Sexual economics explains Anti-Americanism

By Serge Kreutz

If you look at anti-Americanism anywhere around the world, you will notice one striking aspect: it is very, very emotional.

It is far too emotional for being based on what usually is cited as a reason for anti-Americanism: military intervention, or unfavorable economic relations. It also has much less to do with Israel than commonly claimed by analysts.

Even during the times of the Soviet Union, there was, outside of the Soviet Union, never as much anti-Sovietism (except McCarthyism) as one finds anti-Americanism even in places far from America. It also was never as emotional as the anti-Americanism that has been around for decades, but reached new heights during the Bush junior years.

Anti-Americanism is as emotional as jealousy, and it is this aspect of anti-Americanism that leads us to its real cause.

In brief, the cultural attitude of the US is: protect the women of other cultures from the local men, and alienate them from local men under the pretext of liberating them; protect the wives of other cultures from their husbands, and raise the wives’ awareness that they are mistreated; protect the children of other cultures from their parents and other adults, and incite them to disobedience even if that makes them street children; protect Christian local minorities, and introduce (the essence of this all) American Christian values.

The US may sometimes pretend to be primarily interested in global business and security. But their real intend is cultural imperialism, and they will probably never change their attitude as long as they have the political and military means to interfere. This is the case because US politics is determined primarily by ideological pressure groups, most of which are either Christian fundamentalists, or feminist radicals, and often both at the same time.

The economies of the Philippines and other countries of Southeast Asia now depend more on China than on the US. But in spite of this, there is so little anti-Chinaism, not only in Southeast Asia but anywhere in the world, that the word “anti-Chinaism” doesn’t exist (actually, the computer program that was used to check the spelling of the words of this article only knew anti-Americanism, and rejected all other anti-…isms).

The difference is: China does international trade in order to sell and buy goods, and does not interfere with the internal affairs of other countries.

But the US does international trade to gain a foothold for their missionaries and NGOs. While American international businessmen often are lay preachers as well, I don’t even know of a single Chinese NGO that would mess in other countries.

On the other hand, the presence of US NGOs and their local lackeys can be overwhelming. The Afghan president Hamid Karzai once mentioned that Afghanistan actually is run by NGOs, and the situation in Cambodia is quite similar. While the attacks of militants in many countries have often been directed against American businesses and their local representatives (the McDonald’s or Hiltons), I do assume that militants sooner or later will realize, that what they actually mean to oppose is symbolized rather by NGOs than brands.