U.S. Transhumanist Party Statement on the Murder of Brian Thompson
On December 4, 2024, there was a killing outside the judicial system. The U.S. Transhumanist Party supports no such thing. We are sad that we live in a world where such killings can seem justified to some people. We strive for a world where no one ever dies, relying on reason and discourse to mobilize the effort required to get us there.
22 thoughts on “U.S. Transhumanist Party Statement on the Murder of Brian Thompson”
Making a statement about the justified killing of Brian Thompson while he was partially in charge of a company that denied numerous medical claims causing deaths itself is absurdly biased. A prime result the undemocratic party mechanisms & lack of member input.
Take this shit down. No one even bothered to ask the members for input about this statement. And, go figure, no one even tried to advertise this statement after publishing it because the writer knew there would be push back. This is just more unilateral abuse of power by our chairman.
Free Luigi
Listen . People are tired of the greed by insurance companies. It’s ok for the insurance companies to kill people by denying them insurance. I’m on the people side with this one. Free Lugi
Maitreya One – A simple question: Do you consider the murder of a human being without any prior act of direct, physical aggression on the part of the murdered person, to be wrong – yes or no?
R. Nicholas Starr – A simple question: Do you consider the murder of a human being without any prior act of direct, physical aggression on the part of the murdered person, to be wrong – yes or no?
Are you not going to address the fact you did this behind everyone’s backs?
For real! the undemocratic mechanisms of the party are why we are here in the first place. if this has to be approved by membership; clearly there would of been pushback.
This condemnation of criminal violence is already within our Immutable Operating Principles. I did not need to seek special authorization from the membership to issue this statement, because it was already authorized and, indeed, directly follows from the wording of the USTP Constitution in clear, unambiguous terms. No reasonable person could read Immutable Operating Principle 4 and come away with anything other than a condemnation of acts such as the murder of Brian Thompson, or the attempted assassinations of Trump, for that matter – which I also had the clear and direct authority to condemn. Our Constitution means something. Read its words. Not every single action needs to be put to a vote, and our Constitution itself was adopted by a member vote in early 2020.
Moreover, putting every single thing to a vote would paralyze any organization. This is why we have official documents, previously adopted positions, and Officers who are empowered to make everyday decisions. Moreover, the enemies of transhumanism certainly do not vote on their every move. If we voted on everything we did, they would easily outmaneuver and trounce us while our membership had to vote on every basic and obvious action.
I think we should take this statement down and ask for the input of the members and ideas/suggestions for a new statements.
Shamar White – A simple question: Do you consider the murder of a human being without any prior act of direct, physical aggression on the part of the murdered person, to be wrong – yes or no?
Luigi Mangione did nothing wrong! Brian Thompson was guilty of Legal Social Murder & suffered the consequences. Free Luigi!
Luis Arroyo – A simple question: Do you consider the murder of a human being without any prior act of direct, physical aggression on the part of the murdered person, to be wrong – yes or no?
No; being that Brian Thompson was partially responsible for upholding and benefitting from a system that profited off of the harm/deaths of others by denial. he suffered the consequences of social murder.
I like to think Mr. Thompson was killed in self defense of victims and future victims of unethical health insurance practices which don’t align with anti-death party stances because it lead to many people unrightfully dying because they couldn’t get proper insurance claims for life saving procedures. Brian Thompson was a highly corrupt CEO who used AI to deny people life saving medical care in exchange for profits. Far more people have lost their own lives due to such health insurance practices and as a party that is anti-death Mr. Thompson should be seen as a vile man in history not a hero.
This party is primarily anti-death and it be hypocritical to honor a tainted legacy of a man that had no problem spinning the wheel of death faster not slower.
Douglas – A simple question: Do you consider the murder of a human being without any prior act of direct, physical aggression on the part of the murdered person, to be wrong – yes or no?
I find it quite troubling that this statement on the assassination of Brian Thompson was issued solely by the chairman. While the party’s opposition to extrajudicial killings is noted, the unilateral nature of this statement—lacking democratic input from the mass membership—undermines the party’s claim to represent “the people.” A party championing science, health, and technology should ensure its positions, especially on divisive issues, reflect the collective voice of its members, not just one leader. This lack of process demands reflection and reform to align with the democratic values you profess.
More critically, the statement’s content clashes with the party’s mission. Brian Thompson was a corrupt CEO who revoked life-saving care for countless patients and planned to slash anesthesia coverage, actions that directly contradict the party’s vision of a future where longevity is considered tantamount to basic human rights. By focusing solely on condemning his killing without addressing the suffering he caused, the party risks appearing tone-deaf to the systemic healthcare injustices it claims to oppose. If healthcare is a human right, as the party asserts, shouldn’t the focus be on dismantling such corruption rather than lamenting the fate of its perpetrators? As a fellow member, I urge the party to reconsider its stance and prioritize the well-being of the people over a simplistic rejection of violence!
B.J. Murphy – A simple question: Do you consider the murder of a human being without any prior act of direct, physical aggression on the part of the murdered person, to be wrong – yes or no?
Please may I advise that you at least provide some context here? Brian Thompson was a mass killer. He was responsible for the extreme psychological distress and then the deaths of many thousands of people. The public at large despised him. Of course no one supports murder. But you are a political party. Being this tone deaf and failing to ‘read the room’ does not bode well for your effectiveness.
TTI – A simple question: Do you consider the murder of a human being without any prior act of direct, physical aggression on the part of the murdered person, to be wrong – yes or no?
This statement is completely in accord with Immutable Operating Principle 4 of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Constitution and so shall remain. Note especially the following sentence: “The United States Transhumanist Party shall not condone and shall necessarily and automatically disavow all violent criminal acts.”
The full text of Operating Principle 4 is found below.
“Operating Principle 4. The United States Transhumanist Party renounces all violence, except in self-defense against a clear, immediate act of physical aggression. In particular, the United States Transhumanist Party holds that violent political activism is never permissible or just. The United States Transhumanist Party commits to always pursuing its goals in a civil, law-abiding manner, respecting the legitimate rights of all persons. The United States Transhumanist Party shall not condone and shall necessarily and automatically disavow all violent criminal acts. Any person who commits a violent criminal act is automatically disassociated from the United States Transhumanist Party in all respects until and unless that person has made appropriate restitution or has fully undergone the appropriate penalties pursuant to applicable law. However, this commitment to exclusively peaceful action does not preclude the United States Transhumanist Party from criticizing any ideas or behavior which are contrary to reason, morality, common sense, or the principles and objectives of the United States Transhumanist Party Core Ideals and Platform.”
I’d hardly call it an unprovoked murder. There was and there continues to be plenty of provocation, even though the root cause should be addressed through the abolition of capitalism rather than the useless gesture of killing an easily replaceable oligarch.
Mythopoeist – A simple question: Do you consider the murder of a human being without any prior act of direct, physical aggression on the part of the murdered person, to be wrong – yes or no?