Topic of the Week - I am writing a review of John H. Richardson’s 2025 Luigi: The Making and the Meaning . The back cover is a mural of him, out of London, depicting him in saintly fashion. Larger than life, solemn face, and a golden halo circling his head. The back cover also includes a quote from the book: “For a growing group of Americans who seem to be vibrating with existential anxieties, he became a screen onto which they projected their fears and dreams.”
For anyone with interest in the fields of psychology , sociology, and history as applied to religion, this is nothing new. Saints, God(s), Angels, Demons, Spirits all become vessels in the same vein. I am reminded of Jung’s idea of God-image, a projection of our perfected Collective-Self into a shared conception of God. Hume in his Natural History of Religion said “There is an universal tendency among mankind to conceive all beings like themselves, and to transfer to every object those qualities with which they are familiarly acquainted, and of which they are intimately conscious.” Freud, in his usual manner described God as a “father-surrogate” who has regained “human shape” and of course carries some incestuous undercurrents.
For those interested in Luigi, either as a Saint or Infidel, he expresses hope or dread. For Saint-followers, Hope is that individuals can overcome their status as NPCs (a topic the author of the book shows clearly was a concern for Luigi) and take back power for themselves and for those they consider on of their side. Those who see Luigi as an Infidel dread he will or has opened the flood-gates, that political violence is suddenly an option for resistance again.
In regards to Anarchists, Luigi is divisive. He, taken together in the collective Anarchist discourse, is neither Saint nor Infidel. He fills a role more like a Heretic or religious reformer. Sonia, writing for Freedom News UK, wrote a piece titled, “Why I’m Not Clapping for Luigi”. Sonia says, “I guess what bothers me most is that Mangione is completely aware of his privileges, and like many other white shooters is now enjoying the attention and the hero status he’s getting. Guys like him shoot a CEO one day, and a lot of kids on another. [...] To take revenge for his back pain and repair his hurt ego, Mangione assassinated a useless person, without any collective context or intention to liberate large groups of oppressed people.” Madeline Silver, writing a companion piece, says, “The real attraction of the CEO killer, however handsome he may be, is not him: it’s us. The last few days have seen our misery laid bare, but above all they have seen our glorious rage rise to the surface and cover the world like lava. These have been amazing days, because of what beautiful connection I’ve seen in your eyes.”
Both of these texts embody the religious theories discussed above. He is corrupting revolutionary ideas by being an attractive, White man who shot a “useless person” (UnitedHealth investments certainly don’t agree with Sonia!). On the other hand, he lays the situation we all inhabit bare, helping us realize ourselves and our collective “glorious rage.” Such writings together me of the way the Roman Catholic Church spoke of the gnostic and other heretical movements, like the egalitarian Gnostic groupings or the countless millenarian peasant revolts. The Church spoke with horror their ideas and power came into question, while there exists now a fascination that Christian ideas could be inverted towards ends of freedom and equality.
guest TOTW by Artxmis
Questions
1. What does Luigi’s image mean to you? What image is that? Saintly, Heretical? Something else?
2. Do figures like Luigi (Or Uncle Ted, etc) generally prove to be positive for the development of anarchy?
3. What influenced such an elevation of Luigi to Saintly status, is it just good looks, or do people genuinely recognize he did something “good”?
Comments
Luigi: The image, the act, and the individual.
Glare (not verified) Sun, 02/08/2026 - 11:27
Ultimately what the image, to me, an individual, is far less interesting than what the image does within a societies context as representations are best understood in a spectacular way.
Luigi is a representation of the power of a single person against the entire crushing onlsaught of the structural oppression of daily life in our society. The pain of injury, medical neglect, the stress of bills, appointments, pain, lack of sleep, the powerlessness and drudgery. Its not surprising so many people resonate with idea of someone like that who strikes back in such a direct way against all of that.
I dont think there is a way to answer the second question as I dont believe there is a core anarchy being developed other than the social gravitational pull of leftism that could be helped or harmed, which acts like this I do not believe are largely representations of movements like that despite their retroactive approval once everyones thoroughly read the public reaction as positive.
