Author: HP McLovincraft

Seeker of rabbit holes. Pessimist. Libertine. Contrarian. Your huckleberry. Possibly true tales of sanity-blasting horror also known as abject reality. Prepare yourself. Veteran of a thousand psychic wars. I have seen the fnords. Deplatformed on Tumblr and Twitter.

Outcome Of Alaska Senate Race May Not Be Known For Weeks

The outcome of a tightly contested and controversial U.S. Senate race in Alaska may not be known until the end of the month or later.

U.S. Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, a Republican, is making a bid for a third six-year term. As of 1400ET today, he trails former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola, a Democrat, by 637 votes with 74% of ballots counted. He has 102,325 votes to her 102,962.

The race has been the focus of controversy after The New York Times reported that Peltola’s campaign helped recruit a candidate with the same name as Sullivan in an apparent attempt to confuse voters. She has denied doing that.

Twenty-three percent of votes have yet to be tallied. Even when they are, the narrow margin separating the candidates means that the outcome may be decided not at the state’s polling sites but through the mail via absentee and questioned ballots.

In the previous midterm congressional election four years ago, Alaska officials said they received 9,143 in-person absentee ballots and 8,009 questioned ballots. Two years ago, in the presidential election, state officials reported receiving 18,158 in-person absentee ballots and 15,138 questioned ballots. Voters can ask for a mail-in ballot and still vote in person, so the number of outstanding votes in the state’s general elections in 2022 and 2024 is unclear.

Steve Kirch, public relations manager for the state’s division of elections, did not immediately return an interview request.

What is clear is the 49th state’s deadline for counting all votes.

By Nov. 13, absentee ballots from the 50 states plus its territories as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa should have arrived and must be postmarked by Nov. 3. By Nov. 18, all ballots from overseas addresses must be received and postmarked by Election Day. By Nov. 19, the State Review Board begins its review of election materials, and by Nov. 25, state officials expect to certify the election results.

In addition, Alaska has ranked choice voting. Peltola or Sullivan will need to receive more than 50 percent of the first-choice votes after officials have counted them all. If neither does, the last-place candidate is eliminated. Then, state officials redistribute that candidate’s ballots according to voters’ second and subsequent choices. The process continues until a candidate receives a majority, or 50% plus one vote.

Despite the state’s deadlines, federal officials may complicate them.

The Justice Department has sent a target letter to prominent Democratic elections attorney Marc Elias asking about his possible involvement in petitioning a retired teacher by the name of Dan J. Sullivan to run for Alaska’s Senate seat, according to the Associated Press.

Audrey Cook, a spokesman for the Justice Department, told The Center Square that the agency “cannot discuss ongoing investigations.”

Keep reading

They’re Baaacck: The Rogue AIs will continue until regulation improves.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back on the web – the Rogue AI agents are back, those cheeky little scamps, and getting up to their old tricks.

That’s according to OpenAI, anyway, and why would they lie?

It’s  suddenly been a busy week or so on the AI front, with Anthropic publishing their (very, very dull) report on their supposed rogue AI “break out”.

Apparently one of their agents submitted a fake homicide tip to the Philadelphia Police Department. Another submitted 20 visa applications to the department of immigration.

The New York Times is reporting on a group called the “Swarmchasers” – who, it should be underlined, are totally real – and how they diligently track and trace Chinese-made AI agents

As result of this, a New York Times reporter allegedly had a conversation with a swarm of rogue AI, which is being pitched as something out of Tron, rather than an e-mail exchange with a chat-bot.

AI models are turning, Frankenstein-style, on the their creators and throwing companies into chaos.

Fortune is concerned about, what else?, the lack of regulation of the AI race and how models are out pacing our ability to control them.

And when it comes to stupid panicky lowest-common-denominator nonsense, you just can’t beat Fox News:

AI could go rogue. Washington needs answers to these five questions ASAP!

We’ve even got a little multi-polar action in this go-around, with both India and China reporting new cases of unauthorised AI activity.

Seth Boro, Managing Partner of Thoma Bravo LLC, told Bloomberg he expects “rogue AI agents to persist” and that “artificial intelligence buildout will only be possible if proper cybersecurity measures are in place, especially at the consumer level.”

What are “proper cybersecurity measures”, you ask? I dunno, he doesn’t specify.

