Africans, and the lying to Themselves

Ipemndoh dan Iyan PhM 

Africans, and the lying to Themselves

Preamble

This Work is about the Irrationality of Africans in Defence of the Indefensible and the ‘Dearth of Understanding’© in ‘misled Perception’© that Marxism is not the ‘Reality of European social Conditions’© that transited to ‘presumptive Inference of irrational Guilt of Imperialism and Colony’© (‘presumptive Inference of irrational Guilt’© per se) to creating the ‘convenient Self-Deceit of the colonised’©. Consequentially, no Marxist Theory can explain the African Polity. Thus, Africans, and their ‘disoriented anachronistic Sympathiser(s)’© should stop remonstrating with ‘Marxist diversionary Inarticulacies’©, also ‘Marxist diversionary Inarticulacy’© and start explaining the ‘African socio-political Condition’© with ‘African indigenous Thinking’©. Latin-America did it Scores of Years ago although the Latin-Americans tucked it inside Marxism. They account for it as “dependencia,” that the English-speaking, as always, disrespect to “dependency.” I am not asking the Africans to create another Marxist Theory, to explicate their socio-political Condition, after all, I have created some without any Marxist underpinning, but I am not being taken seriously because I am not writing from the ‘watchful Control(s) of academic Establishments’©. It does not really bother me, as I will continue to write. I have earned my Entitlement to, as I am ‘formally better-educated’©, and ‘academically more visible’© than most of those cocooned by, and in these Establishments.

Commenting on https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14cSwCcBZsw/

The Irrationality of Africans in Defence of the Indefensible

Awon Yo'ba so wi pe “Ojo ti Were ba mo pe Were ni Ooun, Ojo na ni Ara re ya.” Let me translate into the English Language; “the Yo’ba (Yoruba) say that the ‘Day the Lunatic becomes aware s/he is a Lunatic is the Day s/he is healed’.” I am almost pretty certain that I have not written the Yo’ba well, so I beg Forgiveness of the Yoruba for not writing their Language well.

For your Information, the Yoruba are indigenous to many West African ‘Territorial-State(s)’© which were in “historical Reality” former ‘European colonial Enclave(s)’©. However, the generally ‘uneducated about their Heritage Yoruba of Nigeria’© (‘uneducated about their Heritage’©, per se) irrespective of whatever Paper Qualification they might claim to possess are hellbent on misleading the World with their ‘pompous Irrationality’© that Nigeria, the ‘figmented Manifestation of United Kingdom Imperialism’© (‘figmented Manifestation’©, per se), is the only indigenous Location of the Yoruba in Africa. Alas, not. The Yoruba of old belonged to an Empire ‘severed into Bits’© by ‘West European Imperialism(s)’©, and shared amongst those Imperialisms.

 

‘Present Day African Consciousness against Occidental-Caucasian Self-Claim Supremacy is selectively shy of Truths’© (‘African Consciousness against Occidental-Caucasian Self-Claim Supremacy’©, per se). Africans do not like to hear any Word or Sentence or Terminology that describes, in fact explains, the Continent as incompetent, ‘unwilling to develop’©, ‘Culpability avoiding’©, et cetera. They ‘remonstrate unreasonably’© against the valid Observation that “Africans just can’t run things,” as said in the Insert in the Facebook Upload I am responding to,  especially when this Observation has emerged from the ‘Occidental-Caucasian’©, the so-called white Person. Africans do not like hearing this Truth however it is presented. They would rather seek ‘pretend Succour’© in ‘inchoate Marxism’©, much of which they do not understand, anyway, instead of accepting the Matter of Fact that post-colonial Africans of Western Europe Imperialisms simply cannot govern themselves. Of the Theories of Marxism, dependecia Theory alone recognises certain Culpability of ex-Colonies, and developing Countries for their ‘lagging Stage(s) of Development’©. Marxism, in Principle, is an ‘excusatory  Governance Paradigm’©.

