John Mearsheimer on Donald J. Trump Sr threatening Violation of Nigeria’s ‘binal Sovereignties’©

Ipemndoh dan Iyan PhM 

Commenting on https://www.facebook.com/share/1AC2qZdxEE/  

 

Since when has the United States of America (US(A)) cared about Reputation?

 

My Difficulty with John Joseph Mearsheimer is his Reluctance to admit that the only Caution to the United States of America (US(A)) “Use of Force” to achieve its Objectives is ‘Counter Balance Use of Force’©. At times, the USA assumed it was going after ‘targets of Convenience’ (Williams, 1989) until it encountered this Counter-Balance, much to its Humiliation; on the Korean Peninsula, in Vietnam, and with the ‘Bay of Pigs Invasion’, and its further Attempt in the Cuban Missile Crisis. So much for Mearsheimer’s “Hegemon.” I do not know what history educates John Mearsheimer’s global Politics theorizing. Of course, the US got away with Grenada, and Panama, but those Countries were weaker than Williams’ ‘targets of convenience’. Any other War, Professor Mearsheimer cares to tell us the USA has ever won by itself in modern time? NB:  “Modern times” is the popular Usage, and I would, myself, have deployed it in the Past, but it is invalid. There is no English Language Rule authenticating it. Do we have any modern Era other than the Present? If you can use “modern times” with such ‘confident Illiteracy’©, why would you not also use ‘modern Eras’? “Modern times” probably erred from not understanding its Difference to ‘modern time’s’ just like ‘Men’s’ has today become “Mens,” and ‘your’s’ became irreversibly “yours.” The uneducated or perhaps the “quasi-educated” do not know the Difference because they hear these Words pronounced similarly.

 

Is the USA not besieging Venezuela at the Moment, from September 2025 to today in December 2025, committing Terrorism on the “High Seas” around the Country, and murdering its Citizens in the ‘extra-judicial Fancy’© of ‘Felon-President’© Donald J. Trump Sr of the morally-bankrupt USA answerable only to ‘counteracting Inhuman Conduct’© now deciding who is or not an “illegitimate” Executive Head of State of a Sovereign Country? Tell me, Egbon John, where is the USA Concern for Reputation at? Venezuela; another ‘targets of convenience’ or “Counter Balance Force?” Well, we will see. By the Way, how is it cognitively legitimate to have a Donald J. Trump Sr as President of the United States of America (‘POTUSA’©)? POTUSA not “POTUS.”

 

Always the “Paper Tiger”

 

The Lessons learnt from the Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba Experiences instructed the US Military Coalition against Iraq from 1990 to 1991 that Iraq itself made work, unwittingly. There was, of course, the political Coalition. The US was frightened stiff of militarily taking on Iraq by itself hence the ‘Multiforce Collective’©.

 

dan Iyan (https://share.google/tMQ7uxTlJ8ASAqcuM, University of Aberdeen, 2002) noted that at the time of the US Coalition building from 1990 to the Offensive on Iraq in 1991, the US Department of Defense (DoD) reported the following about the Iraqi Military Strength:

The Iraqi army had evolved from a four-corps defensive force to an eight-corps force capable of conducting multi-corps offensive thrusts ... It had modified its defensive strategy to include an offensive combined arms strategy, supported by massive artillery fire (including chemical weapons) and airpower (both army and air force) ... Iraq had also developed a sophisticated system of both air and ground defenses that threatened to make a frontal assault costly. Many believed the Iraqi army to be among the best in the world at defensive warfare. The air defense system was modern and redundant. [US Department of Defense, Conduct of the Persian Gulf Conflict: An Interim Report to Congress, Washington: US Department of Defense].

Years later in 1998, US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright would, admit even more forthrightly the lack of US mid-intensity capability to take on Iraq in 1991 or at any other time since then. She said “We do not have the forces” [BBC News 24, 11 February 1998, 5 a.m. GMT]. Flight Lieutenant John Nichol, the British pilot shot down by the Iraqis during Operation Desert Storm said that had the Coalition invaded Iraq in 1991, there would have been “tens of thousands of body bags coming home” [BBC News 24, 11 February 1998, 8 a.m. GMT].