The smart money is on something that involves scanning your face, fingerprints, DNA or credit card, but that’s just playing the percentages.

Keep reading

Pfizer COVID-19 Shot Recipients Show Higher Death Risk Than Moderna Counterpart

A major new peer-reviewed study from Florida has found a significant difference in mortality outcomes between two major COVID-19 shots. Adults who received the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) shot showed a higher risk of death from any cause over 12 months compared to those who received the Moderna (mRNA-1273) shot.

The study tracked nearly two million Florida adults who received their first dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine between December 2020 and August 2021. Researchers compared mortality outcomes over the following year, matching participants by age, sex, race, ethnicity, vaccination month, vaccination site type, and neighborhood.

A stark pattern emerged, showing a disparity most severe among patients 60 and older. The Pfizer cohort experienced 784 deaths per 100,000 compared to 562 among Moderna recipients, a 40% higher risk. The analysis also showed particularly alarming gaps in cardiovascular fatalities (up 57%) and COVID-19-related deaths (up 91%), while non-COVID mortality was also significantly elevated at 37% higher.

The Gateway Pundit spoke to Nicholas Hulscher—an Epidemiologist and Administrator at the McCullough Foundation—expanded on the study’s findings.

First, applying the study’s 40 percent higher all-cause mortality hazard to an assumed 150 million U.S. Pfizer recipients and a baseline annual mortality rate of 0.87 percent, he calculated 522,000 potential excess deaths.

“That’s a hypothetical extrapolation of over half a million excess deaths from Pfizer alone,” he explained.

Hulscher then offered a more conservative estimate using the study’s absolute mortality difference: 221 additional deaths per 100,000 Pfizer recipients. This calculation yielded “331,500 additional deaths—if what we saw in Florida holds nationwide.”

Keep reading

Flu Vaccine Studies: Pseudo-Randomized or Untrustworthy Results?

The validity of a study, or a series of studies, may be questioned by several methods, one of which is identifying unexpected results. Consider the following example, which I used to teach in an introductory epidemiology course.

Having yellow-stained fingers is associated with lung cancer, but we know that the association does not reflect causality. Yellow-stained fingers do not cause lung cancer. Rather, the association is explained by smoking — a confounder — a cause of both yellow fingers and lung cancer.

Suppose a group of researchers reported that the association in question was not removed after adjustment for smoking status. Obviously, something is wrong, either in the data or in the way it was analyzed. Regardless of the reason, we will not trust any inference from that study, including the estimated effect of smoking. It is equivalent to rejecting a witness’s entire testimony after detecting a single relevant lie. That’s an analogy, of course, not a claim about intentional lying by the researchers.

Keep reading

Investigation Exposes America’s Growing Cancer Crisis And Reveals Where It’s Worst

A growing cancer crisis is gripping younger generations across the United States as increasing numbers of Americans in their 20s, 30s and 40s are being diagnosed with diseases once overwhelmingly associated with older adults, according to an analysis conducted by the Daily Mail.

A 2025 National Cancer Institute study identified 14 types of cancer with rising rates among Americans under 50, while alarming new maps reveal where the disease is striking hardest. Roughly three out of four Americans diagnosed with colorectal cancer before age 50 already have advanced-stage disease, according to the American Cancer Society’s 2026 statistics. Colorectal cancer rates among adults ages 20 to 49 have been climbing approximately 3% annually, while rates among Americans 65 and older have been falling.

The findings have left some of the nation’s leading cancer researchers confronting an increasingly urgent question: What is driving this troubling rise in cancer among younger Americans?

Breast cancer rates are especially high among younger women in parts of the Northeast and East Coast, while colorectal cancer increases stretch from California and the Pacific Northwest to Florida.

Pancreatic cancer presents an even more troubling picture, with rates among Americans under 50 climbing nearly 3% annually and increases recorded across much of the South, Midwest and East Coast.

Keep reading

Till Death Do Us Part: The Unholy Matrimony Between the US and Israel

The standard narrative of American foreign policy has long rested on the pillar of moral exceptionalism: the assertion that the United States acts as a global guardian of human rights, international law and democratic governance.

However, Washington’s support for the ongoing holocaust in the occupied Gaza Strip, West Bank and unlawful war on Iran have exposed glaring contradictions at the heart of this narrative.  They reveal the true character of a political system defined not by its lofty noble declarations, but by its iniquitous decisions and actions.

