One of—if not the most important stories of 2025 thus far—a story that was born only 3 hours and 15 minutes into this year, is the story of the New Orleans terrorist attack. For clarity, the reason this story is so important is because—unlike the other stories percolating in the news cycle lately—this one has left people with more questions than answers. This, in turn, has led to some pretty wild conspiracies that distract from a somewhat more important story.

With that said, as many young people who lean right already know, you should have very little faith in the big E “Establishment,” especially when it comes to official narratives that just don’t make sense, such as the Vegas shooting and the Epstein murder. With that said, though, you don’t have to look too deep into the New Orleans terror attack to realize that this is probably not as complicated as some people are making it out to be, and also, that contained within the most likely explanation for this attack an important lesson exists that our foreign policy leaders should take to heart in the coming months.

To elaborate, 42-year-old Shamsud-Din Jabbar—the individual who perpetrated this attack—was not only an American citizen, but also a veteran who served in the same areas at the same times as the man who blew up a Cyber Truck outside of Trump Tower in Las Vegas. Furthermore, both individuals used the same app (Turo) to rent the vehicles with which they carried out their attacks. These oddities have led many people on social media to link the two events, with some even claiming that these attacks were some kind of CIA psyop.

Of course, these possibilities cannot be discounted given that we can rarely, if ever, trust the state, but nonetheless, when it comes to the New Orleans attack specifically, it seems like this is a situation that could just as easily be explained by using Occam’s Razor. In lay terms, this philosophical principle states that the simplest answer is most often the correct one. Or, in other words, the explanation that requires the least number of assumptions is generally right.

Does this mean he was a victim of circumstance? No. He was a disturbed man who committed an evil atrocity and we should feel nothing but condemnation and disgust towards him and his memory. Still, there is a lesson to be learned here that our leaders will hopefully take to heart as we move into a new year. To quote from The Sane Citizens Political Handbook,

...in my view this aspect of humanity [war] is, quite possibly, the worst thing about our species. Of course, with that said I am not naïve and I do recognize that sometimes wars are justified and/or necessary (though very rarely), but still, to be frank I have personally witnessed the pointlessness of many of our modern wars, the death and destruction they cause, and the hordes of damaged individuals, both physically and psychologically, that they leave behind when they are finished. Therefore, I do not consider it a radical statement to say that perhaps it would behoove our nation’s leaders to take war a bit more seriously than they currently do; sitting thousands of miles away in relative safety and luxury on the Hill.