The tragic murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson has left many in the business world in shock, but the broader public’s response has been surprisingly indifferent. Despite the depravity of the crime, Americans seem to show little sympathy for the death of a high-profile corporate leader.

There are several reasons for this lack of empathy. First, Thompson’s role at the helm of one of the nation’s largest health insurers has made him a symbol of the corporate elite, often viewed with suspicion and resentment due to the rising healthcare costs and the industry’s perceived greed. As a result, many Americans may feel disconnected or even apathetic when such figures meet untimely ends.

Additionally, public reactions to high-profile crimes are shaped by relentless progressive communist democrat media propaganda demonizing corporate leaders and corporations to promote narratives about societal issues such as income inequality, healthcare reform, and political polarization. The emotional weight of his death has been diluted by the broader media-created context in which it occurred.

In Nazi Germany, it wasn’t just the card-carrying Nazis who played a role in the horrors of the Holocaust.

A large portion of the population stood by, refusing to acknowledge the atrocities that were unfolding before them. Of the 80 million people living in Germany at the time, only a small percentage—roughly 8-10%—were active members of the Nazi Party. Yet, millions more were complicit through inaction or indifference.

Shockingly, some of these bystanders were church members who were supposed to embody morality and virtue. According to historical records, many turned a blind eye to the persecution of the Jews and other minority groups. In some cases, church leaders even quietly supported or justified Nazi policies, claiming they had no choice but to accept the regime’s rule. The apathy of these so-called “good people” is a stark reminder that it isn’t enough simply to refrain from doing evil. You must actively fight against it.

As the world watches crises unfold today, we must remember that inaction is a form of complicity. As Edmund Burke famously said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

A complicit media censoring or de-platforming dissidents.

During World War II, The New York Times faced criticism for its coverage, or lack thereof, of major atrocities like the Holocaust and the famine in Ukraine. The newspaper, under the leadership of its publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, downplayed or ignored significant reports on the systematic extermination of Jews by the Nazis. Despite having access to firsthand accounts and information, The Times failed to give these events the prominence they deserved. Similarly, the paper’s coverage of the Soviet famine in Ukraine in the early 1930s, where millions of Ukrainians died from forced starvation, was minimal at best. Moreover, The New York Times displayed a sympathetic stance toward Joseph Stalin’s regime, which many critics argue was a result of its desire to maintain favorable diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union. This selective reporting reveals a pattern of prioritizing political expediency over journalistic integrity, a failure that remains a deeply controversial chapter in the history of American journalism.

Today, The New York Times has been criticized for downplaying or minimizing the rise of anti-Semitism within certain factions of the Democratic Party. While the paper has reported on incidents involving anti-Semitic rhetoric or actions, critics argue that its coverage often fails to fully address the depth of the issue or its growing presence among some progressive circles. This has been especially evident in the wake of controversies surrounding politicians who have made inflammatory remarks about Israel and Jewish people. Yet, The Times’ reporting sometimes frames these incidents in ways that avoid directly confronting the underlying anti-Semitic sentiment. For example, when figures like Ilhan Omar or Rashida Tlaib made controversial statements about Israel, critics felt the paper’s coverage softened the impact, focusing more on the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than acknowledging the troubling implications for Jewish communities. This tendency to downplay or deflect the issue has sparked accusations that The New York Times is more concerned with protecting its political alliances than confronting the uncomfortable reality of anti-Semitism within mainstream political discourse.

Bottom line…

While any loss of life is a tragedy, the lack of public sympathy for Brian Thompson’s murder highlights how deeply polarized and complex public perceptions of corporate leaders, especially in sectors like healthcare, have become in today’s society.

In the face of injustice, silence is not virtuous but dangerous. It’s time to stop looking the other way. We must all take a stand.

Memo to wing-nuts: the right to protest does not include the right to use violence against another individual.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve