For those paying attention, it’s no longer a question of if World War III has begun—it’s a question of why most people can’t see it. And the answer is they’ve been conditioned not to. A century of indoctrination through media, schooling, plus other government propaganda, has convinced the public that “war” only means soldiers in trenches or mushroom clouds on the horizon. So long as that image doesn’t materialise, the average citizen is lulled into complacency—even as their lives are systematically dismantled by the mechanisms of total war.
But the nature of warfare has changed. What was once fought with bullets and bombs is now waged through psychological manipulation, economic coercion, technological control, and biological experimentation. And unlike in past wars, this one isn’t being declared. It’s being denied. That’s the new doctrine: wage war without telling the public it’s happening. The other difference, of course, is that the new world war isn’t against allegedly wicked Germans or the Japanese. It’s against us. The Russians and Chinese and Iranians are just alternative fronts in a war where the definition of victory is our own final subjugation. Perhaps that’s what the two other big wars were really about.
War has always been about power and the destruction of rival interests. The tools vary—cannons, starvation, misinformation—but the aim remains the same: subjugate or eliminate the opposition. Today’s elites, having mastered the propaganda of peace, are conducting war through methods that leave no clear declarations, no chance for meaningful resistance. The definition of war has been weaponised. So long as there are no tanks in Times Square or air-raid sirens in Berlin, the Western public is told to assume that all is well. Meanwhile, the West itself is being dismantled, economically and demographically—from within.
The weapons of World War III are not dropped from planes; they are piped through screens and disguised as public policy. Consider the following:
- Information warfare: Coordinated disinformation campaigns from governments and their corporate media allies now pass as journalism. Algorithms and bots manufacture consent and destroy reputations. The goal is cognitive dissonance and learned helplessness.
- Economic warfare: Inflation, housing shortages, centralised digital currencies, and sanctions masquerading as “aid” or “recovery” measures are hollowing out the middle class, creating dependence and erasing financial autonomy.
- Political subversion: Western elections are increasingly stage-managed performances, while NGOs and foreign lobbies dictate policy behind closed doors. Most political parties differ in style, not substance, because the real agenda is no longer national.
- Psychological operations: Manufactured crises—from pandemics to energy shortages—serve to terrorise populations and justify technocratic control. Social media platforms operate as psychological battlegrounds, censoring dissent while amplifying hysteria.
- Biological and environmental warfare: Famine and disease are no longer accidental. They are engineered—or at best, allowed—to spread under the guise of “natural disasters” or “climate change.” The tools of war now include gene therapies and supply chain sabotage.
- Cultural warfare: Masculinity, tradition, and family structures are relentlessly attacked, not out of cultural sensitivity, but because strong families and healthy men represent the last natural barrier to total control.
These are not accidental trends. They are coordinated strategies deployed by actors whose interests are fundamentally hostile to the nation-state, to democracy, to any order based on truth or sovereignty.
The architects of this conflict understand something that World War I generals didn’t: you don’t need to mobilise armies when you can pacify populations. There’s no need for conscription when screens can induce compliance. There’s no need for bombs when people can be psychologically programmed to hate themselves and fear their neighbors. War has become unmentionable not because it has vanished, but because it is now more effective when hidden. If governments declared this war openly, they’d provoke resistance. But if they call it “public health,” “climate policy,” or “equity,” they encounter only confused compliance.
If you want to understand whether you’re living through a world war, look not for tanks, but for symptoms:
- Chronic anxiety, disorientation, and despair
- Pervasive censorship and fear of speaking out
- Youth rejecting family life and refusing to reproduce
- Empty supermarket shelves, collapsing currencies
- Militarised police and routine suppression of protests
- Governments passing emergency laws on a rolling basis
- Citizens fleeing their own countries—or considering it
- A rising tide of suicide, addiction, and mental illness
These are the effects not of peace, but of siege—a siege without a name. Most people, unable to diagnose what’s happening, assume the problem lies within themselves. That is one of the war’s greatest successes: it turns the victims against themselves.
What appear to be isolated geopolitical disputes—Ukraine, Gaza, Taiwan—are better understood as regional expressions of the same war. These are proxy battles within a global struggle between traditional sovereignty and transnational control. The same actors who demand NATO expansion in Eastern Europe are dismantling national borders in the West. The same technocrats who promote war in the name of “democracy” are installing censorship at home.
This isn’t a Cold War. It’s a hybrid world war, where no one declares hostilities but everyone bleeds. Your life is the battlefield. The attacks you face—economic, psychological, cultural—are not accidental. They are deliberate, and they are designed to exhaust your will. The enemy is not foreign, but embedded within your own institutions, corporations, and media.
Most people sense something is terribly wrong. But lacking the language of war, they diagnose their condition as “burnout,” “climate anxiety,” or “mental health issues.” This is by design. The true genius of modern war is that it leaves no visible scars, only confusion and despair.
To admit that World War III is underway is to regain the clarity that has been stolen. The tools of this war may not be conventional, but their effects are unmistakable: cultural disintegration, economic impoverishment, mass demoralisation, the erosion of every liberty once taken for granted.
Recognising this war is the first step in resisting it. If you don’t understand what’s happening, you cannot fight back. But once you see clearly—once you understand that this is not incompetence but strategy—you can begin to act accordingly.
This isn’t hyperbole. This is the reality of the modern battlefield: silent, decentralised, and total. And whether you want it or not—you’re already in it.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This article reminds me of Orwell’s short story, “To Kill an Elephant”. Elephants were used to move heavy items in construction. Occasionally one would escape. Instead of recapturing the elephant, the sahib felt obligated to shoot the elephant in order to not lose face in front of the mob.
As an extended analogy, this assumes there are no threats of predation by organized force. Though this article turns the analogy on its head, by claiming the sahib benefits by the slaughter of his own elephant and baits the mob that is baying for its death. The article implies the threat is really internal, by our own government. Of course, that assumption is more palatable psychologically, because in a democracy we have the power to remove our own politicians from power, while confronting external threats is more difficult, even painful.
In the estate of nature, there was little accumulated wealth and hence little incentive for organized predation. As the agricultural revolution spread, communities became more settled. The shift away from hunting/gathering was to a more efficient system that enabled wealth to be stored in vast quantities for the first time in history.
Inevitably, tribes that were still migratory found that stealing the stored wealth of farmers and ranchers was more lucrative than hunting/gathering and easier than raising their own plants and herds. This led to mass slaughter, until the settled communities organized their own system of force in defense or retaliation against organized predation.
To deny the possibility of organized predation without offering factual evidence, means the conclusion is based on an a-priori assumption. Unjustified attacks on civilians by Iran and Russia? That cannot possibly be true–only the west, particularly the US, does that. It’s all in your head?! That’s gaslighting.
True, WW1 was without a moral purpose. US intervention enabled the victors to triumph and impose a harsh peace that laid the groundwork for WW2. The widespread angst was understandable during the interwar period. But this led to the wrong conclusion that the US should never intervene, and if we don’t intervene other powers would be so impressed by our moral purity that they too would never intervene. You see, world peace would prevail if everybody became a neo-pacifist, starting with the US.
In reality, liberty lies midway between force initiation and pacifism. Liberty does not prohibit defensive or retaliatory force. But even if justified morally, there is another consideration: is the intervention wise. Before we dismantle our police forces and military, let first find an example of where neo-pacifism has every worked.