The Adjuster: America's Most Beloved Assassin

December 23, 2024

It's been a wild ride in the United States since December 4, thanks to one very brazen vigilante who stood on a New York City sidewalk and calmly gunned down the CEO of what is arguably the most corrupt and greedy health insurance company in the nation.

It has been the most interesting news story that I personally have ever witnessed in my lifetime. Especially due to the massive discrepancy between public opinion and the narrative the media is trying to sell us. With the crime being reported as heinous and disgraceful, the powers that be are trying to act shocked and appalled by a nationwide outpouring of support and sympathy... for the killer.

I (along with many others) am now having really big emotions over a man I've never met. A man who represents so much more than the crime he's accused of. A man who's now considered an American hero, despite being in custody for murder. Of course, he's far from the first hero of the people who has sat in jail or prison for (allegedly) attempting to strike at the oppressors; but definitely the most prolific one of our generation.

As soon as news broke of the CEO's death, no one, at least in my circle of friends and the online accounts I follow, had any sympathy for him. Information quickly spread about United Healthcare's ridiculously high denial rate of 33%, their use of an AI system to auto-deny claims, and how many millions of dollars the CEO had made off of the suffering and even deaths of others. Some people even began to celebrate the man's death, saying it was not only justified but also a step in the right direction.

The case became really interesting when it was reported that three bullet casings found at the scene had been printed with the words "deny," "defend," and "depose" -- making the motive clear, as the words refer to ways the insurance company takes advantage of sick and dying individuals. These words made it obvious that this wasn't a random killing. It was intentional, premeditated, and the victim was chosen because he was the CEO of this corrupt agency. The words printed on the shell casings and intentionally left at the crime scene -- something the victim himself would never see -- meant that this was not just a revenge killing, but that it was likely meant to send a message to the rest of the industry.

Immediately, people were rushing to defend the assassin. There was a certain solidarity among Americans who understood why the killer did what he did. People didn't want him to get caught. They were praising him for his brazenness and for doing something that many felt had needed to be done for a long time. There were jokes and memes about the fact that nobody was coming forward with information, despite the murder happening in a public location with witnesses, and about everybody banding together and committing to the act to protect the unknown gunman from being discovered.

But it wasn't all jokes and memes -- the sentiment of not wanting him to be caught was widespread and real. We collectively loved the idea of him running free. Because the assassin -- dubbed The Adjuster or the more cutesy Robin Hoodie -- had quickly become a symbol of class war and revolution. A man who had stood up against a corrupt system, a system that kills thousands of people, and sent a powerful message to the elite.

Cue the obligatory 'but murder is wrong!' comments. Of course this is something we all know. But you have to remember that supporting the person behind the act doesn't necessarily mean that you agree with it.

Additionally, this was not just a murder -- which typically implies senseless or unjustified violence -- but an assassination. A very specific type of killing done for a specific reason. You can say that it was the wrong way to go about making a statement, but you can't call it senseless. Unfortunately, this man being killed made plenty of sense. The victim was complicit in so many deaths via his company's cruel policies that he himself should qualify as a serial killer.

Something else that all activists know is that you will not always agree with another person's method of activism, especially when it's something so extreme. But you don't have to condone the killing itself to understand why he did it. You also don't have to celebrate someone's death to realize that it was a small step toward collective liberation.

And the assassin took him out without any collateral damage, including an eyewitness. He took as little life as possible, did it as clean and fast as possible, and didn't target minority groups, women, children, or innocents. None of this might make it "right," but you just can't compare it to the majority of shootings that happen in this country.

Over the next few days, while the killer was still on the loose, people began to romanticize the hooded and masked man because he gave them hope. Yes -- hope. A clear indication of how desperate many people in this country feel.

And it's important to remember now that all of this happened before anybody knew what he looked like. People immediately loved and respected the man because of his radical act, without having any idea of who he could be. After a suspect was arrested almost a week later, his appearance caused quite a stir; but the public admiration had been there since the very beginning. I want us all to remember that.

If you don't understand why this assassin did what he did, and why people are either celebrating it or indifferent to it, consider the fact that people have been clamoring for healthcare reform for ages, but our "leaders," the elite and wealthy 1% who own this country, have ignored our cries for change and peaceful protests. This isn't limited to just the realm of healthcare, of course; thanks to generalized capitalism, poverty is rampant in this country, over half a million are homeless, most of us are overworked and underpaid, and inflation is out of control for the masses... while corporations and CEO's make millions in profit and a handful of people own almost all of the nation's wealth. We are all fed up.

And finally, somebody had the guts to step up to the plate and take action. You can condemn what he did as being morally wrong or illegal, but this radical act, and the dramatic fashion in which he accomplished it, was necessary to send a message.

And the message was heard, too. In the first couple of days after the CEO's death, other health insurance companies removed their leadership's names and photos from their websites. "Deny, defend, depose" became a rallying cry. "Wanted" posters of other health insurance CEO's began popping up around Manhattan. Another insurance company quickly reversed their cruel decision to stop covering anesthesia during lengthy surgeries, which would have caused countless people to either die, have no quality of life, or go into debt to have the surgeries they need. This decision was reversed after people started sharing their CEO's name and picture with captions such as "Maybe this one should be next." Fear made them change their minds. And it's unlikely any of this would have happened without our beloved vigilante or the public support for him.