 

Despite the Coalition’s hollow Victory, Saddam Hussein’s ‘ascending Military Relevance’© was still much frightening for and to “Macho Americana.” The US ‘hegemonic Incapability’© insofar as Iraq was concerned, especially as Iraq in the Middle East (ME) posed ‘substantial credible Threat’© to US Protégé in the ME, Israel, galvanised the US into entreating the other Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and their ‘Support Client(s)’© in the UNSC to engage the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in emasculating Iraqi fighting Capabilities preparatory to the 2003 Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. dan Iyan (2002) stated:

France, the UK, and the US as members of the Western Triumvirate in the UNSC had always voted in consensus as a general principle. China and the USSR collaborated with the West on UNSC Resolutions against Iraq because of the gains they could extract from the US in the case of China, and from the US and the Resolutions themselves in the case of the USSR.

 

In other Words, France, the UK, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) were already uncomfortable with Hussein’s pronounced Intentions. China was just interested in the ‘transactional Gains’© with the US. In ‘historical Reality’©, the US has only been a strong Military when (a) fighting very minor Powers or (b) protected in a Coalition or (c) ensconced in a Coalition fighting an Enemy with the Enemy’s Stomach on the Ground, Hands tied back, and Legs spreadeagled or at its worst, terrorising Civilian Populations with atomic Bombs, as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and carpet-bombing Civilian Populations with Napalm, as in Vietnam and Cambodia. You deceive yourselves you can pull the wool over our eyes about US Terrorism? Well done. The US has always been incorrigible at Terrorism; the Native-Americans, and African Slaves on the Plantations, for earliest examples.

 

If the US views Nigeria as a ‘target of convenience’, it would have swooped in

 

If the US had perceived Nigeria as ‘Military Weakling(s)’©, ergo, a ‘targets of convenience’, the US Military would have invalidated Nigeria’s ‘binal Sovereignties’© to attack Donald J. Trump Sr’s “Islamic Terrorists” Strongholds in that Country, damning Rebukes from any Part of the World. Trump would not even warn Nigeria before pouncing, as he did not apprise Iran when he struck Iran’s Nuclear Facilities at Fordo, Isfahan, and Natanz. Donald J. Trump Sr afterwards got taught the Lesson of his Miscalculation with Iran. Despite Iran giving the US ‘pre-alert of Retaliation’© with more than ample time for the US to prepare its Defence, Iran still hit the US “prized Jewel” in the Middle East, the US Military Base at al Udeid in Qatar – http://ipemndohdaniyan.blogspot.com/2025/07/iran-retaliated-confidently-against-us.html.

 

Whether Nigeria is not a ‘Piece of Cake vanquishable Military’© by own Strength in view of its Military Ratings here – https://share.google/W0Xk0WeE8r3cWmEn2, Chinese Interest in Nigeria cautioned Donald J. Trump Sr. In this Respect I would agree with Professor John Joseph Mearsheimer with his Use of “Bombast” to describe US Behaviors, but I would employ the Expression, “Braggadocio” myself. However, Mearsheimer ‘untenably overrate(s)’© US global Military, and political Powers.

 

Mearsheimer’s Take on Nigeria’s Response to Donald J  Trump Sr’s Threat to violate Nigeria’s Sovereignties

 

John Mearsheimer mentioned the Chinese Angle I touched on in my foregoing Section in his Broadcast here https://youtu.be/X2-uP_MaBV8?si=ScWgNHSDrGc5Ib1d I got clued into from Abimbola Daniyan’s Facebook Share https://www.facebook.com/share/1AC2qZdxEE/. Mearsheimer’s Take is not new. It is the ‘Scheme of Relations’© I identified some 23 Years ago in dan Iyan (https://share.google/tMQ7uxTlJ8ASAqcuM, 2002). Mearsheimer simply put them in own Words. If John Mearsheimer’s Interpretation of the Nigerian Response to Donald J. Trump Sr on “Islamic Terrorists” in Nigeria is correct – I have not paid detailed Attention to this Response – it is possible that the Response took Guidance from my Work afore-mentioned, as it is in the Public Domain. The Work was incisive, as well as advisory. In that Work, I wrote as follows:

The phenomena espousing more of a multipolar world than a sole superpower US include ... the role of economic factors in shaping the new order ... The New World Order manifests itself in a structural readjustment of global economic, military and political relations. Order here, therefore, approximates to the scheme of relations rather than to the hierarchy of relations.

