Questioning the #BringBackOurGirls Campaign

As usual overwhelming propaganda power and layer upon layer of ignorance make the upside-down reality served up by Ministry of Truth the majority view of what is happening in Africa.

Danny Haiphong, Black Agenda Report

The #BringBackOurGirls campaign has become the loudest voice for U.S. imperialism and military domination of Africa. It’s only message is that the U.S. “do something” – as if America is not already responsible for the death of millions of Africans in Congo, Somalia and elsewhere. #BringBackOurGirls masks the reality that Washington’s real mission is to protect corporate theft of Nigeria’s wealth.

“US imperialism is the real terrorist for African people and the root of terrorism in Africa.”

When tragedies occur, questions arise. If a close relative is injured in a car accident, the affected family may ask a number of questions for both clarity and guidance. One question certain to come up is “who or what is responsible for the accident?” Most people wouldn’t accept an answer to this question from just anyone. Instead, concerned family and community members would probably seek verifiable evidence that leads to logical conclusions about the nature of the incident.

The #BringBackOurGirls campaign doesn’t appear interested in asking the difficult questions necessary to understanding the forces behind the kidnapping of 300 young girls in Nigeria. The campaign instead calls for US intervention to track down the so-called “terrorist” organization, Boko Haram. US imperialism responded quickly by sending marines to Nigeria, escalating US militarization in a country already dominated economically and politically by the West. #BringBackOurGirls supporters achieved their objective of further US militarization at the expense of African people. The #BringBackOurGirls campaign is thus not a social movement at all, and it must be clearly understood that there is much more to the kidnappings in Nigeria than the campaign is willing to address.

The motives of the #Bringbackourgirls campaign are unclear. The US corporate media is focusing most of its attention on hand selected US-based Nigerians demanding US intervention. Is the campaign’s main objective to bring the young Nigerian women back to their families, as it claims? Or is it to enhance US militarization and neo-colonialism in Africa? So far, the campaign’s use of social media and street outreach only reinforces public confusion around US imperialism in Africa.

US imperialism built its foundation by enslaving Africans within its own borders, and did so into the later half of the 19^th century. However, it was not until the middle of the 20^th century that the corporate masters of US imperialism set their direct sites on the African continent. During this period, the European colonial powers were severely weakened from WWII. European colonialism relinquished settler status in response to national liberation movements in Africa and domestic financial crisis from post WWII destruction. Washington saw the exit of European settler colonialism from Africa as the perfect opportunity to exploit the great wealth of the continent through US military intelligence (CIA) and Bretton Woods institutions (IMF and World Bank).

“The campaign’s use of social media and street outreach only reinforces public confusion around US imperialism in Africa.”

Kwame Nkrumah, the first revolutionary President of independent Ghana, was deeply critical of US imperialism in Africa. Nkrumah wrote in “Class Struggle in Africa that Washington aided neo-colonialism by financially and militarily supporting the development of an African bourgeoisie. Political leaders and freedom fighters who envisioned an economically independent and unified Africa were assassinated or overthrown by the CIA, such as Patrice Lumumba of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Nkrumah himself. After propping up compliant African states and fueling internal strife, Washington exerted its influence in the IMF and World Bank to establish friendly “trade” deals that transferred Africa’s wealth straight to US multinational corporations and those of allied nation-states. In such favorable conditions, US capitalism profited from the neo-colonial exploitation of Africa into the 21^st century.

Today, US economic hegemony is increasingly being challenged both in the region and the world by socialist China. US imperialism’s response is to further entangle Africa into its war machine. The US African Command (AFRICOM) currently has relations with all but two African countries (Eritrea and Zimbabwe). In every corner of Africa, AFRICOM has vastly increased its footprint through drone surveillance, weapons distribution, and the training of African security forces in friendly states. AFRICOM’s purported mission is to protect US “national security” interests, a euphemism for the protection of plundered resources. The agency does this by arming and training African armies to serve the interests of US imperialism.

“The Shell Corporation is responsible for the mass impoverishment of Nigerian farmers and workers.”