Additionally, I'm now hearing reports through my social media feed of fewer claims being denied, and United Healthcare losing over $110 billion since the killing, and that number keeps going up, so might be even higher by the time I publish this.

The comfortable and privileged citizens of America can continue to cling to the idea that there's no place for killing in a civilized society. But as they say, when you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable.

Thanks to this one act of violence that sparked a movement, something was beginning to happen, and it looked like the elites might finally be starting to realize that no matter how much wealth and power they have, the people would not let them continue to just get away with doing whatever they want -- at least not without living in fear of another vigilante rising up.

The Adjuster became the sort of character we all root for in books and action movies. The morally grey hero taking a stand against corruption. The freedom fighter who's not afraid to engage in violence and bloodshed, but only against the oppressors, which ultimately saves lives. He was a symbol of hope to the American people, a symbol that revolution and change were actually possible. He was widely praised and lauded as a folk hero.

He even managed to unite people from the political left and right -- when Ben Shapiro tried to frame it as an "evil left wing" problem, his own fans turned against him in the comments, saying they were tired of the left vs. right narrative, and pointing out that Ben himself was a CEO and a lot richer than they were. One commenter said, "I just realized your entire business model requires that us normal folk hate each other."

This man single-handedly united the nation more than anything else had united us for decades. The people rallied behind him.

It was two days after the shooting when I came across a post on Threads that said, "The shooter being attractive has brought white men back into favor too soon." From that comment, I gathered that a picture had been released. I was skeptical about him actually being attractive because it's pretty rare I agree with the masses about these things -- and I actually managed to avoid seeing the picture for a while because I wasn't actually interested and didn't care what he looked like.

Of course, it eventually showed up on my timeline anyway. A couple of grainy photos from surveillance cameras were making the rounds, including one picture where a suspect had removed his mask and smiled while reportedly flirting with a receptionist right before the assassination had taken place. Admittedly, when I saw the dazzling smile, my first thought was "Okay, I get it." This photo was, frankly, adorable. I understood now why people were talking about his attractiveness.

Despite it originally being circulated as a means of catching a cold-blooded killer, all anybody saw in that photo was a very cute smile that appeared to have a sweet personality behind it. That's a lot to gather from just one grainy stillframe, but have you ever seen someone smile and just immediately felt that there was no way they could be a bad person because of the way their smile lit up the entire room? Like they just had to have a kind soul?

So yes, I do think the flirting photo made him an even more endearing and beloved figure than he had been before it was released. The shirtless photos that were later uncovered of the suspect, and the pictures of his full facial features and curls definitely caused a commotion once they started circulating as well. That is undeniable.

But now, people are trying to gaslight us into believing we didn't care about him until the suspect was named and full pictures of his face and body were circulated, which is an affront to what he represents and the admiration people had for him for all the days in between the assassination and the suspect's arrest. Those five days of people trying to protect him, hoping his identity wouldn't be discovered and that he wouldn't be caught, are actively being erased by people who want to make you believe we only want to keep him out of prison because he's hot.

But I understand why they have to make us believe this. They -- and by "they," I mean anyone who has an interest in keeping us from revolting -- are going to do anything they can to discredit the idea of revolution that's brewing. And that's why, ever since Luigi Mangione was arrested, he's been the target of a smear campaign. One that, overall, isn't working.

Let me take a brief moment to say that Luigi is, at this time, only a suspect. He is innocent until proven guilty, and there is reasonable doubt among the people that he is even the guy who did the shooting. There are pictures of the shooter where he appeared to have a different skin tone, age, or ethnicity than the man who was ultimately arrested. There are many who believe he's being framed and that evidence has been planted. By writing this article, I'm not saying that Luigi is for sure the killer. In fact, he has pleaded not guilty the morning I'm publishing this! However, Luigi as an individual, and The Adjuster as an unidentified assassin, will forever be intertwined now, whether they are the same person or not. They are both symbols of revolution and will remain important to us.

They will also both continue to be victims of the smear campaign.

I get it, the idea of revolution is scary. I feel that way too. In fact, I think most of us do. It sounds like something from ancient history, or from dystopian fiction, not something that we should actually want or need here in the United States in this day and age. At this point in the 21st century, it feels like we should all just be able to enjoy our peaceful little lives and be comfortable. I want that for myself as well as for all of you. None of us actually wants things to reach a violent conclusion; it's just that it's soon going to be the only option left. We realize that revolution, civil war, etc. will be violent, traumatic, and result in many lives lost including many of our own. It's a last resort for that reason.

So I understand why, on a societal scale, so much effort is put into preventing an uprising. Avoiding this sort of scenario doesn't only benefit the ruling class, although they are the people who benefit from it the most. To an extent, though, it's also for the benefit of those who are just comfortable enough, or even those who aren't really comfortable at all but are scared of a revolution making things worse.

