Los Angeles rioters waving Mexican flags signal a dangerous shift from immigration protests to an ideological “anti-colonial” movement that threatens America’s stability and sovereignty.
At a Glance
- Recent LA riots are being framed as “anti-colonial resistance” similar to Palestinian intifadas
- Protesters view the United States as a “settler-colonial state” comparable to Israel
- Mexican flags at riots symbolize territorial claims, not merely cultural pride
- The ideology treats violence as justified resistance against perceived American imperialism
- Law enforcement and public awareness are essential to prevent further escalation
Beyond Immigration: The Ideological Roots of the LA Riots
The violent protests that erupted in Los Angeles extend far beyond concerns about immigration enforcement. According to multiple analyses, these disturbances represent the emergence of a revolutionary movement with deep ideological roots. While many Americans may dismiss the concept of “anti-colonialism” as abstract academic theory, the riots demonstrate its tangible and destructive real-world implications. The core belief driving these disturbances is that America itself is fundamentally illegitimate as a “settler-colonial state” that must be resisted through increasingly aggressive means.
“The riots that kicked off in Los Angeles last weekend aren’t just about illegal immigration — they’re part of a revolutionary movement,” said Daniel McCarthy.
The prominence of Mexican flags during these riots carries significance beyond cultural expression. For those steeped in anti-colonial ideology, these flags represent a territorial claim rather than mere ethnic pride. They symbolize a rejection of American sovereignty over lands that were once Mexican territory. This perspective frames immigration enforcement not as a legitimate function of national security but as an extension of American imperialism that must be actively opposed through disruptive and potentially violent means.
The American Intifada Connection
Analysts have drawn direct parallels between the tactics used in the LA riots and those employed in Palestinian intifadas. These include coordinated street protests, property destruction, and attempts to paralyze economic activity through blockades of major transportation routes. By framing the United States as analogous to Israel, and Latin America as America’s Palestine, proponents of this ideology cast violence against American institutions as morally justified resistance. The disruption of highways and attacks on law enforcement become reimagined as legitimate acts of defiance against a colonial oppressor.
While there is no evidence of a centralized conspiracy directing these actions, the ideology functions as a flexible framework that various groups can adopt to identify and oppose perceived enemies. This decentralized approach makes it particularly difficult to counter, as it doesn’t rely on formal leadership structures that can be targeted by law enforcement. Instead, it spreads through educational institutions, social media, and activist networks, providing a ready-made justification for increasingly aggressive acts of civil disobedience.
The Expanding Cycle of Political Violence
The tolerance of political violence in one context inevitably leads to its expansion in others. The LA riots represent a concerning evolution in a pattern that includes the widespread urban unrest following George Floyd’s death and, from the opposite end of the political spectrum, the January 6 Capitol riot. When authorities fail to consistently enforce laws against political violence, it sends a dangerous message that such tactics are effective. This creates incentives for escalation across the ideological spectrum, as different groups compete to demonstrate their commitment to their causes through increasingly disruptive means.
Breaking this cycle requires firm law enforcement responses that make clear the consequences for those who engage in violent protest tactics. It also demands greater public awareness of the ideological frameworks being used to justify such violence. Many ordinary Americans remain complacent, failing to recognize how abstract academic theories can translate into concrete threats to public safety and national sovereignty. Only by understanding the relationship between ideology and action can effective countermeasures be developed to protect communities from future disruptions.
Securing America’s Future
The response to these disturbances must go beyond tactical law enforcement to address the underlying ideological challenge. Educational institutions that promote anti-colonial frameworks without critical examination deserve particular scrutiny, as they often serve as incubators for the very worldviews that later manifest in street violence. Parents and taxpayers have legitimate interests in ensuring that public education systems are not inadvertently fostering ideologies that cast American sovereignty as inherently illegitimate and resistance to law enforcement as morally justified.
At the same time, a renewed commitment to border security and immigration enforcement is essential. Clearly communicated and consistently applied immigration policies reduce uncertainty and undermine the grievance narratives that fuel unrest. The alternative—a cycle of enforcement followed by retreat in the face of protests—creates perverse incentives for further disruption. Breaking this pattern requires political courage and a willingness to withstand temporary criticism in service of long-term stability and the rule of law that benefits all Americans.
