“African Countries claim to be Republics but are, in reality, run as Monarchies”. A Conversation with a Spiritual Friend.

A friend, who transitioned from the physical, into the spiritual world, but whose physical body was dumped into the proverbial “six feet under”, long, long ago, five years before I was brought into the physical world, had something rather interesting to say – a thought provoking remark about Africa and its countries; how they are run.

“Although many African countries claim to be Republics, they, in reality, in practice, are Republican Monarchies” He remarked, during our conventional spiritual conversation.

Rather surprised by my spiritual friend’s remark, I thought about it and it quickly reminded me of the many, apparently, “bad” things I’ve been told and/or taught about the “Monarchy” system of rule in Africa by, especially those with vested interests in the prevailing and promoted alternatives – Republic being one such alternatives.

“They’re run as Monarchies with[in] a Republican structure of governance. They have governments, usually whose heads are and behave – in all manner and form – as “Monarchs”. The long transitioned friend, further said, in our conventional spiritual conversation.

The more I thought about that thought provoking remark by my long transitioned friend, whom I’ve never known nor met in the physical, the more it troubled me and but equally, the more I discovered I knew very little than I thought I did about a Republic. As a result, I decided to inform myself, to improve my understanding of a Republic beyond the indoctrination I’ve been fed over the years.

So, to whet but also partially satisfy my curiosity, I quickly made a Wikipedia search on a Republic. A Republic, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicis a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, not the private concern or property of the rulers.”

The primary positions of power within a republic are attained, through democracy, oligarchy, autocracy, or a mix thereof, rather than being unalterably occupied. It has become the opposing form of government to a monarchy and has therefore no monarch as head of state.

But taking a critical examination of what Wikipedia says a Republic is, and in relation to how most African countries are run, it’s not lost on anyone, more so, many observant Africans, that what is supposed to be “public matter” is, indeed, the private concern or property of the rulers of African countries.

That in many African polities, the supposedly “public matter”, that is, the country, its people and affairs of concern, is treated as a private property by/of the few anointed individuals and their enablers and handlers – the people around them, with and through whom they effect commands and run national affairs. They run national affairs as private affairs, using national resources which, in theory, are supposed to be collective national wealth, benefiting all citizens.

How they come to power, that is, into positions of power – may indeed, have all the hallmarks of a Republic – fulfill the definitions of a Republic, according to Wikipedia definition. But these are mere gimmicks, usually well orchestrated national robbery into power – positions of power.

Theirs is the systematic usurpation of power and therefore country; and the subsequent privatisation of the country and its resources, treating people – citizens – as their subjects, expendable at the slightest whims, for all reasons and excuses.

Most heads of the many African Republics are unaccountable individuals, only accountable to themselves, but to whom everyone else is made to and must be accountable.

All these are hallmarks of a true, in fact, absolute Monarchy. Most of these individuals are and behave like absolute Monarchs.

They are formally called “Presidents” but in reality and practice; they are and behave like Kings. They are “PresiKings“.

Why Kings? This is because African Presidencies are, and have been since “independence“, predominantly the men’s turf. Consequently, they have and have had “First Ladies”.

But in the context of a Monarchy, the designation “First Lady” in many quasi Republics in Africa, is in actual sense a Queen. So, many African “First Ladies” are and behave like Queens. Similarly, the designation “First Family” is republic speak for “Royal Family”, complete with Princes and Princesses.

They have a whole slew of courtiers, servants, with high sounding servant titles; but they are still servants to these self appointed, self styled “PresiKings” – absolute monarchs – who do their every bidding, good or bad.

They often have successions, typically, a son – Prince – taking over from the father, the PresiKing, either as a consequence of death, old age or anything that renders the PresiKing incapable of running the national, or rather monarchical affairs.

After my long reflection, armed with or helped greatly by that Wikipedia definition of a Republic, I went back to my long transitioned spiritual friend, I conceded to and agreed greatly with his observation and thus subsequent remark.

But I also made it clear to him that his rather honest observation and remark, caused me such distress. I feel depressed for having been lied to all this time about all the “bad” things about/of a Monarchy system of rule.