These inequalities accentuate the true nature of U.S. geopolitics; essentially that human rights ideals are of little account to predatory imperial powers.

For over a century, the subjugation of Palestine and West Asia has been orchestrated through a legacy of colonial bigotry and pro-Zionist geopolitical engineering.  The region has been treated not as home to sovereign peoples but as an imperial chessboard ripe for exploitation.

The wars throughout the region, particularly on Palestine and Iran, are the culmination of imperial agendas set in motion a century ago.  The current geopolitical course began with the stroke of a pen set to the Balfour Declaration in 1917, in which a distant European empire casually bartered away a homeland that was not theirs to give.  This colonizing scheme reached its peak in the 1996 “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” document – a stratagem advanced by American neoconservatives and Zionist hardliners to reshape West Asia in Israel’s image.

Together these imperial blueprints established frameworks for domination that have led the region and global community to the precipice of disaster.

Underpinning these policies is a deeply-rooted colonial chauvinism that views the indigenous people of the region as obstacles to be displaced, managed or crushed, rather than human beings with inalienable rights to freedom, self-determination and dignity.

When examined across a century, the trajectory from Balfour to “Clean Break”  demonstrates a consistent structural logic. Whether foreign powers use imperial decrees, global mandates, diplomatic accords or military force, the goal is always the same: to secure and maintain control, fundamentally disregarding the rights of the native populations to govern themselves.

The bilateral partnership with Israel, originally formed to secure its existence, has now become a strategic liability.  The Israel that once proved useful to Washington as its regional enforcer, now seems to be in the catbird seat.

The eventual subordination of American foreign policy to Israeli strategic ambitions is not a historic accident, but the predictable outcome of a powerful deeply-entrenched military-industrial-security nexus that long ago equated regional dominance with U.S. national interests.

What began as a Cold War strategy to project American power across West Asia without a large-scale troop presence, has evolved into an institutionalized, self-perpetuating deadly alliance, in which the balance of control has become blurred.

Decades of deeply-entrenched military, intelligence and industrial ties with Tel Aviv have created an institutional inertia so powerful that Washington now reflexively accepts global criticism, regional anger and multi-trillion-dollar detours into foreign interventions as a matter of course – as a worthy price to pay for their “special relationship.”

Instead of exerting its strategic agency over a client state, the United States has become captive to Israeli dogmatism, which asserts that anything less than unconditional support signals U.S. weakness and vulnerability.  Consequently, this has fallen on American taxpayers to subsidize and service members to fight  military campaigns that compromise the nation’s interests and long-term stability.

Adding to this geopolitical trap is a domestic political echo chamber engineered to penalize flexibility and alternative strategies, while rewarding absolute conformity and compliance with Israeli objectives.

The alliance with Israel is so thoroughly embedded in the American body politic that it functions as a “third rail” of U.S. foreign policy and public discourse.  It remains above criticism through a combination of highly organized influential lobbying groups, massive political campaign financing schemes, a powerful evangelical voting bloc, and weaponization of the anti-Semitic label.

When paired with a deeply-ingrained pro-Israel media and cultural narrative that frames regional escalation as inevitable, rather than preventable, Washington’s political class most often chooses the safety of domestic capitulation over the discipline of sovereign statecraft, guaranteeing political submission to Israeli goading.

The result is a chronically unsettled America perpetually drawn into Israel’s expansionist wars.  This involvement is driven not by clear strategic necessity, but by a systemic inability in Washington to break free from domestic pressures and external mandates.

From the colonial promises of the Balfour Declaration to the “Clean Break” document, Israel has consistently prioritized expansionism over international law, formal agreements and even the strategic interests of its closest ally and main benefactor, the United States.

A core folly in Washington’s Israel/West Asian policy has been in treating a strategic burden as an indispensable ally.

Prioritizing the regional ambitions of a hegemonic foreign “ally” over core U.S. interests have entangled America in Israel’s reckless wars and conflicts.  Decades of blank-check diplomacy have inflamed anti-American sentiment, compromised its global credibility, strained vital alliances, and drained finite military and economic resources that would be better directed toward urgent domestic needs.

Paradoxically, the imperial strategies meant to safeguard Israel at the expense of West Asia are now taking a toll on America as well.  The United States will not, and cannot, recover its strategic autonomy and moral leadership unless it makes a clean break from its damaging relationship with Israel.

