REPOST: Luigi's Manifesto
Whenever a major incident captures public attention, the internet rushes to manipulate the narrative, framing it to suit their conflicting agendas. I'll admit, I’m not immune to this instinct. I’m wary of the implications of words like “intifada.” When a terrorist attack surfaces with shouts of “Allahu Akbar,” my initial reaction is often, “This is what support for violent resistance looks like.” This reflex stems from how groups embrace violence as their method, in contrast to their opponents, who emphasize nonviolence, including legal frameworks.
Enter the recent, over-glorified case of Luigi Mangione—a literal child of millionaires, proclaimed as a revolutionary by those who believe they’re going to “eat the rich.” After fatally shooting the CEO of a healthcare company he had no affiliation with—possibly during a psychotic episode—the internet erupted with admiration for this handsome gentile (let’s face it, if he were Jewish or Muslim, he’d be labeled a terrorist by both the left and right respectively). Attributed to him is a brief manifesto, allegedly verified. Its brevity alone makes it believable; after all, in today’s attention-deficit digital culture (myself included), a lengthy manifesto would be dismissed outright.
This incident reflects a troubling trend: the growing celebration of violence as a legitimate means to an end. It underscores the human tendency to seek simple answers to complex problems. I wish I could have asked Luigi—just as I wish I could have asked the Gazans before October 7—“You commit your violence, and then what? Will you take care of the victims’ children? What is the rest of the plan?” Instead of wrestling with these basic questions, a man born into immense privilege is now hailed as a hero and martyr for killing someone who rose from humble beginnings through sheer hard work.
Let me be clear: I am no fan of the U.S. healthcare system. It is deeply flawed. Having worked in it for two years, I’ve seen firsthand how money is squandered on bureaucracy, including something I’ve encountered only in healthcare—meetings designed solely to plan the next meeting. Glorifying acts of violence is not the solution. Instead, we should focus on tangible improvements: reducing diabetes and obesity rates, promoting healthier lifestyles, prioritizing preventative care, expanding choices, and fostering global medical tourism with cities that specialize in advanced treatments. Most importantly, we need real, data-driven conversations about systemic issues. This approach, while complex and unglamorous, offers a viable path to meaningful change. The alternative—a society that idolizes violent “martyrs” like Mangione—invites only more copycats and chaos.
I don’t know where the original manifesto was found, so no links are included today. Also,
I’m skipping a rant I made on social media about how attractive people are the most dangerous. But it’s worth consider if young Joseph Stalin would have attracted so many to his cause, if he wasn’t attractive. I posit that politiicans should not be allowed to be attractive! [/j]
The manifesto:
“To the Feds, I'll keep this short, because I do respect what you do for our country. To save you a lengthy investigation, I state plainly that I wasn't working with anyone. This was fairly trivial: some elementary social engineering, basic CAD, a lot of patience. The spiral notebook, if present, has some straggling notes and To Do lists that illuminate the gist of it. My tech is pretty locked down because I work in engineering so probably not much info there. I do apologize for any strife of traumas but it had to be done. Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allwed them to get away with it. Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.”
What do you think? I mostly read Messiah complex, which is ironic from someone who spends money for a blog just for themself. I also have to ask 1. How people who recognize their own lack of knowledge on a subject (not the ‘most qualified’ person) feel so comfortable killing over it. 2. Why target this CEO instead of one of the many people covered as corrupt by Elisabeth Rosenthal and Michael Moore’s docs?
