Many have pointed to the Corona “pandemic” as the first real trial we’ve faced (it definitely wasn’t, but let’s roll with it for now). It was, however, the first major societal test in decades. The public was bombarded with a unified narrative that swiftly hardened into orthodoxy. Dissent was punished, and we were urged to blindly follow the “experts” and their political theater. Turns out, most of it—if not all—was either outright false or dressed-up half-truths. So, here’s the question everyone can ask themselves: Did I buy into the narrative? Did I see through the lies, the panic, the fear? Most didn’t. It’s fascinating to wonder why some people managed to wield their critical thinking skills while others couldn’t. Where does that ability come from? And why do so few possess it, relatively speaking? Interestingly, neither higher education nor income seemed to be deciding factors.
Then, Vladimir Putin effectively ended the pandemic when he announced his “special military operation” in Ukraine. Just like that, the news pivoted to war and Russia’s aggression. In a strange way, we owe Putin a nod for wrapping it up so fast. (Why did those daily infection and death rate updates vanish within weeks, even as the numbers were still climbing? Could we have ditched the obsession with those terrifying stats long before?) Though the subject changed, the underlying approach didn’t. Once again, people were spoon-fed a streamlined narrative—later revealed to be funded and propped up by USAID—that crushed any dissenting views. Russia was the villain; Ukraine had to be defended and saved at all costs. The cognitive dissonance was glaring: during Covid, it was all about preserving lives, even chasing a “zero Covid” fantasy to save a single soul. Yet, with Russia’s invasion, the focus shifted to defending principles and ideologies, even if it meant feeding hundreds of thousands into a meat grinder. It wasn’t long before psychological warfare kicked in—Westerners were told tales of Russians so desperate they were ripping chips out of old washing machines to build rockets.
As that mess dragged on for years, the Gaza crisis spiraled out of control. Here, too, the narrative was locked in from the start: Israel had to be saved, no matter the price. Even if that meant tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths—many of them children. It was obvious early on that Israel’s goal, at least as a byproduct of targeting Hamas, was to flatten Gaza and clear space for settlers. Now that the Gaza Strip is effectively gone, it’s a safe bet that Israel and the USA will work to ensure Palestinians never return in significant numbers. Questioning this storyline was—and still is—taboo, risking labels like “antisemite” or worse. But why can’t a state’s actions be judged apart from its citizens’ race or religion? Collateral damage and dead bodies apparently don’t matter when ideology’s on the line.
These “events” are now funneling us toward something far grimmer: war. It’s being talked about—subtly seeded into minds, and sometimes shouted outright. I never thought people could fall for this again, with WWII still so recent, historically speaking. Many grandparents are still alive, some sharing (or unable to share) war’s brutal realities. But maybe two or three generations are enough to forget. Let me be blunt: this is the final intelligence test. Dying in war is the end. Full stop. No do-overs. And yet, rallying people behind an ideological delusion of chaos and destruction can still be spun as “the greater good.” It’s clear now that fear can steer people wherever you want them to go. But that fear has to be hammered in, over and over, for years—like with Covid, when death was always just one sneeze away.
⛅🌦🌧🌦🌧🌨☁🌩🌦⛅🌧☁🌤🌥🌪🌧🌨🌩⛅🌦☁🌤🌥🌤⛅🌤⛅🌦⛅
⛅🌦🌧🌦🌧🌨☁🌩🌦⛅🌧☁🌤🌥🌪🌧🌨🌩⛅🌦☁🌤🌥🌤⛅🌤⛅🌦⛅
