Dear African,
I came to beg you for one thing:
Please, forgive yourself. Forgive Africa.
Forgive the Black man and the Black woman.
I know you may find it hard to remember anything about Africa to be proud of, only a painful history that you want to forget, betrayal, and seeming weakness. But Africa is all you have.
It is all you will really ever have.
Yesterday, I saw a video of a Black woman in Scotland with a thick Scottish accent being abused on a train. They told her to "go back to her country."
She told them she was born there, and that she was probably more Scottish than her abusers. She likely said that just to get under their skin.
Because how could she? Could she really be more Scottish than them? Could she ever truly belong?
Will there ever be a time when someone won't randomly tell her to go back to Africa?
The truth is, our status abroad will always be conditional -— no matter the papers that say otherwise.
We have a better chance of building a home here than anywhere else. And not just any home — a grand, respected, peaceful edifice of joy and peace.
But we have to fight for it: everybody else fought for theirs.
But most of us don't like Africa enough to fight for it. And we can only fight for Africa if we unite.
But you are hurt. You are offended by the shame you must endure just for being African.
You hate it when people cringe when they learn where you are from.
You hate being strip-searched at airports and profiled.
Worst of all, you are ashamed of those who call themselves your leaders — the ones who have robbed you, betrayed you, impoverished you, and ruined your name.
They are not asking for your forgiveness, and I am not asking you to forgive them. I am asking you to forgive yourself, and to forgive Africa.
Let's be clear: this broken state is not your fault. The youth did not create this mess.
But carrying this shame induces a paralysis that only perpetuates the status quo. Shame makes us look for escape — rather than a permanent fix — like trying to assimilate into places that will never truly want us.
This forgiveness is not about absolving the guilty; it is about liberating yourself. It helps you make peace with your identity and prepares you to improve it.
Because you cannot fight wholeheartedly for something you secretly despise.
If you think it is our elders who should be doing this —who should be apologizing on behalf of the continent — you are not wrong. But the Yoruba say:
“Ọmọdé gbọ́n, àgbà gbọ́n, òun la fi dá Ilé Ifẹ̀.”
(Ilé Ifẹ̀ was founded on the collective wisdom of both the young and the elderly.)
Eldership is wisdom. Eldership is responsibility.
Historically, the youth have always been at the forefront of every single revolution.
The Arab Spring and Soweto Uprising was led by young people.
Kwame Nkrumah was in his 30s
Thomas Sankara was 33
Fred Hampton was 20
I could go on...
So dear youth, welcome to eldership.
It is our turn to do what we wished those before us had done.
But first, please — forgive yourself.
Forgive Africa.
And after this, we go to war.
The Yoruba language intuitively captured the purpose of tribalizing Africa. When I say "tribe," I am not referring to genetic or ancestral lineage; I am talking about a political weapon.
Tribal identity is intrinsically, structurally divisive when it exists inside a larger group.
The Yoruba call it ẹ̀yà — the fraction, the branch, the part.
Today in Africa, some of our bloodiest conflicts are fought along these exact fault lines.
I'm grateful for Rwanda. After their painful genocide, they learnt, they adjusted, and aggressively de-emphasized the tribe. (Again, tribe is not ancestry).
But in my own country, over three million deaths in a bloody civil war later, we have only regressed deeper into barbaric, tribal obsessions.
Wọ́n pé wa l’ólè, a n gbé ọmọ ẹran jó.
They called us barbarians and uncivilized, and we turn up every single day to prove them right.
When was the last time you went abroad and heard people obsessing over their tribe? In fact, as an immigrant overseas, the biggest threat to your safety comes from those harbouring tribal or racial sentiments.
But do you think Oyinbo didn't have tribes? Did they fall from heaven, or spring from the earth like grass?
No. Europe was once arguably the most violently tribal place on earth. The Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Goths, Celts, and Vandals hacked each other to pieces for centuries. In their Thirty Years' War alone, they slaughtered up to 60% of their people.
So, how did they escape it?
Through deliberate sociopolitical 'engineering'.
To survive, pre-European states systematically crushed local tribal allegiances. The French central state outright banned regional languages like Basque to force a single French identity.
The English crown violently dismantled the Scottish clan system — their tribal structure — banning traditional dress and weapons to force a unified British identity.
They built schools, wrote national anthems, and designed flags to turn tribesmen into citizens.
They engineered nationalism like it was a religion. They understood a fundamental truth: a modern, powerful civilization cannot coexist with powerful internal fractions (ẹ̀yà).
However, Europe's methods were born from a history of violent, hyper-destructive warfare. The only way they knew to de-emphasize differences was through violent subjugation.
