Gorillas living in Monkey civilisation

Monkey civilisation cannot and does not change the ‘monkeyness’ of a monkey. It doesn’t mean monkeys will suddenly become men and women with keys to moving machines on wheels or acquire skills to fly flying machines. Far from it, monkey civilisation means monkeys are a lot freer to explore the wild – their natural habitat – safe in the monkey knowledge that they are less likely to be prey to monkey eaters. And that they themselves don’t become monkey eaters and turn on each other for the next meal.

Similarly, monkey civilisation neither means that monkeys will stop fingering their noses, only to look at the fingering finger with such intense curiosity probably wondering what in the monkey world that finger was doing far up (inside) its nose. Nor that monkeys will stop climbing up and hopping off from one tree branch to another, either as play or as a protective strategy – running away from potential threat, for example, of a leopard lying quiet and waiting to spring at the monkey. Monkey civilisation doesn’t alter monkey life.

What monkey civilisation does, is to make the monkey look down on the gorilla with the smugness the illusion and blind spot ignorance monkey civilisation confers, as uncivilised savage deserving of all manner of monkey games, trickery and on which monkeys trial out the next monkey tricks.

The tragedy, however, and the cleverness – and to some extent, power – of monkey civilisation, is that it is so deceptively convincing that the gorilla – in all its ‘gorillaness’ – has been duped into believing it is, indeed, gorilla civilisation.

The gorilla, in its gracious ignorance, has – with such verve – bought into the gorilla mind falsification monkey propaganda and unquestioningly thinks and believes, monkey civilisation is gorilla civilisation through and through, without which, the gorilla would still be unknown. That the gorilla would be unknown, and that means, it wouldn’t be the kind of highly sought out economic “product” it is in the gorilla economy that rakes in billions of “gollas” (currency in the gorilla economy). The gorilla population has swallowed that lie, hook, line and sinker.

So, because of such extraordinary power to play monkey tricks and falsify the gorilla mind, gorillas look up to monkeys as not only role models but, interestingly and sadly, as the paragon of civilisation. Gorillas are entranced with monkey civilisation. The gorilla mind is so falsified, corrupted to the painful and sad extent that the gorilla, in its determined pursuit to be like the monkey – live the monkey life, achieve monkey status – works its fingers to the bone. But only to realise, rather late and with such painful disappointment, that monkey status is a preserve for the monkeys.

That with all its hard slog, the gorilla can only go as far, and as the monkeys permit, in the monkey environment and hierarchy. That even within the monkey population, there’s rigid hierarchy requiring extraordinary monkey skills of manipulation, trickery to rise through the hierarchy. That it’s common place for monkeys to pull and push each other down – sometimes with such force as to cause fatalities, or to beat and fight each other down to death – while trying to climb the greasy pole through to the top.

Although some gorillas are permitted to achieve monkey status and go high up into monkey hierarchy as token representation to justify to the gorilla [population] two fundamental myths that; 1) monkey civilsation is gorilla civilisation and; 2) that if gorillas work hard -break their backs – they can, after all, achieve monkey status and go high up in the monkey hierarchy. A notion falsely propagated by the age old lie that “the sky is the limit to what both the monkey and the gorilla can do and/or achieve” without clarifying on exactly whose turf, under [in] whose civilisation and the laws that govern and perpetuate such civilisation.

Nature has its ways, and nature could not have made mistakes in its creation and differentiation process. The monkey is a monkey. The gorilla is a gorilla. But we are dealing, essentially, with two strong forces: 1) the monkey civilisation and its power to falsify the gorilla mind and; 2) painful gullibility of the gorilla to believe and buy into – unquestioningly – the gorilla mind falsification monkey propaganda that monkey civilisation is indeed gorilla civilisation, hence, working under a monkey civilisation defined framework.

This effectively means, whatever the gorilla population does, enhances monkey civilisation and further entrenching the falsehood into the gorilla mind that monkey civilisation is gorilla civilisation.

Chicken Liberation in the Chicken Eating World

Liberation in a chicken eating world (for the chickens) can only mean one thing: chickens must liberate themselves from the chicken eater and the chicken eater’s taste buds. The taste buds of the chicken eater, are the enemy of chickens.