 

Also in that Work, I questioned Mearsheimer’s Refusal to acknowledge the multipolar World already existing:

The nuclear proliferation, limited as it is, would tend to stabilise relations among antagonistic states such as it did for the US and USSR during the Cold War. The proliferation of sophisticated conventional armaments such as long-range missiles would also stabilise relations between the US and an unfriendly state where those missiles could reach either territory and inflict substantial damage on populations. Mearsheimer  [J.J. Mearsheimer, “Back to the Future ...”, International Security, Vol.15, No.1 (1991], however, contradicted the argument that a multipolar world would be as safe as a bipolar world but his argument was premised on the proposition that if a multipolar world exhibited strong as well as weak states, the strong would prey on the weak. But Mearsheimer missed the point. The power status of belligerent parties is equalised if they all have weapons or any other military capability that could be deployed in one another’s territory and which would wreak havoc on life, and property. The US relationship with Cuba is illustrative. As much as the US detests Cuba, it has been restrained from launching further attacks against the country after the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961 by the fact of Cuba’s capability to inflict substantial damage on US forces and the possibility of Cuban assault on US territories such as Miami.

 

You will note from the Mearsheimer Broadcast – in which he suggested he is a “Realist” Theorist – that he believes Multipolarity is newly emerging whereas as a Neo-Realist, I know it has been around for scores of years. I am not the only Theorist in global Politics with this Awareness. It is not clear how Mearsheimer identifies the Characteristics of Multipolarity and why he has applauded Nigeria’s Response to Donald J. Trump Sr as representative such that the Response “sent shockwaves.” Face-saving for him, he qualified his Applause for Nigeria with “Nigeria is one of the first.” Nevertheless, Nigeria is trailing behind the other Sahel States of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger. They “sent [the] shockwaves.” They set the Pace, and the Tenor. They are the real Champions. Nigeria has simply copied them in an adapted Manner if John Mearsheimer’s Reading of the Nigerian Response is correct.

 

By the way, Professor Mearsheimer, Nigeria is not a “Nation.” You should revisit your Understanding of ‘Nation’. You have not used it in any Context other than its ‘commonplace Interchange’© with ‘Country’. A ‘Nation’ has certain ‘immutable Feature(s)’©, and they are (i) common cultural History, and (ii) shared Genealogy. The ‘Nation’ is ‘Group Identity founded on common cultural History, and shared Genealogy’©. I have written a lot about what a ‘Nation’ is. Mearsheimer, and company might find useful one of such in http://ipemndohdaniyan.blogspot.com/2022/06/shifting-culpability-simpletons-guide.html.  

 

In arguing  “the phenomena espousing more of a multipolar world than a sole superpower US,” circa 23 years ago, I included, inter alia:

[I] [a] the advent of some states with military nuclear power and/or long range missile capability, and [b] the increasing sophistication of conventional weaponry, and their proliferation; [II] the paradoxical prominence of the UNSC [United Nations Security Council] in world affairs; and [III] the increasing presence of the EU [European Union] in matters which might threaten global peace and security.

 

I further wrote that:  

[t]he current attention on multipolarity is anomalous. Multipolarity was recognised as extant by US politicians in the late 1970s. Then, a report provided for the House of Representatives Committee on International Relations acknowledged a ‘political [and economically] multipolar world’ [The Soviet Union and the Third World: A Watershed in Great Power Policy? Report Submitted to House of Representatives Committee on International Relations, May 1977]. Even then, military multipolarity was observable. States like Britain, China and France were credible military powers albeit not in the same league as the US and USSR.

 

The Problem with John Joseph Mearsheimer applauding Nigeria

 

Why did the West African Sahel States of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger not feature in John Mearsheimer’s Applause for Nigeria in the Country’s Leaders’ Response to Donald J. Trump Sr’s hot Air regarding “Islamist Terrorists” in that Country or did he mention those three States? I apologize if he did, and I had not caught it. As he was rehashing common Knowledge in the  Context of what I introduced to the Study of World Politics since 2002, I stopped watching the Broadcast in the early Minutes. I have since heard another ‘Usian’©, so-called American, (yep, Mearsheimer is Usian), regurged  the same old Narrative. If Mearsheimer did not introduce Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, which were the earliest African States to show Africans and other World Populations that African Governments can stand Toe-Toe with ‘White Supremacy Government(s)’© (WSGs) https://ipemndohdaniyan.blogspot.com/2025/11/africans-and-their-primordial-own.html, would it be because he knew he was only romanticising Nigeria?  

