In January 2025, a consortium of Chinese scholars published a research document that sent shockwaves through international academic circles. Their white paper, entitled “Colonisation of the Mind: The Means, Roots, and Global Perils of U.S. Cognitive Warfare”, presents not merely a geopolitical analysis, but a systematic exposé of what they characterise as the most sophisticated system of mental control ever implemented in human history.
This 36-page document, published through the Xinhua news agency, analyses how the United States has developed strategies of “cognitive colonisation” that extend far beyond traditional methods of imperial control. Rather than conquering territories or controlling natural resources, this modern approach focuses on shaping minds, influencing values, and creating philosophical dependencies that render nations mentally subservient to America.
The central thesis is as audacious as it is disturbing: whilst past empires had to resort to direct military force to maintain control, the United States has discovered that it can obtain “voluntary” submission through the strategic use of culture, media, education, and technology. This represents what the authors term the colonisation of minds—a process whereby nations willingly adopt American worldviews and values, believing them to be universal truths rather than particular interests.
Understanding this phenomenon requires examining its theoretical foundations, operational mechanisms, and global consequences. The evidence suggests that what began as academic theories about “soft power” has evolved into a comprehensive system of cultural hegemony that operates across multiple domains simultaneously.
The Theoretical Foundations of American Soft Power
To comprehend the scope of this strategy, we must begin with the theoretical foundations that inspired it. The concept of “soft power” was theorised by Joseph Nye Jr., a Harvard professor and one of the 20th century’s most influential political scientists, in his 1990 book “Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power”.
Nye defined soft power as “the ability to obtain preferred outcomes through attraction rather than coercion or payment”. In essence, as Nye himself explained, “if you can get others to want what you want, you can economise on sticks and carrots”. This deceptively simple formulation masked a revolutionary approach to international relations that would fundamentally alter how great powers project influence.
What began as an academic theory rapidly transformed into state strategy. The document quotes Nye directly: “The critical question for the United States is not whether it will start the next century as the superpower with the largest supply of resources, but to what extent it will be able to control the political environment and get other countries to do what it wants”.
Even more explicit is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the architect of American geopolitical strategy during the Cold War, who declared in his influential book “The Grand Chessboard”: “Reinforcing American culture’s position as the ‘exemplar’ for all nations is an indispensable strategy for maintaining U.S. hegemony”.
These are not abstract academic speculations. As Marxist critics of Nye observe, soft power can function as a form of hegemonic practice that embeds cultural and political norms within the global order. Indeed, whilst Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony maintains a critical edge by identifying civil society as a battleground for ideological struggle, Nye treats it as a neutral space where values flow organically.
This theoretical framework reveals a profound understanding of power dynamics. Rather than relying solely on military force or economic coercion, the colonisation of minds operates through attraction and persuasion, making the process appear natural and voluntary rather than imposed.
The Three Masks of American Propaganda
The Chinese document identifies three primary modalities through which the United States operates its mental colonisation, termed “masks” of different colours that allow for flexible adaptation to various contexts and situations.
White Propaganda: Manifest Influence
White propaganda represents the most overt dimension of American mental colonisation, operating through public, transparent, and officially endorsed channels to disseminate publicly verifiable information designed to shape a positive national image and promote American values.
Emblematic examples include the State Department, Voice of America, and exchange programmes such as Fulbright scholarships. Since 1948, the American government has invested heavily in the Fulbright Programme—viewed as a “model investment in long-term U.S. national interests”—sponsoring university students, scholars, cultural elites, and academic groups worldwide to study, visit, and conduct research in America. By the late 20th century, the programme had provided financial support to over 250,000 scholars from more than 140 countries and regions.
This systematic cultivation of international elites creates what the document describes as “a vast, globally dispersed ‘pro-American’ contingent among elite circles globally”. The brilliance of this approach lies in its apparent legitimacy—participants genuinely benefit from these exchanges whilst simultaneously absorbing American perspectives and values.
Black Propaganda: Covert Disinformation
Black propaganda represents the most covert, deceptive, and aggressive facet of mind colonisation. Typically executed by intelligence and military agencies under strict secrecy, its core characteristic involves clandestine operations including but not limited to disinformation campaigns, intelligence gathering, and cyber-attacks.
This form of propaganda operates in the shadows, employing techniques designed to manipulate public opinion without revealing their source. The sophistication of these operations has evolved considerably since the Cold War, incorporating advanced digital technologies and psychological manipulation techniques.