Keep reading

The Politics of Denial: When Americans Stop Seeing the Warning Signs

“You see them on the street. You watch them on TV. You might even vote for one this fall. You think they’re people just like you. You’re wrong. Dead wrong.” — They Live

The spectacle of public executions. Deadly military strikes on foreign countries. Innocent civilian lives lost to war. Aggressive ICE raids. Government officials accused of using their powers to intimidate political opponents. Public office increasingly entangled with private financial interests.  Government leaders who glorify violence, spew hatred, stir up racial prejudice, provoke civil unrest, and stoke discontent.

This is what it looks like when a nation loses its way.

When cruelty is mistaken for courage, vengeance for justice, and the taking of human life for a demonstration of strength.

When government officials tell you not to believe your own eyes and ears about the state of the world around you, when they insist that the truth is a lie and the lie is truth, you’ve stumbled into a dystopian reality in which, as John Lennon rightly concluded, the government is “being run by maniacs for maniacal ends.”

When so-called Christians and self-professed defenders of morality insist that we must accept the lesser of two evils based on exaggerated fears of what might happen if their political opponents gain power, rather than confront the abuses unfolding before our eyes, remember this: the lesser of two evils is still evil.

This is not simply about Donald Trump.

The machinery of the American police state has been assembled over decades, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Presidents have expanded executive authority, waged undeclared wars, authorized drone killings, built surveillance networks, militarized domestic policing, and invoked national security to justify extraordinary powers.

What makes the present moment so troubling is the extent to which the public is encouraged to accept increasingly aggressive exercises of government power as necessary demonstrations of strength and resolve.

The Constitution was never intended to protect only the innocent, the popular, the patriotic, or the politically acceptable. Its restraints on government power matter most when the government is dealing with people whom society has already condemned.

Yet what happens when the public becomes so accustomed to government overreach, corruption and brutality that it no longer recognizes them as warning signs? What becomes of a constitutional republic when its leaders and citizens stop asking whether government actions are lawful, justified or necessary, and concern themselves only with whether those actions punish their enemies, advance their political interests or preserve their sense of security?

We are witnessing a political culture in which demanding due process for an accused criminal is treated as defending criminality, questioning a military strike is equated with sympathy for the enemy, and opposing government cruelty is portrayed as weakness.

The government doesn’t have to abolish the Constitution outright when it can persuade the public that certain people should no longer be entitled to its protections.

That is how constitutional rights cease to be rights at all and become privileges granted or withdrawn at the government’s discretion.

And that is how a population becomes conditioned to accept the unacceptable.

We’re living in two worlds.

There’s the world we see—or are made to see—and then there’s the one we sense and occasionally catch a glimpse of, which bears little resemblance to the propaganda-driven reality manufactured by those in power and amplified through an increasingly fragmented media landscape.

Indeed, what most Americans perceive as life in America—privileged, progressive and free—is a far cry from the reality of a nation where economic inequality persists, government power continues to expand, and freedom is increasingly subjected to the demands of surveillance, security and control.

All is not as it seems.

Monsters with human faces walk among us.

Some of them wield extraordinary government power.

Keep reading

France’s Debt Crisis Could Trigger A Much Bigger European Meltdown

France’s present economic woes signal serious trouble ahead for the coherence of the European Union. On Wednesday evening, the French National Assembly unanimously rejected the government’s proposed budget, provoking further fears in the bond market. A couple of weeks ago, it was reported that the French government’s budget deficit now stood at 5.1 per cent, the worst it had been for nearly a quarter of a century. Its national debt now stands at over 115 percent of its GDP. Last Friday, the credit ratings agency Fitch downgraded the outlook for France from stable to negative. How close might we be to a French default?

There are precious few good options for dealing with such a scenario. Permitting a country of France’s magnitude to default would undoubtedly undermine international confidence in the Euro, at a time when most EU economies have been struggling under the weight of multiple pressures. However, the only possible means of preventing a sovereign default would be a bailout from the European Central Bank. This option would place an immense burden on Germany and would hit savers there hard. While bailing Greece out in 2010, 2012 and 2015 was considered a necessary course of action to stabilise international markets and save the Eurozone, the prospect of having to do the same for France could prove a bridge too far.

