First of all let me point out that I did not go to Oxford. Or Harvard. They wanted me, but they didn't offer the meal-plan I wanted. But that's beside the point. It has gotten to the point where I can no longer sit back and passively laugh it away; it's time to take issue with some of the esoterrorism that is being pushed by the elbow-patch set in every fora available to them these days.

It seems that whenever I open the paper here (something I do with decreasing frequency with each passing week), I'm confronted with some ham-fisted, penny-a-liner screed about how evil the US is. This barrage comes from the most erudite of quarters. Here's an excerpt from a letter to the editor (written by a well-known anti-hegemonist) to illustrate the point:

"Castro's Cuba is proof that when the people's interest take precedence over elite interests, and when the elite itself is determined to preserve the nation's dignity and integrity, it is possible to protect one's independence and sovereignty."

Hot Cuban nights

Come on, Cuba?! The article concludes: "the little island state has valuable lessons to offer us all as we strive and struggle for a just world." This column is not the place for an expository essay on the long list of human rights violations that have been perpetrated in Castro's quest to create a "just" island state. I would like to suggest a simple point.

This letter to the editor was in response to a couple of articles that appeared when Pak Lah visited Cuba after the Apec summit last year. Those articles, which betrayed the single-mindedness of intent, paint a certain picture of the United States which constantly takes precedence over factual, objective reporting and journalistic integrity, were hagiographic paeans to the wobbly and bearded plenipotentiary of the denuded island.

Anyway, the target is the United States, which, being the world's only superpower, is a valid target, ripe for criticism. Yet rather than writing a well-researched criticism of US foreign policy flaws, or even attempting to explore the reasons and interests behind these policies, what you get here is constant demagoguery, ignorant depictions of the evil empire that go down easy but leave you hungry and curiously not satisfied.

Furthermore, by defending Castro's Cuba, those in the ivory tower cease to be intelligent critics and abdicate their role in creating a "just world." Instead they become reactionaries, embracing a sort of retarded yin-yang dichotomous worldview while abandoning the Hegelian dialectics that shaped the philosophies through which they attempt to understand the world. No longer is history a teleological progression of thesis, antithesis yielding a synthesis in a constantly reoccurring upward trajectory. Rather it's a zero-sum good-versus-evil paradigm.

That goes for the Osama T-shirt crowd as well, whose main argument for the past three years is that the United States got what it deserved, simplifying the issues in an attempt to understand without really exploring, to comprehend without really knowing. The oft-parroted line makes Osama out to be some sort of cosmic avenger, and the cult of Osamaism portrays him as a larger-than-life balancer of the scales, righter of wrongs, and Robin Hood for the age of globalisation.

Reality, as in most cases, is a far cry from the myth. The bearded sage of some undisclosed cave would replace a system in which a few people are the winners, with one in which no one wins. You might call it an egalitarianism of misery. One of my favourite examples of this comes from the cracker-Taliban lady that visited Malaysia a couple of months ago. You may remember her. She was a reporter for some English toilet rag, sent to Afghanistan to get "the scoop" just before the US invasion in 2001.

Conversion

To make a long story short, girl gets captured, girl is set free, girl converts to "Talislam", girl goes on world-wide lecture circuit extolling the virtues of that regime. The hospitality of her Taliban captors was such that she re-examined her entire weltanschauung and decided that yes, indeed, an oppressive theocracy in which all expression and creativity is ruthlessly squelched is indeed the way to go.

Good thing she didn't have to visit a gynecologist on her happy holiday. The print media here ate the story up, as they usually do with this sort of thing; she got as much ink as the kung-fu troupe for a couple of days. Aside from being a textbook illustration of the Stockholm syndrome, this episode is instructive as well.

The level of intellectual blindness and stubbornness is astonishing. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, so-called experts insist on clinging to the same simplistic explanations. In conversations with editors and activists, I've been absolutely stunned by the closed-mindedness.