We, as Africans, are not traditionally given to the practice of such widespread internal annihilation.
But the goal, however, remains the same:
We must unify to advance. But we can achieve this through dialogue and radical redefinition of our goal and purpose, rather than the sword.
xitter.cf/CryptoMuse01/status/21…
Do you know how crazy it is that some of the tribal identities we are so fixated on were engineered by Oyinbo?
Let’s use the “Yoruba peoples” tribal identity as an instance.
The Yoruba tribal peoplehood was artificially engineered for easier colonial administration.
We were not a monolithic group. The Ẹkiti, Òndó, Ìjẹ̀bú, Ẹgba, Ìjẹ̀ṣà, Ìgbómìnà and others were not always “Yorubas.”
If you time-travelled to 1825 and insisted that an Ẹgba person was Yoruba, they might not only be confused — it is likely that they could be offended.
Treating Yoruba as an ancient, primordial tribe is anachronistic and historically indefensible.
It is well documented that the word “Yoruba” was an exonym — a tag given by outsiders. Ahmad Baba of Timbuktu used “Yariba” around 1613–1615 for the Oyo. Northern traders (Hausa and others) applied it specifically to the Oyo peoples.
In fact, there is no evidence of self-use of the word Yoruba by the precolonial Oyo peoples themselves as a broad ethnic label, and none whatsoever among the non-Oyo groups.
During the Kiriji Wars (1877–1893), the Ẹkiti-Parapọ alliance (Ẹkiti, Ìjẹ̀ṣà and allies including elements of Ìjẹ̀bú, Ẹgba, Ìgbómìnà and others) fought the Ibadan military state (heir to Oyo imperial power) for autonomy. It was not Yoruba fighting Yoruba — they were independent nations fighting to protect their sovereignty.
So how did everyone become Yoruba?
The colonialists homogenized all of us by mechanically standardizing the Ọ̀yọ́-Ìbàdàn speech into a uniform, artificial written language called Yorùbá Àjùmọ̀lò.
Samuel Ajayi Crowther’s 1843 Vocabulary of the Yoruba Language (and subsequent Bible work) was based on the Oyo dialect. To save money on printing Bibles and schoolbooks, European recategorized distinct languages as “local dialects.”
Then, through Lord Lugard’s Native Authority system after the 1914 Amalgamation (formalized in the Native Authority Ordinance of 1916 and later revisions), the British state turned this missionary work into a tool of governance.
Our ancestors became stuck in rigid “tribal” census categories, they appointed standardized rulers to collect taxes, and turned sovereign citizens of independent city-states and republics into predictable, manageable colonial subjects.
Yes, this identity is real today. But its reality is relatively modern, administrative, and politically charged, not primordial.
Many of us mistakenly wear our tribal identity as though it were a sacrosanct, eternal or primordial delineation: it is not.
Like the Yoruba tribal categorization, many others are just neat little folders they fostered to organize us.
If it was a bond formed for your enemy’s convenience, then it is malleable enough to be reformed for strategic survival, defense, and collective prosperity.
My last post was supposed to come after this one, but I'm glad it came first.
What exactly is a "tribe"?
For the sake of this conversation, let’s use the Yoruba as an example.
The Yoruba language does not have a one-for-one equivalent for the English word "tribe." I know some will immediately suggest "ẹ̀yà," but hold that thought — we will circle back to it.
"Tribe" is an English word. But what did it actually mean to the people who labeled us with it?
In 1877, Lewis Henry Morgan published a pseudoscientific framework that standardized the European worldview of Africa.
He mapped the evolution of human societies on a rigid scale:
Savagery → Barbarism (tribe)→ Civilization.
Savagery sat at the bottom. Civilization sat at the top, defined by writing and the "state" — the only structures Europe recognized as real government.
The middle stage was Barbarism, and the political organizational form assigned to Barbarism was the "tribe."
To Europe, being tribal meant being barbaric. It was a label reserved for societies they deemed inferior to the civilization they claimed to have mastered.
They used this word for the peoples they decimated across the globe. They called Native Americans "tribes" and exterminated them. They called Australian Aborigines "tribes" and destroyed them.
But when they came here, and called us "tribes," we celebrated it. Today, we guard this shameful colonial appellation with racist viciousness.
If we truly understood the glory of our old kingdoms, we would see how absurd it is to call them tribes.
At its imperial peak in the late 17th and 18th centuries, the Old Oyo Empire covered roughly 150,000 square kilometers — about one-sixth of modern Nigeria’s landmass. Its sophisticated administrative hierarchy and immense military might cannot honestly be dismissed as a "tribe." The same applies to the Benin Empire.
