Decolonial Theory: The Highest Stage of Neocolonialism

How Monopoly Imperialism Weaponizes Anti-Colonialism & White Guilt to Maintain Empire

White Skin,BIPOC-LGBTQ2SCIAFBI+ Mask

As I make my rounds here on God's green earth, making my contributions to socialist organizing, I've been subject to a phenomena, so grossly racist, so unintelligibly incoherent, so shockingly impotent, that I can only describe it is as being confronted by a Cronenberg-esq cosmic horror. It is no exaggeration that dealing with the modern left has been such a nightmare.

The left in the US is a funhouse mirror of communist movements around the world, a chimera made of parts strewn together from contradictory ideologies that deem themselves Marxist. There is no better example than the “decolonial”, “anti settler” variety of leftist that makes a mockery of revolutionary anti-colonial practice.

Speaking for a moment anecdotally, I’ve seen this school of thought manifested in many ways. I have had the personal displeasure of having a white women accuse me of being a colonizer--an affront as confusing as it is offensive as I myself am a Puerto Rican man, in an organization led by colonized people. REAL has been subjected to a lot of ire for disagreeing with many popular assertions among the "decolonial" left, such as ideas that Karl Marx is Eurocentric, Lenin is antiquated, and that embracing revolution in this country is a chauvinist position.

We are chastised for holding the view that Marxism-Leninism remains important, and are told that it is a theory from which we should “advance”. Could you believe that in engaging in this discourse we have been recommended to read, without the slightest hint of self awareness; literal Zionists, academics from EUROPEAN universities, advocates for beastiality, and political punk rock musicians.

I can deal with these theoretical disagreements even though I find them inconsistent, but the privileging of decolonial theory can take the most grotesque forms; ones that make the words of the great Italian communist Antonio Gramsci ring very true: “These are the times of monsters”. In a vulgar sexualization of the bloody struggle of liberation for colonized nations, these monsters promote “polycules” as a means to “fight against fascism”, and deem it the “decolonization” of their sex life. This sexual fixation echoes into prominent organizations that use resources to throw singles mixers as the country spirals into WWIII, not to mention the lack of emphasis these same organizations have on the current genocide against the Palestinian people. When leftists put such high importance on the spectacle of sex in organizing, is it any wonder why sex pests are such a plague on the left?

I am not writing this in the exercise of theoretical or moral purity; I cut my teeth on the anti colonial struggle and have a real appreciation for Pan-Africanism and national liberation. It is for that reason I’m indignant at this caricature of struggle by the left. So I find it necessary to interrogate this line, and in my examination I find that regardless of what form it takes, this “Settler” sort of political line is rooted in the very colonial institutions it derides. I insist that its pervasiveness is the result of an intellectual product financed by the elites in efforts to erect a bulwark against communist organizing and safeguarding bourgeois interests. It is a tactic that was long since expounded on by a founding figure of the true anti colonialism: “Osegyafu” Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. In his notion of Neo-Colonialism he saliently points out the modern condition of colonialism being maintained under an anti-colonial veneer.

Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor (Why Theory is important)

To Nkrumah, Kwame Ture, Cabral, and all the revolutionaries that shed blood for the actual decolonial project, this is not your legacy. This article is not an effort to denigrate the heroic struggle of the indigenous people of the world. It is also not a polemic against any political program for national autonomy of any indigenous nation.

What this article aims to do is clearly demarcate the historically instantiated anti colonial struggle from a body of bourgeois academic work that tries to lay claim to this revolutionary lineage.

“First as history then as farce” to paraphrase Karl Marx, this form of anti colonialism popular among radicals today is a disgusting reboot, unfaithful to the source material. Anti-colonialism was a tangible struggle for the sovereignty of colonized people against foreign invaders with countless heroes who fought and died for liberation.