US imperialism has been conducting military operations in Nigeria since at least 1999. AFRICOM, officially established in 2007, became involved in the training and deployment of security forces in the Niger Delta. It is in this resource rich region where Shell Corporation exports much of Nigeria’s vast oil reserves to the West. The Shell Corporation is responsible for the mass impoverishment of Nigerian farmers and workers. The #BringBackOurGirls support for further intervention from the US puppet state in Nigeria masks the reality that US imperialism is protecting the corporate theft of the country’s wealth from the Nigerian people.

This reigns true in every region of Africa. In the east, the US and AFRICOM backed Ethiopia’s invasion of Somalia in 2006, destabilizing the nation’s government and leaving millions to starve from withheld food-aid and fend for themselves against CIA sponsored death squads. In central Africa, the US and AFRICOM armed and financed proxies in Uganda and Rwanda, which proceeded to loot the Congo’s coltan, cobalt, and lithium for US and Western multinational corporations. In this ongoing conflict, six million Congolese have been murdered since 1996. In southern Africa, The ANC-led South Africa remains a neo-colony where the profits of US and Western capital are protected at the expense of the Black majority. Further, the US and EU imperialist alliance strapped economic sanctions on Zimbabwe in hopes that the country will reverse its land reform and indigenization policies.

“Since the fall of independent Libya, evidence of terrorist elements causing chaos across Northern Africa has become impossible to ignore.”

And in 2011, the US-NATO armed foreign terrorist insurgents in Libya responsible for toppling one of the last economically independent countries in Africa. The Libyan Jamahiriya nationalized oil wealth and provided Libyans with free healthcare, education, and housing. Chairman Muammar Gaddafi was a staunch supporter of African liberation movements. He also supported Palestinian resistance against Zionism and Israeli settler colonialism. For his opposition to US hegemony, Gaddafi was murdered without trial and Libya was bombed to bits. In NATO’s 2011 bombing campaign, an estimated 100,000 Libyans were murdered and 50,000 were reported disappeared. In cities like Sirte, Black Libyans were lynched and driven into exile by racist, Western-backed terrorists. Since the fall of independent Libya, evidence of terrorist elements causing chaos across Northern Africa has become impossible to ignore. Seymour Hersh’s revelation that Libya was a virtual supply station for US-NATO backed terrorists in the campaign to destabilize Syria exposes US imperialism’s role in the proliferation of terrorism in Africa.

US imperialism is the real terrorist for African people and the root of terrorism in Africa. The vision of a liberated and decolonized Africa promoted by Kwame Nkrumah cannot occur if US imperialism is allowed to exist in Africa, but the #BringBackOurGirls campaign appears not to care. The rhetoric emanating from the mainstream, corporate campaign reinforces US imperialism in Africa, which essentially is a continuation of hundreds of years of Western colonialism, white power, and neo-colonialism on the continent. US military intervention finds ideological justification in the Western worldview that claims Africa, and in this case Nigeria, is ungovernable without “aid” from US imperialism. Yet “aid” from US imperialist interests has been happening for years in Nigeria and all that has come from it is more poverty, internal conflict, and land theft. So, while some may tweet #BringBackOurGirls, the movement we really need to build is one that demands US imperialism out of Africa all together.

Danny Haiphong is an activist and case manager in the Greater Boston area. You can contact Danny at: wakeupriseup1990@gmail.com. [6]

Source URL: http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/questioning-bringbackourgirls-campaign

TOO MUCH (Chronicles of Inequality, May 19, 2014)