That's why the ruling class, the mainstream media, and anyone else who has an interest in keeping the 'peace' is going to do everything they can to tear down Luigi Mangione as a person, as well as the very idea of him.

They will try, and are currently trying, multiple different tactics to make us hate him.

They are trying to paint him as violent and a danger to society, despite the fact that the shooter had a very clear target with a very clear motive, and reportedly went out of his way to make sure no innocent bystanders were harmed. He ruled out the use of a bomb for that reason, and even though the video of the shooting shows us that there was an eyewitness standing only a few feet away from the man he gunned down, he let that person walk away unharmed. He's no danger to anybody who isn't one of the parasites actively trying to harm others and profit from it. Most of us would feel completely safe if we were alone in a room with him, because he hasn't a single reason to want to hurt any of us.

They are trying to make him look psychotic and unstable, despite the fact that he appears to have a sound mind and comes across pretty composed in every brief clip we've seen. Even the statement he made while being escorted into a courthouse the day after his arrest, which they framed as an "outburst," was quite calm and not at all "explosive" like they tried to say. They referred to what he said as "fighting words" when he was simply trying to speak to the cameras and was being dragged away. And what exactly were those fighting words they speak of?

"It is completely out of touch, and an insult to the intelligence of the American people and their lived experience."

The last words being yelled around the corner as he was being shoved into the building in an attempt to prevent him from finishing his statement. Considering the way they were manhandling him in that clip, he barely even raised his voice.

They will also continuously show us photos from that specific moment -- especially the one where a cop's hand is on the back of his neck -- because they're the only pictures where he actually looks angry, and that's the only side of him they want us to see. Despite the other clips we've seen where he looked calm and composed, the one moment where he allowed himself to show any emotion is the one we're seeing all the stillframes from, and that's not a coincidence.

The New York Times apparently isn't allowed to use pictures of him at all anymore, or will only show the back of his head, because showing his face helps encourage public sympathy, something they're going out of their way to prevent.

Luigi isn't a crazed killer, even if he is, in fact, the killer. Crazed killers victimize innocent people, often at random, or over something insignificant. Only a week after Luigi's arrest, there was yet another school shooting in America. Something that they never do anything to actually fix no matter how many times it happens, because they're so attached to their precious guns that it doesn't even matter when children die. Yet when someone uses one of those guns against a CEO, it's suddenly a different story.

While I don't claim to know what the answer to gun violence is, I do find it ironic that the people who are constantly preaching about the second amendment and using it as a reason we can't have gun control of any kind don't seem to understand that the second amendment was intended for more or less exactly the kind of resistance Luigi allegedly engaged in. He's the "good guy with a gun" they're always talking about, but they'll never admit he could be a good guy because the person he took out was one of their own, and that would mean having to admit that they're the bad guys.

The day after the school shooting, I believe there were two more mass shootings reported in different parts of the country. But I barely saw any coverage of them. Instead, they're wasting all their breath trying to talk us into feeling 'terrorized' by a man we have absolutely zero fear of.

Luigi's politics are another area where people will attempt to tear him down. Despite the fact that I've seen very little solid evidence of him actually being right-wing, that's what they've been saying about him in an attempt to make leftists turn against him.

Now, it's possible I'm missing some evidence, but out of everything I've seen, there's very little that actually points to his political stances, other than he might have been a registered Republican (but I've also heard Libertarian and that he was registered as unaffiliated), and his cousin is a Republican elected official. People are using his family against him a lot, which is really weird considering the "don't disown your family because of different political views" rhetoric that was shoved down our throats only a few weeks ago regarding the election and Thanksgiving. Luigi is his own person, so even if his family members are staunch right-wingers, it doesn't mean he is, especially considering they seem to be publicly distancing themselves from him after his radical act -- and he was reportedly estranged from them for a while.

He retweeted a couple of things that people are using as evidence that he was a 'fan' of Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson, but that evidence is questionable at best. The Tucker Carlson one was absolutely ridiculous -- he agreed with the man once and it was about architecture. Yes, you read that right: architecture. Please explain to me how that has any bearing on his political views. I might agree with Donald Trump about architecture for all I know, but it means nothing other than we might have similar taste in buildings.

The Elon Musk one was a little more ambiguous. People said that he had praised him for his dedication to fighting the 'woke mind virus' but he was actually retweeting somebody else who said this and, to be honest, kind of came off as sarcastic to me. That person then also told Musk something along the lines of, "What you call the 'woke mind virus' actually only cares about equality, and the reason they want to destroy civilization is because in the rubble we are all equal." Due to the overall tone of the tweet, I can't actually decide if that person was on the same side as Musk or if he was chastising him and advocating for equality. And if I can't even tell that, then I'm not going to condemn Luigi for reposting it without comment.

And yet, somehow, in the minds of his detractors, these two minor interactions on social media equate to "He worshipped Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson!"

