Somehow, from there we ended up talking about intergenerational trauma, and it was here that we had our only significant disagreement. Luigi implied that he believed trauma could be directly inherited and accumulated in families much like generational wealth. He claimed to have based this view partly on his own personal experiences. It sounded to me like he was describing a pseudoscientific misinterpretation of epigenetics, popularised by activist-academics and books like The Body Keeps the Score.
The idea that trauma is passed down epigenetically is not only unscientific, but also un-agentic. If you believe your trauma is hardwired into your DNA, you’re prone to passively accept it rather than actively trying to overcome it. And so, in a bid to increase Luigi’s agency, I pointed out, as politely as I could, why he was wrong.
After our chat, I sent Luigi an article debunking epigenetic trauma. He thanked me for the article, and also told me he’d bought me a six-month subscription to a reading app which he believed would help make my job easier.
I have Asperger’s, so I’m a poor judge of social cues. Further, I have liked every subscriber I have had a video-call with, of which I have had many, so I’m probably not very discerning in that regard. But to me Luigi seemed like a particularly nice guy.
It wasn’t just that he had bought me a subscription to an app that he thought might help me. It was also that he frequently expressed concerns about humanity generally. He viewed most people as NPCs who needed to be awakened, but he never came off as arrogant, regarding himself as equally zombielike. His view of society was somewhat pessimistic, but tempered with a sense of humour and a focus on solutions rather than mere complaints. And although he seemed to have some unscientific views, he was always open to other viewpoints, and was willing to be corrected.
We interacted on social media several times afterwards, and each time he seemed as polite and thoughtful as he had been in our chat. As the summer ended, I largely withdrew from social media to focus on my book, so I didn’t notice Luigi had vanished.
And then, a few months later, Brian Thompson was shot dead.
Many people celebrated the murder, mocking the victim and lionising the killer. Some were frustrated about the costs of health insurance or outraged that a loved one had been denied medical claims. For this they blamed Thompson, CEO of America’s largest health insurance company.
But while thousands reacted on social media with laughter emojis to Thompson’s murder, I was sickened. Vigilantism is always wrong. If you celebrate someone gunning down a defenceless person in the street, then you advocate for a world in which this is an acceptable thing for anyone to do. You advocate for a world in which a stranger can decide that you’re also a bad person, and gun you down in the street. In such a world, I promise you, your health insurance would cost much more.
When Luigi was revealed as the suspect, I was bewildered. My mind raced back to our chat, searching for clues that he could have done this. The only salient detail was probably when Luigi briefly mentioned that healthcare in the US was expensive and that we Britons were lucky to have the National Health Service. But this statement alone gave no indication Luigi might have been capable of murder.
When the shock faded and my wits returned, I ceased to be quite so surprised. I have long known that people who are capable of great kindness also tend to be capable of great cruelty, because both extremes are often animated by the same crazed impulsivity. It’s why many of the people celebrating the murder are those who self-identify as “compassionate” Leftists. And it’s why most of history’s greatest evils were committed by people who thought they were doing good.
Much more puzzling than the cruelty, though, was the stupidity. Luigi had seemed intelligent, far too intelligent to do something so dumb. Smart people might be better able to rationalise stupid actions and beliefs, but Luigi’s alleged rationalisation, given in a short “minifesto”, was nowhere near the intellectual standard I would’ve expected of him.
As shown by data blogger Cremieux Recueil, the minifesto gets a lot wrong. It claims that “the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy”, ignoring the fact that America’s life expectancy has little to do with health insurance and much more to do with Americans being disproportionately obese, violent, and drug-addicted. Further, it makes basic factual errors, such as confusing market cap with revenue. The writer even admits they don’t know what they’re talking about: “I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument.”
Not only was the justification for the targeting of Brian Thompson stupid, but the targeting itself was stupid. While it’s true that UnitedHealthcare has the highest denial rate for medical claims, the CEO doesn’t set the approval rate — that’s done by the actuaries, who themselves are constrained by various considerations, such as the need to keep costs low, including for policyholders. But even if Thompson did have carte blanche to set his company’s approval rates, it wouldn’t have made a big difference.
“Not only was the justification for the targeting of Brian Thompson stupid, but the targeting itself was stupid.”