It is true that the concrete experience of colonialism gave rise to the capitalist mode of production, and contrary to what detractors say, we’d never deny that and we would also never deny that it has real echoes in the modern day that absolutely have to be reconciled with. What we insist upon is this “theory” is not up to that task, due to the undermining or revision of class analysis. If we understand class and how it manifests, we see that is that the same institutions that rapaciously gnawed at the lands of the third world who delivered us the slop that is “Decolonial Theory” or more accurately, "Post Colonial Studies". Nkrumah, himself using class analysis, gives us insight into this phenomena through his work: Neocolonialism the Highest Stage of Imperialism.

It's Pure Ideology

Many of these “Decolonial Theorists” describe themselves as “Decolonial Marxists”. A term that is implied to mean that while they adhere to Marxism, they have done away with the Eurocentric baggage that comes with the ideological framework of “Marxism” or “Scientific Socialism”. Again speaking from my own experience, in the discussion before it devolves into hurls of insults, these theorists never really point to any concrete example where Marxism falls short or identify where these insurmountable European biases lie. Even when engaging with more scholarly works from this camp, we find criticisms that are just flat out refutations of the Marxist method. Criticisms of an imperfect Soviet Union, interrogations of the cultural sphere; these ideologists find the USSR narrow in its scope with its aid to mostly European countries and lacking in its treatment of minorities. Some go so far as to call it the entire Socialist experiment racist. And so they insist that Marxism should be revised and deride modern Marxism and all its adherents as “class reductionists”. These vapid accusations of inherent “racism” fall flat, especially since it was Vladimir Lenin, who used the Marxist method as it was meant to be applied and situated it in the age of Imperialism. Lenin and Stalin outlined the “national question”--an unprecedented program for cohesion and unity between previously antagonistic nationalities in countries. It was this Marxist-Leninist canon that established the Soviet Union, that concretely ushered in the age associated with decolonization, making it the ultimate weapon for liberation from colonial powers.

To further ignore contributing to real practice, these theorists do not provide concretely what “decolonial theory” proposes as an alternative to replace this shortcoming. I am simply to take it on their word -- on the authority of their social standing that comes with the self-branding as a marginalized subject. ("You're not listening to X voices!") Without any evidence, we are to succumb to their dictates. Under the slightest pressure to defend their position through a simple civil discourse, it is common to just be immediately derided as a “racist” or “chauvinist” or anti x-identity. As though the communist political program is no different than a Klansmen or a Nazi.

It is here I find the principal issue with these ideologists. Communism concretely embodied in China, the USSR and other real world political bodies, has been proven time and time again to be the most successful means of overthrowing the all powerful rule of the monied class, the very inheritors of colonial rule these theorists claim to oppose. No other program has proven to be such an existential threat to the dynastic oligarchs. While the “anti settler” theorist centers the cosmetic and outward relations of oppression, Marxism uncovers the underlying dynamic relations of class, insisting on the waging of class struggle that propels society forward. Marxism is an alternative model to the capitalist arrangement and has liberated the broad masses, including the “wretched of the earth”-- the colonized people of the world. It was communists in the United States and abroad that were most ardent defenders of racial solidarity the fighters of the oppressed. William Z Foster and his comrades were all so called “settlers” who stood by their brothers on class grounds. So when the decolonial theorists villainize communists in such a way as to equate them with the most evil forces of fascism and chauvinism, these theorists should have to admit that they stand shoulder to shoulder with the ruling elite in enmity against the communists.

What is pernicious about these radicals is that they hide behind a smokescreen of “advancing Marxism” when in fact they are revising marxism, blunting its revolutionary edge. Marxism, “the ruthless criticism of all that exists”, quickly turns into submission to an infallible dogma of this or that individual. When we unmask them of their Marxist jargon like a cartoonish Scooby Doo villain, this theoretical framework is revealed to be Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw’s theory of “intersectionality”, the flagship ideology of progressive democrats.