I've seen people make claims that he was misogynistic and only viewed women as vessels to make babies, and that he was transphobic, as well. And yet none of the people making these claims have shown me any evidence of this actually being true. So why am I supposed to just take their word for it? To me, it seems like they're just going out of their way to make leftists and progressives dislike him as a person, because we make up the largest percentage of his supporters. If you want me to believe that any of this is true, you have to have a better source than just "Trust me, bro." Especially when every piece of evidence I've actually seen points to him being respectful and kind to women.

Maybe he did have some right-wing ideas at some point in his life, especially when younger. But even if that's the case, he obviously had some left-wing ideas as well, which, in my opinion, would make him a centrist at most. There are also rumors that he was interested in climate change activism, that he's bisexual, and that he believed diversity was important to forming a well-rounded society -- these are things I also can't verify, but they sound just as valid as the unverified claims of right-wing ideology. Even without that, a passionate belief in healthcare reform is undeniably a left-wing stance, even if it only made him a centrist; and many consider the action he took against the United Healthcare CEO a strong enough 'redemption arc' even if he had previously been alt-right as some people claim. Realistically, he was probably just an intelligent young man who was open to hearing all kinds of different viewpoints before forming his own, which is really what we should all do.

They've also been criticizing him for being from a wealthy family, trying to point out that he isn't 'one of us' and we're 'hypocrites' for using the catchphrase "Eat the rich" but still supporting Luigi. What they don't seem to understand is that somebody who's wealthy, but using that privilege to fight for us, is even more impressive. There's a 'hot take' going around that if he was not as attractive, or if he were a Black man, the public sentiment might be different. The difference in reception between white criminals and those who are people of color is a valid conversation to have, but it doesn't change the fact that a wealthy, attractive, white-adjacent man (I have a hard time calling Italians white) using his privilege for a good cause is exactly what we actually want privileged people to do.

Also a good time to point out that he took the Greyhound instead of flying, stayed in a hostel rather than the 5-star Hilton, and left the scene on a bike. So... regardless of how much he might actually have, he's not really giving me "rich kid" vibes. Part of that might have made him slightly harder to trace, but it also kind of just sounds like a dude living his life in financially and environmentally sound ways.

There is also information being spread about his grandmother leaving millions of dollars in a trust for him, but putting a clause in her will that he wouldn't get any of it if he was charged with a felony. I haven't looked into this information myself, but I have seen someone use it as 'proof' of how crazy he must have been. But in reality, probably a coincidence that she included such a condition for everyone in the family who might inherit her money. Additionally, if she wrote a clause like that into her will, and he knew about it, that means he chose to sacrifice his wealth for his cause, in addition to his freedom and possibly life. Believe me, none of this is going to turn us against him.

Some people have even tried to call him an "incel" by saying that his back surgery left him unable to "perform" sexually and that's why he was angry enough with the insurance industry to murder someone. I guess this is based on somebody who claimed to be his former landlord coming forward and saying he didn't date anymore because he felt it was unfair to have a relationship if he couldn't be physically intimate with his partner.

First of all, why would his landlord know this, AND feel the need to tell the media about it? Unless the landlord was perving on him and that was his excuse not to hurt their feelings, it's a really strange thing for them to know about if they weren't close friends; and either way, a strange thing for them to broadcast.

Second of all... just no. An injury or a disability does not make you an incel. And there is absolutely no indication that his sex life had anything to do with his alleged decision to kill. Additionally, that person's statement about him feeling it was unfair to have a relationship with someone if he couldn't be intimate is kind of the opposite of what an incel would do. An incel would still feel entitled to a relationship and not care about their partner's pleasure. So don't group him in with men who are undesirable due to terrible personality traits and poor hygiene who then decide to take it out on women in a violent way. The two cannot be compared.

When the media outlets are really desperate and reaching, they even do ridiculous things like bringing up some sort of report that he may have once experimented with psychedelics, or trying to frame him playing the game Among Us with friends as him training to be an assassin. AMONG US.

So far, all of these tactics have overall failed, and much of the public still views Luigi as a precious angel who must be protected at all costs.

So if they can't make us hate him, what will they do instead? Try to paint the people who support him as shallow and unserious. And one of the best ways to do this is to make it seem like we're all just lusting over his good looks.

Yes, it's true, the thirst for Luigi has reached pretty ridiculous heights. The fact of the matter is he's an incredibly attractive man. I'm the first to admit it, and I'm speaking as an asexual person. He hasn't taken a single bad photo throughout all of this; even his mugshots are hot. The smile is adorable, the jawline is strong but not overbearing, those black curls are immaculate. If you're into rock-hard abs and the kind of guns you get in the gym rather than shoot CEO's with, he's got those, too. He's as photogenic as a supermodel with an incredibly expressive face and a lot of charisma.

Does his attractiveness make a him more sympathetic character? Probably. That's how humans are. If the killer was a cute young girl, it would have the same effect. Saying that "no one would care about him" if he were unattractive is inaccurate -- but honestly, anything that further improves public opinion of him is something I approve of, so go ahead and thirst all you want! Just remember to keep it respectful and not prioritize your fantasies over his actual wellbeing. He's a human being, and one who's going through hell right now. Let's not reduce him to a sexual object. Other than that... if talking about how hot he is helps increase public sympathy, then absolutely go for it.