Health insurance companies don’t get rich by denying payouts. As the economics blogger Noah Smith points out, UnitedHealthcare’s net profit is about half of the average of S&P 500 companies. According to the Harvard economist David Cutler, who has written extensively about the US healthcare system, healthcare costs are so high because of administrative inefficiencies. Insurance companies have become so bureaucratically bloated as to administrate a wildly unstandardised healthcare system. This bloat now accounts for one-third of the delta between US healthcare costs and those of other high-income countries.
Brian Thompson was a normal, flawed guy trying to keep costs low both for his company and his policyholders, while keeping his duty to shareholders whose investment his company depended on. He was a tiny cog in a vast and unfair system that’s controlled by no single person but by the cumulative actions of millions of people operating in their own immediate interests. Ted Kaczynski called such decentralised problems “self-propagating systems”, recognising that they weren’t the result of human coordination, but rather, a lack of it. If Kaczynski’s bombs and book-length manifesto couldn’t destroy such a system, then Luigi, with his alleged 3D-printed pistol and shoddy minifesto, certainly can’t.
People allocate agency strategically, assigning praise to allies and blame to enemies. Luigi’s supporters misattribute total agency to Thompson so they can scapegoat him for a societal problem he had little control over. Meanwhile, they deny all agency to Luigi, claiming he was pushed by a corrupt system or simple back pain.
But, while they’re wrong about Thompson, they may have a point about Luigi. If he was in extreme pain, or in the grip of mental illness, it would explain why a man who was consistently thoughtful in his interactions with me may have committed a monumentally thoughtless act, rationalised by an equally thoughtless note.
On the other hand, if Luigi was mentally or physically unwell, it’s unlikely he’d have been able to carry out a meticulous assassination and then evade authorities for almost a week while travelling across one of the most surveilled regions on earth.
In my limited interactions with Luigi, I never got the impression he had spinal or mental issues. But I did get the sense he felt alienated. He often decried the lack of social connection in the modern world, and on a couple of occasions he lamented that the people around him were “on a different wavelength” to him.
On 10 June, I received my last communication from Luigi. It was a seemingly innocent request; he wanted me to help him curate his social media feed. I’d already given him tips on how to do that, so the question struck me as odd. Rather than accepting a call, I directed him to a relevant article I’d written and offered to answer any questions he had about it. I never heard from him again.
In retrospect, I wonder if his request was an awkward cry for help, as a New York Times journalist told me it was his last known online communication. It’s hard not to wonder if, had I answered his call, things might have turned out differently.
I don’t know if Luigi ever found the agency he came to me looking for. If he didn’t, I hope he gets the help he needs. But if he did find his agency, well, the price of agency is culpability.
***
A version of this article was first published on The Prism on 22 December 2024.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI suspect he knew that the CEO wasn’t necessarily the person responsible, but I don’t think murdering a random actuary would have drawn quite the same response. He clearly wanted to be noticed as a man of action, or agency, above anything else. Now he gets to posture himself as some weird freedom fighter until everyone forgets about him, then spend the rest of his life in a jail cell. What a dope.
You mean noticed as a terrorist?
Thoughtful, well written, and brilliant. Thank you.
Hm, I stopped reading at “bright young man” dim young man would be more apt.
Raskolnikov!
Great article in Quillette
Not sure why would the author question the veracity of intergenerational trauma , otherwise a good read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_trauma
I think he is referring the epigenetic theory of intergenerational trauma, which isn’t really considered credible.
Thanks, I thought that the Dutch winter famine legacy gave some strength to this theory.
Stalin’s great biologist Lysenko cut off the tails of mice in the hope of breeding a tailless strain. I don’t know if his efforts were successful. It seems like not.
Identity Politics is the idea that people should be seen not as individuals but as members of an oppressed, marginalized class. The concept of “Intergenerational Trauma” treats the group as one and reinforces that group members are an “excluded other.”
This bleeds into the Western Marxist concept of Structural Determinism that claims opportunities for marginalized group members are mostly predetermined. This encourages both resentment and learned helplessness which leads to apathy and exacerbates existing group disparities. It’s a self-reinforcing cycle that discourages integration and promotes divisive balkanization through the promotion of Identarianism.