If you had walked up to their citizens and called them an "ẹ̀yà," they would have rightly asked, "Ẹ̀yà of what?"
Why did Europe name other historical powers "ancient civilizations" but reserve "tribe" for us?
More importantly, why has this become our most prized self-designation?
Let’s look at the actual meaning of "ẹ̀yà."
In Yoruba, ẹ̀yà means a fraction, a branch, or a component part. We use it in "ẹ̀yà ara" (part of the body) or "ẹ̀yà ọ̀rọ̀" (part of speech).
By definition, a part cannot exist without a whole. A fragment cannot exist in a vacuum.
So I ask you: if the Yoruba identity is an ẹ̀yà, what is the larger body we belong to?
Where is the rest of the organism that we "yà" (branched away) from?
To be continued...
Do you know how crazy it is that some of the tribal identities we are so fixated on were engineered by Oyinbo?
Let’s use the “Yoruba peoples” tribal identity as an instance.
The Yoruba tribal peoplehood was artificially engineered for easier colonial administration.
We were not a monolithic group. The Ẹkiti, Òndó, Ìjẹ̀bú, Ẹgba, Ìjẹ̀ṣà, Ìgbómìnà and others were not always “Yorubas.”
If you time-travelled to 1825 and insisted that an Ẹgba person was Yoruba, they might not only be confused — it is likely that they could be offended.
Treating Yoruba as an ancient, primordial tribe is anachronistic and historically indefensible.
It is well documented that the word “Yoruba” was an exonym — a tag given by outsiders. Ahmad Baba of Timbuktu used “Yariba” around 1613–1615 for the Oyo. Northern traders (Hausa and others) applied it specifically to the Oyo peoples.
In fact, there is no evidence of self-use of the word Yoruba by the precolonial Oyo peoples themselves as a broad ethnic label, and none whatsoever among the non-Oyo groups.
During the Kiriji Wars (1877–1893), the Ẹkiti-Parapọ alliance (Ẹkiti, Ìjẹ̀ṣà and allies including elements of Ìjẹ̀bú, Ẹgba, Ìgbómìnà and others) fought the Ibadan military state (heir to Oyo imperial power) for autonomy. It was not Yoruba fighting Yoruba — they were independent nations fighting to protect their sovereignty.
So how did everyone become Yoruba?
The colonialists homogenized all of us by mechanically standardizing the Ọ̀yọ́-Ìbàdàn speech into a uniform, artificial written language called Yorùbá Àjùmọ̀lò.
Samuel Ajayi Crowther’s 1843 Vocabulary of the Yoruba Language (and subsequent Bible work) was based on the Oyo dialect. To save money on printing Bibles and schoolbooks, European recategorized distinct languages as “local dialects.”
Then, through Lord Lugard’s Native Authority system after the 1914 Amalgamation (formalized in the Native Authority Ordinance of 1916 and later revisions), the British state turned this missionary work into a tool of governance.
Our ancestors became stuck in rigid “tribal” census categories, they appointed standardized rulers to collect taxes, and turned sovereign citizens of independent city-states and republics into predictable, manageable colonial subjects.
Yes, this identity is real today. But its reality is relatively modern, administrative, and politically charged, not primordial.
Many of us mistakenly wear our tribal identity as though it were a sacrosanct, eternal or primordial delineation: it is not.
Like the Yoruba tribal categorization, many others are just neat little folders they fostered to organize us.
If it was a bond formed for your enemy’s convenience, then it is malleable enough to be reformed for strategic survival, defense, and collective prosperity.
Goosebumps 🔥🔥🔥
Replying to @TioGinYT
Lula's presidency may not represent the will of a significant portion of the Brazilian people, but make no mistake: our political divisions end where our national sovereignty begins.
It hurts me, but I will wait.
I will wait until after the elections before we have this conversation again.
I don't want to deflate the zest of our young people.
Because this democracy that neither guarantees free and fair elections, nor one's safety after speaking their mind publicly, will not likely not respond to the 'power' of our inky fingers pressed to a paper, next to a logo.
It hurts me that every inevitable failure is equal to 4 more years of one's life wasted. It's okay to waste 4 years when you're young.
But some people don't have many more 4 years to waste.
But let's go on to the polls.
We will vote and protect it.
Maybe Democracy will finally work — for the first time.
For us.
Because our case is different.
• We replaced bullion cubes eg Maggi, Knorr (or Maggi Knorr like many people call it🤣🤣), etc., with natural spices like turmeric, ginger, garlic, lots of onions, locust beans (iru), ogiri, okpe, cloves, aidan fruit (I'll see if I can attach the image), etc. including dehydrated meat/fish — my wife makes a blend of all these spices and stuff.