I dont think "good" necessarily plays into peoples personal enjoyment of luigi as much as people would like to think. I think that like most folk heros, it matters less if it was good and more that all sorts of people have thought about something similar in their powerlessness oppression and pain.
I’m no conspiracy theorist,
GiggyMantis Sun, 02/08/2026 - 13:01
In fact, I make a great fuss about the truth. And the truth is, we have no evidence not from the state that Luigi was the shooter.
I'm very suss of admiring…
Lefou (not verified) Mon, 02/09/2026 - 21:05
I'm very suss of admiring heroic/holy/diabolical figures, mainly because the events and narrative are usually just the banal end-game of a seething ressentiment taken to its inevitable venting conclusion, without much critical thinking involved in the process.
Sure, there are spontaneous actions which have totally positive outcomes, and the perpetrator doesn't expect any adulation in return, but instead humble anonymity, like I do.
Both Luigi Mangione and…
Stinky Oogle (… (not verified) Wed, 02/11/2026 - 06:39
Both Luigi Mangione and Tyler Robinson are alleged (by the State, of course) to have killed public figures in largely, if not entirely, symbolic acts of violence (not to be confused with acts of symbolic violence). I think a better question is, why did Robinson not recieve the same cult status as Mangione? In the following, please sprinkle the 'alleged(ly)' as you see fit.
I see four reasons of varying impact. First, let's be honest here, Mangione is conventionally attractive. Unfortunately this plays more of a part than it logically should. Robinson has that unfortunate gamer / shooter phenotype, whereas Mangione is physically fit; proverbially tall, dark, and handsome. Second, Magione's target was far less polarizing than Robinson's; I think the majority of Americans dislike the insurance system, and even those virulently opposed to universal healthcare are not exactly pro-United. On the other hand, Kirk was a significant figure in the culture war. Next, Kirk's assassination came after Thompson's, and I think it is likely that there was significant damage control to /not/ allow Robinson to become a folk saint, even if he was unlikely to be so in the first place. Finally, Kirk was killed on national television which many people saw live -- that couldn't have been good for PR.
There are other wrinkles here of course: I don't think it is impossible that Kirk's assassination was a false flag, nor do I think it impossible that one or both of the alleged perpetrators were framed.
Not exactly a false flag,…
anonymous (not verified) Wed, 02/11/2026 - 10:02
In reply to Both Luigi Mangione and… by Stinky Oogle (… (not verified)
Not exactly a false flag, but more a Kurt Kobain-esque murder (i.e. evil betrayal by wife, as part of wider hostile parties).
He's a fascist who probably didn't do it.
lins (not verified) Thu, 02/12/2026 - 06:41
'nuff said.
Like, we know this. we know his social media history.
Is it great that the general populace is more open to people fighting back against the rich and powerful?
Yeah, sure.
But no reason to give yet more attention to this one in particular.
Especially when its extremely likely HE. DIDN'T. DO. IT. Theres no evidence proving he did, and plenty putting it in question.
You know who I wish was treated as some incredible person (tho not 'saint' since look at the history of catholicism..) ?
The BIPOC person , whos name I can't fucking remember better than luigis because of people like you,
Who raided NFL executive offices and killed some of them in a desperate attemt to get his and others CTE taken seriously.
That's an actually verifiable, proven, case of someone trying to use the last of their life to care for others.
And they were a BIPOC person. Idk what their politics were, but its fucking telling that a rich, white, privildged piece of shit who may well have not even done this is being elevated above them. let alone by YOU.
its really, really fucking telling.
Richardson’s book is really…
chris from ni… (not verified) Mon, 02/16/2026 - 15:28
Richardson’s book is really lazy writing. and that’s saying something for a journalist. he makes connections almost solely via Mangione’s social media, talks a lot about Ted, gets lots of facts wrong/omits things, and misleads. I would call it a money grab if it also didn’t feel earnest in its writing, even if it’s bad writing. overall felt like he was reaching the whole time. only surprising parts were mentions of John Jacobi, Atassa, and Cabrera
Add new comment