For several years now, politicians, influencers, and intellectuals from Latin America’s new radical right have been speaking about the importance of the “cultural battle” to recover a sort of perspective lost in the past and to underpin a civilizational project that prioritizes the individual, individual freedom, and the free market above all else.

Probably the first to insist on this idea in the media was Javier Milei, the current president of Argentina, who initially made a name for himself as an economist who had no problem insulting his opponents and defending orthodox neoliberal thought.

At that time, Milei, along with his intellectual allies, called for a stand against a purported culture imposed by so-called left-wing elites who had tarnished common sense, Christian morality, and individual freedom, among many other things.

A few days ago, Colombian President Abelardo de la Espriella called for a radicalization of his “cultural battle” and ordered the removal of dozens of works of art from various museums in order to restore a culture that has been held captive by the left, Marxism, and other dark (or, as Milei himself puts it, “demonic”) forces.

In reality, the move isn’t particularly original. Back in the United States, Pat Buchanan (a close advisor to Nixon and Reagan) had already advocated for and encouraged inflammatory rhetoric to wage a “culture war” and thus defend a culture tarnished by social change. Among the major intellectual inspirers of this doctrine are the American Sam Francis and the Frenchmen Alain de Benoist and Guillaume Faye (albeit with their well-known differences). Even some Germans in the 1930s attempted to make what they called “cultural Bolshevism” the scapegoat for all their ills.

But the push for a “cultural battle” in Latin America had a more interesting rationale. And it is not so much due to a supposed pragmatic interpretation of Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony – which has been distorted by the new radical right, as well as by much of liberalism and social democracy, which understand it solely as “cultural hegemony.”

No, in reality, the intention behind invoking a “culture war” against feminism, abortion rights, progressive governments, left-wing artists, revolutionary intellectuals, etc., is more of a strategic nature.

For those who are actually, as ideologues, behind the “culture war” projects are not Buchanan, Francis, De Benoist, or Faye, but Hayek, Friedman, and the rest of the neoliberal economists.

The truth is that neoliberalism in Latin America during the late 20th and early 21st centuries was both a resounding failure and a magnificent victory. This apparent contradiction is resolved depending on which social class we are discussing. During that time, the most powerful social classes, economically speaking, managed to accumulate an enormous amount of power and resources, the likes of which have rarely been seen in Latin American history.

But such a level of accumulation in societies subjugated by a global imperialist order (such as those in Latin America) necessarily drives the working classes into conditions of material precariousness that are almost unbearable. Mass migration, uprisings, deaths, the loss of a lifetime’s savings, rising crime, and so on were just some of the devastation left in the wake of the neoliberalism driven by the Washington Consensus during that period.

In response to the crisis, several centrist, center-left, and even leftist leaders won elections in the region in quick succession: Chávez in Venezuela, Morales in Bolivia, Fernández in Argentina, Correa in Ecuador, Lula in Brazil, Bachelet in Chile, Mujica in Uruguay, etc. They sought to resolve a capitalist economic crisis within the framework of capitalism itself, resorting to approaches that combined Keynesian measures with legislation designed to protect and expand rights, especially for the most marginalized sectors.

These were times when (not without contradictions with other political forces, including those of a more traditional left) the economies of these countries improved, thanks in part to high commodity prices on the global market. And with public policies that, in many cases, focused on providing aid and social programs, the situation of millions of Latin Americans clearly improved. Between 2000 and 2012 alone, 56 million Latin American citizens managed to rise out of poverty.

Once the storm of discontent against neoliberalism had passed, the ruling classes decided they’d had enough of progressive governments. But to regain absolute control (since they had always maintained the necessary share of power to influence national decisions), they needed to win back the governments, and to do so, they found themselves at a crossroads.

They knew that the central argument against center-left governments could not be based solely on the economic downturn that followed the end of high prices for Latin American natural resources, but that it had to be grounded in something more – something that would come across as novel, radical, and a sort of conservative revolutionary ideology.

And that is how they found in the “culture war” a niche for ideological propaganda that has had a historic impact on Latin America. In addition to the aforementioned criticisms, they succeeded (through their intellectuals, politicians, influencers, media outlets, social media, and so on) in creating a perceived link between progressivism and corruption, between progressivism and organized crime, and, finally, between progressivism and an alleged erosion of individual freedom.

But the truth is that these kinds of strategies can cause political upheaval like that seen in the region in recent years, during which (thanks to the support of national and international tycoons, as well as support from Washington and other governments such as Israel’s) there has been a string of victories for the radical right, which could complete its winning hand next Sunday in Brazil.

But in the long term, neoliberalism cannot (nor does it intend to) overcome the contradiction inherent in an economy of this nature in countries with clear relationships of international domination. Thus, at the height of this new wave of neoliberal right-wing movements, the first cracks in ideological stability are already beginning to appear, precisely in the face of a material reality that offers no respite from political rhetoric.

The situation of millions of Latin Americans (especially the poorest) is rapidly being complicated by a radical increase in the rate of inequality. The promises made by the new right-wing movements to defeat organized crime show no signs of being a reality or of bringing about clear regional change. Perhaps this is what Nietzsche, another great reactionary, meant when he acknowledged that culture is merely the veneer of something deeper. And that veneer is beginning to wear away very slowly – a process that is nonetheless noticeable if one pays attention.

Two Palestinian men carried out a shooting attack, targeting a group of Israeli soldiers near the Farsh al-Hawa military checkpoint in the southern West Bank governorate of Hebron on Friday, October 23.

According to media reports, the attackers were assassinated by the Israeli forces after engaging in an exchange of fire for about 20 minutes. They were later identified as Firas al-Ju’ba and Hamoudah al-Ju’ba.

The attack also resulted in the killing of two Israeli soldiers and the injury of three others.

Netanyahu announces refugee-camp model campaign in Hebron and broader West Bank operation

In response to the attack, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared a full lockdown in the West Bank and a large-scale operation that will start from the city of Hebron and the neighboring city of Halhul, and further expand to the entire occupied territory.

Wearing a bulletproof vest, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened from Hebron that the Israeli military will apply the “successful and aggressive model” that the Israeli forces used in the Palestinian refugee camps in the north.

The operations in those refugee camps already resulted in the displacement of tens of the thousands of Palestinians, the killing of hundreds, the arrest of over 1,000, and severe damage and destruction of residential buildings, infrastructure, and properties.

“We will evacuate the residents, we will go house to house, remove the weapons there, and all terrorist infrastructure will be dealt with and destroyed,” Netanyahu threatened.

The Israeli military already began to demolish buildings and homes in Hebron shortly after the attack was carried out.

Referring to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria, Netanyahu continued:

“The defense minister and I have seen plans for a very extensive IDF operation in Judea and Samaria, the likes of which have not been carried out since the Six-Day War.”

The Six-Day War was a brief, intense conflict fought between Israel and a coalition of Arab states, primarily Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in 1967.

As a result of the war, Israel occupied Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, Syria’s Golan Heights, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. It also forced 300,000 Palestinians and 100,000 Syrians to flee into neighboring countries. 

It is worth noting that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz have already threatened a possible war in the West Bank in the last couple of weeks.

These threats came hand in hand with an unprecedented escalation of settler violence under the protection of Israeli forces across the occupied territory, alongside intensified military raids. 

Over 79 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank in 2026, and more than 1,870 others have been injured since the beginning of 2026.

Analysts suggest that the escalation in the West Bank aims to push Palestinians towards a confrontation with the Israeli military, a few days before Israel’s legislative elections, scheduled for October 27.