US messing with sexual economics in the Third World

By Serge Kreutz

Unfortunately, cultural diversity is under attack by US foreign policy and American feminism. It often comes as a concern to protect local women and children.

US governments have repeatedly made it a declared priority to defend women and children around the globe, and so have feminists.



The evildoers, obviously, are barbaric local men.

In any society that counts millions of people, it is easy to find personal violence, crime, and perversion. One will also find abuse of women.

The difference is that if negative instances are identified in Western cultures, they are attributed to negative individuals. But if negative instances are identified in remote or traditional cultures, they are viewed as evidence for negative societies.

Policed correctness appears to assume that when a wife kills her husband, the woman was the victim. Of course.




Even if a woman murders her children, it’s still somehow a man’s fault .



Actually, many traditional societies had and have a working balance between the sexes. It involved and involves more protection of females than in advanced Western societies, and it wasn’t or isn’t always a bad deal for women.

If we view a comfortable death as an intrinsic quality of life, history has been kinder to women than to men. From tribal warfare to the galley slaves of Rome, from Verdun and Stalingrad to the massacre of Srebrenica, in US police brutality and Latin American gang warfare, men took and take the brunt of human conflict. Throughout history and until today, women could and can count on sympathy. Sympathy may be afforded to male children, but that usually ends when male sexuality evolves.

Disregarding the fact that many men in traditional societies often had and have worse fates than women, American public opinion, US foreign policy, and feminists around the globe equate women with victims, and men with perpetrators.

The perception which men in traditional societies have of the intervention of US foreign policy aiming to protect women is that of disturbing intersexual harmony. The US messes with sexual economics in countries where it aims at protecting local women and children but couldn’t care less about local men.

Occasionally, enormous expectations are raised among local women on how good their lives could be in a Westernized society.

Local men feel that US foreign policy and feminists undermine their sexual prospects. That elicits a very emotional response of Anti-Americanism. It mobilizes more men into anti-American organizations than any economic cheating could.

Many people who want a world of cultural diversity, whether this concerns one’s own traditional culture or a culture one chooses to adapt, and whether he or she is a Muslim or not, view Islamists, even violent ones, with sympathy. They are at the forefront of defending the world against Americanization.

Because protecting the cultural diversity of the world against Americanization is such a formidable task, it makes sense that forces that oppose it form a strategic alliance.

Such a united front, formally or informally, can include Islamists, Communists, American secessionists, social Utopians, and reactionary royalists. Russian, Chinese, Arabic, or Latino political leaders, and even Asian or African dictators can be useful idiots for a common cause. Because what ultimately counts is getting US involvement out.