Lily & Luigi: Media Morality Tales

The two big media stories of the moment (well, apart from the US government teasing us with fake aliens again) involve two youngsters with intriguingly alliterated names... It could be a coincidence (it's possible those still exist), but the LL theme does seem to be a reliable narrative tell of a psy-op (if you're into that sort of thing, check out what LL breaks down to numerologically... yes, of course it's 33).

And, regardless of whether the LL thing is, in this instance, really just a cigar - or a bubblegum-favoured vape, for that generation, I guess - these two enormously high-profile media stories certainly warrant further scrutiny, because as ever, all is not as it seems...

In case you have the good sense to entirely insulate yourself from all matters media, I will quickly bring you up to speed: Lily (Phillips) is a 23-year-old British OnlyFans "star", who has become especially well-known for sleeping with 100 men in a day, an "achievement" she hopes to surpass in the foreseeable future by increasing the tally to 1,000, also in a 24-hour period.

Luigi (Mangione) is a 26-year-old American, who is the current prime suspect in the assassination of health insurance CEO, Brian Thompson. The bullets used in this assassination were allegedly inscribed with the words 'deny, defend, depose', mimicking the tactics insurance companies use to turn down claims.

A quick Google news' search confirms these two characters, Lily and Luigi, have been absolutely deluged with media attention in recent weeks, which, as we know, means only one thing:

If you know their name, they're in the game.

Nobody gets this level of worldwide mainstream media attention unless they're an asset there to manipulate us.

So, what are young Lily and Luigi (such a cute-sounding couple!) here for, and what particularly thorny garden path are they leading us down?

First, we should observe - as the media repeatedly does - that they're both from "privileged backgrounds". Lily comes from a wealthy family, who offered her the option of a private education (she declined, believing she was not clever enough), and who facilitated for her a "perfect" childhood, replete with two holidays a year, plenty of friends, and luxury cars in the driveway.

Meanwhile, athletic Luigi, from a prestigious philanthropic family, attended an elite private school, where he graduated as valedictorian, before heading to a top Ivy-League college.

This context is key, because ordinarily, when people engage in fringe and degenerate social behaviours such as prostitution and gun violence, it has a strong correlation with childhood trauma, deprivation, and poverty. Therefore, the typical profile of a prostitute is about as far from Lily Phillips as you could get, whilst the typical young man murdering someone with a gun is not a clean-cut and articulate Ivy-League graduate.

So, we have these highly improbable figures supposedly carrying out these extreme courses of action, in order to create a jarring, cognitively dissociated response in us, the audience.

Indeed, Luigi's chiselled good looks have earned him a huge fanbase online, with people keen to hold him up as "a hero" for ridding the world of a "parasite" insurance CEO.

Yet would he have attracted the same support for his "heroism" were he from a less appealing and photogenic demographic - the demographic far more likely to carry out fatal gun violence, for instance? Extremely unlikely.

Although I do certainly believe, even if he were from a less desirable demographic, he would still not have attracted as much opprobrium as Lily Phillips, because - even though she has not murdered or directly physically injured anyone - she has been far more acutely castigated than Luigi has, and what this reveals is very interesting about what these two separate, but ultimately interlinked, psy-ops are meant to achieve...

First of all, did Luigi Mangione really kill anyone? Highly unlikely, given that the media treatment of this case breaches all established media law where it comes to reporting on suspects of crime, because, let us remind ourselves, Luigi remains just a suspect. He hasn't even been brought to trial yet, much less convicted of anything (he's pleading not guilty, by the way).

Yet, from the moment this assassination supposedly happened, the press was saturated with wall-to-wall coverage about Luigi (and predictably, almost immediately, had a full biographical history about him, detailed family information, multiple photographs, etc).

This is not how the media behaves when a criminal incident is real, as it is bound by laws regarding not prejudicing the chances of a fair trial.

This is particularly following the Leveson Inquiry, in which the practices of the police in releasing details of investigations to the press were examined, Lord Justice Leveson’s report into the culture, practices and ethics of the press (published 29 November 2012), recommended that “save in exceptional and clearly identified circumstances (for example, where there may be an immediate risk to the public), the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released to the press or public.”

There was never any suggestion that Luigi Mangione was an immediate risk to the public, because it has been made explicitly clear from the start that he targeted Brian Thompson and Brian Thompson only (even foregoing using a bomb, as there would be the possibility of harming innocents) because of his role as a health insurance CEO.

So, there was absolutely no reason or justification for reporting Luigi's name and identifying details in the press at all, never mind the extraordinarily extensive amount of blanket coverage this case has received, which would make it completely impossible for Luigi to have a fair trial... if, that is, any of this was remotely real.

Which, of course, it isn't.

As Owen Benjamin put it:

"FYI this psy op is to get the poor to resent the rich and the rich to fear the poor. So they had a perfect video of this guy... assassinating an important health care executive? He happens to also be super rich and shredded but his bullets had words written on them to let you know he is fighting corruption like Batman. So even tho his image looked like 80% of any ambiguous brownish white guy who’s ripped between 20-35, but a McDonald’s employee knew it was him and he happened to have his gun with suppressor with him at a McDonald’s? And all of this was made available to the public the day it happened on every platform at the same time with massive massive virality? His name is Luigi, a character from super Mario brothers and his last name means “glutton.” Why? Because cognitive dissonance and contradiction is necessary for hypnosis."