• We replaced commercial soaps like Joy, Premier, etc. with natural soaps that my wife makes from scratch. It's really easy (because she makes it, and I just watch).
• We replaced toothpastes with pákò (chewing sticks).
Yes, I use chewing sticks.
Did you know that Miswak, a local chewing stick type, sells on Amazon for up to $10?
Some of the things we were told are primitive and backwards are prized bestsellers in Europe.
We also use activated coal, baking soda mixed coconut oil, or wood ash.
• Our hair and body creams too are made from natural ingredients like shea butter, oils, etc.
Thank you.
Shay we want to defend our votes in January?
Let's defend each other first.
Defend this brother first.
The "spirit of aluta" needs to be exercised to be sharper and more focused.
So a great place to start defending your votes in January, is to defend Mr. Olawale.
Ideally, democracy is not just the allowance to vote and be voted for. It is an all-encompassing system of freedom and citizen sovereignty.
But that one na for paper.
In reality, democracy is Nigeria is the license to do greater evil than any dictatorship and get away with it — precisely because you're not a "dictator" 🤣
BREAKING: DSS Reportedly Storms NDC Mobiliser Rilwan Olawale’s Lagos Home Around 1am, Abducts Him as Whereabouts Remain Unknown parallelfactsnews.com/dss-ab…
I remember Rick Joyner became rich and famous off these kinds of encounters.
He went to heaven routinely and saw these biblical figures. He had many discussions with Jesus.
I read his books. He was popular in apocalyptic Pentecostal circles, and I don't recall anyone having issues with him.
But the moment wey black man sef begin dey go heaven, dey see Jesus, dey talk with am, wahala sup straight!
And na fellow black people dey antagonise am pass.
Na self-hate with a generous side of inferiority complex, with a side of lack of self-identity dey worry us pass anything else.
Replying to @Ozedikus
Moses delivered eyewitness account of events that happened even before the world was created. Christians read it and agree that it is valid.
But when Apostle Arome says he went to heaven and saw Abraham, they have a meltdown.
What's the reason?
Dear African, do you know that we're actually not the savages they try to paint us to be?
Do you know that we don’t fight the way Europeans do?
Our warfare traditionally operated on a completely different philosophical and structural logic than European warfare.
While European warfare evolved toward total, existential annihilation and structural subsumption, traditional African warfare — prior to the disruptions of the transatlantic slave trade and colonisation — was largely centered on tribute, political realignment, and institutional preservation.
Traditionally, we don't annihilate entire peoples. Europeans do—and they had to. They didn't have land. Living on a small, hyper-crowded continent, they had to kill, conquer, and permanently replace the conquered to survive.
Because of this civilisational difference, traditional African wars featured significantly — in fact, incomparably —lower casualties than European wars.
Let me give you a concrete example.
Do you know the Ife-Modákẹ́kẹ́ wars?
It is an almost 200-year-old feud between immediate neighbors. Yet, across nearly two centuries of serious conflict, official historical data shows it is highly unlikely that the cumulative casualty count has ever exceeded 5,000 deaths.
Do you know how remarkable it is that a 200-year-old war produced fewer than 5,000 deaths?
For comparison, look at traditional European conflicts fought within the same timeframe as the Ife/Modákẹ́kẹ́ feud, on roughly the same bone of contention:
• The Crimean War (1853–1856): Lasted a mere three years but cost between 500,000 and 750,000 lives.
• The Austro-Prussian War (1866): Lasted just 42 days but produced over 170,000 casualties.
• The Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871): Lasted only six months but resulted in over 650,000 deaths.
The contrast is staggering, isn't it?
Europeans, in a single six-month tribal dispute over the border line between France and Germany, slaughtered more people than the entire population of the Yoruba kingdoms they claimed were "primitive."
Again, I say unto thee dear African: "You were not—and you still are not—savages."
You are not primitive. Europe did not bring civilization to you.
The bloodiest battles ever fought on African soil were Europe-assisted.
From the almost 3 million deaths during the Nigerian Civil War, to the tens of thousands — or possibly hundreds of thousands — during the Kiriji Wars, to the hundreds of thousands during the 27-year Angolan Civil War, the organic ceiling of traditional African violence has been completely removed with the White man's help.
I'm saying this to you, as I continue to paint a bigger picture about who we are and what we must do to rise up and become sovereign, and prosper therewith.
In Africa, and Nigeria especially, everywhere you go, there is a 'king'.