It is our responsibility to chart a clear course through this political crisis we are in to lead us to a revolutionary conclusion. In any war, especially one as obfuscated as a class war, we must ask: “Who are our friends? Who are our Enemies?” It is through our ideological lens that we understand these fundamental questions and navigate the world according to our conclusions. So it is important that we unpack our metaphysical tool kit, and recognize the trappings of bourgeois ideologies that are sure to orient us in the wrong direction and sabotage the movement for their overthrowing.

From birth we are indoctrinated with bourgeois propaganda that undergirds our very thought. Liberalism is the ideological default of our society and justifies the rule of the bourgeoisie based on abstraction of private property and individual merit. Marxism in contrast, by insisting that ideas are a reflection of the material reality and not the other way around, begs the question: Where did these ideas come from? How did this brand of “decolonial Marxism” find itself here, in the zeitgeist of the West? What class do these ideas benefit?

The tool of Marxism explains the scientific laws governing the development of societies, and the dynamic elements that lead to a revolutionary change--namely class. The dialectical materialist outlook is the medium that reveals the historic trajectory of ideas, allowing us to identify them and ultimately to uproot them if they do not serve the project of liberation.

No one knew this better than the great genuinely anti colonial figure Kwame Nkrumah, the liberator of Ghana and figurehead of the Marxist application to colonialism, who reveals to us the mechanism of true anti-colonial liberation.

The REAL Decolonial Theory

Nkrumah’s Magnus opus, Neocolonialism: The Highest Stage of Imperialism, builds on VI Lenin’s Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Lenin correctly describes Imperialism as Monopoly Capitalism. True to the Dialectical Materialist method, Lenin traces the development of free market capital and how, by its own logic, it developed into concentrated centers of power. No longer a free economic competition, capitalist economies are instead commanded from the heights of the monopolist's towers. Instead of pointing to abstract oppressive social structures as liberals do, Lenin outright names the bourgeois camp, and the figures and enterprises who embody them. The Rockefeller's oil company, the Morgan’s bank, Ford’s factories and more. These bigger businesses crushed or absorbed smaller ones, controlled supply chains, and merged with their competitors. Banking and government alliances cemented their political dominance using the means of economic tactics such as “the revolving door” phenomena where government officials and corporate board members interchange and overlap their positions. This mob like “business” of those who conquer by means of the monopolist ultimately resulted in ww1, where they fought one another to redivide an already conquered world for a larger piece of the pie.

Despite being a “Eurocentric” ideology of the white man, Osagyefo Dr.' Nkrumah found great use of the Marxist method to correctly assess the economic circumstances in his time and pick up where Lenin left off. It is the same Rockefellers, the same Rothschilds, and although they change their name, it is the same banks that embodied imperialism in Nkrumah’s day as well. He observed the movement of the ruling class, through their financial dictates. Recognizing that African countries achieved a superficial national independence, but were still beholden to imperialists through their financial ties, a phenomena that he famously categorized as Neocolonialism. To Nkrumah, neocolonialism is the condition of countries maintaining formal independence (a native government, native statesmen, native flag) but whose economy is controlled by the historically determined ruling class.

“The International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (known as the World Bank), the International Finance Corporation, and the International Development Association are examples, all, significantly, having U.S. capital as their major backing. These agencies have the habit of forcing would-be borrowers to submit to various offensive conditions, such as supplying information about their economies, submitting their policy and plans to review by the World Bank and accepting agency supervision of their use of loans.”
-Kwame Nkrumah