	May 19, 2014
THIS WEEK
Back a century ago, in the heyday of America’s original plutocracy, some of inequality’s most eloquent critics turned out to be men of means outraged by the greed grabs of the affluents all around them. That history may be repeating.Consider world-class management guru Umair Haque. Last week, in the Harvard Business Review, Haque argued that modern societies “are making a series of mistakes” when they tolerate the presence of a super rich. With a super rich, Haque would go on to explain, we’re not just getting a threat to our democracy or an obstacle to our prosperity. We’re limiting what we can achieve. We’re eroding our “society’s human potential.”Most of today’s privileged, sadly, don’t share Haque’s fears and worries. Former President Bill Clinton even opined last week that we really can’t do much about spiraling top 1 percent fortunes unless we “start jailing people.” For our part, we do see a few more options. More on them in this week’s Too Much.	About Too Much, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies Program on Inequality and the Common Good Subscribe to Too Much Inequality.Org Join us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter
GREED AT A GLANCE
The big news in Beverly Hills: America’s biggest Jimmy Choo boutique has finally reopened! The high-fashion house’s newly renovated digs have pink marble and mink velvets “harmonizing” with oyster stone and a mother-of-pearl oyster floor. Designer Sandra Choi says she aimed to create “a luxurious environment that would combine the refined detail of a haute couture salon with the intimacy of a fantasy closet.” To pack that closet, guests can pick up — for $750 and up — a pair of suede shoes with their initials goldstamped on the heels . . .Where would our world be without problem-solvers like Richard Pryor? This New Zealand go-getter went to work for a Saudi prince’s private jet fleet in 1999 and soon realized that the fleet’s on-board catering fell far short of the cuisine the prince and his pals enjoyed on terra firma. Pryor’s solution? Six years ago, he launched Private Flight, a global firm that connects private jet staff with chefs at five-star hotels and restaurants worldwide. Business has been good. A single private jet client, Pryor noted earlier this month, might spend $40,000 on food for a single flight. Deep pockets, he explains, “benchmark the small things.” They might not be able to assess how well a pilot is flying, “but they can compare the steak they had in Le Cirque in New York against the steak they are having on the plane.”The problem-solvers are solving away in Miami, too. City fathers there have just okayed a $600 million luxury development that will offer global billionaires about 50 angled berths for their super yachts. The problem the angled berths fix? Go try to parallel park a 150-foot yacht, the Miami Herald’s Fred Grimm suggested last week, and you’ll see soon enough. The newly approved yachting project, adds Grimm, dedicates what had been “valuable public-owned waterfront to the needs of the super rich.” Miami, he notes, now ranks seventh worldwide on the Knight Frank realty list of cities that best cater to “ultra high-net worth individuals.” Observes Grimm: “We’ve not only come to terms with the stark inequities of wealth distribution, we’ve made it into a growth industry.”	Quote of the Week “It appears that it is now acceptable to talk about inequality in America as the central issue facing the country.” Dani Rodrik, Social Europe Journal, May 16, 2014
PETULANT PLUTOCRAT OF THE WEEK
Last week’s horrific mine tragedy in Turkey reminded us how deadly mining can be. Anglo American Platinum CEO Chris Griffith has just reminded us how demented that industry’s chief executives remain. Workers at Griffith’s South African mining giant have been striking to raise their $547 monthly entry wage to $1,200. But Griffith early last week groused that striking miners are “missing the point” when they point to his personal $141,000 monthly take-home. South Africa, he noted, is overflowing with “lower-skilled people,” and no one can reasonably compare his labor with theirs. Fumed Griffith: “Must I run this company and deal with all this nonsense for nothing?” Added the CEO: “I’m not demanding to be paid what I’m not worth.” By week’s end, after a media firestorm, Griffithwas apologizing for his “choice of words.”	Like Too Much? Email this issue to a friend
IMAGES OF INEQUALITY
The folks at Rolls-Royce will customize just about anything for you. This new Rolls came with a bespoke picnic basket, the Pursuitist notes, “complete with custom china, silver, and glassware based on the owners’ request.” Other custom requests stand out a bit more. Rolls recently delivered a new $300,000 Wraith model painted to match the color of the new owner’s pale pink leather gloves.	Web Gem Global Rich List/ Aninteractive site that lets you see where your household ranks in the global distribution of income and wealth.
PROGRESS AND PROMISE
