Yesterday on RT in a comment by an English-language newspaper editor in Istanbul I heard the term ‘anti-capitalist Muslims’ for the first time.The day before that a commentator used the term ‘cultural Muslims’.

These terms reveal to know-nothing Westerners the complexity of the Muslim world at a time when the West’s future depends in part on understanding it.

In an interview about European citizens joining the fight against Assad in Syria, RT today raised the specter of these fundamentalists coming back to their home countries to practice their fighting or terrorist skills.

Of late I have become convinced that Europe – which is after all a peninsula of the Eurasian continent – will eventually become a majority Muslim area, and these comments would tend to confirm that opinion.  There are many kinds of Islam, its practitioners are gradually making their way there from Africa and the Middle East, as the welfare state crumbles under an American-based financial assault, leaving Europeans vulnerable to competition for benefits from new arrivals.

According to former Canadian diplomat Peter Dale Scott, American foreign policy is in fact devoted to realizing a goal enunciated in the nineties, which is to effectuate regime change in Middle Eastern countries allied to Russia: Iraq, Iran, Libya, and Syria. Now it so happens that until the U.S. intervened, these four countries were all in one way or another ‘anti-capitalist’.

Although access to oil has been a major reason for America’s recent aggressions, I strongly suspect that ideology plays a key role: Syria, after all, has no oil, and the explanation that it is an ally of oil-rich Iran and Russia simply doesn’t convince me: it this were true, we would have to invade dozens of countries.

What is undeniable is that the United States has played a key role in the European financial catastrophe that now threatens its status as the poster-child for the welfare state.

Is it far-fetched to suggest that the basic thrust of American foreign policy is to ensure that welfare states as well as those practicing ‘Arab socialism’ whether under the Ba’ath Party or a Shi’ite theocratic regime, come to an end?

Bashar al-Assad is accused of ‘killing his own people’, and I have no doubt that he has been as ruthless in defending his power as anyone.  What we need to realize is that by aiding the rebels we are siding with religious extremists against a secular regime where women are not veiled but enjoy equal rights with men, and the government considers itself responsible for health and education.

Following President Obama’s decision to arm the rebels, and after months of speculation as to whether this or that policy might favor Islamists, one is forced to entertain the thought that the United States definitely prefers fundamentalist/capitalists to progressive Muslims.  Hence our support for Turkey’s Erdogan, who has been turning his country into a capitalist showcase, even if his police overdo it.

This is the kind of event that typically gives rise to erroneous interpretations, such as ‘Venezuela and Iran are both oil-producing countries.  It was a business occasion.’  Or, ‘It was a chance for the Iranian leader to be seen on world television.’

The reality is that both Chavez and Ahmedinejad are on the side of the 99%.

What?! We know Chavez was a socialist, but the president of a country that is run by clerics? Well, yes: the Iranian revolution of 1978 was not about religion, it was about inequality, and its first leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, represented Shi’ism’s traditional defense of the downtrodden. (By the way, Jesus has been referred to as the first revolutionary…)

What is even stranger is that if you read Vladimir Putin’s statement on the death of the thrice elected Venezuelan president you would never guess that Russia is no longer a socialist country: “He was an extraordinary and powerful man who looked to the future and always set the highest bar for himself.” Putin called for even stronger ties and praised the late president as “a close friend of Russia.”

Indeed, Russia’a UN Ambassador Anatoly Churkin, told reporters in New York that Chavez was “a great politician for his country, Latin America and the world.”  According to the Moscow Times, the Russian-Venezuelan partnership has developed strong political ties and led to large-scale humanitarian and development projects.      If you think this means that Russia and its allies are outliers with respect to the world community, take note of the statement by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:

“President Chavez spoke to the challenges and aspirations of the most vulnerable Venezuelans. He provided decisive impetus for new regional integration movements, based on an eminently Latin American vision, while showing solidarity toward other nations in the hemisphere. His contribution to the current peace talks in Colombia between the Government of President Juan Manuel Santos and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) has been of vital importance.

“The secretary-general renews the commitment of the United Nations to work alongside the Government and the people of Venezuela in support of its development and prosperity.”

Now here’s President Obama’s statement: “At this challenging time of President Hugo Chavez’s passing, the United States reaffirms its support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government. As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of law and respect for human rights.”

