That’s a link.

<the idea of a transition period for newly independent states is something that imperial powers always use to extend (indefinitely) their occupation. but instead, it is an occupation-lite. there may be less troops, but the relationship between colonizer and colonized nations remain. the occupation of Iraq is said to be over, but troops remain as “advisers” and “peace-keepers”. the argument against this external political relationship, is the same that Fanon held against Sartre, and it is also at the same time a statement on the internal consciousness of the colonized. this new consciousness — no longer “the colonized” — is immediate. Fanon describes it as a tabula rasa; something completely new and completely separate from the old. the absolute of the new self/consciousness is dialectically related to the fact that the colonized demand the complete and immediate raising of the old society. this complete break is the “minimum” demands of the colonized… again, no transition, no partial payments. but he ends here by saying that just as the possibility for this new consciousness exists as a possibility — a possibility only until it emerges — “in the lives and consciousness of the men and women who are colonized” it is also externalized as “a terrifying future in the consciousness of… the colonizers.” understanding consciousness and activity as an “immediacy” connects to Fanon’s conception of violence in another way. the term immediacy doesn’t just mean instantaneous in the temporal sense, it also means without mediation, and the issue of mediation is key to Fanon’s conception of alienation.>