 

Otherwise, why would Professor Mearsheimer do that? Why would he ignore or disregard or wish away the three Sahel States of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger; which showed other Africans, and the World how Africans could tell WSGs, and WSG ‘Transactional Gains Agent(s)’© to “take a hike?” By the way, Nigeria also is a “Sahel State.” Yep, you are reading me right. Nigeria is in the Sahel. The Reason Mearsheimer would want to wish away the earlier awakenings by Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger to a ‘Resurged Modern African Consciousness’© is that Nigeria is “hook, line and sinker” into this ‘USA Propagandum of Electoral Politics as Democracy’© (‘Propagandum of Electoral Politics as Democracy’©, per se). As we all know, those three other Sahel States are governed by Military Governments, and that means ‘Governance by Uniform Command’©. Military Governments, if managed properly, discountenance Wastage in any form such as Clientelism that is the Essence of Electoral Politics, the so-called Democracy. Those familiar with my Thinking are well aware that ‘Military Governance’© is my Preference, certainly for Africa. See http://ipemndohdaniyan.blogspot.com/2024/11/if-military-are-genuinely-loyal-to-flag.html, for instance. Even when Military Government has been known to be wayward, it still managed to (i) cut Waste, (ii) punish blatant Abuses of Office, and (iii) censure ‘brazen Theft of Public Funds’© in the ‘perverse Remuneration(s)© Career-Politicians award themselves, legitimized by own Votes in the Legislatures; the perfect ‘legalized brazen Theft of Public Funds’©

 

In his Broadcast glorifying the Nigerian Government’s Response to the Donald Trump Sr Threat of violating its ‘binal Sovereignties’, John Mearsheimer had nothing to say about this ‘legalized brazen Theft of Public Funds’; this Reality of the Nigerian “Public Wealth” not filtering to ‘the People’ not to talk of cascading to them. Does he not remember there is Difference between the ‘State’, and Government? Let me remind him of the Distinction I made in 2002, in my afore-mentioned Dissertation published by the University of Aberdeen:

The state is a geographical socio-political entity. In other words the state has a population of human beings with political rights and cultural practices confined within geographical boundaries. The state broken down into components describes i) a geographical entity with boundaries, and ii) an identifiable population with political rights and recognisable cultural practices; a population that owes presumed allegiance to the geographical entity within which it is situated. Government on the other hand is the administration of the state whether or not this Government is welcomed by the whole population. Although Government exercises oversight functions over the socio-political activities of the population, it is only an aspect of the state and not its totality. ... Even realist writers have made the similar error of assuming the Government for the state. ... the ‘land’ and the people form the state. There is no separation between the ‘land’ and the ‘people’ in the identification of the state. Without either, there can be no state [Members of Government are among ‘the People’].

 

Nigeria is a very wealthy Country in Resources, and Revenues. It should never be poor, ever, but for the ‘congenital Corruption’© of the Persons Nigerians allow to govern them. Ergo, Mearsheimer’s ‘Blame Condemnation’© of Western-controlled global financial Institutions is just the ‘condescending Sophistry’© it is for, and to the ‘African Blame-denying Unreason’©. Professor John Joseph Mearsheimer demonstrates no Awareness of the ‘transactional Gains’© Nature of the  Nigerian Government. In praising Nigeria’s Responses to Donald J. Trump Sr, and to US ‘unreasonable Demands’, Mearsheimer’s does not validate Acts for the “common good” of ‘the People’, but the Reaction of an ‘Oligarchy in Government’© to sustain its Vice Grip on the Country by calling in the Chips, as elucidated in my Theory of Power. Perhaps, Professor Mearsheimer would care to read me here  http://ipemndohdaniyan.blogspot.com/2025/05/the-us-presidency-is-four-years-term.html.  Note: I deployed the ‘present continuous’ “demonstrates,” and “does not” to emphasize Professor Mearsheimer’s current Mindset, as I have come across another of his Broadcasts about Nigeria since the one I am commenting on here. Again his early Sentences turned me off.