Similarly, I feel disappointed and equally depressed about the lies I’ve been fed regarding a Republic system of rule in Africa, as the best alternative to the Monarchy system of rule, without telling me, it’s, in fact, the people, not the system, that are the problem.

That any system of rule or otherwise, can be compromised, corrupted, abused, misused by people, irrespective of how well structured it is. The truth is, the people are the system, they make the system. There’s no such thing as a distinct system, separate from people.

“When we speak [talk] about/of a country, nation, an organisation, an institution, a monarchy, government, we are essentially speaking [talking] about people. Without whom, there’s no such thing as or system.” my long transitioned spiritual friend cautioned.

“Systems, that is, institutionalised structures, are abused because they are run by people with vested personal interests. Despite the common public pretence, we are primarily driven by personal interests, and all else is secondary. So people will do anything to further their personal interests.” My long transitioned spiritual friend, concluded, rather solemnly

The Johnny-Come-Lately to the Political Honeypot

The Johnny-come-lately are everywhere, every system- of any nature, has them. They’re in every organisation. Too often, their calculated, tactical approach or just downright naivety, in most cases, leads them to behave and act overzealous.

Their exaggerated display of overzealousness attracts attention on and hence renders them visibility. The kind that, momentarily or for a while, overshadows those who have been around much longer than they have. But equally, effectively overshadows their own, otherwise, terrible weaknesses.

They are easily identified [identifiable] by their overzealous and ostentatious behaviour, mannerisms, in most cases, well calculated and intended to beguile, to draw attention. But also, more importantly, to endear themselves to their new environments, in some cases, with negative effects.

In any organisations, hierarchical organisations, they act overzealous, ostentatious in mannerisms, appearance, particularly to draw the attention of their “superiors”- masters – to whom, to whose powers to have the final word, they owe everything, their presence in the organisation.

They act overzealous to draw attention from their “superiors”- masters, and win favours from them, so they can have a quick promotion, be given a quick leg up, be lifted to the next rung of the organisational ladder.

No shame in that! Society is arranged that way, meritocracy is fantasy. It’s only for formality, it only exists in the books, often mentioned and grandiosely emphasised in organisations’ annual meetings and reports. Often the reality is far different, a world apart!

So, it’s in politics, there are political Johnny-come-lately. They’re overzealous, ostentatious in behaviour, mannerisms for exactly the same reasons, to draw attention and get or rather win, visibility from their new environment, and yes, their “superiors”, their masters on whom their political career, life heavily depends and hangs.

The political Johnny-come-lately, depending on their previous political affiliations and circumstances, often feel compelled to act overzealous. They do so to prove and demonstrate to their new environment and “superiors” – masters on whom their next political career, life heavily depends and hangs, that they have changed, they are redeemed from their past and fully converted to their current ideological persuasion.

Like a banished hungry dog, now back to its master’s home, trying to win affection from its master and thus be thrown a little food to survive, the political Johnny-come-lately, in their overzealous, ostentatious behaviour and actions, deep down, are insecure and desperate.

Although they behaviour and act overzealous and ostentatious to draw attention and gain visibility from their masters, they know they are treading on a delicate ground.

They aren’t sure what is and isn’t appropriate, acceptable behaviour to the masters. They are operating on a new master territory. They don’t know and aren’t quite sure of what can and will likely offend their masters, and this makes them even the more insecure, desperate and vulnerable but also extremely dangerous.

They understand fully, that that they sitting on powder keg that can and, a single touch on a wrong button, will explode on them. It makes them, or rather exposes them to manipulation and suggestions from those who have been around longer and understand the environment, how to navigate and the masters’s every whims and how to appeal, appease them.

So, the political Johnny-come-lately become tools in the meantime for those who have been around the masters but have been sidelined, to win back the masters’ sympathy and favours. This puts the political Johnny-come-lately on a dangerous possible collision path with their masters.

However, such circumstances will quickly demonstrate and distinguish the quality, intelligence of the political Johnny-come-lately by the way they handle and navigate the tricky, potentially dangerous environment they are operating in.

The cunning ones, will quickly learn they are being manipulated, used by the more experienced ones in the environment. They will quickly learn to discern their own personal interests; the interests of those who are trying to manipulate them from those of their masters and will act cunningly and decisively.

