Okay I was down to give this author benefit of the doubt on this until he turned it into a hit piece against Mamdani.

The most prominent political figure to flirt with Luigism is arguably Zohran Mamdani, the man most likely to be New York City’s next mayor. One of Mamdani’s top aides lauded the UnitedHealthcare CEO’s killer. And Mamdani himself has called the NYPD “wicked and corrupt,” argued that “queer liberation means defund the police,” and pledged to disband the department’s Strategic Response Group—the very unit that responded to Monday’s shooting.

Pair that with the millennial socialist’s position that billionaires should not exist and private property ought to be abolished, and his defense of chants to “globalize the Intifada.” It’s all rooted in the same moral arithmetic that for others justifies violence based on identity and class status. Mamdani doesn’t explicitly endorse murder, of course, and he condemned Monday’s killings. But the radical politics he champions seem to have made it thinkable to others.

The “globalize the Intifada” piece is specifically a dogwhistle ginned up by the AIPAC-funded mainstream media that is scared of Mamdani’s success. Mamdani has clarified over and over again that “Intifada” just means anti-colonial resistance, and so it is essentially a more general way of saying “free Palestine”. The author spends two paragraphs here and ultimately concludes “well he doesn’t actually endorse political violence”. Okay, so then if you are saying that “Luigism” is essentially justification of class violence, why did you say “The most prominent political figure to flirt with Luigism is arguably Zohran Mamdani”?

Oh yeah, and that author?

Big time Zionist.

This is just more anti-socialist, Zionist scare tactics. Fear each other instead of fearing the billionaires that would kill 10,000 people without a second thought if it meant making more money.

The author might consider whether rampant inequality of opportunity and broad lack of personal autonomy could explain why the ‘dark undercurrent’ they suspect is simply a rational reaction to a world where the basic social contract has been abandoned by corporations and governments.

This grotesque display is part of a broader trend of class rage and Internet nihilism that justifies violence by turning innocent victims into scapegoats for moral fury. The permission structure for such ghoulishness is now fully operational. What were once the disturbing mutterings of the fringe are now public, performative, and proudly cruel.

I take issue with the author in this statement. I’m not sure how I feel about the murder of Brian Thompson but characterizing someone who commits mass murder with a pen as “innocent” is just incorrect. Committing an act that knowingly and intentionally causes unnecessary death for profit is murder, even when abstracted behind illegitimate claim denials.