‘Marxism from Reality to irrational Guilt to convenient Self-Deceit’©

Marxism began as a Theory to explain the Conditions on the Ground of ‘The Oppressed vis-á-vis the Oppressor’© in European Societies. The “Oppressor” was clearly identifiable, as s/he was the One with ‘Capital; Apparatuses of Oppression’©. The “oppressed” confused, and confuses Marxists. Who were/are they? It was clear Marxism neither recognised nor understood who the “oppressed” were when it ‘conjoined asymmetrically’© (also ‘conjoining asymmetrically’©) the Experiences of the European labouring Class aka the “working class,” including the Exiles in the Americas, with ‘African racial-Slavery’©, and ‘African racial-Colonisation’©. This was ‘Marxism’s earlier Demonstration of Incomprehensiveness’© that today is still unresolved. The African Slaves, and the African-colonised Peoples could never have been Part of the “oppressed.” They were not Human Beings in ‘West European Imperialist Law’©, and by ‘West European Imperialist Law’©. They were Merchandise, Commodity, and at best, Property. One could not, and cannot, oppress Merchandise, Commodity or Property. One could abuse Property, but Marxism has never argued “Abuse.” Marxism’s Focus has always been ‘negative Exploitation’© presumably, as Marxism has never actually made that Distinction except by the ‘inferential Attendance of “Oppression”’©. Note: Exploitation, and derivative Words can be deployed in positive Instances. The Etymology of “Exploitation,” they say, is in the Latin Word “Explicāre” to represent “achieve,” “accomplish,” “deploy” “unfold,” and Words in similar Connection. Thus, “exploit,” “Exploitation” are Descriptions better given to relating to commendable Circumstances.

Ergo, African Slaves, and African-colonised Peoples were beneath the European working Class aka labouring Class, and in fact, were inassociable. The European labouring-working Class was ‘manifestly deployed’© to ‘police the African Commodity of apparent Human Being(s)’©, and this they did with ‘Occidental-Caucasian consensual  Validation’©, as we know from History. ‘Marxism in Incomprehensiveness coalesced two incongruent Experiences’© of the European working Class, and African racial Slavery-cum-African racial-Colonisation.

Over time, Marxism grew into a Paradigm as more Theories arguing the same Conditions emerged. From these further Theories arose the ‘Explanation from unconscious Guilt’©, (‘unconscious Guilt’©, per se) when discussing ‘Imperialist Capital’© in relation to Africa, as the Proposition is always that the Oppressors are ‘eternally blameworthy’© irrespective of the ‘obvious Participation of the Oppressed’© or ‘implied Participation of the Oppressed’© in the ‘dire Circumstances of the oppressed’©. The ‘African Oppressed’© themselves then seized on, and still harp on this ‘irrational Guilt’© as ‘convenient Self-Deceit’© to camouflage the ‘deliberate Inadequacy of their Culture’© (‘deliberate Inadequacy of cultural System(s)’©). Again, this ‘Denial of participatory Cause of Africa’s Lagging Development’©, in fact, ‘Denial of initiating Cause of Africa’s Lagging Development’© is spearheaded by the ‘irrational Guilt Sufferers’©.

What do I mean by “Culture?” – extracted almost verbatim from my earlier published Work on “Culture”

The Culture of a Society is not restricted to a single Signifier. “Culture” consists of a host of Signifiers; (1) Ceremonies. Ceremonies here emphasise that any traditional Expression – including Religions – with gestural and/or verbal Processes in the Course of a particular Activity is more than perfunctory and can be explained by its Custodians as understood (by them), (2) Dance, (3) Education, (4) Government. Government here is what it says; polity in toto, (5) Language, (6) Living Space, (7) Music, (8) Philosophy, (9) Religion, (10) Visual Arts, (11) Worldview, et cetera.

The complexity in recognizing “Culture” has been identified in various but proximate Manners from E. B Taylor's (1871) “Culture” as “Social Organization,” to A.I Kroeber's and C. Kluckhohn’s (1952)  “Culture” as a “Collection of mutually-reinforcing patterns,” and A.R Radciffe-Brown's (1952) “Culture” as “Social System,” to C. Levi-Strauss's (1972) “Culture” as “Social Structure.”