Grey Propaganda: Indirect Influence
Grey propaganda is conducted indirectly by the American government through third-party entities such as corporations and NGOs to evade official accountability whilst creating the illusion of “non-governmental spontaneity”. Its objective is to covertly influence public opinion, shape political agendas, or support specific groups in target countries—all whilst allowing the United States to maintain plausible deniability.
A striking example cited in the document involves Bolivia in 2019: “U.S.-funded NGOs incited public unrest in Bolivia, wielding the sword of ‘democracy’ to overthrow a leftist government—a move strategically targeting the country’s largest lithium reserves in the world”. This demonstrates how economic interests can be pursued through seemingly idealistic campaigns for democratic values.
The effectiveness of this tripartite approach lies in its flexibility and adaptability. By employing different “masks” simultaneously, the United States can pursue its objectives across multiple channels whilst maintaining the appearance of legitimacy and moral authority.
The Military-Entertainment Complex
One of the most significant revelations in the Chinese document concerns Hollywood’s role as a propaganda instrument. This analysis finds confirmation in decades of Western academic research documenting what scholars term the “military-entertainment complex”.
Historical Origins and Evolution
During the Second World War, the United States sought to utilise entertainment as a form of propaganda. In 1943, the Office of Strategic Services (a predecessor to the CIA) circulated a memo stating that cinema is “one of the most powerful propaganda weapons at the disposal of the United States” and recommended “the voluntary cooperation of all motion agencies not under the control of the JCS [Joint Chiefs of Staff]”.
Director Elmer Davis explicitly declared: “The easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most people’s minds is to let it go through the medium of an entertainment picture when they do not realise that they are being propagandised”. This principle remains fundamental to contemporary American cultural influence operations.
Contemporary Control Mechanisms
Today, this strategy has evolved into a highly sophisticated system. Researchers utilising Freedom of Information requests have discovered that the Pentagon and CIA have exercised direct editorial control over more than 2,500 films and television programmes—a staggering figure that encompasses much of mainstream American entertainment.
The Department of Defense Entertainment Media Unit operates differently from its wartime predecessor, relying on mutually agreed contracts with Hollywood studios. These agreements prove mutually beneficial: Hollywood gains access to taxpayer funding, military expertise, equipment, and locations, whilst the American military ensures continued propaganda production.
The 1986 film Top Gun exemplifies this relationship. The film would have been prohibitively expensive without military involvement, given that its total budget was $15 million—an incredibly modest figure considering that a single F-14 Tomcat fighter jet costs approximately $38 million. After allowing the military to modify their script, the Department of Defense provided filmmakers with 24 F-14s, four aircraft carriers, access to a Naval Air Base, and nearly 48 other aircraft, all for just $1.8 million. Following Top Gun’s release in 1986, applications to the United States Navy increased by 500%.
The Systematic Nature of Control
The control process operates with remarkable systematicity. Through the Entertainment Liaison Office, the Department of Defense conditions the loan of weapons systems on complete access to studio scripts for new films. Once scripts are vetted and returned with notes, scene modifications, or broad plot alterations, studios can either accept changes in their entirety or lose access to military “toys”.
This relationship can produce brazen propaganda. A particularly troubling example appears in The Fate of the Furious (2017), where rapper and actor Ludacris delivers what appears to be an in-film advertisement. It emerged that Ludacris’ lines were written not by screenwriters but by the Entertainment Liaison Office, effectively transforming the scene into an unskippable advertisement delivered by the American military.
Such covert marketing appears in hundreds of blockbuster films, from the Transformers franchise—where one character, Starscream, is an F-22 fighter jet—to much-celebrated Marvel productions. This systematic approach ensures that American military power appears heroic, necessary, and morally justified across popular culture.
Linguistic and Cultural Dominance
The Chinese document identifies linguistic control as one of the most profound foundations of American cultural hegemony. Quoting Samuel P. Huntington: “The distribution of languages in the world has reflected the distribution of power in the world”.
Following the Second World War, the United States leveraged its economic, military, technological, and popular cultural dominance to vigorously promote English worldwide, further elevating its status as the global lingua franca. This linguistic hegemony extends to controlling global conversation itself.
As Brzezinski observes in “The Grand Chessboard”: “The language of the Internet is English, and an overwhelming proportion of the global computer chatter also originates from America, influencing the content of global conversation”. This creates what amounts to a linguistic ecosystem where American perspectives and values appear natural and universal rather than particular and interested.
The implications extend beyond mere communication. Language shapes thought patterns, conceptual frameworks, and cultural assumptions. When global discourse occurs primarily in English, using American-derived concepts and categories, it becomes extraordinarily difficult for alternative worldviews to gain currency or even articulation.