 

Ipemndoh dan Iyan’ s Theory of ‘Power’

 

The Nigerian Attitude about its economic Sovereignty portrayed by John Mearsheimer in his Broadcast is what I had theorized 23 years ago in the mentioned Dissertation in my Formulation of a new Theory of Power in World Politics, and which I advised in http://ipemndohdaniyan.blogspot.com/2025/07/grandstanding-at-expense-of-self.html:

In order to have a firm grasp of this thesis’s argument that cooperation reached under the auspices of multilateral mechanisms are derived from the expectations of bilateral transactions away from discussions within the multilateral mechanism but originating from those discussions, the thesis submits a concept of power as quid pro quo leverage. ... cooperation ... [from] conciliative interests. By conciliative, this thesis means ... different interests but the issue under deliberation enables these different interests to be satisfied through a process of reconciliation whereby [Negotiators] give way to one another in exchange for individual benefits. ... The conception of power as quid pro quo leverage reflects the power flow during a negotiating transaction where military power is not an applicable option for achieving objectives. This quid pro quo leverage is consequent upon reciprocal gains acquired by the actors in a transaction. ... Thus, the power distribution in a negotiating relationship is manifested by how satisfied actors are with their gains, notwithstanding what non-actors say about the weight of those gains  ... Power distribution is, thus, interactive. These reciprocal gains emanate from the actors bilateral relationship ...

 

See now, why Mearsheimer’s ‘blame condemning’© of western created, and controlled financial Systems vis-á-vis lesser Powers, especially African States, is simply flimsy?

 

When is Mearsheimer going to be up to date in and with his thinking?

 

If you listened carefully to Professor J. J. Mearsheimer’s Broadcast on Nigeria, he gave Indications that he recognizes the ‘Mutuality of Economy and Politics in World Affairs’©, but he is still at heart a “Realist” Theorist of Global Relations, the so-called International Relations. I sense my thinking, as a Neo-Realist, in his Broadcast.

 

In my Work of 2002 already referenced more than few times, I staked out my Position:

This thesis adopts a neo-realist position. It starts from the basis of distinguishing between the economic sovereignty and the political sovereignty of the state. In making this distinction, the thesis adopts two broad positions. First, in recognising the political sovereignty of the state, this thesis continues with the realist traditional argument of the primacy and sovereignty of states but rejects the notion of hegemony and the balance of power rationale, and the concomitant hierarchical order argument. Second, in separating the economic sovereignty of the state from its political sovereignty, the thesis rebuts realism’s rejection of the interdependence of states. Some might consider my position here as neo-liberal rather than as neo-realist. I have used the description neo-realist in the widest possible sense to mean a progression of the traditional conceptions of the realist paradigm. What distinguishes my position from a neo-liberal one as currently understood is that while I recognise the existence of multilateral mechanisms, I do not see these mechanisms as particularly efficacious or as irrevocably more useful than bilateral arrangements. This thesis suggests that the cooperation reached under the auspices of multilateral mechanisms are derived from the expectations of bilateral transactions away from discussions within the multilateral mechanism but originating from those discussions. What my position shares with neo-liberalism is a recognition of the economic interdependence of states, and the rejection of hegemony among states. This thesis recognises that the world is anarchical but the notion of hegemony within this anarchical order suggests more than the traditional realist argument of preponderan[t] military power and pre-eminent economic wherewithal. The notion of hegemony argues leadership among states. The concept of leadership, ipso facto, presumes orderliness, and an acknowledgement of and deference to the leader - the hegemon - by other states. This is certainly not the case insofar as each state insists on its political sovereignty, which is both a legal attribute and a geographical socio-political reality. But instead of the orderliness presumed by the concept of leadership, and a condition of deference by other states to that leadership, what obtains is what realism correctly identifies as an anarchical world order.

 

Somewhere else in the Work, I further wrote that:

Realism - including neo-realism - as currently conceived is rather a confused way of studying international politics. Firstly, realism takes no sustainable account of the interdependence of states in the economic arena. ... Secondly, realism pulls together a number of structural features for explaining the relations between states yet these features are mutually-exclusive. It is as though realism has a piecemeal understanding of international relations rather than a comprehensive picture. The structural features are one) the ‘sovereignty’ of each state within the collection of states – no differentiation is made between economic sovereignty and political sovereignty – , two) the hegemony of a state over other states, and three) the balance of power thesis.