In New York this week, the United Nations will be hosting a global gathering designed to develop a gameplan for financing the sustainable development the world needs to end poverty and save the planet. That gameplan, argue veteran economic justice activists Helen Dennis of Christian Aid and Nicholas Lusiani of the Center for Economic and Social Rights, ought to include a global tax on wealth. The annual “sustainable development solidarity capital tax” they seek would hit 2 percent on wealth over 5 million euros, or about $6.8 million. Mainstream commentators, Dennis and Lusani note, have called the French economist Thomas Piketty politically clueless for suggesting a similar levy. But commentators, they note, not long ago dismissed a financial transaction tax as impractical, and that tax now stands “poised to be implemented across Europe.”	Take Action on Inequality Tell Apple, the computer goliath, that worker safety matters more than executive bonuses. Apple’s latest excess: a $68 million signing bonus for new retail chief Angela Ahrendts.
INEQUALITY BY THE NUMBERS
	Stat of the Week In 25 top U.S. metro areas, DataQuick has just reported, sales of homes costing over $2 million are now running 33 percent above last year’s levels. The latest totals rank as the highest DataQuick has tallied since the stat service started keeping sales records in 1988.
IN FOCUS
How Campus Chiefs Ace Out Pay Excess 101 The fiercer that major state universities squeeze faculty and students, a new study shows, the grander the rewards their presidents reap. These haven’t been the best of times for the young men and women attending America’s colleges and universities. Or for the faculty who teach them. Those students are graduating, if they can afford to get that far, with levels of debt that would have seemed unimaginable a few decades ago. In 2012, the nation’s total student debt hit $1.2 trillion — and topped, for the first time, the sum total of America’s household credit card debt. Faculty haven’t been faring particularly well either. Only a third of the nation’s faculty members currently hold regular full-time permanent positions. All the rest labor on a “contingency” basis. They either get paid by the course or have one- or two- year full-time appointments that carry no long-term job security. “Adjunct” faculty typically make just $2,700 for every course they teach. Overall, they annually take home a median $22,000 a year, an income that sits below the official federal poverty rate for a family of four. These paltry paychecks leave adjuncts forever scrambling to pack their weekly schedules with as many extra courses as they can arrange. And these ever-heavier teaching loads, in turn, leave adjuncts without adequate time for either preparing for their classes or mentoring students one-on-one. Amid all this financial squeezing, students lose out and faculty feel chronically frustrated. One recent study found a stunning 98 percent of adjuncts acknowledging they were “missing opportunities to better serve their students.” Not a pretty picture. So what should the trustees of America’s colleges and universities be doing to start painting a brighter future? Here’s one fix-it these trustees ought to studiously avoid: paying more to higher education’s highest executives. Over the past decade, a just-published Institute for Policy Studies report details, many of America’s most prestigious state universities have been going exactly this higher executive pay route — with alarmingly miserable results. The new IPS paper, The One Percent at State U: How University Presidents Profit from Rising Student Debt and Low-Wage Faculty Labor, crunches pay figures at the 25 public institutions of higher education with the highest-paid chiefs. From 2009 to 2012, average pay for these execs jumped from $727,000 to $974,000. Over this three-year span, the pay gap between top executive compensation at the nation’s 25 highest-paying public universities and the national average public university nearly doubled, jumping from $251,036 to $429,452. What could the trustees at these 25 universities possibly have been thinking? How could they have boosted presidential pay a quarter-million dollars per president at a time America was still struggling to recover from the Great Recession? All these trustees were likely just following America’s conventional boardroom wisdom. And why not? Many trustees at top universities serve in their day jobs as top execs at America’s largest corporations. These execs have internalized — and personally profited off — Corporate America’s basic boardroom logic. Want to get your enterprise to “perform” at a higher level? Our boardroom logic dictates that you give your CEOs ever greater financial “incentive” to perform. In American higher education, notes the new Institute for Policy Studies One Percent at State U report, this boardroom “wisdom” is clearly backfiring. At the 25 public universities with the highest executive pay, study authors Andrew Erwin and Marjorie Wood show, the prime problems that ail higher education are getting significantly worse, not better. At these 25 institutions, student debt levels are rising much faster than national averages, as are the ranks of contingent and part-time faculty. Erwin and Wood provide detailed chapter and verse for their charges. At Ohio State, for instance, the university president pocketed $5.9 million from the 2010 through 2012 fiscal