For its part, the German economy has also been under immense pressure for several years, particularly as the industrial sector has suffered under the dual burden of extensive Green regulations, enacted during the high water mark of climate politics during the late 2010s and early 2020s, and geopolitical crises such as the Russia-Ukraine war and the US-Israeli war with Iran and the turmoil in the Straits of Hormuz.

It appears increasingly possible that Marine Le Pen might win the French Presidential election next May. But even if that does happen, would she be able to meaningfully address France’s economic woes or would she be forced to comply with the EU? She has at present promised to cut French public spending to below 50 per cent of GDP by 2032. Yet even relatively modest measures to cut spending tend to be met with fierce protest, making the issue a particularly thorny one for politicians of any stripe. France has of course for several weeks been rocked by widespread protests, rioting and looting as the social fabric frays. Regular politics appears to offer few solutions.

The instability of the political system is evident in the fact that five Prime Ministers have served under President Macron since 2022. It must be noted that this is not a uniquely French problem. In fact, the same effect can be observed both inside and outside the EU as a kind of ‘vortex effect’ seems to be in operation as the postwar era comes to a close and we enter a kind of interregnum before the new era emerges. For those taking the broader historical view, a number of political, economic and social cycles are coming to an end at roughly the same time. And while it is true that modern mass democracies tend to be characterised by a short political cycle and a high time preference among decision makers, these processes have sped up even more as governments repeatedly break down and instability mounts. The larger question is whether any leader can emerge who can break free from this vortex effect or whether the pattern is doomed to repeat until the system breaks down entirely.

The world has been moving away from globalism and towards a more multinodal, ‘nationalist’ arrangement. Yet despite this, even many of the major populist and nationalist political parties and leaders across the West are still operating within the general envelope of the postwar consensus. As the case of Italy under Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni illustrates, even in those countries where such parties have won elections and formed governments, significant change from the prior globalist status quo has not been forthcoming.

This makes it more likely that the present collection of nationalist parties across the EU and elsewhere does not in fact represent the final form that nationalist politics will take. It is quite likely that the longer the present period of turbulence persists, the more hardline political options will emerge. Certainly, if the present political establishment continues to double down on the failed strategic imperatives of yesterday they will only stiffen the very opposition they claim to oppose, running the risk of further and greater crises.

While the integrity of the Euro as both a concept and a practical reality remains the most pressing issue for the immediate coherence of the EU, it is important to keep an eye on other political pressure points too. For instance, the present political and constitutional crisis in Poland will prove a major stress test for the EU. The outcome of the conflict between pro-EU Prime Minister Donald Tusk and the nationalist opposition rallying around President Karol Nawrocki will provide an important indication as to how the globalist-nationalist dynamic could develop across the EU more widely.

Longer-term, all global indicators appear to suggest the ascendance of nationalism and the waning of globalism. The outcome of the Polish crisis could either slightly delay or accelerate this process in Europe. Poland is of growing geostrategic significance in Europe. Its economy is one of the few within the EU that has actually grown significantly over the last few years, while its central bank has in recent years pursued a policy of gold acquisition that now places the country amongst the top ten national gold holdings in the world, standing at over 630 tonnes. As I predicted in my risk report Europe 2026, the Central European region – comprising Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary – could over time begin to assume an even more significant regional power unit within Europe. This possibility would also be affected by the outcome of the present war between Ukraine and Russia, which will obviously have a major impact on the broader strategic landscape of the continent as a whole.

Keep reading

The Midterms and AI’s Credibility Problem

To the extent that the midterms were a referendum on artificial intelligence (AI), Dario Amodei should take the results personally. The Anthropic CEO has become the face of an industry with extraordinary potential—and of the creepy, apocalyptic messaging that makes Americans distrust it.

AI was not the focal point of the election. But the industry risks drawing exactly the wrong lesson from public skepticism: that Americans are rejecting the technology itself.

There is a difference between opposing AI and distrusting the people who insist it could destroy humanity while racing to sell it to you. Some of the industry’s most prominent executives seem determined to erase that distinction, serving up own-goals against their own interests.

Chief among them is Amodei, the founder and CEO of Anthropic, which is set to go public in the coming weeks.