 

At the time I submitted my Dissertation in 2002, Theories of “international relations” were quite inadequate in recognizing the Fundamentals of the ‘binal Sovereignties’ of ‘Territorial-States’©. Find below the Extents of the Limitations of those Theories, as I identified them in that Dissertation:

The world community is examined through an array of competing theoretical perspectives, grouped within paradigms. ... While each of the competing paradigms is able adequately to explain an aspect of a phenomenon of international relations none appears competent to fully explain such phenomena. The limitations of these theoretical perspectives become apparent when they are directed at examining the characteristics of international politics as majority of the perspectives are better given to explaining other aspects of international relations than international politics. Further, none of these paradigms makes an explicit distinction between the economic sovereignty of the state and the political sovereignty of the state in their discussions of the ‘sovereignty’ of the state.

Yet, there is a fine difference between the economic sovereignty and political sovereignty of the state. Firstly, the economic sovereignty of the state presupposes questions on how much the economy of a state is free of intervention from the economies of other states or from any other imposition by other states. Secondly, on the other hand, political sovereignty presumes questions on the political autonomy of states and the extent to which the state can pursue its strategic interests, and indeed formulate its economic policies, without interference from other states. Thirdly, this thesis argues that the world economy is so intertwined involuntarily that the phrase ‘economic interdependence’ is an apt description of such intertwining. ... I have used the expression ‘intertwined involuntarily’ to acknowledge the intricate and unavoidable economic interdependence between states. This intricate and unavoidable economic interdependence is not reliant on whether or not states have a codified agreement between them on what form their economic relationships should take. The situation is different over the question of a state’s political sovereignty. Each state has the automatic political autonomy to decide on its fate: the way its people are to be governed, what its strategic interest(s) ought to be, and even the economic policy to pursue within the world interdependent economy.

Whatever political interdependence exists between states is a voluntary one. Political interdependence is not given. This is to say that states that are part of a political or strategic interdependence have deliberately sought that kind of relationship. The only threat, thus, to the political autonomy of a state is the military aggression of a more powerful state.

... this thesis makes a distinction between political sovereignty of the state and the economic sovereignty of the state. The thesis considers that these two sovereignties co-habit in a state, and that they each measure different aspects of a state’s autonomy to differentiated extents.

 

Overall, in commenting on  Donald J. Trump Sr’s Pomposity towards Nigeria, Mearsheimer has not said anything original than fleshing the Logics – “explanatory Frameworks” – I presented 23 years ago.  Why do you think the University of Aberdeen published that Dissertation albeit denying me the PhD I deserved or offering me a Job? I would have thought it is because of its ‘Comprehensiveness in Originality’©. It would be nice for ‘tenured Academics’© or otherwise ‘Institution Academic(s)’© to mention me when they rely on my Reasonings to make their Observations. I am still alive, and I have Access to the Internet. Thus, it is possible that I will come across things, accidentally or otherwise. A ba? I dey acknowledge you Guys now if I relied on your thinking.

 

NB: I am not fazed by Mearsheimer being a Professor or anyone with a superior Degree, i.e., MPhil-PhM/DPhil-PhD, who is also a Professor. My Intellect is my Strength. Besides, I also have a superior Degree, the MPhil-PhM, the viva voce for which I passed the first time in addition to a tentative Offer of “Adjunct Professor” – subject to my accepting it – in 2003, 22 years ago, at a prestigious private Research University in Los Angeles, USA. I was at the University, I sat with the departmental Director – he was certainly a “Director, but was it departmental? So long ago – we talked before he orally offered me the Position. He sent an Email to confirm the Offer. If I had not kept changing my Internet Providers, I would easily now print out the Email Offer, and publish it for y’all to see (or did I print it, but cannot locate it?). I did not take the Offer because at the time, my Brain was scrambled by my ‘Village Person’© (who is now seeking my “Forgiveness” without confessing to those he is sending to me – or even to me, myself – the many Harms he had perpetrated against me). Now, do I care? He has been unable, so far, to extinguish my Life. If you think an African (Moi) is just being superstitious, please re-examine your Judaeo-Christian Faith, and also read E.E., Evans-Pritchard (1976). Evans-Pritchard was not of ‘recent African Origin’© (RAO) or ‘recent African Heritage’© (RAH). He was “white.”

 

Ipemndoh dan Iyan PhM©

AsimauGlobalMedia© 

All Rights 2025

21 November-1 December