As exemplified by this quote he describes how Neocolonialism is a consequence of the imperialist powers tendency to absorb and monopolize, which by his time had already culminated primarily in the USA’s bourgeois state. By then the ruling class had instituted the world bank and the IMF as a means of taming inter-imperialist conflict by means of establishing the US on top. The US remained financially solvent, being largely untouched by the world wars, and provided funding for the “rebuilding” of Europe and Allied powers. Post-war reconstruction efforts like the DODGE and Marshal plan’s issued loans by the billions capturing countries in a net of debt. Europe was forced into playing second fiddle to the US imperialist, although they maintained the ability to extract capital from their colonies in Africa and South America. Japan and South Korea also received a huge influx of these finances for reasons that will become clear later in this article. What is important now is to understand this arrangement is an undeniable encroachment upon these nation's own sovereignty, regardless of their appearance as independent countries, a condition that echos into the territories that they are in possession of. Institutions, Financial, Political and even military formations like NATO, The Quad and AUKUS functionally occupy these countries, keeping them at the whim of Wall Street. No doubt this is a continuity of the Monopolist trend of economic absorption through the manipulation of finance or fictitious capital, but in a new distinct form for a new age.

A notable development, was replacing the gold standard with the dollar. With the complex interlacing of lines of capital and debt overseen by the world bank, it was easier just to organize the world economy around the maintenance of the US and its Dollar. This unprecedented largely abstract world reserve currency was backed by nothing but “the vibes” based US economy. Clearly physical occupation became a primitive unsophisticated means of domination. The US could facilitate their economic extraction through a simple means financial rearrangement. Albiet on faulty ground, the US stood as the worlds first super power, and the economic standing of the countries of the entire world hinge on with complacency with the US as the imperialist hegemon.

The work of these two great revolutionaries, Nkrumah and Lenin provide insight of a single phenomena and how it evolved to become two very different forms on the political landscape. The most substantial difference is that Nkrumah lived in the time where communism had presented a model of alternative development to the world.

Red Herring For the Red Scare

“Development in the new countries along non-capitalist lines must be frustrated in the interests of Western imperialism. A series of articles which appeared in The [London] Times in April 1964 outlines the pattern and made no secret of its reasons: ‘The two great objects of Britain’s foreign policy must be to prevent the non-communist world from being penetrated by Communism ... and secondly, to prevent her own access to trade and investment in any part of the world from being barred or limited.’ Naturally enough, as the articles conclude, ‘both these objects lead straight into the “neo-colonial” issue – the struggle for influence, commercial and political, over the non-communist countries outside Europe and North America’. Thus succinctly does the writer in The Times expose the true character of the ideological struggle between monopolies. Leading the ideological struggle, because she leads the inter-imperialist struggle, is the U.S.A.”
-Kwame Nkrumah

The tangible success of Communism, embodied by the USSR and then China, became the basis of bifurcation of the world. Having wrestled away its territories from the grasp of the oligarchs and into the hands of the people, the communist bloc and the resources it controlled became the new frontier that the imperialists set their sights on. The communist superpowers had both become nuclear powers, making direct confrontation out of the question as mutual destruction was assured. Monopoly financiers were, for the first time, forced into a defensive position against an opposing ideology. With brute force being an unwise recourse, what is now key to the dominion of the imperialist, is that targeted governments fail to adopt the ideological precepts of communism. Such mandates as putting resources under the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and adopting a developmental model or “advancing the productive forces” as described as the first and foremost task of a communist party in Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” were the principle defense against this domination. So long as a government accepts an ideological framework that allows foreign incursion into their economies, the imperialist secures a monopoly of their resources. In this overarching super-structure, along with the advancement of communications technologies, information control became the principal weapon against the unaligned and communist countries. In this battlefield of ideological struggle the common jar head is unequal to the challenge, new bodies of war were crafted for this combat, namely the Central Intelligence Agency.

"One function of the Agency is to create an international anticommunist ideology."
-CIA whistleblower Ralph McGhee

Hollywood movies would lead us to believe that the CIA daily task is sneaking into lavish parties, being equipped with deadly pens and engaging super villains in hand-to-hand combat. The reality is much more boring, yet infinitely more nefarious. We know for a fact through whistleblowers and declassified documents, that the primary task of the CIA is the organization and training of human assets to orient them towards the US’s Political aims. In the book “Who Paid the Piper” Francis Stonor Saunders uncovers how the CIA covertly funded and influenced intellectuals, artists, and cultural institutions to propagate anti-Communist ideologies, often without the knowledge of the individuals involved. Institutions installed at the whim of global financial capital are the means which facilitate the CIA’s penetration. The media, multilateral “aid”, universities and even labor unions all over the world functioned as tools for imperial aims.

