recently watched a viral video of two Israeli women who told the interviewer how they thought the nicest thing one could do to the Palestinians is to kick them out. They also casually said that Palestinians could be given their own place where they were contained with no chance of “escaping” and provided food like “an animal.” Similarly, while the world decried the targeting of civilians in Ukraine, a Russian researcher, who interviewed locals around the country, reported in the New Yorker: “You get this sense that people are crazy about the war and about Putin, that they’re zombified. That they have no morals, no empathy, no souls.” Most recently, the bloodlust and the war-frenzy projected by the Indian media, in particular, during the recent clashes showed just how quickly, and easily, civilisation can descend into savagery.

Not too far in the past, in more optimistic times, we heard that war would soon become a thing of the past. With the end of the Cold War, the Kantian “democratic peace theory” gained prominence: democracies do not go to war with one another. The presence of too many people in decision-making yields war-making too complex, and electorally costly. Columnist Thomas Friedman presented Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention, or what you might call capitalist peace theory. Friedman quipped that no two countries with a McDonald’s franchise have ever gone to war, nor they ever would. Middle-class wants to live a good comfortable life and war isn’t that. Keohane and Nye proposed that nations of the world are increasingly bound in such complex interdependence that cooperation, rather than competition, has become the currency of international politics. But the events in Gaza, Ukraine and India-Pakistan drive home the realisation that war is still here, and it is normal. It has not lost its appeal as the ultimate solution to most problems – to any problem. And, as noted above, it is not without its cheerleaders among the proverbial common people.

The mass delusion and the glorification of violence have not come about by coincidence. Both in the disguise of democrats and as unapologetically authoritarian, fascist leaders have ascended to power in countries armed to the teeth. These fascists manufacture alternative realities. With the fascist control of the media and their dominance of the online sphere, people subscribe and submit to these falsehoods. Hatred and wars are just a natural outcome of this collective submission.

It is no wonder that authoritarian and ultra-nationalist fascists are always anti-intellectual. On the pretext of challenging anti-national voices, the first target of fascists is truth itself. In the name of nationalism and patriotism, they strip everyone of the legitimacy and credibility to speak on behalf of the state and its people, unless they parrot what the party wants the people to hear. They attack free press. They rewrite history to align it perfectly with their narratives. Their foremost enemy is one who brings up the inconvenient truth that doesn’t fit the narrative.

The dilution of reality with myth is not without design or consequence. As American historian Timothy Snyder says, “post-truth is pre-fascism.” People are emotionally manipulated to believe that their lives are difficult because of the enemies of the “people.” And who are the people? Those who stand behind the great leader without questioning anything. Enemies, therefore, are those who ask questions. They must be silenced.

Hannah Arendt, arguably the most notable scholar of totalitarianism in the 20th Century, said that “the ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction... no longer exists.” The myth of Indian high moral ground and its military and economic prowess, and the common Israeli’s baseless belief that he has a right to another person’s land because it has been promised to him are “facts” that provide the foundation for public discourse. These are “truths” with which one’s position must align to be considered worthy of serious reflection.

When these outright lies and fabrications become the dominant truths, violence in their name becomes the ultimate virtue. It becomes too easy for the leader to deflect from his shortcomings by calling for violence and war. Putin’s popularity has risen since the war in Ukraine. Netanyahu’s corruption cases have since receded to the background. Modi’s pivot away from “Shining India” is to have him on billboards donning the uniform of their armed forces. It is easier to rule as a popular fascist than as an unpopular one. War helps.

Peace and reconciliation require two basic beliefs: a shared sense of reality and the principles of basic human decency, dignity and fairness. If your case is based on positions that are not only unverified, but unverifiable, how can the other point out the weakness in your position? Peace can only be made with those who refrain from essentialising the other as inherently and irreconcilably evil.

Populism, cultism and fascism are systems that rest on delusions: the delusion of the unwavering, absolute and perennial righteousness of one’s own nation or group and the delusion of the infallibility of one’s leaders. As Carl Jung says, “war is impossible without a delusional system.” Outside of the delusional system, the world is complex. It is not always easy to distinguish the right from the wrong. But those who are led by belief without facts are, more often than not, on the wrong side of history.

The writer is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Peshawar. He can be reached at aameraza@uop.edu.pk