Furthermore, Brzezinski notes that “America has become a Mecca for those seeking advanced education, with approximately half a million foreign students flocking to the United States, with many of the ablest never returning home. Graduates from American universities are to be found in almost every Cabinet on every continent”. This creates a global network of American-educated elites who carry these linguistic and cultural frameworks back to their home countries.
The Colonisation of Educational Systems
The Americanisation of education represents one of the most subtle yet effective instruments of mental colonisation. The document quotes Professor Simon Marginson of Oxford University: “The Americanisation of knowledge and university education sustains an Americanised global society, which in turn reinforces U.S. dominance in global political economy, cultural life, and military affairs through a mutually reinforcing process”.
This process operates through multiple mechanisms. American universities dominate global rankings, research funding, and academic publishing. English has become the lingua franca of academic discourse, with major journals predominantly published in the United States or following American editorial standards. International students and scholars seeking prestige and career advancement increasingly look to American institutions.
The result is what the document terms the cultivation of “a vast, globally dispersed ‘pro-American’ contingent among elite circles globally”. These individuals, educated in American institutions and acculturated to American values, return to their home countries as influential voices in academia, government, business, and civil society.
This represents a particularly sophisticated form of colonisation because it appears entirely voluntary and meritocratic. Students choose to study in America, scholars compete for American grants, and universities seek American partnerships. Yet the cumulative effect is the systematic privileging of American perspectives, methodologies, and values across global knowledge production.
Information Control in the Digital Age
The 21st century has witnessed the transformation of information control from monopolisation of traditional media to domination of digital platforms. The Chinese document emphasises: “He who controls the valves of information flows commands the initiative in shaping perceptions”.
Today, the United States maintains what the document describes as “an iron grip on global information and dissemination channels and platforms through its possession of numerous news agencies, powerful multinational media conglomerates, internet-based social media platforms, and a host of new tech giants”. In the digital age, leveraging platforms like Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube, the United States has achieved a manipulation of public opinions characterised by “wherever algorithms and audience traffic go, there go the agenda and perceptions”.
This control extends to the very infrastructure of the internet. By controlling critical resources such as global internet root servers and domain names, the United States dominates the overall operation of the World Wide Web. Through legislative and other means, the American government maintains a tight grip on domestic internet tech giants and wields unchecked power over vast amounts of online information.
The sophistication of this system lies not merely in content control but in the algorithms that determine what information users encounter. These algorithms, developed by American companies according to American priorities, shape global information consumption patterns in ways that users rarely recognise or understand.
Cognitive Warfare and Technological Manipulation
One of the most disturbing evolutions documented in the white paper is the emergence of “cognitive warfare” as an autonomous strategic domain. In 2022, the National Security Strategy report elevated cognitive warfare to strategic importance on par with physical combat, marking the complete independence of the cognitive domain. In 2023, multiple congressional reports refocused on cognitive security.
Thus, technology-driven cognitive manipulation has become a new tactic for mental colonisation by the United States. This evolution represents a qualitative leap beyond traditional forms of propaganda, moving beyond simply influencing opinions to modelling cognitive processes themselves through the use of neuroscience, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology.
The implications are profound. Rather than merely presenting information designed to persuade, cognitive warfare aims to alter how individuals process information, make decisions, and understand reality itself. This represents the most advanced form of colonisation of minds yet developed, operating at the neurological level rather than merely the cultural or ideological level.
Contemporary developments in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and data analytics provide unprecedented capabilities for understanding and manipulating human cognition. The integration of these technologies into social media platforms, search engines, and content recommendation systems creates opportunities for cognitive influence that previous generations could not have imagined.
Double Standards as Narrative Strategy
The Chinese document identifies double standards as “one of the most quintessential U.S. political strategies and serves as the most important narrative logic in its mind colonisation endeavour”.
The United States systematically glorifies itself whilst energetically demonising others, creating artificial binaries such as “democracy vs. dictatorship”, “freedom vs. authoritarianism”, “market economies vs. non-market economies”, and “counter-terrorism states vs. state sponsors of terrorism”.
This narrative strategy allows the United States to present itself as the practitioner, spokesperson, and defender of noble values, all to consolidate its central position in the ideological-cultural sphere and cultivate “cognitive dependence” on the United States.
The effectiveness of this approach lies in its apparent moral clarity. By framing international relations in terms of fundamental value conflicts, the United States can present its interests as universal principles and its opponents as threats to civilisation itself. This moral framing makes opposition appear not merely politically disagreeable but ethically illegitimate.