We can go into the greater context of how they cultivate activists and extremists and how this leads into the commonly known the phenomena of color revolutions, which should be at least to some degree familiar to us today. Operations like Cyclone which trained the Mujahadeen against the Soviet Union, or the proliferation of Banderism in Ukraine, the contras in Nicaragua, and the list goes on. These examples are the key indicators of success for the agency. The violence and destruction these cutouts played came to its logical end: the overthrow of the targeted government. However this article is more so premised on the ideological training of the west, and the agencies interest would rather be to prevent revolution, but it is through the same institutions that they achieve this goal on the ideological front. The institution most effective in this context is Academia.

It should come as no surprise that universities would be utilized to the ends of counter revolution. In fact I’m more surprised at how uncritically leftist uphold academic thinkers. Academic institutions have never been impartial and objective arbitors of higher learning. Universities have always been an apparatus of the ruling class for producing a work force in fields most relevant to the maintenance of their class dominance. For example, the first universities in America were founded to teach religious education with an emphasis in theology, and colonial administration to train clergymen and ministers for their “civilizing mission”. In that time spreading Christianity justified the underlying economic aims of the colonizers; the displacement and enslavement of the indigenous people. In the later era, when liberal governments came to be the norm, in the midst of the industrial revolution, colleges were instead secularized and made more widely available outside a religious aristocracy, to train a workforce in the maintenance and workings of new sophisticated machinery and instruction in the new forms of liberal governance. As Marx and Engels professed in their work the German Ideology…

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force."

These programs were not funded for the sake of impartial scientific inquiry, but rather to fulfill the objective needs for a workforce to labor in the interest of the ruling class. As we continue to trace the bourgeois motion into the development to the times of Nkrumah and extending it into our own, we see modern academia push International collaboration and exchange with a newly found concern for cultural studies, coinciding with the age of information war against the Communist bloc. Scholarly Institutions formed partnerships with foreign universities with the aims of preparing students for the globalized economy and foster international cooperation in their ideological campaign. This is just one of the manifestations of a kind of occupation imposed by the international financial cartel. In his book, Saunders describes how the intelligence agencies cultivated Art, Journalism and an elite intellectual class that would help sustain the legitimacy of American policy against the communist bloc. Conservative ideologues need no help fomenting jingoistic positions against the enemies of the US, what the CIA needed is a new non communist left. Connected globally by funding from the Ford Foundation and The Rockefeller Foundations they bolstered the works in progressive fields like social justice movements, climate change, systemic racism, and gender equity. Ironically, the entities responsible for institutionalizing these social issues, fund their supposed opposition.