Until the chicken eater stops eating chickens, and shares chicken feed with chickens; chickens are getting all too excited about – and will always delight in – the chicken eater’s liberation; which means the liberty to not only eat chickens but also to eat chickens without guilt. It’s rather foolish and self-deception on the part of chickens to adulate in the liberation of the chicken eater. Chickens adulate their continued demise. Chickens are excited to fill the chicken eater’s plate while the chicken eater’s mouth processes the value of chickens.

Clearly, chickens and the chicken eater have – and should ideally have – a different understanding of the concept of liberation. While the chicken eater is well aware of that, and intentional with it; chicken naivety makes chickens accept the definition of liberation by the chicken eater. Chickens naively accept the definition of liberation from the chicken eater’s perspective. Chickens couldn’t be more perilously naive and wrong.

But then, again, what’s a chicken? What makes a chicken chicken if not for the naivety to think the poultry farmer exists to serve chickens? Isn’t a chicken a naive bird in the service of the poultry farmer and the chicken eater?

It takes the naivety of a chicken mind to think that what liberation means to the chicken eater, and what the chicken eater celebrates for liberation, is shared liberation to both, that is, liberation for the chicken eater, is liberation to chickens.

While the chicken eater marks and celebrates the chicken eater’s liberation by tucking into chicken platters; chickens on the other hand, serve their chicken purpose; that of gratifying the craving of the taste buds of the chicken eater with liberty to eat chicken without guilt.

Ultimately, what is liberation to the chicken eater, and what the chicken eater, therefore, celebrates as liberation, is an aberration that condemns chickens to their perpetual demise in their perpetual service to the cravings of the chicken eater’s taste buds. Chickens must work their chicken legs and minds to ensure they liberate the chicken eater’s taste buds from the incessant craving for chicken.

Only then can both the chicken eater and chickens truly speak of the same- and possibly, equal- liberation. And not an aberration that rewards the chicken eater the liberty to condemn chicken life to the service of the incessant cravings of the taste buds of the chicken eater for chicken taste.

African Independence is a myth, it must be debunked.

African ‘independence’ is a misleading, dangerous and destructive myth that must be debunked, to understand the falsehood created and perpetuated by promoting that myth. Africa is not an ‘independent’ continent. No African country is ‘independent’. Even the so-called political independence most boast about, is a misleading, false and dangerous boast.

The #AfricanEconomy, is not African. It’s, foremost, foreign in its structure and (as a consequence) largely foreign by ownership, especially the major economic sectors. The financial services industry in Africa is predominantly foreign influenced. The banking sector in sub-Saharan Africa is predominantly foreign owned, through various ownership structures; and global (foreign) banking groups make up the largest share of assets in the sector.

The extractive industry in Africa is almost exclusively foreign owned and controlled, either directly or indirectly. It’s also heavily dependent on foreign markets (pricing) for its value. This was made evident and amplified by weakened economic grow in the wake of the commodity prices decline in 2014.

African governments are controlled by foreign interests. African heads of governments (states), are merely agents – fronts- to foreign interests. The African economy, therefore, primarily serves foreign economies (economic interests), and serves African economic interests largely as a consequence.

African economic interests are dependent on the African economy primarily serving foreign economic interests. An economic boom in any African economic sector will benefit foreign economies more than it benefits local African economies.

Consider, for instance, the construction boom that has been going on across Sub-Saharan Africa since early 2000s; it has benefited the Chinese economy a lot more than it has benefited the African economy. Chinese labour and expertise has equally benefited from this construction boom in Sub-Saharan Africa.


The Chinese economy has been the largest source (supplier) of construction materials to Africa for largely non economically productive but expensively constructed sprawling edifices. The “Return on Cost (RoC)” of construction of such edifices in Africa has largely been dismally disappointing. But they satisfy the ego and serve to give the impression of ‘development’ as desired by African governments at an astronomical aggregate economic cost.

Infrastructure development in Africa, is a huge economic opportunity for foreign economies more than it’s for African local economies. Consider, for example, the airline service industry in Africa. While it is a necessary service; it’s a costly service on the African economies. The airline service industry in Africa benefits the airline manufacturing industry and its auxiliary supply chain, more than it benefits African economies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has, among other things, exposed that Africa is far from independence, at least, economic independence; it’s heavily dependent. While African governments spend large sums on PR and other events to attract foreign investment in their countries, their officials on the other hand, steal money out of their economies to buy expensive properties and invest the rest in other investment areas(products) in foreign economies.