The American president starts by insinuating that there could be trouble in Venezuela, just days after two American diplomats were expelled from the country amid accusations by the Vice-President and heir designate that the U.S. induced Chavez’ cancer (for example using polonium, an element that killed a Russian in London a few years ago).

Second, the President appears unaware of the depth of popular support enjoyed by Chavez, trying to drive a wedge between the Venezuelan people and the government that will succeed him.

Third, Obama shows himself to be concerned only with the ritual ‘democratic principles’ (never mind if they remain just principles), the rule of law (that can be bent to allow government assassination of citizens), and human rights (ditto).

Twenty-five years after the end of the Cold War which was all about competition for arms and allies, America’s former enemies, Russia and China, have moved on.  The other BRICS nations, Brazil, India and South Africa, also put cooperation above competition, having realized their combined strengths as well as the advantages of responding to the needs of the Third World. Only the United States refuses to acknowledge what the ‘failed system’ of socialism handed down to those free to understand it.

- A Russian child adopted by a Texan family recently died of ill treatment, probably putting a definitive stop to Russia allowing Americans to adopt its orphans;

- Rafael Correa, who is protecting Jullian Assange from extradition to the U.S. in his London Embassy, was re-elected President of Ecuador by a large margin;

- U.S. students ranked 27th in a recent math survey.

These three news items illustrate the opposing views of the role of government evident across the world today. A majority of countries – the Non-Aligned Movement alone represents 120 – agrees that governments have a larger role than simply protecting their nations from attack. Most would agree with Russia that government has a responsibility to protect individual citizens.

In his campaign to regulate firearms, Obama said that a nation’s first priority is to protect its children, yet many Americans do not believe that government has a role to play in the way children are treated at home. This basic ethical stance is affecting our relationship with Russia as fundamentally as is our plan to put missiles in Poland, Romania and Turkey, on its borders. At times bureaucrats go overboard in their efforts to protect children from their own parents. However, most countries today believe that together with cradle to grave healthcare, the government rightly defends children from parental abuse.

Equally as importantly most people today support whistle-blowers, as the power of government increases exponentially in response to world crises over the goods needed to continue our lifestyle. The little-known Latin American country of Ecuador has one of the most far-sighted constitutions in the world, drafted with the help of one of many non-profits trying to save the world before it is too late.  It includes specific references to Mother Earth, as well as providing for full sovereignty over natural resources and the protection of each and every minority. Rafael Correa’s reelection reflects not only approval by the country’s peasant majority of his social commitments, but also his courage in standing up to the United States.

Finally, notwithstanding the enormous amounts the United States spends on education, results in the all-important areas of math and science place us behind many other developed nations. In 2012 the PISA study which tests students from 60 countries in math and science, ranked the U.S. 23rd in science and 31st in math. These results would seem to suggest that the extremely decentralized American education system is less effective than those in which central governments are in charge.  (A long-standing joke in France used to be that at any time of day, the Minister of Education knows exactly what is being studied in every classroom, but this system has given way to much greater flexibility while still maintaining strict oversight.)

In the competition between cradle-to-grave welfare systems and cowboy capitalism, increasingly the preference goes to those in which government is expected to at least coordinate citizen well-being.  Unfortunately and largely due to Americans’ lack of information, the United States remains the exception that confirms the rule.

One of the most interesting things you will hear if you listen to foreign English-language newscasts is the description of efforts to ‘promote cooperation between nations’.

Just last night I heard it on NHK, the Japanese English language channel.  The policy is routinely expressed by Russia and China, and one can attribute it to a holdover from Communism in the former. (During the Cold War, such declarations were brushed off as ‘propaganda’. Now it turns out that with or without ‘communism’, most countries, whose leaders grew up under the ethos of the United Nations think it is a good idea.)

Tellingly, neither the BBC nor France 24 voice such aspirations, which, more importantly, are absent from American channels.

Perhaps I’m being persnickety, but I can’t help but draw attention to this significant difference in publicly-stated official outlook: there are the one-worldists – and thank goodness they are rising – who believe that nations should prefer cooperation to confrontation – or better said – who believe that cooperation deters confrontation; and what one could call ‘The Atlanticists’ who project an entirely different ethos: ‘The U.S. is the best, and all should live according to its diktats.’