What specific ideology to be propagated is unimportant. Be it Free Market Liberalism, Anarchism, Cultural Critiques or what have you, what matters is that they are what Michael Parenti Calls “ABC” theorists: Anything But Class. The Seeds of these left anti-communist thinkers stem from the bodies of work of the opposition to Stalinist USSR, thus enmity to Stalin is a sure sign that one’s ideology is a product of the CIA cultivated “left”. People like Leon Trotsky launched formally Marxist criticisms of the USSR, deeming it to be a failed socialist state governed by a new ruling class. It is the opinion of modern Trotskyists that he represents the true model of what Socialism should be and that Stalin represents an authoritarian revision of Marx. But Trotsky’s legacy is actually being the progenitor of anti communist sentiment in the west. The notion that the communist party of the USSR constitutes a new oppressor class has the underlying logic that is the basis of the new left division from orthodox Marxism Leninism. The ruling class or the bourgeoisie, described by Marx then Lenin then Nkrumah, developed concretely into the financial monopoly we know today. So if the ruling party of the Soviet constitutes a new class, based on this Trotskyist redefinition, then class becomes something subjective, dictated by ones own personal whims and not a description of a real historic body. And if class oppression is predicated on one’s personal view, then you can describe Men as an oppressor class, heterosexual’s as an oppressor class and as the “Decolonial Theorist” assert, Whites as a whole are an oppressive “settler class”. **Disclaimer** (I know, this will be misconstrued to make it seem as though I believe patriarchy, Racism or homophobia are inconsequential. I want to clearly state, that I do believe they are real social issue’s that rob people of their dignity and that it merits effort to overcome them. I am simply making the case these social denominations are not the same thing as class and they are purposefully substituted for one another to undermine Marx’s scientific conception of revolutionary transformation from one society to another.) Dissatisfied socialists, appalled by Stalinist Russia came into great repute once they disavowed the centrality of class. Michel Foucalt is such a figure, trailblazing the advent of the postmodernist framework. Gloria Steinem, a nationally recognized leader of second-wave feminism and self admitted CIA asset, is indispensable to todays gendered studies.

“Friendly co-operation is offered in the educational, cultural and social domains, aimed at subverting the desirable patterns of indigenous progress to the imperialist objectives of the financial monopolists.”
-Kwame Nkrumah

The Congress for Cultural Freedom was officially disbanded in 1967 under mounting pressure, but Foundation money coming from oligarchs still continues to fund so-called "left" causes till this day, as does the operations of Intelligence agencies. Academia is a terrarium built by the CIA and their financiers, all they have to do is set the stage and plant the seeds and the ecosystem takes on a life of its own. A whole pedigree of academics emerge from this environment, building off the same revisionist framework and influencing each other's works.

Post Colonial = Neocolonial

The period between 1945-1970’s was a time of monumental change for the third world. Liberation movements of all stripes sprang up with a contesting vision of a new world free from colonial domination. On the ideological battlefield the monopolist answer to the raising tide of colonization goes hand in hand with their answer to communism. Here we take our final insights from Dr.Nkrumah as he has reached the mortal confines of his analysis. We pick up the torch, and use his teachings to continue the observation of the Citadel of Imperialism.

“The aim of neo-colonialists is economic domination, they do not confine their operations to the economic sphere. They use the old colonialist methods of religious, educational and cultural infiltration. For example, in the independent States, many expatriate teachers and ‘cultural ambassadors’ influence the minds of the young against their own country and people.”

Expatriats are commonly understood to be someone who lives outside their native country, in this context they function as “ambassadors” of colonized nations so long as they are in service to Neocolonialism. They depart from their domains and are steeped in the sesspool of academia. Nkrumah did not live to see the advance utility of “expatriates” especially in the age of social media. Ghandi, though, now out of favor, once perfectly encapsulated a figure who sought independence from their colonial plight who was lauded as a role model in the west, no doubt due to his ideological commitments. But there is a host of Prolific “representatives” of colonized nations that play the role of ideological ambassadors to a largely western audience on the academic stage provided for them by the elites. The field of Postcolonial studies is the marriage between the institutionalized critical theory body of work and the advocates of neocolonial arrangements in the third world just coming into formal independence.

The result is an academic milieu of 3rd world people whose work is fixated at the sight of individual subjectivity. With Jacques Derrida we are taught to be deconstructionist and must concern ourselves to think beyond binaries so as not to replicate western hierarchies in our language. The great cultural critic, Edward Said delineates the Occidantal and the Oriental and now one is prescribed on how to personally adhere to the non western cultures. Even with Franz Fanon, what’s important is not that he fought to free Algeria, his teachings are propagated for their use in freeing our psyche from colonial baggage.