There seems to be a new "kingdom" every 20,000 people and just 10 kilometers apart. 😂
If you don't believe me, just look at Ekiti or Ondo states.
How happy do you think this made European slave traders? How much easier and more efficient do you think it made their business?
"Divide and conquer"?
There was no need to divide. The African package came almost completely pre-divided — ready to be conquered.
Our divided kingdoms and kings were simply no match for European destructive cunning. It was the exact same global playbook of erasure that devoured the Aztecs, destroyed the Native Americans, and dismantled the Aborigines of Australia.
While we were fiercely guarding our micro-borders of 20,000 people, we were completely blind to the fact that the Europeans didn't see individual kingdoms. They saw fragmented pieces of a global puzzle they already knew exactly how to solve.
Do you think today's Europe did not have tribes and ethnic groups?
Europe was a blood-soaked battleground between different groups for centuries. Tribes like the Iceni, Arverni, Salian Franks, Lusitanians, Arevaci, Vascones, and Caledonians were perennially at each other's throats.
But their wars had a different, brutal flavour.
Europeans possess a ruthless culture of expansion and total subsumption. They violently erased their own micro-identities to consolidate thousands of small, warring clans into a few massive, powerful nations.
And when the need to conquer and colonize Africa arose, they took it a step further: they collapsed those powerful nations — fierce internal rivalries and all— into a unified cartel.
Against such a purposeful, single-minded evolution of macro-identity and goal, Africa’s hyper-dividedness was a catastrophic weakness. We used them to defeat our neighbours, never realizing we were handing an unforgiving master the keys to our collective cage.
Centuries later, we are still plagued by the exact same weakness. By continuing to obsess over our tribal identities, we inevitably exaggerate our differences to our collective detriment.
If Europeans can bond to survive — tying their destinies inextricably together to fail or succeed together, to live or die together — how tragic is it that Africa still refuses to unite?
Isn't it time to finally put down the micro-lens of the 'tribe' and pick up the macro-shield of continental unity?
Don't we know that we have far more in common than otherwise?
We must find what unites us, forge it into our core identity, and make it the ultimate springboard to rise, sovereign and unbreakable, on the global stage.
I'm very close to concluding that 'tribal' and 'ethnic' disparities in Nigeria, and Africa as a whole, have been inorganically exaggerated to our detriment.
Our fixation on tribal and ethnic differences is our historic — and ongoing — Achilles heel.
Do you think Europe doesn't/did not have tribes?
I will share my thoughts after I don chop.
I'm very close to concluding that 'tribal' and 'ethnic' disparities in Nigeria, and Africa as a whole, have been inorganically exaggerated to our detriment.
Our fixation on tribal and ethnic differences is our historic — and ongoing — Achilles heel.
Do you think Europe doesn't/did not have tribes?
I will share my thoughts after I don chop.
You're right.
They usually recruit in secret, but the rules that may have changed — at least for Cuba.
The US has been at "war" with Cuba for a long time. Traditional espionage faces a big issue: Cuba has a long history of anti-US sentiment and a robust counter-espionage system.
So because generations of Cubans have grown up resenting US foreign policy and interference, the CIA likely isn't making enough progress using standard, covert recruitment methods.
Since the US blockade and heavy sanctions have astronomically increased hardship in Cuba, leaving the people dealing with severe economic misery, the CIA is now openly capitalizing on this desperation to reach the disgruntled on the streets.
It is a ruthless, win-win trap for the US government. If they succeed in getting spies, they get informants.
But if they fail, they still win.
Imagine 50,000 Cubans apply and the government naturally cracks down to protect itself.
The US will happily blow the state's reaction out of proportion to stoke further unrest.
You'll instantly see international headlines like:
• "Communist Cuban government clamps down on innocent citizens and shuts down the internet"
• "Thousands arrested in Cuba over internet usage"
Naturally, watching your fellow citizens get arrested only makes people madder at the government.
In any of these scenarios, the CIA and the US government win.
At the end of the day, I don't think they need the spies as much as they just want to cause massive civil wahala in the country.
Replying to @CryptoMuse01
There is more to this post. Secrecy has always been MO of the CIA. They could have done the recruitment secretly ( they are excellent at it), but they decided to make it public, on twitter of all places. WHY?
That should be the main focus.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Behold the CIA, stirring discontent and openly recruiting Cuban people as informants and spies for the purpose of overthrowing their government.
This is not new. It's their operational playbook — their MO.
Unfortunately, many Nigerians naively dismiss this reality.
One stupidly asked: 'What does Nigeria have that America would need?'.