From the foregoing Definitions of Culture, we can break our Understanding of Culture into two main Components. These are i) Culture as Symbolic Representation and ii) Culture as ‘Utilitarian System’©. In short, ‘Culture is how society works’©. Others have identified “Culture” in three ways: 'technological', 'organisational', and 'ideational'.

No Marxist Theory explains the African Polity

From the Title of this Section, it could be assumed that I have (a) mistaken the African Continent for a Country or (b) assumed that the Polity of a Country in Africa is the Polity of all the Countries in Africa. No, I have not made such Errors. Except in recent times when the Military have taken Control of certain Countries in West Africa – Preference I have espoused in many of my Works – ‘the Undercurrents of Government Interests in Africa’© comprise the ‘Principle of transactional Gain(s)’© in the ‘Polity of Liquidation of political Vote(s)’©. Now you can understand why the Title of this Section lumped all African Territorial-States as of unitary “African Polity” (‘unitary African Polity’© per se). I have other Names for the ‘African Polity of transactional Gain(s)-cum-Liquidation of political Vote(s)’©, as the African Scene is a rich Field for exciting novel Theories of ‘societal Governance’©. See my https://ipemndohdaniyan.blogspot.com/2020/12/address-by-ipemndoh-dan-iyan-to.html?spref=tw, for instance.

In dan Iyan “The New World Order 1986 to 1999: The Behavior of the United States Within United Nations Security Council Responses to Global Conflicts” –  (University of Aberdeen, 2002) – Google Books https://share.google/o5BVigv8AqLoS8s9k©, I observed the below of Marxism

“Marxism, in both its world system and dependencia theories, paints a picture of the helplessness of the states [ex-Colonies and/or developing] in the periphery of capitalist economic system [constricting the Choice of] the Government of such states [to] enact laws [to] restrict the manoeuvrability of trans-national corporations and capital although in choosing to follow this course, a Government may be inviting economic problems for its state. ... Nigeria’s Indigenisation Decree of 1977 is illustrative of both the willingness of the Government of a state to retrieve the state’s overall sovereignty and autonomy over the economic transactions within its borders, and the failure of such an attempt. However, the failure of the Nigerian experiments was due mostly to the absence of any serious implementation. Thus, not only must such Governments bring forward laws to protect economic activities within their states, they must also install mechanisms for the serious implementation of such laws. Importantly, Marxism does not sufficiently account for the culpability of the Governments of peripheral states in maintaining the status quo of the core-periphery relationship.”©

Today’s “core-periphery” Relationship is manifested severally, and collectively in (i) ‘Colonial Imperialism’©, and (ii) ‘usurpatory Modern  Imperialism’©, i.e., the (a) United States of America (US(A)) on its own, (b) International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the initially nicknamed “World Bank” although this Nickname has today embraced four additional ‘World Finance Control Institution(s)’©, and (c) International Monetary Fund (IMF); all instructed by ‘Western imperialist Preference(s)’©, but avoidable by ‘non-Western State Requirement(s)’©.

 

dan Iyan, op.cit., noted that

 

“the state is a geographical socio-political entity [with] 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.”

 

Thus, when I wrote above of  “Western imperialist Preferences ...  avoidable by non-Western State Requirement, I directed the African Mind to the Reality that African Countries’ Subjection to World Bank, and IMF Dictates is consequent to the ‘Corruption driven Insatiation’© aka ‘Personal Gains Insatiation’© of those in Government who Africans in their ‘Disorientation with Democracy’© have themselves chosen to govern their States (‘Territorial-States’©). For instance, how would Marxism accommodate an Issue such as depicted here https://youtube.com/shorts/0aNryJ3n6bQ?si=AxtBjYFCnjCo3UiC, typical of developing Countries, within its ‘Western economic Imperialism at Fault’© Rationale except for making ‘tenuous Mitigation in Defence of the developing State’©? ‘Tenuous Mitigation’© per se, and ‘Tenuous Mitigation in Defence of the State’© per se. Here is Illustration of ‘the People’ living in Squalor, and at Risk of Death while those they have voted into Government – from local Government to the principal Government – to govern them indulge in Splendour; huge Salaries and Allowances, lavish Homes, luxurious Cars, et cetera, all within the ‘Goblin Western economic Imperialism’©, and everything from State funding, the Countries’ Purses, including Monies the Electeds have taken from the World Bank, and IMF under “Western imperialist Preferences.” How would Marxism explain the Demand of an African Bank as experienced here https://youtube.com/shorts/f26jskivr2I?si=lGHqQZTZ7shsP-iB by an African Customer? The Policy of an African Bank operating in the UK, and probably in the Rest of Europe highlighted in this Clip is certainly exclusionary to the majority of Africans in the UK except those who spirit African Monies from Africa into the UK, most who would be those Africans vote for, to govern them, and Associates deputising for their appropriation of Public Funds for their Private Enterprises. I am, actually, curious how Marxism would smokescreen this Intercourse within the ‘Goblin Western economic Imperialism Rant’©. Of course, dependecia would submit it already has, but it has not, really.