One of Owen's followers added:

"There was also pre programming targeted specifically at the 16-30 middle class white. It would be interesting to know if the meme was put out with this already in the production pipeline or they just picked an Italian guy that looks like the meme and created an identity for him."

So, the whole thing is comprehensively fake, because as Owen says, it's about creating division and fear between rich and poor. The poor are afraid the rich will deny them the healthcare they need: the rich are afraid the poor will snap and kill them (and here's intelligence asset Brendan O'Neill fanning those very flames at The Spectator).

Not that Luigi was poor, of course, which is an important part of the psy-op. If someone as privileged as him can "snap" like this, imagine what the really disadvantaged could do! Perhaps we need some more rules and restrictions in place to manage the unruly masses and their unstable temperaments. You know, for everyone's safety.

(And don't forget, when assessing the likelihood of this incident being fake, the fact that staging events and presenting them to the public as real for propaganda purposes is a perfectly legal thing for the American media to do, courtesy of an amendment in the NDAA.)

Meanwhile, we have Lily Phillips, who's also there to show us something very discordant and dangerous about our society, that we may need more rules to prevent... Since it is notable and non-accidental that nobody supports Lily Phillips in what she is doing. The public either considers her nothing but a degenerate whore who they feel repulsed by, or they pity her as an exploited victim, possibly a victim of some sort of parental abuse (much has been made of the fact her mother is her financial manager), who needs safeguarding and support to prevent her from engaging in further self-harm.

Adding to the intensively theatrical nature of the debacle, Lily Phillips' initial "sex marathon" was the subject of a YouTube documentary, which - in just 8 days - has already been viewed over four million times.

Just in case anyone was in any doubt about this, nothing organic and grassroots gets that kind of traction. Only establishment backed and bankrolled projects do: in other words, you are meant to see this, and you are meant to react as they want you to.

It is, of course, enormously significant that Lily Phillips is shown in this documentary to cry immediately after completing her 100-men endeavour. This is meant to leave you in no doubt that what she is doing is damaging her, despite the fact it is all consensual and legal.

The issue the Lily Phillips drama is meant to confront us with, then is - whether we consider her a villain or a victim - the fact that there is nothing in law stopping her from doing what she is doing. She is a consenting adult, the men involved are as well, and making and selling pornography is not illegal in this country.

This is supposed to present us with an acute moral dilemma regarding our own social and cultural attitudes, because, for many decades, increasingly non-traditional sexual practices and arrangements have been accepted and justified with the "consenting adults" trope.

Polyamory, throuples, porn, OnlyFans... inevitably lead us to Lily Phillips.

If the first four are okay, why not the fifth? Where are you going to draw the line? Is it okay to sleep around at university (as Lily Phillips confirms she did, and as many people do), yet not okay to monetise and film it? Why? What's the moral difference?

Those are the questions Lily Phillips is supposed to throw up, and they're not meant to be easy questions to answer, because what she is there to do is kick off a conversation that will ultimately (and this will take some years, but it's coming) lead to a dramatic cultural pendulum shift, from the ultra-liberalism we have now, right back in the opposite direction.

We can already see with the new American administration which way the cultural winds are blowing, and we're going to have a similar conservative revolution here, spearheaded by the inevitable Nigel Farage government (which may be with us a lot sooner than 2029).

We already got a taste of what is to come during the fake plague, when our previously liberal and permissive culture became more authoritarian than the Taliban, and where it became illegal to sleep with anyone you weren't effectively married to.

Were you seen fraternising with anyone in more casual circumstances, you could be reported to the police.

Even something as innocent as a walk in the park with a friend could result in legal action being taken against you.

These kind of Gilead-esque social mores will be re-adopted again, and Lily Phillips is there to provide justification for it, asserting to "prove" that the slippery slope is real, and that, if society doesn't adhere to very conversative and strict social standards, we inevitably get well-brought up young ladies becoming pornographers and prostitutes servicing 1,000 men a day.

That's why it was key that Lily was well-to-do, because were she from a more deprived background - not middle-class, not well-spoken, dealing with addiction (as per the typical sex worker) - she could be dismissed as the product of a broken background, rather than of a broken society. That her background is so, in her words, "perfect" means we cannot pin the blame for how she is on the failings of her parents, but rather, we must hold as the culprit the very fabric of society itself.

So there we are. That's what the LL duo are here for: to show us severe and dangerous fault lines in our society that we need drastic change to fix.

Of course, I wouldn't disagree that there are severe and dangerous fault lines in our society that we need drastic change to fix.

I just have a funny feeling that I'm not going to like the sort of changes the overlords come up with one bit...

But if nothing else, I think this elaborate LL drama has demonstrated to us yet again one ineffable and irrefutable fact: there really are no coincidences.

(It is regrettable, however, that there really are bubblegum-flavoured vapes...)

Thanks for reading! This article was originally published at miriaf.co.uk, which is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.