However, I can promise you that the majority of people swooning for him are attracted to a lot more than his looks. It's just that focusing on good looks makes it a little more socially acceptable than the alternative.

As I said above, even I think he's hot -- although only the current version of him. Some of the older pictures that have been circulating appear way too young for me to find attractive. He's only 26 currently, and while I'm not sure how old all of the pictures are, there are some pulled from old social media accounts where he looks like he must only be 18-20. He was a cute enough young boy, who grew into a highly attractive adult man in his mid-20's. And it seems he somehow becomes more attractive every time we see him.

But I'm going to be totally honest here: sometimes I ask myself, if you had shown me a photo of him a month ago, would I have called him hot? If I had no idea who he was, or if he were just a random man or a celebrity, would I personally be attracted to him? The answer is probably not. This is not an insult to his appearance by any means; there's really no world in which I would consider him an un-attractive person. But like a lot of famous men who are widely considered desirable, my reaction to him would have been more along the lines of, "Eh." Simply because looks alone aren't enough for me to be attracted to someone. Approving of a person's character and other traits is the basis of attraction for me, and while looks might also be a necessary part of it, they don't take priority.

Part of this could be related to my asexuality. I have a strong sense of aesthetic attraction, but I'm just not that impressed by looks if they are the only thing I know about a person. I become attracted to someone when their good looks (or even decent looks) are combined with non-physical traits I find attractive, such as personality and character traits, charisma, and talent and stage presence if they're an entertainer.

Asexual or not, I think a lot of people feel similarly. And the people trying to shame us for being attracted to a 'murderer' are missing the point if they think we're just overlooking his act of violence because of his attractiveness.

We aren't attracted to him in spite of him allegedly being The Adjuster. We're attracted to him because he is allegedly The Adjuster.

Now, don't think it's about violence, either. We don't like abusers or power-hungry men who harm others to get a sense of control. We understand those are bad people, and that murder is a bad thing. It's about the context, the underlying reason for what he (allegedly) did. It's about his passion, courage, and willingness to fight for a cause -- a cause we all believe in, too. That is sexy.

If he wore a military uniform instead of the trappings of a vigilante, nobody would admonish us for being attracted to someone who'd taken life. "War heroes" are romanticized all the time, and always have been. That's what Luigi is to us, but instead of a war that serves the military industrial complex, he waged a war against a system that victimizes us for profit.

So yes -- America has romanticized him. And as a symbol of rebellion and hope, it just makes sense for him to be romanticized. It's in our nature to do exactly this. Or, if it isn't natural, then it's definitely societal. Our movies and other works of fiction make it clear that we love heroes who are dashing, handsome, and romantic.

And while I do know there are some women who have a fetish for killers -- usually serial killers -- that is not what's happening here. I've never pretended to understand the serial killer groupies' way of thinking and I do think that fetishizing murder and the type of evil people who usually commit it is gross. But this is a completely different situation, and one that I actually totally understand.

Since this all began, I've compared both Luigi and The Adjuster to several fictional characters and roles. Most notably The Mockingjay from the Hunger Games series, which was a role played by Katniss Everdeen, but was in fact just a symbol created by the leaders of the Rebellion to inspire hope when the people needed it. The day the arrest was made, and people immediately began to dissect his old social media posts and spread gossip about what his political beliefs were, I posted this on Threads: Regardless of what actually ends up being true, The Adjuster is a symbol to the American people, and will remain a symbol. He is our Mockingjay.

But now I want to focus on another symbol of hope: one from my favorite book series, Vampire Empire by Clay and Susan Griffith. The next few paragraphs include mild spoilers for that series, but nothing too serious in case you decide you'd like to read it (which I do recommend, by the way).

This series focuses on a war between humans and vampires in an alternate-history version of the year 2020, where vampires rose up and took over much of the world 150 years prior. While there is a human kingdom as well, living only around the equator where they are relatively safe from vampires due to the weather conditions, it's vampires who are basically the ruling class in their world. They treat humans like cattle, having herds of them that serve only as food.

The Greyfriar is a folk hero, a masked man who is a renowned vampire hunter. Nobody knows his identity, but he's a living legend. He kills vampires regularly, despite them being notoriously difficult to kill. He rescues people from being their prey. And the people love him. They view him as an important figure of the upcoming war, and the only person who can protect them. It's important for them to have someone to latch onto, to give them hope.

And the Greyfriar is romanticized to ridiculous levels, especially after he rescues Adele, the heir to the human empire. A romance between the two characters is immediately created in the minds of the public. Books and plays are written about them, portraying him as handsome and dashing, heroic and protective, romantic and deeply in love with the princess despite her being betrothed to someone else. The fantasy helps keep the people hopeful.

The twist? The Greyfriar is actually a vampire himself. One who turned against his own people to protect the downtrodden. Someone who was from the ruling class in more ways than one -- he's not only a vampire, but a noble one by birth -- who abdicated his role as heir to the kingdom and chose to fight for justice instead. And he was not only a fantasy for women who romanticized him, or young boys who wanted to be like him. He was revered by everyone, man, woman, or child for his selfless acts protecting the vulnerable.

