After the Schongau attack: the traces of the perpetrator and the conclusions drawn from it

On July 8, 2026, a 16-year-old student at the Welfen-Gymnasium in Schongau, Germany, attacked two female classmates with a knife, seriously injuring them. The incident occurred within the school grounds, which were subsequently cordoned off by authorities. According to reports, the perpetrator was also armed with a replica rifle made using a 3D printer. Police described the victims as being “randomly” selected, though evidence suggests otherwise. The attacker’s actions were accompanied by a manifesto posted online, spanning 19 pages, which has since become central to understanding his motives. The document reveals deep-seated misogyny, anti-Semitic views, racism, and hostility toward individuals with disabilities. It also reflects a general sense of superiority over others, indicating a mindset shaped by years of exposure to extremist ideologies online. The text is filled with expressions of hatred toward women, whom he refers to as “Foids”, a term used in the far-right community to dehumanize females. The language and ideology expressed in the manifesto strongly resemble those of other extremist groups, including the incel (involuntary celibate) movement, right-wing accelerationism, and the violent “No Lives Matter” subculture. The writer describes himself as an “Edgelord,” a term used to describe young men who embrace cynicism and perform their disdain for humanity as a form of identity. This concept is linked to a broader trend of radicalization through online platforms, where such individuals find validation and community. There are notable parallels between this case and the infamous 2014 shooting by Elliot R., an Incel who killed six people in California before leaving behind a detailed 140-page manifesto. Like Elliot R., the Schongau attacker appears to have sought to establish a legacy, aiming to achieve a high “kill count” as a mark of status. He stated his intention to kill at least four people, although this did not come to pass. His actions left traumatized classmates and families, highlighting the lasting psychological impact of such violence. The manifesto also contains references to figures such as terrorists, Islamist extremists, and mass murderers, whom he cites as inspirations. However, the text reveals a complex narrative rooted in personal grievances rather than ideological commitment. The author speaks of having experienced violence, particularly from a father, yet shows little empathy for the mother, whom he labels a “narcissistic” figure. This lack of emotional depth underscores a pattern often found in such manifestos, self-centered narratives driven by narcissistic injury. In addition to misogyny, the text expresses a profound disdain for queer communities, further reinforcing its alignment with extremist ideologies. The attacker's worldview seems to be built upon a hierarchy that places him above all others, viewing society as inherently hostile and unworthy of respect. This mindset, while extreme, is not isolated, it reflects a growing concern among law enforcement and educators about the influence of online extremism on vulnerable youth. Authorities have emphasized the need for stronger preventive measures, suggesting that a more robust social support system could have potentially intervened earlier. The case has sparked discussions about the role of schools and mental health services in identifying and addressing signs of radicalization among students. While the immediate focus remains on the victims and their recovery, the incident serves as a sobering reminder of the challenges posed by digital radicalization in modern society.