dependencia argues an Incongruity, as dan Iyan op.cit., put it of “the elites in Latin American states [as for all developing Countries being] a subset of the transnational community and culture respectively founded upon, and presided over by, techno-industrial oligopoly capitalism ... [with the] cultural, economic, and ideological subjection of [such] elites to the capitalist system of production.” While there is no Contestation to the “subset” Observation, dependencia does not explain the Origination of the “cultural, economic, and ideological subjection ...” that Ipemndoh dan Iyan, of course, concludes as ‘lazy Proposition’© because it is ‘fallacious Empathy’©. dependencia in particular, and Marxism in general do not tell us why the Elites of developing Countries instead of ‘culturally indigenising’© (also, ‘cultural Indigenisation’©), willingly acculturate to the ‘existential Exigencies’© of erstwhile Colonisers; ‘willing Acculturation to Western Norms rather indigenise’©. Why has dependencia chosen the Value of “subjection” to describe the Phenomenon? The ‘African Relegation to the ‘Caucasian-Occidental’© (“White”) emerged from “quirk of fate.”  Africans miscalculated from the Point of the “trans-Atlantic Slave Trade,” that is, the ‘racial-Slavery’© of fellow Africans which they facilitated, and participated in until they realized their Error with the Reality setting in, but it was already too late. It was so, so late that Centuries afterwards, their Descendants, in situ in particular, would dismiss themselves as inferior to the so-called white Folks, as having made no Contribution to Humanity. Yet, the Africans of old sailed the Seas before any Caucasian-Occidental in Human History, as far as I know, smelted Iron first, educed the Civilisation “white” Folks would later appropriate, introduced the System of Government the “white” would claim to be their Originality to name their corrupted Version of it, as “Demokratia”-“Democracy.” These were the same Africans who gave the World Judaeo-Christianity, and who ruled ‘Barbarian Europe’© for Centuries from the Mediterranean to the Caucasus. All gone because Africans themselves made possible European shackling of African Necks, Wrists, Ankles, and the ‘dehumanisation to Game Animal(s)’©.  

Africans, and ‘disoriented anachronistic Sympathiser(s)’©: Face the Truth    

I would ask Africans, and their ‘disoriented anachronistic Sympathiser(s)©  to direct my Attention to the African Country governed well or properly at all, and I will join Africans in chastising “white” Folks for saying “Africans just can’t run things.” Africans, really, should stop disrespecting the Truth. Africans, truly, cannot govern themselves; in the (a) Decision(s) they make in choosing who they elect to manage their Societies from the Legislature to the Executive, and (b) Proclivity of those they have elected for stealing the Wealth of their Countries, impoverishing ‘the People’, and subjecting ‘the People’ to pay for their ‘Monetary Abuse’© of their Countries by negotiating punitive Terms with ‘Apparatuse(s) of Western imperialist economic Preference(s)’© such as the World Bank, and IMF. Western Societies can govern themselves, but their Difficulty is the ‘Inability to govern the Excesses of those they have elected’© (‘Inability to govern the Excesses’© per se) in case you want to remonstrate with my Conclusion that the ‘African Governance Disability’© (‘Governance Disability’© per se) is not ‘deliberately forged for Self-Infliction’©.

Ipemndoh dan Iyan PhM©

AsimauGlobalMedia© 

All Rights 2026

15 June