Clearly, you (and the author) have a vastly different idea of what "across the world" means than...well, most other people on the planet. But at least it's good we've established that to you (and the author) "the world" means "western culture".
Or (for those of us who aren't cynically trying to twist innocuous word choices into spurious accusations): a trend can be much more significant in some places but can still have some level of prominence more widely.
Let's say an article talks about (for instance) the growth in popularity of punk rock in the 70s. Apparently, that would be enough for you to accuse it of white supremacy, because punk rock didn't have the same cultural penetration in Asia, Africa and South America at the time, but the article didn't specify that. I could reply that the article's cultural context is implicit: its the same cultural context the article was written within. Its readers will primarily be people living in the country in which the paper is published and available.
And the article could also say punk rock has fans across the world. That would... Still be true.
Same as how "all men" strangely enough doesn't now seem to include men not of western (or white, or Christian) cultures.
Oh, lord, you actually think the article is being unironic in saying "all men"...?
Definitely not, seeing how some very basic subtext and tone seem to have gone over your head.