The Adjuster has practically become America's Greyfriar. Regardless of people disparaging Luigi for being born into wealth, he is now a symbol of class war against the rich. Regardless of them disparaging others for swooning over him, he continues to be made into a romantic figure. Regardless of how much people say we shouldn't condone murder, The Adjuster is considered a selfless badass who was the only person brave enough to stand up against a corrupt system.

Luigi himself also has a lot of other (non-physical) traits that are attractive, especially to women. I've seen him referred to as a "man written by a woman" -- a.k.a. a man who has all the traits a female author would give a male main character if she wanted him to represent what women want. Luigi is well-read, highly intelligent, appears to be in tune with his emotions, and surprisingly wholesome for an alleged assassin. There's a photo of him giving somebody a pint of ice cream with a bow tied around it after their original carton was eaten by a roommate. He has a Spotify account that includes a makeout playlist, a Goodreads account with over 200 books that he's read, rated and reviewed, and an old Instagram post of him being goofy on the beach with the caption "Everything is romantic." He played or was learning to play bass. He started his own book club. He apparently had a favorite Pokemon, and the last quote he liked on Goodreads was a highly appropriate quote from Dr. Suess' The Lorax:

Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
Nothing's going to get better. It's not.

Not to mention the passion. The conviction. The integrity. The bravery. The self-sacrifice. The strength it took to do what he allegedly did, even knowing the consequences.

You'll never be able to convince me that he thought he could 'get away with it' or that he wasn't smart enough to dispose of evidence -- he was a damn Ivy League valedictorian. The evidence against him, if real, tells me that getting away with it was never part of the plan. The shell casings with the motive written on them. The backpack full of Monopoly money left nearby as a clue. The fact that he still had his fake ID, the murder weapon, and a manifesto on him when he was apprehended 5 days later and almost 300 miles away. He might have actually been able to get away with it if he'd wanted to, but it doesn't seem like he wanted to. He knew he was going to be caught eventually, and he felt it was worth it to send the message. He sacrificed his freedom, wealth, and privilege, and resigned himself to a life in prison for this.

Most of us do not possess this level of self-sacrifice, even those who like to brag that they'd do "anything" to protect the ones they love.

Imagine that, instead of a vigilante fighting a corrupt system, Luigi was a father with a young daughter. Imagine that young daughter had been assaulted by another man, and the justice system refused to punish him, so he took matters into his own hands. Would you blame him then? Would you condemn a father for murdering his own child's abuser?

Vigilante justice such as this has been praised for as long as I can remember, but for most men, it's only a fantasy. Most men (and people in general) wouldn't actually step up and sacrifice themselves in order to protect or avenge their loved ones, much less a total stranger or the general public.

This man stepped up.

He took one for the entire team. I saw someone say "He fell on the sword for all of us," which I think is a great way to describe it.

If the concept of "alpha males" was actually legit, Luigi would be the alpha male. For the record, I don't believe that concept is legit, but Luigi is basically everything the self-proclaimed alphas wish they were: brave, strong, masculine, handsome, fit, intelligent, successful, confident, a protector who takes charge, etc. While also having personality traits that women actually like.

And yet many of the weird alpha bros, who themselves claim that all of these traits are what make a "real man," are complaining about Luigi being so popular with women. Why? Part of it could be that they're jealous someone like him naturally possesses all the qualities they and the people they look up to (such as Andrew Tate, for instance) have to work so hard to convince people they have. But mostly, I think it's just because his popularity poses a danger to the systems they uphold.

Strangely, or maybe not so strangely when you take jealousy into account, these same detractors try to paint him as some sort of cowardly punk, call him gay like it's an insult because they haven't grown beyond a middle-school level of maturity, and imply that he looks unmanly or like a 'twink' in old pictures where he was practically still a boy (while conveniently ignoring the smoldering mugshots and video clips taken just this month). While they do their best to paint him as unmasculine -- because that's somehow the worst possible insult to them -- almost every single person who's attracted to masculinity knows that it's dripping from his pores.

Yet more examples of how those who want to discredit the idea of revolution will begin by tearing down the man who helped to spark it.

They're also frequently posting about their disturbing prison rape fantasies due to Luigi being 'pretty.' Something that never even crossed my mind because, in addition to the fact that I don't fantasize about people being raped, there is absolutely no way the other inmates in prison won't have an immense amount of respect for him after what he did. The crime he committed is basically at the very top of the hierarchy of crimes, and the person he committed it against earns him even more street cred. We've already seen an example of this as fellow inmates where he was held in Pennsylvania shouted the catchphrase "Free Luigi!" to reporters being filmed outside the jail.

