debunking the authenticity of the manifesto the manifesto attributed to luigi mangione raises significant doubts about its authenticity. its tone, structure, and narrative inconsistencies, when compared to mangione's known personality and writing style, strongly suggest it may be fabricated or altered to fit a convenient narrative. below is a detailed analysis of the reasons why the manifesto appears fake: 1. stark disparity in writing style  manifesto: the tone is highly emotional, angry, and hyperbolic, with statements like, "all extractors must be forced to swallow the bitter pain they deal out to millions."  known writings: mangiones academic paper and tweets reflect a thoughtful, analytical, and composed tone. for example, in his academic paper, he systematically argues, "christianity appealed to the lower classes because it offered moral justice, fellowship, mystery, and otherworldly promises."  conclusion: the manifestos raw and impulsive language clashes with the intellectual depth and measured tone found in mangiones other writings. 2. overly theatrical and manufactured tone  the manifesto uses extreme dramatization, such as comparing personal suffering to acts of war. for instance, "this threat to my own health... requires me to respond with an act of war."  this language feels exaggerated, as if designed to provoke outrage and fit the profile of a radicalized individual.  genuine emotional writings tend to be messy and inconsistent, while the manifesto reads like a crafted piece intended to elicit a specific response.
United States