There are essentially two kinds of political Johnny-come-lately; the cunning, quiet, smooth but effective operators. Although they may initially behave and act overzealous and ostentatious, as a calculated strategy to draw attention and gain visibility, they quickly change tack.

They are well aware of the simple fact and principle that, what gets them in, may not necessarily be what is needed to keep them in and around for longer.

They change and take on more effective strategies of survival, and possibly gain more influence and power to move and rearrange the existing furniture. They change, adapting to fit and reflect their ever changing circumstances.

There’s the overzealous, ostentatious and loudmouths. They get into the political arena by being overzealous, ostentatious and loudmouths.

Although they may understand the inner workings and political chicanery of their new political environment, they realise and know that what got them in, is in fact, their strength. It is what they need to keep them in and around for much longer. So, they don’t change, they maintain it.

These are the types who are seen in public overzealously praising their masters. This is what is referred to as “ass-kissing” in political science.

They have common attributes too, they are either vertically challenged, or overweight and fat. They have a loud mouth they use as an amplifier- loud speaker – and the unmatched ability to work it, to keep it in the political honeypot. For, their ultimate aim/objective is to get access to the political honeypot in the hands of their masters.

The Art of Backside Smooching

It’s hard to move up than climb down a mountain, physical or non physical. The corporate or social governance ladder is no different from a mountain. How one gets to the top of the corporate/social governance ladder, determines their longevity

Moving up a corporate or social governance ladder and staying at the top [rung] requires the mastery of the art of backside smooching and the analytical intelligence and ability to assess and know which and whose “right” backside must be smooched, nicely!

Like of gold, all that glitters is not always gold. It’s sometimes, in fact, most times, a reflection of fake gold because real, pure gold is rare and too expensive; few can afford it.

And so it is with all big “powerful” or “influential” backsides in corporate or social governance structures. Not all, apparently, big, “powerful” or “influential” backsides in corporate or social governance structures must be smooched. Many, in fact, must and deserve to be intentionally ignored and, if and where nobly necessary, smashed!

Most promotions within organisations or government appointments, rarely have anything, if at all, to do with competence or ability. But so much to do with the art and politics of backside smooching. They are more or less a true reflection of the person’s, that is, the promoted or appointed, ability to smooch vital backsides with real, effective power – the power to reward them for a backside smoothing job well done.

This explains why so many morons end up in high positions and of authority, especially in government. They mastered the art of backside smooching, honed their analytical ability to pinpoint precisely the “right” backside, with real power, to smooch.

If anything, promotions within organisations and government appointments are entirely distinct systems within a system. They operate clandestinely but predicated on apparent [self] dehumanising obsequiousness to those with real clout.

Organisations/corporations, like governments, are rife with social and political machinations. One-upmanship, cloak and dagger and backstabbing, shafting each other, is a normal practice rather than an exceptional occurrence.

Everyone is trying to climb on each other’s shoulders, and if breaking shoulders or [stabbing] backs is what it takes to move up a notch or more, so be it, as long as the aim is achieved. Kindness is a costly weakness in such environments.

There’s no such thing as ethics or ethical behaviour where interests collide or where interests are at stake. When and where interests collide, it becomes a matter of triumph or be trampled over. So, the most ruthless will triumph.

Being nice, kind to those around you is only a strategy, a weapon applied and deployed to achieve the aim, which is, to gain advantage over others and all else, and ultimately be at the top of the organisational or social ladder.

Be nice, be kind to those around you but only as a weapon. Your ultimate purpose is not to be nice or kind to people. No one owes another niceness or kindness, only to the extent that it serves one’s interests.

The ultimate purpose is to gain advantage, to dominate. Be nice, be kind to those around you but be cold, be ready and unflinching to annihilate them if necessary, out of your way, to clear your way to your aim, to achieving your ultimate goal.

Nothing and no one should come in your way. Life’s too short to be anyone’s second banana. After all, backside smooching is not a pleasant act. It’s as dehumanising as slavery. In fact, it’s slavery only with the illusion of one’s own volition.

African National Flags – a Symbol of Colonialism: Boycott African National Flags

Colonialism in Perpetuity

African national flags – those rags with blinding shiny bright colours – are a symbol of European colonialism in continuity in Africa, and deserve no RESPECT at all.