years. Over that span, Ohio State student debt rose 23 percent faster than the national average, and the university hired 11 times more contingent and part-time faculty than permanent full-timers At the University of Washington in Seattle, permanent faculty ranks dropped 19 percent over the same span, with the number of part-timers leaping 239 percent. Also leaping: pay for the University of Washington president. This top exec pulled in $2.3 million for the three years. UW students, by contrast, saw their debt grow 26 percent faster than the national average for four-year public universities. We’ve essentially witnessed, Erwin and Wood document, a “top-heavy 1 percent” recovery at major state universities over recent years, “largely at the expense of students and faculty.” The two study co-authors offer a variety of reforms for wringing pay excess out of higher education. State lawmakers, they urge, should set statutory pay ratios that limit top university executive compensation to 10 times the full-time equivalent pay of their institution’s lowest-paid faculty member. Congress, Erwin and Wood add, should pass Senator Elizabeth Warren’s pending Bank on Students Loan Fairness Act, legislation that would nearly halve student loan interest rate payments and pay for this added student financial aid by hiking the tax rate on annual income over $1 million to a minimum 30 percent. Like this article? Sign up to receive the Too Muchweekly in your email inbox. Instead of narrowing inequality in America, Cornell University political scientist Suzanne Mettlerpointed out earlier this year in a particularly astute analysis, “our system of higher education reinforces it.” High pay for higher education’s highest executive officers only serves to help lock that inequality in. That lock needs busting.	New Wisdom on Wealth Kathleen Geier, What Piketty’s Neoliberal Critics Get Wrong, Baffler, May 15, 2014. Our political elites now feel that they must at least pay lip service to fighting inequality. Robert Reich, Ten ways to close the inequality gap,Chicago Sun-Times, May 15, 2014. Our economic and political dysfunctions will not self-correct. We have to do the correcting. Sean McElwee, Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, Aljazeera America, May 16, 2014. The solution to America’s growing inequality may lie in democratizing company ownership. Kevin Drum, The Super Rich Spend a Ton of Money on Politics These Days, Mother Jones, May 16, 2014. America’s top 0.01 percent now take 5 percent of the nation’s income and make over 40 percent of U.S. political contributions. Richard Wolff, Better than Redistributing Income,Truthout, May 17, 2014. Cooperatives could reduce the unequal distribution of income that hierarchical enterprises give us and help us avoid redistribution’s downsides. Frank Bruni, Class, Cost, and College, New York Times, May 18, 2014. America’s top colleges, like luxury cars, can take you far and fast, but only a lucky few ever get behind the wheel. In 1917 organizations representing millions of Americans called for a 100 percent tax on income over $100,000. Too Much editor Sam Pizzigati has their story — and much more — in his new book on the triumph over America’s first plutocracy.The details.
NEW AND NOTABLE
Mobility and Inequality: The Global Evidence Declan Gaffney and Ben Baumberg, Dismantling the Barriers to Social Mobility, Touchstone Extra, May 2014. Mobility has always really mattered — in debates over inequality. If all people have a reasonable shot at getting ahead, apologists for our unequal order have argued down through the years, then why raise a ruckus if some happen to get further ahead than everyone else? This line of argument raises, of course, an obvious question: In our increasingly unequal world, do all people have a reasonable shot at getting ahead? Thanks to a torrent of recent research, we now know the answer, and two British analysts, policy consultant Declan Gaffney and sociologist Ben Baumberg, share it in this just-published British labor movementpamphlet. The new research, the pair explain, confirms a predictive model that economist Gary Solon advanced back in 2002: “that other things being equal, societies would tend to show less mobility the more unequal their distribution of income.” The two authors pay particular attention to Canada and Australia, two nations that defenders of our skewed economic order often cite as proof that inequality makes no impact on mobility. Both countries, the claim goes, sport high inequality and high mobility. But the two nations, Gaffney and Baumberg show, turn out to have considerably less inequality than the world’s most prominent top-heavy nations. The world, Gaffney and Baumberg hammer home, simply has “no developed countries” with British or American levels of inequality “that could be said to have high social mobility in international comparison.”	Enjoy Too Much? Email this issue to a friend who might like Too Much, too
ABOUT TOO MUCH
Too Much, an online weekly publication of the Institute for Policy Studies \| 1112 16th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036 \| (202) 234-9382 \| Editor: Sam Pizzigati. \| E-mail: editor@toomuchonline.org \| Unsubscribe.