Americans have traditionally lacked mastery in foreign languages, but it would be more important for Washington, following the example of Japan, to learn to speak the language of cooperation between nations of differing ideological or religious persuasions, than to acquire fluency in Spanish or Chinese.

Sixty-seven years ago, when the first atomic bomb was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, a new world was born, which after a world war and a cold war is now fully matured: current newscasts tell us or imply that:

a) unemployed American youth end up either in jail or in the military;

b) in future the military will  rely ever less on humans and more on drones and droids;

c) increasingly, covert operations will rule the day, fomenting revolts mainly in the Middle East oil pit so that we can invade ‘to save lives’ and replace old dictators with new ones;

d) Europe will gradually become a Russian sphere of influence via oil and gas pipelines;

e) Islam will gradually replace Christianity as the dominant religion in Europe,

f) as brown people from the southern hemisphere gradually outnumber whites;

g) India and China will duke it out in the Asian Pacific seas,

h) as Latin American countries follow the lead of Ecuador and Bolivia, writing constitutions that reflect 21st century human and planetary rights.

i) The United States will continue to disregard international legal and human rights standards as well as the threat of catastrophic global warming in an increasingly futile effort to spread its domina-tion across Africa and the Middle East.

The pursuit of material goods goes hand in hand with violence and sexual vulgarity.  Although class antagonisms will never disappear, the fault lines of the twenty-first century will be less ideological and more cultural. Russia and China will continue to support a return to pre-counter-cultural morality, making common cause with Islam in that respect. (It is not clear whether India will ultimately do likewise, but this seems unlikely.)

The crisis in Egypt is largely a cultural one, in which a modernizing Islam faces opposition from a public ‘liberated’ from religious dogma but in thrall to the absolutism of ‘freedom’ epitomized by a First Amendment definition of free speech.  That freedom is contradicted by ever the increasing surveillance of our telephone and cyber conversations, adding another dimension to 21st century struggles: between a world in which the haves use hierarchical organization and technology to thwart aspirations for decentralization and solidarity among all living entities, including the planet.

It’s disheartening to watch/hear the cream of American political commentators defending Israel’s nth insult to international law and decency.

What can be behind the seeming suicidal behavior of a small country that is surrounded by more or less hostile neighbors?  (A country as big and powerful as Russia fears encirclement, as its opposition to the European defense shield shows.)  Is Israel living a self-fulfilling prophecy (the world hates us, we must defend ourselves, and the best defense, as our tragic history has shown, is offense)?

Or could there be a grand capitalist plan behind all this?  Get rid of pesky left-wing governments in the Middle East in order to grab the oil, taming the peoples’ desire for equity so that Israel can continue to flourish?

Here is a statement by Noam Chomsky that reached me from my Italian publisher (sic):

The incursion and bombardment of Gaza is not about destroying Hamas. It is not about stopping rocket fire into Israel, it is not about achieving peace.

The Israeli decision to rain death and destruction on Gaza, to use lethal weapons of the modern battlefield on a largely defenseless civilian population, is the final phase in a decades-long campaign to ethnically-cleanse Palestinians.

Israel uses sophisticated attack jets and naval vessels to bomb densely-crowded refugee camps, schools, apartment blocks, mosques, and slums to attack a population that has no air force, no air defense, no navy, no heavy weapons, no artillery units, no mechanized armor, no command in control, no army… and calls it a war. It is not a war, it is murder.

When Israelis in the occupied territories now claim that they have to defend themselves, they are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they are crushing. You can’t defend yourself when you’re militarily occupying someone else’s land. 

Having at last uploaded the final version of my memoir, which hopefully will be available next week, I can turn to the events that have – or have not – been making the headlines lately, depending on your news source.

The most significant events were the coordinated twenty European country mass demonstrations, work stoppages and general strikes that took place early in the week.

Then came the Israeli attack on Gaza, in retaliation for a few homemade missiles launched by an occupied people against their occupier – launches that have been going on for years.  This morning on RT’s website an Israeli peace activist revealed that negotiations for a settlement were under way with the Hamas leader the Israelis assassinated to start the latest round of aggression.  RT also revealed that Anonymous has hacked into hundreds of Israeli official websites in support of the Palestinians.

