Centro 2030

Twenty-first-century politics has been reduced to a battle of narratives rather than a pursuit of solutions. The debate between the right and the left, capitalism and socialism, has ceased to be a discussion about development models and has instead become a power game that directly harms citizens. This game operates on a simple and perverse logic:  without problems, there is no need; without need, there are no promises; and without promises, there are no votes.  Political leaders, regardless of their ideological label, thrive on creating or amplifying problems. They promise to be the saviour of a society that, in their rhetoric, is on the brink of collapse. Whether the blame falls on “socialist bureaucracy” or “savage capitalism,” the goal remains the same: to polarise and divert attention from mismanagement.  State Capitalism and Social Democracy: Proof That Ideology is Secondary Current economic models demonstrate that ideological purity is a myth. The so-ca...

The figure of Charlie Kirk, examined through the lens of political polarisation, transcends the simplistic narrative of a conservative leader attacked by the left. His story becomes an emblematic case of how the centre, or any voice approaching it, is a battleground for both ideological extremes. In this scenario, moderation is not an ideal to be pursued but a threat that must be eradicated to sustain the polarised system.  The Anatomy of Polarisation: The Common Enemy is the Centre   As the political spectrum illustrates, politics is not a simple bidirectional line but an ecosystem with a centre and two extremes. Polarisation intensifies when the most influential actors at each pole—the “radicals” and the “reactionaries”—benefit from confrontation. Keeping their bases mobilised and enraged is a power strategy that works for both sides.  The Game of the Left and the Right : From the far left, any attempt by a right-wing leader to be conciliatory may be perceiv...