Additionally, have you seen the clips and photos they've been spreading around to show us how 'dangerous' he is? While I absolutely don't believe he's a danger to everyday individuals, he certainly pulls off the steely-eyed look extremely well. Not to mention the return to New York and the dramatic 'perp walk,' where he held his head high, walked with confidence, and practically winked at the camera a time or two with his discreet facial expressions, including the tongue-in-cheek signal that I've seen people say was the Italian way of saying "f*ck you" to the media -- after all, his lawyer in Pennsylvania had apparently told him not to say anything else verbally after the "completely out of touch" clip made the news. You could tell he was probably rolling his eyes internally during the parade in New York, but he kept his expressions surprisingly neutral, looking only mildly annoyed and a bit bored. Still, he handled it all very admirably and with composure. He looked poised and determined, and definitely like a man who can hold his own.

He's not just pretty. He's a complete badass, which is why he has the respect of men, women, and all others who support justice -- including lesbians and straight dudes. So trying to reduce him to just an attractive face is not only an insult, it's just plain incorrect.

Luigi Mangione is the most badass person in America. Nobody is going to mess with him in prison.

If this man were not a sexy assassin in real life, he could absolutely play one in the movies. And audiences would love his character because he's a man of action and integrity, with a strong sense of justice. So don't be surprised when we love him in real life too.

To those still clinging to the "violence is never the answer" position: I myself am dependably non-violent. I won't even kill bugs unless it's in self-defense. I have actually sat staring at a scorpion in my apartment for over an hour because I was having trouble coming to terms with the idea of having to kill it. And then I said a prayer for it afterward. I'm the literal definition of "wouldn't hurt a fly." But I absolutely, 100%, understand why Luigi (allegedly) thought this assassination was for the good of humanity.

I've seen a Martin Luther King Jr. quote passed around a few times recently: "Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." While I agree with this sentiment, the implication, which I don't agree with, is that violence is always committed out of hatred. Sometimes, violence -- especially vigilante violence -- is an act of radical love. Violence against abusers is almost exclusively committed out of love for the abused.

It is not the same as a hate crime or violence committed in the name of one's own self-interests. I don't know how many times over the years I have had to explain the concept of punching up vs. punching down to self-righteous people angry at leftists for not being 'peaceful' enough; but the same concept applies here. Luigi, or whoever the Adjuster is, knew to punch up and not down.

I don't believe that he enjoyed or took pleasure in doing what he did. From everything we know, he isn't someone who killed for fun or who simply had a disdain for humanity. He didn't target women, any marginalized group, or random strangers; and he made sure there was no collateral damage in the form of innocent people being harmed. He simply viewed it as the necessary, or -- as strange as it sounds -- morally correct thing to do. His supposed manifesto said, "I do apologize for any strife or traumas, but it had to be done."

I'm not saying that he shouldn't face any consequences. If he is, in fact, the killer, then he did do something wrong, and he knew there would be consequences and was ready to face them. But if you ask me, he should absolutely be looking at fewer consequences than your average murderer based on how understandable his actions were. If public opinion had anything to do with it, he'd get off pretty easily. Of course, we know this won't be the case, because the system protects itself, and they have made Public Enemy #1 out of him for taking down one of their own.

I'm curious how many other murder victims in New York have ever received this level of effort to find and punish their killer. How many poor, homeless, or "unimportant" people have been shot in the same city and basically had their murder swept under the rug? Not to mention how swiftly they've been able to move him through the court process so far. An amazing contrast to how much they dragged their feet when it came to Donald Trump's trial. It's painfully clear which group of people the system protects. While we already knew that was the case, they are making it even more obvious now; they're not even trying to hide it at all. In fact, it seems like they're trying to make sure the message gets through, to exert their dominance.

I've actually been friends with murderers before. Due to the field I work in, and my company hiring felons, I've worked with so many people who've been locked up for various things. Mostly drug charges and other stupid things people have done while on drugs; but one of my old coworkers did 18 years for murder. He did his time, then got out and re-integrated into the outside world -- and was the nicest guy. He didn't seem to have any remorse for what he did, as he felt it had been justified. I didn't ask many questions -- all I know is that he killed a gang member -- but I trusted this coworker and felt safe around him, and just assumed that there had been circumstances that probably made his actions justified.

I do believe that good people sometimes do bad things -- and sometimes they have to do bad in order to do good.

I believe Luigi is a good person, too. I don't know him personally, but from everything I do know, I believe that, despite doing a bad thing, his intentions were pure. While he might not have remorse for what he did, it probably doesn't feel good to him either, and that's something he'll always have to live with. But it's a sacrifice he willingly made for what he saw as the betterment of the world.

I also don't feel it's my place to judge him for doing something just because I know that I couldn't bring myself to do it.

Our healthcare system is so notoriously bad that I've seen people from other countries express their disbelief that we haven't had an uprising over it already. Other countries, who are at all educated about the U.S., know that this is long overdue. Other countries, like France for instance, have a lot more experience in holding their government accountable; it's time the U.S. learned from them.

Additionally, the movement The Adjuster started is worldwide now as well, with "Free Luigi" and "Deny Defend Depose" graffiti popping up in places like Peru, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Germany, and Italy (with his name followed by the words "our hero" in Italian), as well as all across the U.S.