These and other events taking place daily across the planet bring to mind two things: one, that Lenin’s injunction ‘Workers of the World, Unite!’ is finally being heard; and two, that Khruschev’s seemingly absurd nineteen sixties warning, ‘We will bury you‘ could also be coming true, and three, that it may be time for a worldwide version of the French Revolution’s  ‘Estates General’.

Neither the French nor the Russian Revolutions had worldwide capabilities.  But thanks mainly to the IT revolution, activists in the oil rich Niger Delta and Brazilian tribes determined to stop construction of a major dam, all know what each other are doing, feeding off of each other, sharing tactics, and coordinating actions, with the ability to disseminate their actions worldwide.

As for Russia, Westerners are familiar with the salient political events of the twentieth century, but RT provides a sense of the immense mineral wealth within that country’s borders at time when the world’s greatest assets are underground.  For decades the Soviet Union tried to influence Third World countries politically, building or delaying the emergence of socialist regimes (see Cuba), details of that support little known outside the political circles concerned.  Today, Russia has other cards to play: its support for Third World countries, mainly in Africa, comes in the form of news reports and documentaries on the dire living conditions of its peoples, broadcasting worldwide the struggles against Western mineral conglomerates that are raping the continent. (RT also has an Arabic service and a Spanish service….)

This morning I heard that in response to China’s growing clout President Obama is preparing to tour several Asian countries. China’s new President, precisely because he is not elected and doesn’t have to contend with filibusters and other forms of congressional opposition, can announce with the smile that has replaced Hu’s stern demeanor, that China will press forward both economically and militarily. And on the occasion of the 15th Communist Party Congress that anointed him, RT took its cameras to the streets of major cities and shopping malls, in which the high collar blue denim uniforms of old have been replaced by the latest Western fashions. (In the Soviet Union, blue denim jeans replaced drab Communist garments, eventually ushering in perestroika and what followed…)

For several weeks now newscasters have admitted they don’t understand why the United States appears to be supporting groups linked to Al Qaeda,  such as the Salafists – or at the very least the Muslim Brotherhood, which is often considered little beter. To understand what is going on, we need to consider the fundamental difference between the Sunni and Shi’a versions of Islam and its relationship to the political divide.

The Sunnis – to which belong the Salafists, Wahhabis, Muslim Brotherhood, the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and other Gulf monarchies – have traditionally represented the ruling classes, while relatively large segments of their populations espouse Shi’isn, the form of Islam traditionally favored by the lower classes.  (The Sunni/Shi’a divide has roots in the poitical rifts that occured after the death of Mohamed.)

But it’s more complicated than that: Iran is ruled by a Shi’a theocracy installed by a revolution whose roots go back to a socialist Prime Minister deposed in a CIA coup in 1953. As for Syria, it is ruled by Alawites, a small Shi’a sect long associated with the Ba’ath Party, an Arab socialist party which also ruled Iraq until we deposed its leader, Saddam Hussein; and Libya’s recently deposed leader Muammar Ghaddafi also considered himself a socialist. Whatever one may think of these various leaders (to the extent that we, as outsiders, are entitled to assess their validity as rulers of their respective peoples…), it should be clear that America’s determination to effect regime change in the Middle East is not only about oil.

Whatever the official doctrine may be, the ideological war between capitalism and socialism is not over, but merely confined to Third World countries which, during the Cold War, were aligned with either the Soviet Union or the United States. As the Arab Spring shows, the conflict between recognition of community responsibility toward its most vulnerable and the conviction that it’s each man for himself, is no longer limited to secular ideologies, causing the United States to no longer know who its friends are.

One thing is certain: Washington prefers the Saudi and Qatari Wahhabi regimes because they are part of Sunni Islam’s Western oriented consensus based on the supremacy of money, as opposed to the Syrian and Iranian regimes which are welfare states. (Syria continued the secular educational system it inherited from France after the Second World War, and Syrian women are the most liberated of the Arab world. Until the 1960s the Alawites were not considered true Muslims either by mainstream Shi’a or Sunnis, because their version of Islam incorporates elements of other religions and is often practiced sitting and in silence rather than prostrated and voiced.)

