Hello comrades. In the interest of upholding our code of conduct - specifically, rule 1 (providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all) - we felt it appropriate to make a statement regarding the lionization of Luigi Mangione, the alleged United Healthcare CEO shooter, also known as “The Adjuster.”
In the day or so since the alleged shooter’s identity became known to the public, the whole world has had the chance to dig though his personal social media accounts and attempt to decipher his political ideology and motives. What we have learned may shock you. He is not one of us. He is a “typical” American with largely incoherent, and in many cases reactionary politics. For the most part, what is remarkable about the man himself is that he chose to take out his anger on a genuine enemy of the proletariat, instead of an elementary school.
This is a situation where the art must be separated from the artist. We do not condemn the attack, but as a role model, Luigi Mangione falls short. We do not expect perfection from revolutionary figures either, but we expect a modicum of revolutionary discipline. We expect them not simply to identify an unpopular element of society 
, but to clearly illuminate the causes of oppression and the means by which they are overcome. When we canonize revolutionary figures, we are holding them up as an example to be followed.
This is where things come back to rule 1. Mangione has a long social media history bearing a spectrum of reactionary viewpoints, and interacting positively with many powerful reactionary figures. While some commenters have referred to this as “nothing malicious,” by lionizing this man we effectively deem this behavior acceptable, or at the very least, safe to ignore. This is the type of tailism which opens the door to making a space unsafe for marginalized people.
We’re going to be more strict on moderating posts which do little more than lionize the shooter. There is plenty to be said about the unfolding events, the remarkably positive public reaction, how public reactions to “propaganda of the deed” may have changed since the historical epoch of its conception (and how the strategic hazards might not have), and many other aspects of the news without canonizing this man specifically. We can still dance on the graves of our enemies and celebrate their rediscovered fear and vulnerability without the vulgar revisionism needed to pretend this man is some sort of example of Marxist or Anarchist practice.
You know those same people don’t have to post and circulate manosphere + anti-woke and extremely racist (see his Japan posts on x dot com) content. This man literally cheers for US hegemony and he doesn’t make any class connection. He wants to read Unabomber and Ayn Rand and doesn’t have any history other than his assassination. His adventurism was done out of some Postal-esque rage, which is an extremely White yankee thing to do.
Removed by mod
The one thing you crackers can’t answer is what he fucking changed. WHAT DID HE CHANGE? Other than prompting CEOs to start taking down opsec-violating information, other than prompting CEOs to start hiring security forces, probably accelerating the Cyberpunk RED-ification of our fucking society 'cause I bet actual corporate police and armies come next, and ultimately only changing the tone of cracker wind on social media?
He didn’t put food in bellies. He didn’t reparate anybody this country’s left unwhole. He didn’t free no damn slaves. He just killed an easily-replacable figurehead and couldn’t even get rid of the tool when he was done with it. So it fucking goes. Shit, if we wanna talk about doing shit, I’ve moved a half-ton of surplus produce around my community over the last five fucking years; compare that to one easily-replaced slabbed-out body and a twenty year prison bid.
Motherfucker finna get turned into a slave over a figurehead, is that good change to you? Is a slight shift in the wind that’ll be RIGHT BACK TO NORMAL in two weeks good change to you?
I’m not a cracker (thank god) but I would say that what he changed was the all-important “conversation,” the “discourse.” It wasn’t OK to openly say that it is a good thing for a CEO to get shot until someone shot one and everyone saw that everyone else just pointed and laughed. That may not have made much material change yet, and maybe it never will (I’m hopeful it might but we’ll have to see), but to pretend like this doesn’t serve as a significant inroad for leftist agitation is missing an opportunity.