Moreover, the systematic application of different standards to similar actions—depending on whether they serve American interests—reveals the instrumental nature of these moral claims. What appears as principled consistency to supporters reveals itself as strategic manipulation to critics.
Cultural Aphasia: Global Consequences
One of the most devastating consequences of American mental colonisation is what the document terms “cultural aphasia”. Perennially impacted by American-style civilisation, some developing countries have lost their national subjectivity and pride, suffering from rampant national nihilism. From the elite class to the general public, they imitate and subsequently follow the United States and the West in every way, from thinking and ideas to food, clothing, housing, and transportation.
This phenomenon, described by many scholars as “post-colonial aphasia”, represents the dissolution of autonomous cultural identity and the creation of societies mentally dependent on America. The process operates through what appears to be free choice—individuals and societies voluntarily adopting American cultural forms—but results in the systematic erosion of indigenous cultural traditions and values.
The consequences extend beyond mere cultural homogenisation. When societies lose confidence in their own cultural traditions and values, they become dependent on external validation and guidance. This dependency creates vulnerability to manipulation and control that extends far beyond the cultural realm into politics, economics, and international relations.
Cultural aphasia also impoverishes global civilisation by reducing diversity and creativity. When societies abandon their distinctive cultural contributions in favour of American models, humanity loses alternative ways of understanding and addressing common challenges.
Implications for the Global Order
The colonisation of minds has implications extending far beyond cultural influence. As the document emphasises: “The fundamental purpose of America’s ideological manipulation and cognitive shaping is to turn rules that serve U.S. interests into a universally accepted international system and order and, in this process, ensure its permanent enjoyment of various privileges”.
The United States has consistently attempted to transform the United Nations and the international system it represents into tools for maintaining Western dominance, especially American global hegemony. This involves not merely influencing specific decisions but shaping the conceptual frameworks through which international problems are understood and addressed.
However, in recent years, with the collective rise of the Global South, the United States has found this system increasingly restrictive to its privileges. Consequently, it promotes “exceptionalism” and has withdrawn from international agencies to “extricate” itself from common rules universally observed by the international community.
Meanwhile, it has developed the “America First” doctrine to place American interests directly before those of other countries. Moreover, by extending its practice of “long-arm jurisdiction”, the United States flagrantly places its domestic laws above international law.
This reveals the instrumental nature of American commitment to international law and multilateral institutions. When these serve American interests, they are celebrated as foundations of global order. When they constrain American action, they are dismissed as obstacles to necessary action.
Towards Cultural Resistance
The Chinese document concludes with an appeal for cultural resistance and civilisational diversity: “Independence of the mind is a prerequisite for independent development. Cultural confidence is the foundation of national strength and prosperity”.
The authors propose that “exchanges and mutual understanding are an effective instrument for inter-civilisation coexistence”, suggesting a multipolar model of cultural relations that rejects American hegemony. This vision imagines a world where different civilisations develop according to their own specificities whilst engaging in respectful dialogue and mutual learning.
However, achieving such cultural independence requires more than mere assertion. It demands systematic efforts to develop alternative institutions, media systems, educational frameworks, and technological platforms that can provide genuine alternatives to American-dominated systems.
The challenge lies in creating these alternatives without simply replicating American methods with different content. True cultural independence requires developing distinctive approaches that reflect different values, priorities, and understandings of human flourishing.
Critical Reflections and Future Prospects
The Chinese white paper, despite its geopolitical partisanship, raises fundamental questions about the nature of power in the contemporary era. The documented evidence of American control over media, education, technology, and entertainment suggests the existence of a cultural influence system unprecedented in human history.
However, it remains important to recognise that this document itself represents a form of Chinese soft power—an attempt to construct an alternative narrative to American cultural hegemony. The battle for control of minds is therefore not unidirectional but involves multiple powers competing for global influence.
What emerges clearly is the necessity for greater critical awareness regarding the mechanisms through which our perceptions and values are shaped. In an era where cognitive warfare has become an autonomous strategic domain, the capacity to think independently and critically represents not merely an individual value but a necessity for the cultural survival of nations.
The genuine challenge of the 21st century may not be competition between different forms of mental colonisation but the construction of authentically diverse and independent cultural spaces that allow civilisations to develop according to their own specificities without falling into the traps of global cultural homogenisation.