When it comes to countries like Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, America’s political class is ill-equipped to see beyond the fact that these are Muslim countries. They are unfamiliar with the ideological currents that have marked their recent history.

Perhaps the most glaring example of America’s ideological handicap is it’s view of Hezbollah: the Shi’a leader Nasrallah has a sophisticated knowledge of Western philosophy and ideology, and in the 2006 war with Israel he instituted the ‘flat’ systems of the Argentinian cooperative movement. Yet he is seen as a ranting representative of a benighted ideology.

Moving now to Egypt, a longtime American ally, its new President, Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood supports freedom of religion, peace, democracy and the Palestinian cause, opposing American imperialism. As a recent analysis by the French journalist Thierry Meyssan pointed out, Morsi talks to both Iran and Saudi Arabia, but will not organize Egypt to suit the United States or Israel.

Although the Cold War is officially over, a United States dominated by neo-conservatism and the financial sector, is still determined to stamp out any regime that espouses a socialist ethos. It is no coincidence that besides being the homeland of the Jews to whom the U.S. refused entrance when they were being gassed by Nazi Germany, Israel is the only neo-liberal country in the region.

Less obviously, the socialist ethos partly explains why both Russia and China oppose U.S. policies: Just as our ideology harks back to our genocide of the Indians, the two former (to all intents and purposes) Communist countries are still influenced by the basic socialist ethos of solidarity and peace. And that is why both support Ahmedinejad, who expounded on these principles at the U.N. General Assembly this week.

Following the pattern I’ve been describing here, The Iranian president’s speech could only be greeted by cynical derision by Western officialdom, which cannot for a nanosecond appear to recognize his sincerity, at the risk of being expected to emulate him.

Unfortunately for these severely handi-capped politicians, Ahmedinejad’s ideals are recognized by the European 99%, from Spain, to Greece, to Italy and France, as they demonstrate ever more determinedly against IMF-inspired austerity. Washington blames the Europeans for the crisis of their common currency, passing over the world-wide penetration of crooked Wall Street financial institutions. The American public’s ignorance of other countries’ history and politics make it gullible, but your average European or Middle Easterner knows otherwise.

Last night Turner Classic Movies showed a three hour film titled, in defiance of the rules of syntax ‘Fifty-Five Days At Peking’.

Aside from remarking what a handsome man Charlton Heston was in 1963, I found it impossible not to dwell on the fact that in just a century, China went from being a victim of the West to being on track to rule the world. (Incidentally looking up The Boxer Rebellion of 1901, recounted in the film, I discovered that Chinese Muslim troops played a major role in the 55 Day Peking Battle, being armed with more modern weapons than the Imperial Army that was trying to defeat the eight Western countries making unreasonable demands on Inperial China. Though I was multi-tasking during the second half of the film I believe this aspect of the conflict was ignored.)

These days, the popular expression ‘what goes around comes around’ is an understatement: not only is China set to become the biggest world economy, the Arab Muslim world vaulted onto the world stage with a bang, and together these two groups are recasting the world scene.

As part of this phenomenon, another country being portrayed by the Western press as both backward and a mortal threat to the world via nuclear weapons, Iran is hosting the 16th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in Teheran. The irony is further illustrated by the fact that it is Egypt that is handing over the presidency of the organization to Iran, and that Egypt’s new President Mohamed Morsi, will attend. Modern Egypt’s most famous president, Nasser, was a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961, together with Yugoslavia’s president, Tito; India’s first prime minister, Nehru; Ghana’s first president Nkrumah; and Indonesia’s first president, Sukarno, all of whom advocated a middle course for states in the Developing World between the Western and Eastern blocs in the Cold War.

Although the movement has been little in the news in recent years, the main ideas behind it, of equality between nations and the peaceful resolution of disputes, have been reinvigorated by the phenomenon of globalization that succeeded the Cold War as the main threat to peace. Over 100 countries representing 55% of the world’s population and 26% of world GDP are attending the Teheran Summit, as is Ban-ki-Moon, the U.N. Secretary General – who was pressured not to do so by the U.S. and Israel.

Like most of the movement’s members, India was formerly a basket case. Now it is one of the rapidly developing nations known as the BRICS, and is a full participant in the event. Russia on the other hand appears to be absent, perhaps to emphasize that it doesn’t need to be aligned or non-aligned with anybody. (The other two BRIC nations, Brazil and China are attending the conference as observers, with China’s stance corresponding to its active economic role in many developing countries.)