Just as the countries who adhere to a formal independence without addressing the underlying class rule, so do individual adherents to post colonial theory only achieve the appearance of independence. They go through the motions of independence, we give the impression of independence but we never achieve independence. The capitalist system that materially environs us remains unscathed. But in the age of social media, impressions take on a primary role. I'm reminded of a lecture from a decolonial academic I was recommend by an “anti colonial theorist” whose primary thesis was on the liberatory value in practicing “non-human” sexual relationships. It is appears to me, that in the age of social media, in which novelty is rewarded with fame and even fortune, the so-called ambassadors of colonized people have become caricatures of them.

The purpose of a program is simply what it practically does. Having understood the objective of this social programing, we see how it objectively plays out in real life. If liberation is found, in the construct of behaviors then it stands to reason that one should fight one another according to behavior. We are led to believe that the more you deconstruct social norms, the more decolonized you’ve become, thus those who embody social norms must necessarily be colonizers. From the citadel of academia, a social body of intellegencia, is waged an invasion against the common sensibilities of the general population outside of the periphery of the towers of the monopolist. And the imperialists watch from their ivory towers.

Neocolonialism entrusts the administration of the capitalist extortion to a puppet who formally belongs to the oppressed nation, that looks like them, speaks like them, but serves to maintain the system of class dominance. By means of the obfuscation of class, Decolonial theorists embody this arrangement, orienting young radicals against their neighbors instead of the common class enemy of world. I can think of no greater gift to the hungry, displaced and dismembered people of the third world, than an American working class that has wrestled power from the Imperialist. An America that has ended the 100 year reign of The Rockefellers, The Rothschilds and The Morgans and seized their assets for communist construction, would usher in an unprecedented era where there would be an economic incentive peace. To deter from this goal, to adopt ideologies based on marginalization, or that insist a revolution simply cannot be done, is to doom Palestine, Sudan, Haiti and the planet as a whole to limitless colonial exploitation.

“[Neocolonialism] is to achieve colonialism in fact while preaching independence.”
-Kwame Nkrumah

The Unhappy Class Consciousness

The class position of those most susceptible to this political line is key to understanding the relationship to the grander structure of class dominance. Often coming from a well to do background, these are generally younger people coming into college age to older millennials. Having grown in the internet age, no doubt groomed by Tumblr.

This is typically the base of recruitment for the established left orgs. New adults who are coming into their independence. It is an age where you’re looking for new answers to supersede your parents and make them proud. A time in life where you find your calling, blessed with the free time to pursue activism, on this pilgrimage of self discovery and self realization. This is all perfectly natural and is a tale as old as time. But to be a suburbanites in any coastal city, is to live in the metropole. And we must be aware of the social imprint that comes from being in such proximity to the institutions of capital which constitute cities. These cities are, of course, the reciprocals of capital, the nerve centers that embody the financiers.

Colleges are the literal centers where the bourgeois pay academics to reproduce bourgeois thoughts. Work offices, sectors of intellectual labor where thinking or saying the wrong thing “is not aligned with company values”, gets you the pink slip. Consider the modern Restaurants, whose atmosphere is selectively procured to produce a social association, be it high end elegance, or punk rock rebelliousness. In these type of establishments frequented by this kind of middle class, the product is first and foremost not the food; the worker must produce the “vibe”, aesthetics that consumers can share on their social media and establish a collective identity.

These institutions instill and reinforce the pathology required to go up the economic scale typically into a Professional Managerial class (PMC) position, be it a self styled intellectual, an organizer, or an influencer. The PMC is a curator of thought, ideas and ultimately behaviors. In their social conditioning they are deputized by the ruling class. They are the teacher's pet in a grander social scale, tattle tales of any perceived misgiving, seeing to it that the culprits face the consequences. They are Watchdogs of ideology… reporting, reprimanding and reproaching…earning the scratches behind their ear.