The colonisation of minds operates most effectively when its subjects remain unaware of the process. Recognition of these mechanisms represents the first step towards mental independence, but it must be followed by systematic efforts to create alternative frameworks for understanding and engaging with the world.
Towards New Awareness
The document on the colonisation of minds, regardless of its geopolitical origins, represents an important contribution to debates about the nature of power in the contemporary world. The evidence presented, corroborated by decades of Western academic research, reveals the existence of a cultural control system of unprecedented sophistication and pervasiveness.
However, the most important lesson may not be the denunciation of American hegemony but the necessity of developing generalised critical awareness regarding mechanisms of cultural influence. In a world where multiple powers compete for control of minds, genuine independence can come only from the capacity to recognise and resist all forms of cognitive colonisation, regardless of their source.
The cultural diversity of the world represents not merely an aesthetic value but a strategic necessity for humanity’s survival in an era of increasing cultural homogenisation. Only through the preservation and strengthening of authentically diverse and independent spaces of thought can societies maintain their capacity for innovation, creativity, and resilience in facing future challenges.
The colonisation of minds succeeds most completely when its subjects embrace their mental dependency as freedom, their cultural impoverishment as sophistication, and their intellectual conformity as enlightenment. Breaking these chains requires not merely exposure of the mechanisms of control but the patient construction of alternative ways of thinking, being, and relating to the world that honour the full spectrum of human cultural achievement whilst remaining open to genuine dialogue and mutual learning among civilisations.
In this context, the greatest act of resistance may be the cultivation of minds capable of independent thought, critical analysis, and creative synthesis—minds that can appreciate the insights of different traditions whilst avoiding the trap of uncritical adoption of any single cultural model. Such minds represent the foundation for a genuinely multipolar world where diversity and dialogue replace domination and dependency as the principles of international cultural relations.
Sources
Joseph Nye’s seminal work on soft power theory and American hegemony https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms20178
Harvard Kennedy School obituary detailing Nye’s theoretical contributions and policy impact https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/international-relations-security/joseph-nye-obituary
Zbigniew Brzezinski’s quotes on American cultural hegemony and global strategy https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
Brzezinski’s “The Grand Chessboard” – foundational text on American geopolitical strategy https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/BD/BD4CE651B07CCB8CB069F9999F0EADEE_Zbigniew_Brzezinski_-_The_Grand_ChessBoard.pdf
Wikipedia overview of the military-entertainment complex and Pentagon-Hollywood collaboration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–entertainment_complex
CBC Radio investigation into Hollywood’s role as unofficial propaganda arm of US military https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/how-hollywood-became-the-unofficial-propaganda-arm-of-the-u-s-military-1.5560575
Index on Censorship analysis of Pentagon influence on Hollywood productions https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2025/03/hollywood-pentagons-secret-weapon/
USC academic analysis of America’s military-entertainment complex and propaganda https://vce.usc.edu/semester/fall-2024/war-games-how-americas-military-entertainment-complex-spreads-propaganda-through-entertainment/
Jacobin investigation into military influence on movies and video games https://jacobin.com/2024/10/military-movies-video-games-recruitment
Responsible Statecraft report on Pentagon control over 2,500 films and TV shows https://responsiblestatecraft.org/theaters-of-war/
Brown University analysis of militarization in movies and television https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2025/Militarization%20of%20Movies%20and%20TV_2.25.25_.pdf
Original Chinese white paper on colonisation of the mind (English translation) https://slkanthan.substack.com/p/colonization-of-the-mind
Direct PDF link to Chinese scholars’ white paper on US cognitive warfare https://english.news.cn/20250907/52998b0f27704866af2a66f5df6577dd/80c86fe8e8484a989451aa09d30dabdb.pdf
Chinese academic analysis of US cognitive warfare strategies https://chinaview.xhinst.net/Views/20250904/19447833_Colonization-of-the-Mind-The-Means-Roots-and-Global-Perils-of-US-Cognitive-Warfare_1.html
Academic paper on Joseph Nye’s soft power theory and ideological education https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648/j.hss.20170502.13
The Geopolitics analysis of Nye’s liberal turn in international relations https://thegeopolitics.com/remembering-joseph-s-nye-jr-power-diplomacy-and-the-liberal-turn-in-international-relations/
E-International Relations academic review of Joseph Nye’s soft power concepts https://www.e-ir.info/2013/03/08/joseph-nye-on-soft-power/
Duck of Minerva retrospective on Nye’s intellectual evolution and policy career https://www.duckofminerva.com/2022/01/joseph-nye-85-from-integration-theory-to-complex-interdependence-to-soft-power.html