Iran’s timing couldn’t be more appropriate in terms of growing threats by the West over its nuclear program, as the American presidential election draws near. But the financial crisis that is hitting the West much harder than the BRIC countries also makes this show of solidarity more than half of the world’s population as stunning as China’s leap from famine to fame. Unfortunately, it is not only the Democratic and Republican Party Conventions, but also a supine media that prevents Americans from seeing the tectonic shift under way from a Western dominated world that never believed in the lofty ideals of the United Nations, to one that knows they are our only hope.

As an RT news anchor commented yesterday, who would have thought, twenty years ago, that Russia and China, who for decades during the Cold War traded insults, that the two largest and most populated countries would form a united front against the hitherto most powerful nation the world has ever known.

If you have been following the news on RT or France 24 or Al-Jazeera, you probably know about Putin’s recent trip to China. The existence of two new ‘blocs’ is also apparent in the Syrian crisis:  Russia has offered to host an international conference to which Syria’s neighbors, as well as Iran, would be invited. Washington, and less stridently, the European Union, are opposed to Iran’s presence at discussions on Syria, with France scheduled to host a meeting of the Western-backed Friends of Syria group on July 6th.

In another touch of irony, some readers may remember the Jewish-Black alliance in the United States that began early in the 20th century and lasted until the 1970’s, when the interests of the two groups began to diverge.  Currently Israel is expelling 4,000 Black Africans who were formerly given refuge.

And finally, on a lighter note, the English language channel France 24 confessed that the latest foreign tourists to find the French less than friendly are…… the Chinese. Apparently, while history moves inexorably forward according to the arrow of time, countries, whose ethos is largely dictated by culture, tend to remain the same.

This is true of Russia, China and the United States as well, the first two imbued with the Socialist tradition of solidarity, while the third continues a tradition of force.

I’ve been watching Russia’s English language channel RT on independent American television for the past month or so, wondering what motivates Moscow in its choice of stories. RT, France 24 and Al-Jazeera cumulatively provide a much more complete picture of what is going on in the world than any combination of American channels and the BBC. Like their British and American counterparts, these channels are in competition, with France 24 being more pro-European than the BBC, and Al-Jazeera striving to retain its Third World credentials while being accepted by Washington. But RT is the only one to systematically draw attention to politically significant stories that the American press ignores and to provide a regular platform for activists such as Thom Hartmann and Chris Hedges, who are absent from the mainstream American media.

The Russian government apparently believes it is more important for Americans to be well informed than Russians, since what the U.S. government does impacts the entire world, affecting decisions the Russian government has to make. Nothing better illustrates this situation than the American plan to install missiles in Europe, a replay of its nineteen-eighties installation of Pershing missiles in West Germany to counter the Soviet Union’s SS20s. During the Cold War, which began in earnest with the 1948 Soviet blockade of Berlin, to which the U.S. responded by airlifting in supplies, Europe was divided into an Eastern and a Western bloc, the arms race justified by the ‘threat’ that the Soviet Union would overrun its Western half. American missiles were removed in 1987, when Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Two years later the Berlin Wall fell and the countries of Eastern Europe regained their independence. Four years later, under Boris Yeltsin, the Soviet Union was dissolved.

Now, more than twenty years later, the American government wants to install missiles in Europe to deter Iran from building a nuclear weapons capability, while Iran defends its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium like every other country for medical and energy uses. The proposed Missile Defense System includes Aegis ships equipped with interceptor batteries, a command-and-control base in Ramstein, Germany, and a radar in Turkey. Washington initially told its NATO partners that Russia would participate in the project, but Russia has consistently refused to do so until Washington provides binding assurances that it is not aimed at them. Hence, despite official ‘agreement’ at the Chicago NATO summit, Europe remains a reluctant partner. In a recent International Herald Tribune article (www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/opinion/yes-to-missile-defense-with-russia.html), even Germany agreed with the Russians that the U.S. could put nukes on its interceptors.

