Why We Don’t Share Extremist Manifestos

[Editor’s note: This article includes discussion of a violent extremist attack.]

In the aftermath of a terrorist attack, mass casualty event, or ideologically motivated act of violence, a familiar question often emerges: Should the public have access to the perpetrator’s manifesto?

Over the past two decades, numerous terrorists and violent extremists have left behind lengthy manifestos outlining their grievances, ideological beliefs, motivations and plans for violence. From white supremacist attackers to misogynistic incel extremists and jihadist terrorists, these documents have become a recurring feature of modern political violence.

Following the recent attack in Montreal, reports have indicated that the suspect may have authored a manifesto linked to misogynistic incel ideology. As investigators continue their work, many members of the public, journalists and researchers will inevitably seek access to this document in an effort to understand what happened and why. Yet there are compelling reasons why these manifestos should not be widely distributed or amplified. After one right-wing Canadian media outlet decided to share the Montreal shooter’s manifesto in its entirety, researchers and extremism experts widely condemned the action.

Manifestos as weapons

Manifestos are often viewed as explanatory documents, but they are more accurately understood as propaganda. Extremist manifestos are not neutral political essays — they are strategic communication tools designed to spread ideology, justify violence, recruit sympathizers and make the attacker famous.

Many perpetrators explicitly state their desire for public recognition. They seek attention long after their deaths or arrests. Their writings are intended to influence audiences, inspire future attackers and ensure that their message survives beyond the act itself.

When media outlets, social media users, or members of the public circulate these documents without context, they risk advancing the very objectives the attackers hoped to achieve.

The contagion effect

Researchers have long documented what is known as the contagion effect or copycat phenomenon. Similar to findings in suicide prevention research, extensive coverage of violent acts can increase the likelihood of imitation among vulnerable individuals.

Manifestos play a significant role in this process. They provide ideological frameworks, tactical guidance and emotional validation for people who are already experiencing grievances, isolation, or radicalization. Many contemporary attackers reference previous manifestos directly, creating a chain of influence that can reinforce cycles of violence.

The quest for significance

The Quest for Significance Theory, developed by psychologist Arie Kruglanski and colleagues, suggests that individuals are motivated by a fundamental desire to feel important, respected and significant. When people experience humiliation, rejection, failure, social isolation, or perceived injustice, they may look for other ways to restore that sense of significance.

Violent extremist ideologies often exploit this vulnerability. They offer simple explanations for complex problems. They promise status, purpose and recognition through participation in a larger cause.

Manifestos serve as public declarations of this quest for significance. They allow attackers to frame themselves as warriors, revolutionaries, martyrs, or defenders of a perceived truth. In many cases, the manifesto becomes a final attempt to achieve the attention, recognition and legacy they believe they have been denied.

Clout chasing through violence

A related phenomenon is what both practitioners of extremist ideology and researchers who study it describe as clout chasing through violence. In today’s digital environment, fame has become a form of social currency. Extremist attackers often understand that a single act of violence can transform an otherwise unknown individual into a globally recognized figure overnight.

Online communities dedicated to violent extremism frequently celebrate attackers, dissect their manifestos, create tribute content and elevate them to near-mythical status. For some individuals experiencing social isolation, perceived failure, or a lack of personal achievement, the prospect of becoming infamous can be deeply appealing. The manifesto becomes part of a personal branding strategy — an attempt to shape how the world remembers them. By sharing and amplifying these documents, society risks rewarding the very behaviour we seek to prevent.

The impact on victims and communities

Lost in discussions about manifestos are the people who are most affected by extremist violence: the victims, survivors and their families. For many survivors, seeing a perpetrator’s writings circulated online can be deeply retraumatizing. Every repost, headline and public discussion risks centering the attacker, rather than those whose lives were forever changed.

Communities targeted by extremist violence often experience similar harms. Sharing manifestos can inadvertently amplify hateful messages and renew fear, anxiety and trauma long after the physical violence has ended.

Understanding without amplifying

There is an important distinction between studying manifestos and promoting them. Researchers, investigators, prevention practitioners and intelligence professionals may need access to these materials to better understand pathways to radicalization, identify warning signs and develop effective prevention strategies. However, public dissemination is rarely necessary.

Responsible reporting focuses on victims, context and prevention rather than reproducing propaganda or providing a platform for extremist messaging.

Moving forward

The Montreal attack serves as another reminder of the evolving threat posed by grievance-fueled violence and online radicalization. As we seek answers, we must resist the temptation to elevate the voices of those who commit acts of terror.

Manifestos are often designed to survive longer than the attack itself. They are written with an audience in mind. We should not become that audience.

The most powerful response to terrorism is not to amplify the perpetrator’s message — it is to deny them the legacy they sought while centering those who were harmed.

This article is part of The Tyee’s reader-funded Reality Check project exposing and explaining the rise of digital disinformation.