African start-ups are starved of funds, they have to beg, and subject themselves to all manner of indignities from potential foreign venture capital providers. While many Africans with money prefer to invest and spend it in foreign economies. This demonstrates a profound lack of confidence in African economies from Africans themselves but, surprisingly, they expect foreigners to have confidence in their economies.

It behooves to ask: why should foreigners have confidence in your own house while you clearly do not?

Organisational cannibalism

Organisational cannibalism (my concept) is the destructive practice by organisations against other organisations through various channels such as “Takeover”- typically hostile takeovers- for the sole purpose of killing competition; and controlling talent to control potential and future competitors (threats). The motive is more self-preservation than profit by all means necessary and available.

Organisational cannibalism should not to be confused with “corporate cannibalism” also known as “market cannibalism.”

The purpose and practice of organisational cannibalism is purely about- and therefore motivated by- survival based on the warped and false logic of domination. The warped and false logic is that, to survive- and the only way to survive- is by and through total domination and control.

Co-existence is regarded and treated as unnecessary evil that must be avoided and/or annihilated. And to achieve that, requires the complete elimination of the existing competition, and having the turf all under one organisation’s control. With such control secured, the controlling and dominating organisation reigns supreme. Think of a military conquest.

Consequently, the organisation has the power and privilege to decide and control who it allows on; and who it keeps off the turf. It has the power and privilege to decide and control both entry requirements and set standards (of operation). Think of Organisational rules and policies! It also effectively becomes the compliance watchdog, the compliance arbiter, the only consultant on compliance and other operations matters. If the analogy helps to visualise and understand the nature of such organisation, think of an organisational dictatorship. A Caesarian empire!

The danger, however, is that an[y] organisation created with such approach and mindset; and with its conquest and success with time- and having no serious outside competition or threat- eventually grows and becomes insular, too arrogant, too bloated for its own survival.

Also typical and common with such organisation, is a strict and many times authoritarian top-down management regime designed to ensure that organisational decisions, usually by a small committee of lifetime members, and actions are not challenged internally; not by anyone. Absolute loyalty, commitment and compliance to organisational (management) decisions from organisation members is not only demanded but also indirectly enforced through and by reminding everybody of the existing stern measures against non-compliance and/or lack of commitment.

Think of persuasive coercion [or coercive persuasion] with a smile. Or the inverted carrot and stick approach; whereby, the carrot is guaranteed, but the stick must be given first.

However, such stifling atmosphere, will eventually create internal dissent, leading to factious relations within the organisation. Nothing is more threatening, damaging to an[y] organisation than internal dissent and factious relations. And moreover, the insensitive and heavy-handed response by(from) those in the organisation whose own decisions and subsequent actions (and behaviour) does more to cause internal dissent, factious relations than to ensure that the internal environment is structured well to prevent it; if not to foster and ensure there’s harmony in the organisation than there’s desire to engage in behaviour that hampers organisational interests.

With such toxic internal organisational relations (atmosphere), organisational disintegration from within is almost inevitable unless significant and structural changes are made within the organisation.

The toxic internal organisational relations is therefore the organisation cannibalising itself from within, subsequently weakening itself. Putting itself in a vulnerable position for a takeover, even by a minor player it once considered inconsequential and posing no threat at all.

Under such circumstances, therefore, an inside perspective, that is, the perspective of (from) the organisational management; and an outside perspective- mainly from a potential takeover- of a self-cannibalising organisation, are both going to be, unsurprisingly, diametrically at odds. The former will be consumed with self-preservation and treat the latter with hostility; while the latter will focus on cannibalising the former.

It’s the struggle for survival on the part of the former; faced with a two-pronged threat: one from within and the other from the latter. While on the part of the latter, it is the struggle to exist, the struggle to have a right to exist, the struggle for a guaranteed meal. And that is- and can only be- possible by and through cannibalising, that is, a takeover of the former.

The former has a lot more to lose, while the latter has the former to gain! It’s the struggle of ‘provide dinner or be dinner‘.

The best (and possibly only) way for the former to survive, to stave off the onslaught of the latter; and remain relevant in the realm of the turf, is by and through making concessions to the latter: offering to break the monopoly and having equal share of the turf. Both should also agree on the need for antitrust vigilance to avoid the likelihood of the current order of things to happen again in the future.

Benin and Tanzania, moved from a previous ‘Low income’ category to ‘Lower-middle income’

In a recently published annual World Bank country income classifications report, two African countries, Benin and Tanzania, moved from a previous ‘Low income‘ category to ‘Lower-middle income’ category.