This standoff alone would justify Russian efforts to reach an American audience with anti-war messages.  But it is not the whole story.  The four-year long global financial crisis has been a wellspring for Nazi movements, never far from the surface in Europe (see recent developments in Greece and France), but also in Russia, Ukraine, and the Baltic countries. Americans who fought the Nazis in the Second World War are now in their late eighties, and their children’s memories only go as far back as Vietnam. Very differently, the ‘Great Patriotic War’ is still taught to every Russian child, and Russia continues to celebrate its victory over Nazi Germany with a full-fledged military parade. Not surprisingly, neo-Nazi movements and other signs of creeping fascism are of greater significance to Russians than to Americans.

I began writing about creeping fascism in the United States in 2009, and  I was not crying wolf. By now the United States is widely seen in decline, but that may well be irrelevant if, as is increasingly being suggested, power is rapidly shifting to world corporations. If Mitt Romney becomes the next president, he promises to lower the unemployment rate to 6% by making the Bush tax cuts permanent, cutting wages, encouraging more foreign workers to leave and more American workers to retire early, while cutting Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.  One doesn’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize that if followed globally, these steps would make the world a better place for the 1% while shrinking the 99%, increasingly seen as expendable.

America’s air of decline offers opportunities for deniers to access the limelight, but due to a lack of international literacy, few speculate on what the new power alignment might be. Discussions tend to revolve the question of whether China will fail to become the next superpower due to the impact on an ageing population of its one-child policy. Russia is rarely mentioned, but if RT is any guide, Putin is aiming for a Russia/China duopoly.

More likely, I think, is a multi-polar world run by Brazil on the Southern American hemisphere, Russia on the ‘European’ peninsula, India on the subcontinent and China in the Pacific. Unlike Washington, the four original BRIC countries, which account for over 40% of the world population, agree that dealing with the global challenge of development and climate will require cooperative rather than confrontational behavior. However different each individual country’s past, this fundamental socialist principle has survived their respective transitions to market economies. And as illustrated by the message that runs through all of RT’s programming, better informing Americans about their government and the world at large is an indispensable first step. When China and India launch their respective English language television news services, their messages, though embodied in different cultural contexts, are likely to be the same.

The piecemeal nature of the information that reaches the American public prevents us from seeing discrete events within a larger framework, the ‘big picture’ that I have been writing about for years, and which, by the way, is now the title of Thom Hartmann’s excellent show on Russia’s English language TV channel, RT.

What is happening across the Middle East?  1) Our client governments use increasingly brutal methods to keep their people down; 2) The United States tries to prevent these governments from losing power, not mainly because we need their oil, but because a radical shift toward any kind of people power in that region puts Israel in real danger (as opposed to the boogeyman dangers it has been crying wolf about for decades: first Iraq, now Iran).  (Likewise, Russian support for Syria may be about retaining port on the Mediterranean, or a carved-in-stone policy of not supporting enemies of the state, but it is also about supporting the ‘front-line state’.)

One can only wonder why Israel is focusing so obsessively on Iran’s  putative nuclear program, when it is surrounded, if not by hostile regimes, then certainly by hostile populations.  Israel has been brutally occupying Palestinian lands for decades, acting as a veritable Goliath vis a vis a weaker Arab people, and the Arab street know that its rulers have been American puppets for decades, as part of the U.S.’s commitment to defend Israel.

As they fixate on the supposed deleterious influence of Islam, our politicians take no account of ideology. Across the Muslim world, the 99% wants more equity, while we want docile regimes run for and by the 1%.  On Israel’s southern border, it is no surprise that the Muslim Brotherhood is defying the military rulers of Egypt after seeming to support them after Mubarak’s ouster: the Brotherhood’s new generation of leaders are more interested in seeing their country break free of American domination than in checking on headscarves, while the military would be inclined to continue Mubarak’s subservience to the U.S., its weapons supplier.

As far as I have seen, no news channel has viewed the Syrian crisis in terms of the Arab world’s greater or lesser hostility toward Israel.  The Assad regime has constituted a resolute enemy on Israel’s northern border, and Israel would feel more secure if Syria were run by American puppets.

American nervousness over the composition of the rebel movement is not about whether it is democratic, but about the attitude toward Israel of those who could replace Assad.  We would like to cherry pick the political figures who will replace Assad, but we really have no way of knowing which ones will go along with Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.