This class position underpins a pathological phenomenon that is patently evident in this new Decolonial radicalism so popular among young city folk. Their ideological framework undergirds a psychosis, no doubt MKUltra’d into their minds, and creates a detachment from reality so pronounced, so pervasive…. it warrants its OWN ARTICLE. But before establishing the material origins of this ideology, I first want to lay the psychological foundations of why they latch onto it so strongly in the first place, despite being an affront to their very institutional, very well financed, very WESTERN material reality.

The dissonance sustained by these young PMC western academics, who genuinely believe themselves to be waging a revolutionary “Anti-colonial” struggle against settler colonialism, in the same vein as Kwame Nkrumah, Gironomo or Sitting Bull, can only be maintained by a disassociation into an arrested state of adolescence. An angsty teen trapped in the body of an increasingly aging millennial, who never stopped playing pretend. Jaded and bitter, going to any length to escape the authority of their parents. The archetypes of a patriarchal father and/or a prudish mother, their conservative values are crystalized in their minds and politicized as “settler colonialism”, the stand-in for their parental figures for them to rebel against.

Far from a concrete effort to tangibly resist the agenda of the ruling class, what passes for the left is a pandemic of psychosis. A psychic defense mechanism in the form a political ideology. To overcome the childhood trauma of alienation for those who have yet to grow from being an insufferable loser.

These individuals seek validation in leftist circles. In these “counter cultural socius”, Anti social behaviors are reframed as radical virtues. Virtues that finally award these estranged nerds a sense of self worth and the social capital needed to access to the social standing they always felt are owed to them. In their mind they are Harry Potter, who always knew better than those pesky adult authority figures telling them what to do. “See mom! I'm not a fuck up! I'm not responsible for my own shortcomings! You're just ascribed to colonial values!”

Their “cutting edge theory” serves as an epistemological projection on politics. In this hellish inversion of reality, oppressed people are blank slates to project their own short comings, in a political narrative. Replacing the misunderstood underdog nerd, with the historical oppression of the indigenous peoples of the world. A colonization of trauma posing as anti colonialism. This political framework that functions as a psychological mask allows these westerners to live out their repressed libidinal desires, freely and unaccountably as acts of liberation.

Hence their obsession with sex and violence, the markings of an impulsive and insecure youth. Evident in the vitriolic tantrum’s in surrounding discourse like our POST ON SEX WORK, evident in the subtweets and pestering in our DM’s. The political assessment of an impersonal reality is unimportant to them. What is important is that we listen to their individual voices, revealing that it is actually their personal comfort they want us to prioritize, as we seemingly undermined the basis of their own self worth and placement in the social order.

The result of the post modernist studies is that the site of revolution for this left is at the individual level. So, their praxis, a 1 to 1 outgrowth of the PMC aesthetic and ideological rebranding, consists of replacing their identity, in favor of a more radical veneer that can better absolve them of being a “settler”.

So, Kaitlyn, as though they are Cassius Clay becoming Mohammed Ali, “decolonizes” their name and is now Sock. The asymmetric Karen bob is unsuitable for a revolutionary of her stature, so she shaves her head in the style of the “mohawk tribe”. Gauged ears, nose piercings, tattoos, all appropriations from indigenous people, signal their refusal to live life according to any precept they deem to be colonial. Free from their parents, uh...I mean rigid colonial values, "anti colonial, anti fascist polycules” become the pinnacle of liberation. An echo chamber for validation, their lifestyle brand is anti capitalist praxis and their sense of self worth and self image is contingent on this narrative.

If our haters could read, they would be very upset by the views expressed in this article. Decolonization has been adopted by these Bohemian PMCs as a means to exonerate themselves of their personal hang ups and shortcomings, using a caricature of indigineity to craft a narrative, where they are the virtuous and everyone else is a reactionary. The indisputable truth is that they are the privileged westerner they hate so much and belong to a reactionary class, perpetuating the propaganda machine that seeks to uphold imperialist dominance over the world.