For example, it is taken as a given that United States foreign policy is singularly beholden to Israel. Call it "Likudism," or "Zionism," the arguments are based on pick-and-choose anecdotes. One editor in particular penned a two-week anti-US diatribe, employing an obscure American fringe nutcase writer to make his points. What we're seeing is a strange alliance of psychopaths, anarchists, anti-Semites, and scholars longing for who knows what.

The lesson for anyone that is paying attention, is that creating a "just world" is not easy. History shows us that whenever governments make a reordering of wealth a priority the result is inevitably a downward harmonisation followed by extended periods of stagnation after which everyone is inevitably worse off.

Or, in more radical instances, the esoteric dream society leads to the death of millions through famine and upheaval. Of course, maybe that is what is needed for a "just" world. There are some notable exceptions, especially in the case of land reform. But these are rationale, sector specific reforms.

I guess I'm just irked by the fact that so much of what I read doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense that the strings of US foreign policy are being pulled by an international Jewish cabal, for instance. It doesn't make sense that anyone would look to a repressive and misogynist regime for guidance. It doesn't make sense that an educated person would lash out at perceived injustices in one country while praising another that is orders of magnitude more repressive and unjust.

There are legitimate gripes against the United States, and I have seen well-reasoned and well-written criticisms, and some Malaysian writers are spot on in the critiques. It seems, though, for some people dissatisfied with the evil in the world there is one convenient culprit, and no matter how facts must be twisted to lead to that conclusion, they will be.

Straight up, on the rocks

Well, I prefer my coffee black and my vitriol straight. Make it explicit and monolithic, please. Don't veil it in intellectualism. Like the following excerpt from a local blog I found just this morning:

"Americanisation and commercialisation of anything that is MADE IN THE USA meant that we have to live by their rules, believe in their values, worship them, grant their corporations access to whatever profitable ventures they wish, buy their products, eat their junk food, please their whims, discard our religion and values, make them rich and DARE NOT THINK and question this state of subservience, let alone FIGHT THEM with guns and grenades!"

What I like about this is that it sums it all up, and there is no room for negotiation. The perfect world, Shangri-la, the big-rock-candy mountain is just around the corner. All we have to do is get rid of "Americanisation" and the world will be a better place, because all forms of exploitation are rooted in the American mindset.

It's basically the same as the pro-Cuba mumbo-jumbo, only this is more honest and upfront. Add some screaming guitar and a heavy thump and you almost have a Rage Against the Machine song.

All in all, though, I guess it really doesn't matter. The US is still Malaysia's largest trading partner, and probably will be for the foreseeable future. And Malaysia's trajectory towards Wawasan 2020 will ensure that it continues to embrace US-style capitalism, which by its very nature encourages consumption and an increased polarization between the rich and the poor.

That's the way the world works; it's a natural fact. It's the inexorable and unstemable advance of economies of scale and consumerism. Development is almost universally associated with one or more people making money.

Injustice is an artificial construct, a human labeling of the losers in the exploitation game. Injustice becomes increasingly irrelevant the less likely people are to be affected by it. Sure, we should all be a bit more compassionate, and in many cases, individually, we are. But creating the so-called just world that most people dream of is just that: a dream.

You might as well tell Bill Gates, the Wal-Mart folks, and the whole Chinese community to stop making so much money. Or tell people to stop shopping at Giant, Carrefour, and all the other super-mega-ultra-centres, because that's what causes it. Personal preferences and the desire to go faster, eat more, and live larger. It's not an American thing.

Maybe it doesn't make sense because I didn't go to Oxford or Harvard. The world is crying out for something new; something different. It's not going to come from Cuba, Osama and the Taliban, or any of the other ersatz "alternatives" out there. Everyone that went to the Upper Sabine River Tractor Transmission Repair Lyceum knows that.

KEITH BETTINGER is a Fulbright scholar living in Malaysia. He's game for anything; if you wish him to have a truly Malaysian experience, write to him at kisu1492@hotmail.com .