India’s Sham Democracy

It’s been that way for a long long time. More misleadership to be expected. Capitalist democracy is an oxymoron. Always was.

By Stephen Lendman

India is like America. Democracy is fantasy. Two major parties dominate. In India most often. Others compete. At most, some become junior coalition partners. Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) governance control things. They take turns. They’re largely two sides of the same coin.

Indian elections ran in nine phases. From April 7 to May 12. The longest election in Indian history. Over 800 million were eligible to vote. Over 8,000 candidates competed. They did so for India’s Lok Sabha. It’s House of the People. Its lower house. Parliamentarians represent 543 constituencies. Turnout exceeded 66%. Highest ever for general elections. On May 16, results were announced.

Ruling Congress party candidates were trounced. They won 44 of 554 seats. BJP aspirants won a majority 282 seats. The BJP National Democratic Alliance (NDA) won 336 seats. Money power triumphs no matter who wins. Like in America. In Europe. In Israel. Most elsewhere . Democracy is fantasy. Narendra Modi (see image) is India’s new prime minister. He’s no democrat. Or agent of change.

He’s pro-business writ large. He’s notoriously anti-populist. He’s neoliberally one-sided. He represents strongman rule. His Gujarat tenure was ruthless. He was responsible for its 2002 massacre. Up to 2,000 Muslims were slaughtered. Thousands more were injured. Hundreds went missing. Children were burned alive. Rape and other atrocities were committed. Widespread looting occurred. Property destruction was vast.

Modi initiated what happened. He condoned it. He remains unaccountable. In 2012, a Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team cleared him of involvement. Muslims justifiably were enraged. Cold-blooded mass murder was whitewashed. State terrorism triumphed. Perhaps more of the same ahead with Modi in charge. Not according to New York Times editors. They headlined “With Narendra Modi, a Change in India.”

They praised what demands denunciation. They lied claiming Modi’s victory “reflects a changing country more willing to extend governance to those outside the established elite.” Obama congratulated him. He invited him to Washington. Modi promised “economic revival.”

“He set a good tone…(He) promised to work for the good of all Indians,” said Times editors. He omitted explaining which ones he means. Wall Street Journal editors headlined “India’s Modi Moment,” saying:

“(H)e has a rare mandate to enact (greater) market-opening reforms” than already. “Indian equities soared…”

“Mr. Modi’s record offers reason for optimism.” He’s an “archetypal energetic executive…(He) welcomes foreign investment. He has a gut sense of the economic aspirations of ordinary Indians. Picking (men) of ideas to balance his own strength as a man of action would be a winning combination.”

Washington Post editors called Modi “a compelling alternative as a leader with a record of overseeing a decade-long boom in the state of Gujarat, primed by aggressively tackling infrastructure and energy bottlenecks, paring excessive regulation and attracting private investment.”

“He has promised to do the same for the country at large, sketching ambitious plans for new cities linked by bullet trains.”

Arundhati Roy calls India’s model one “designed to uphold the consensus of the elite for market growth” at the expense of fairness. It “metastasized into something dangerous.” High-level corruption reflects it. So does hardline rule.

Roy compared Hindu persecution of Muslims to Hitler’s treatment of Jews. “What kind of India do they want,” she asked earlier? She described a “limbless, headless, soulless torso left bleeding under the butcher’s clever with a flag driven deep into her mutilated heart?” She commented on India’s election, saying:

“…”(W)e’re always told there’s going to be a trickle-down revolution.”

“You know, that kind of opening up of the economy that happened in the early ’90s was going to lead to an inflow of foreign capital, and eventually the poor would benefit.”

“Well, trickle down hasn’t worked, but gush up has. After the opening up of the economy, we are in a situation where…100 of India’s wealthiest people own 25 percent of the GDP.”

“Whereas more than 80 percent of its population lives on less than half a dollar a day.”

Roy noted horrendous malnutrition, hunger and human misery. India’s growing middle class comes at the expense of a “much larger (permanent) underclass.”

Small farmers among others suffer. Around 250,000 committed suicide. “If you try to talk about (it) on Indian television channels, you actually get insulted…” Roy’s new book is titled “Capitalism: A Ghost Story.” It explains well. It makes a strong case. It shows globalized capitalism created unprecedented inequality, violence, racism and ecocide.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian/journalist/sharp critic of New Delhi policy. He called BJP candidates winning decisively a clear mandate. He’s not encouraged. He expects worse of what voted rejected ahead. He commented on Hinduism’s strong pro-Israeli sentiment. “Hindutva and Zionism shared a muscular nationalism that developed – because of their context – a programmatic apathy to Islam and Muslims,” he said.