Americans have this fantasy about being a civilized and polite society, but the truth is, we are not. We just elected Donald Trump for the second time. And not just Trump himself, we gave control to a political party that wants to give him unlimited power and enact some very scary laws via Project 2025. The idea of democracy in the United States might very well die in a couple of months.

Violence is already celebrated and glorified in this country, but only if it's committed by certain people (cops, the military, the 1%), or against certain people (BLM protesters, women, the LGBTQIA+ community). Violence is about as American as they say apple pie is. But the only type of violence that is allowed to be celebrated is the kind that punches down.

In the same city, the same week the CEO was gunned down, a white man was acquitted after murdering an unarmed, homeless Black man who had a mental health crisis on public transportation. He's being lauded as a "hero" by the same exact people who are upset at us for calling The Adjuster a hero. Because his brand of violence punched down.

A few years ago, Kyle Rittenhouse, another white male, was also called a hero and acquitted after having his mother drive him, and a firearm he wasn't even legally allowed to own, to a Black Lives Matter protest in a state where he didn't even live, so he could "protect" a bunch of buildings and inanimate objects. After killing two people with his illegally-possessed gun, he claimed "self-defense" and the right wing ate it up. Some of them even said they wanted to elect him president. Because his brand of violence punched down.

It's rare that any shooter who makes the news isn't punching down. We're so used to seeing gun violence in this country that we're desensitized to it; but it's usually against children in school, women who were targeted by a misogynistic man, Jews in a synagogue, people in a majority Black church, or queer people at a dance club. Occasionally there might be something that seems a little more random, like a music festival or a movie theater.

And of course, let's not forget the state-sanctioned violence against Palestine, and any other country of which the U.S. has helped fund the genocide and destruction.

But apparently it's shocking when the victim of gun violence is somebody rich and powerful, who, through completely legal means, has been committing acts of violence against the lower class for years.

Americans might want to believe that revolution and vigilante justice against the elite are things that only happen in less-civilized "third world" countries. People think it's something that can't happen here, only in places far from home, or at least far back in history, where it doesn't have to disturb our everyday lives. But then they gleefully vote in people like Trump whose policies are basically acts of violence toward many minority groups, just as United Healthcare's policies are acts of violence. They've created a dystopia, but they act surprised when people commit dystopian acts of resistance.

I'm not implying that The Adjuster committed this crime because of Trump. As already stated, we don't actually know what his political beliefs are like, and the assassination was very obviously a statement against the insurance industry, not any particular political entity. I also have no idea what the dead CEO's politics were like. He definitely wasn't a leftist, but there's every possibility he was a Democrat and not a right-winger. There are plenty of rich a-holes who are Democrats. It doesn't matter because this had nothing to do with political parties or left vs. right.

But what I will say is that he's a very smart man for choosing to do what he did a month after Election Day when the country is more primed for revolution than it's ever been.

I don't know if it will happen anytime soon. A full-blown revolution could still take decades to happen. It has to happen when everyone is actually ready to fully get on board, or else it will be sure to fail. If we want it to be successful, rushing into it without a large enough percentage willing to commit to it is just unwise. That's why it seems like we keep starting revolutions but never finishing them. Eventually, though, enough of these events will happen to push everyone over the edge. People think we forget about them because they stop making news, but we don't; not really. We internalize them and every single one that occurs makes us more angry than we've ever been before. They build up, piling one on top of the other. Eventually, there will be no more room for them.

One thing is for sure: we are living through historical events right now.

And I have a feeling that when the revolution eventually does come, people will remember this moment in time as one of the events that kicked it off. Luigi -- or whoever The Adjuster was -- is simply ahead of his time.

As of writing this, it's honestly looking like they're planning to execute him. They trumped up his charges to include terrorism, which is a federal crime, making him eligible for the death penalty despite New York no longer allowing capital punishment. School shootings, hate crimes, and insurrection against the Capitol didn't count as terrorism, but apparently shooting one CEO does. They are trying to make an example out of him to scare the rest of us into submission. They want to make sure nothing like this happens again.

Ironic, isn't it? The people who condemn him for killing a man who killed other people also want to kill him for killing another person.

But it could backfire on them. He has a great lawyer and she's going to do everything she can for him. It's obvious they're overcharging him just to make an example of him, which could get the charges thrown out or the jury nullified. And if not, the people will sympathize with Luigi even more. Our hearts are aching for him and what he's going through. We already view him as a martyr, but if they execute him, he'll be a literal martyr. They're trying so hard to contain the fire that's catching, but they're throwing fuel on it in the process. They paraded him back to New York with dozens of police officers and the mayor at his side to show off how dangerous he is, and all it did was make him look like the coolest person to ever exist.

Regardless of the outcome of his trial, I know that I will always carry Luigi in my heart, and so will many others.

If he isn't the actual assassin, then he's an innocent man who's enduring all of this with incredible composure, and helping to spark a revolution that wasn't even his idea.

If he is The Adjuster, then he's the only person who had the guts to sacrifice his life, privilege, and everything he had going for him, to make a statement that was heard around the world.

Either one makes him alright with me.

tags: the adjuster