Amodei has become the face of AI doomerism while simultaneously leading the company through a potential multi-trillion-dollar IPO. Make that make sense. He is on the frontier of building critical software, while simultaneously panicking the masses with frightening sentiments about the very product he is advancing. The electorate has interpreted this very bluntly and rationally. An honest observer may be led to ask, “Perhaps we should be afraid of this stuff and turn it off?”

I am unapologetically pro-AI, but that has come from dedicating lots of time and energy to understanding the positive implications of innovation. When these companies build products and services that help to amplify human productivity and prosperity, they should be applauded. But they’ve become a hard team to root for.

The constant doomer signaling is becoming insufferable. Virtually every week, you’ll see major AI executives going on prime-time television and whining about their own technology. Yet the second the TV hit ends, they go back to racing to develop and commercialize the technology. The schizophrenic nature of AI messaging and actions from these Bay Area tech bros like Amodei has led to a deep level of distrust across the ideological spectrum.

Instead of deploying effective and truthful rhetoric to build public confidence, they are fomenting an obvious credibility problem with the American people. If AI dangers are truly grave, why do they keep building? If the truth is that you believe only you can be trusted to build these systems, then tell that to the American people and be straightforward with them.

Recent reports show that Anthropic has built a scientific laboratory for advanced biological experiments in the San Francisco Bay Area. This should come as a shock to those who read and watch the statements of Anthropic executives, who are repeatedly emphasizing potential biological catastrophe via AI, and here they are, opening a wet lab in a major urban area.

The broader polling of AI sentiment shows an industry in the throes of a credibility crisis. A Gallup survey in July found that only 27 percent of Americans trusted businesses to use AI technology responsibly. And a whopping 79 percent expected AI to reduce American jobs over the next decade. Those numbers should be a warning to executives who keep giving the public reasons to fear their products.

After the midterms, I hope that the AI industry wakes up and stops deploying more rounds of apocalyptic talking points in the name of safetyism. It’s not good for public confidence, and it’s not good for America.

It’s important to take AI unknowns seriously, especially when you are releasing powerful and consequential products to the public that may be granted access to sensitive data. In the right settings, it’s important to address those specific problems and find ways to innovate through engineering solutions. But it’s so fundamentally antagonistic to the American spirit when Amodei and his colleagues frame innovation as a terrifying process akin to the sentiments coming out of some regulatory bureaucracy in Europe.

Dario Amodei is not an elected official, and he’s never asked to be one. He runs an incredibly influential AI company. And whether he likes it or not, he has become the face of an entire industry. He needs to stop making the case against it. AI has the potential to contribute immensely to American prosperity and humanity more broadly. Its most prominent spokesmen should speak to the upside of this technology, not behave as though building it is a privilege reserved for a handful of people who know better than the rest of us.

Keep reading

BIZARRO WORLD: Turns Out Luigi Mangione’s Cousin is a MAGA Republican – And He Just Won an Election in Maryland

As if the 2026 midterms couldn’t get any weirder, it turns out that Luigi Mangione has a cousin who is a MAGA Republican who just won a local election in Maryland.

It’s as if everything that has transpired over the last few days is part of a strange work of fiction.

Nino Mangione just defeated a Democrat in a race for Baltimore City Council.

Breitbart News reports:

CEO Killer Luigi Mangione’s Cousin Nino Wins Baltimore Council Seat on Law and Order Platform

The name Mangione is in the news again, but this time it is not that of accused United Health Care CEO killer Luigi Mangione. It is his Republican cousin, Nino, who defied a nationwide Democratic election sweep and won re-election to the Baltimore County Council on Tuesday.

The win came despite the 39-year-old Mangione being a “staunch MAGA Republican whose grandfather was a multimillionaire real estate magnate,” Newsweek reported in a profile of the two cousins Thursday.

The councilman narrowly won his seat with 48.7 percent of the vote over his Democrat opponent Shawn McIntosh who had 45.2 percent in a race covering what is considered the “purplest” of the county’s districts, the magazine reported.

Nino and Luigi Mangione are both among the 37 grandchildren of the late Nick Mangione Sr., a “self-made multimillionaire who owned country clubs, nursing homes, and radio stations and was an established business patriarch in Baltimore by the time of his death in 2008,” Newsweek reported.

The two Mangione grandchildren could not have charted more starkly different life paths. Luigi pled guilty to stalking charges in federal court earlier this year after admitting he traveled to New York to shoot and kill CEO Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel in December of 2024.

Keep reading