In 1884, BJP candidates won two seats. This year “the tide turned,” said Prashad. It did so despite Modi’s genocidal legacy. Anti-Congress sentiment mattered more. India has “a powerful Hindu Right government with a very weak opposition,” Prashad added. “It is the worst of all worlds.” Congress prioritized neoliberal policies. They combined “liberalization, privatization and globalization.” Prashad calls it “an explosive mix that brought India in line with the planet’s rising inequality.”

It’s grown steadily for years. Especially so in the new millennium. Extreme depravation affects around “680 million Indians.” Congress policies exacerbated things. Inequality escalated during its tenure. Voters reacted. Its candidates were rejected. BJP ones replaced them and then some. Both parties represent monied elites. Corruption is deep-seated.

BJP and Congress largely govern the same way. Prashad said Modi’s Gujarat “malnutrition rate is so high that it is worse than the average…in sub-Saharan Africa.” Its development model is exclusively pro-business. Modi family-controlled companies profit handsomely. He “ran as a development candidate with a carefully calibrated argument,” said Prashad. He turned truth on its head. He claimed neoliberalism didn’t create inequality. He blamed corruption. He “tied it to the mast of Congress.”

He rode an anti-ruling party wave. He did so successfully. He reflects hard right Hindu nationalist extremism. He’ll form his government going forward. He’ll have to decide whether it’s “the ideology he concealed in plain sight or from the campaign rhetoric…he delivered,” said Prashad.

Election results showed India’s left considerably weakened. Its alternative is rebuilding “strength outside parliament through popular political struggles,” Prashad stressed. Did ordinary Indians get what they wanted, he asked? Was it “good governance or Hindu nationalism?”

On the one hand, they get what they voted for, good or bad. On the other, they’re stuck with the worst of both worlds they deplore. Hardline pro-business Hindu nationalists are empowered for the next five years. For hundreds of millions of deeply impoverished Indians, it’ll feel like a lifetime.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Chaos erupts over deadly mine accident in Turkey

Capitalism strikes again
The tragedy happened for precisely the same reasons they continue to occur around the world: Management (and government) invariably put profits above the safety of workers. Once the work of slaves, mining has long been an occupation with enormous health and safety risks. Still, such accidents and disease-inducing conditions could be substantively reduced if the workers themselves were free to determine the level of risk to be faced, and the measures to be taken.

MAY 17, 2014, 7:12 AM|There is growing anger in Western Turkey over the country’s worst ever mine disaster. At least 299 miners were killed in a deep underground explosion. The mining company and the Turkish government have denied negligence, but that’s only ignited tempers and triggered protests. Holly Williams reports.

Genocide in Indonesian Zoo

The Fate of Animals

Like all fascist failed states incubated by America, most people in Indonesia live and die for a few rich individuals and clans, and for market fundamentalism.

by ANDRE VLTCHEK
Simulpost with Counterpunch

Indonesians are no amateurs when it comes to mass murder and genocides.

They managed to slaughter with their bare hands, between 1 and 3 million people in 1965/66, mainly those who belonged to the educated class, and of course the Communists, teachers, artists and members of the Chinese minority.

They butchered and tortured to death around 30 percent of the inhabitants of what is now Timor-Leste. And they have already exterminated at least 150,000 men, women and children in Papua, in an ongoing and totally hushed up genocide that allows Western countries to access its natural resources. 150,000 corpses is, of course, one of the lower estimates…

One could say that with such a record and such an absolute lack of compassion even towards their fellow human beings, the fate of the animals killed regularly all over Indonesia, should not come as something surprising or shocking.

Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His discussion with Noam Chomsky On Western Terrorism is now going to print. His critically acclaimed political novel Point of No Return is now re-edited and available. Oceania is his book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about post-Suharto Indonesia and the market-fundamentalist model is called “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. He has just completed the feature documentary, “Rwanda Gambit” about Rwandan history and the plunder of DR Congo. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and Africa. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.