On the face of it and viewed within its own context, this is, shall we say, obviously commendable economic ‘progress‘ worth congratulating both countries (and their governments) for hitting that milestone of national economic ‘achievement’. Not least because it gives hope that, if that is the national objective, such things are actually possible with determination, a well implemented national execution strategy but above all; a willing and intentional government. Or, if you’ll and it tackles your fancy, national leadership.

It takes more than simply having a national (or government) objective and execution strategy and government bureaucratic diktats to implement and achieve a national (government) objective. It requires various inputs and, in that quintessential political and government bureaucratic jargon, ‘stakeholders‘, i.e, people who are vital in the project lifecycle or in achieving national objective. From a national level down to, again, another of the politico-government bureaucratic speak, the ‘grassroots’ level. And, equally important, the kissing and hugging and cajoling (a.k.a, diplomatic and international relations) international powers and interest groups, if not for their (direct) support, at least, to pretend to see things from the same perspective or look away, if need be.

So, from that perspective, and within the context of the World Bank categorisation criteria and therefore the achievement; congratulations to both countries!

But while civility is such that we [are] feel obliged to smile and pat each other on the back for a job well-done, at least in public, sometimes we do it while, deep inside, and privately, we’ve reservations and express misgivings; or indignation, depending on the circumstance.

So, it’s in that vein, that the current World Bank classification (ranking) of both Benin and Tanzania from their previous income group (status) to a new group, a notch above, without demeaning efforts by both countries, should be welcomed with a degree of caution and reservations.

This is in no way meant to degrade the achievements of both countries in that regard. Far from it, it’s to acknowledge that while that is a commendable economic milestone, nationally and internationally, it’s, in and of itself as an indicator of economic progress, not enough. There are many, arguably better, admittedly not standard socioeconomic indicators that must be considered such as food security, the quality and availability of food, general health, than the mere increase in Gross National Income (GNI) per capita used in the classification.

It’s also important to note that the current World Bank country income classifications were based on Gross National Income (GNI) per capita data of the previous year 2019, against thresholds adjusted annually for inflation. Therefore, the Gross National Income (GNI) per capita data used for this year’s classification does not account for the impact of COVID-19 on both economies. Next year’s classification could be greatly and negatively impacted by the impact of COVID-19, hence lower!

It must be understood that an increase in Gross National Income per capita, and the subsequent increase in the economic income ranking (status) of countries such as Benin and Tanzania, is of little consequence to the lives of ordinary people. It rarely decreases poverty levels. If anything, the increase in GNI per capita in such countries may well point to an anomaly in economic distribution. It may reflect and be a consequence of an increase in the incomes of a small economically dominant group who control (own) much of the economic activities (of production).

But even if we accept that high (increased) national income status mean something to African countries and their populations, it’s imperative to ask and examine, who ultimately benefits or would benefit more from such vital economic changes?

We must consider and examine the spending habits of African countries (and Africans) to understand who ultimately benefits or would benefit more from increased African (national) incomes.

We must ask:

– How is the increased income spent?

– On what and where is the increased income spent?

There’s one major response (answer) to these questions: Africa is largely a consumer continent. It consumes more than it produces. In other words, it consumes what others produce for it. Africa is a continental market for foreign products. Africa is a big open mouth for foreign products.

So, an[y] increase in African national incomes (even individual earnings) will usually mean an increase in the market (potential) for foreign products. African countries (governments and their officials) and ordinary Africans will increase their consumption of (and spending on) foreign products (imports). They will want to have (and be seen with) all the perceived socioeconomic status symbols, the latest iCraps and SmartCraps. They will want the latest gas guzzlers of all kinds of brands, to show their increased (improved) economic status. They will want and upgrade from a Japanese car brand, to a German car brand, the Mercedes Benz, BMWs, Audios. This bleeds African economies of funds.

Ultimately, Africa’s economic growth (and improvement) from poor, lower, to middle and upper income status (and its growing middle class) mean an increase in the consumption of and spending capacities on foreign products. It also means the degradation of and trampling on many things African in preference for almost all things foreign. From foreign consumer products to education; western educational establishments benefit tremendously from increased African incomes. This is no exaggeration!

There’s almost an unconscious corresponding increase in foreign taste by (many) Africans to the increase in their incomes (earnings) and they rationalise this for wanting better ‘quality‘; better ‘quality‘, of course, means foreign.