executed.
Sure but you can probably understand why people want to discuss these news now, rather than wait for a trial in several months?
Once the trial even arrives, this is forgotten. Nobody will be thinking about this. Something else has the focus.
So if it’s not being discussed now, it just won’t.
It can be discussed without the assumption that he is guilty. I think it is dangerous for the public to remove the presumption of innocence, especially in cases like this where the ones affected are the ones with power.
I would even argue that it’s more important to argue with the presumption of innocence. Someone killed a health insurance company CEO and a lot of people are rejoicing over it, then someone who is quite possibly innocent and who seems to have suffered from health insurance company decisions has been arrested for it. How many other people have experienced something similar to Luigi? How many other people fit the profile because the system destroys that many lives? He has already suffered, how much more will he have to suffer for something that he possibly had no connection to, for the benefit of the people who seem to have already ruined his life?
It’s a good point. I havent looked into what he has said and what evidence the police has on him.
Maybe if we’re lucky we’ll get copycats. Enough of those and there might actually be some change.