To respect these rags, to show respect for these rags, is to pay respect to European colonialism and its evils.

FACT: The national flag concept, at least in the African context, is a European colonial concept, introduced by the European colonialists.

The national flag concept in Africa is a concept with African blood on it, deeply rooted in and imposed by the wanton shedding of African blood. The national flag concept in Africa, symbolises the blood shedding concept to impose one group’s will over a people.

There’s plenty of historic evidence to attest to genocides committed on the african communities [peoples] by the European colonial powers (forces) in Africa. European colonial history is full of evidence.

Flags, signs of conquest

Flags were used as a sign of conquest of the African land and people by the colonialists. The conquest mostly came as a result of and meant the destruction of african lives, in fact, after “genociding” local communities.

There’s no or hardly a peaceful conquest as there’s no or hardly a peaceful revolution. Conquests and revolutions are, by their very nature, destructive because they aim at; and their objective is destroying and replacing the existing order.

Conquest without complete destruction of the existing order, is not a conquest. It’s a takeover. Likewise, revolution without complete destruction and replacement of the existing order, is not a revolution. It’s a continuation of the same existing order but with different administrators. This is, in fact, what has been the fundamental failures of the many so-called Anti-European Colonial African “revolutionary” movements.

They all, without exception, took over the colonial systems – administrative structures, economic structures, and carried on with and ran the same systems that were designed to work against them and their interests. Put simply, they won the victory to board the colonial bus, and the wheels on the colonial bus rolled on, round and round. They are still rolling on!

European colonialism and its barbarism in Africa is celebrated.

Each time any African national flag is raised and African nationals stand to attention, in respect to that piece of rag with shiny bright colours, European colonialism and its barbarism in Africa is celebrated.

Interestingly, Africans – african countries, these colonial constructs – still very much under the yoke of European colonialism, with their so-called African “heads of State” – these agents of colonial and western interests, claim to be “independent“.

Yet, every African country, has one of these so-called national flags – introduced by their respective colonial masters and owners of these African countries.

Subsequently, which so-called post-independence african governments inherited from their colonial masters at the dawn of their ceremonial “independence” and have since maintained to date and take such misplaced and uncritical pride in.

It’s a shame to see how African countries, african governments and their officials and some uncritical and indoctrinated africans, display, wave around these European colonial symbols of evil, barbarism in Africa, with such pride.

Displaying and/or waving around these rags with blinding shiny bright colours everywhere, as a national symbol, with pride. Even going as far as making it a mandatory requirement to display these rags or paint their shiny bright colours on their facilities, homes, et cetera.

It’s European colonialism in Africa, and in the african mind (psyche) in perpetuity.

European national flags are historically a cultural symbol

It’s worth noting that, European national flags are historically a cultural symbol, deeply rooted in and a reflection of and inspired by national culture. This is why they are, rightly so, national symbols, a symbol of national pride.

African national flags are a colonial imposition

Whereas, to the contrary, African national flags are a colonial imposition, an adaption of colonial heritage and little effort has been made, since so-called “independence” by many African countries and their successive governments, to adapt them to, to have them inspired by, deeply rooted in and thus reflect national cultures. Where changes of national flags have taken place in African countries, it has largely been motivated by the ambitions of the people in government, usually a few powerful individuals.

Such governments or a few powerful individuals who control governments by and through the monopoly of weapons and armed forces, use national flags, pretty much the same way and in the same spirit as the colonialists did – to demonstrate and showcase their own conquests.

Consequently, some African national flags are, in fact, government flags, or personal flags, depending on who controls the government. It’s for this reason I’ve no respect, don’t even pretend to show respect for these national rags with shiny bright colours.

They mean absolutely nothing to me, they don’t represent me, or anything about me. They have no value whatsoever to me, except that they are a painful reminder of colonialism, its devastation in Africa and on the African communities.

They’re a symbol of continued repression and colonialism in Africa by Africans in charge, the western (colonial) agents who replaced and represent the colonial chiefs, governors – they call themselves Presidents, ministers and “leaders”

And no, I am not disrespecting African countries, or their governments. I am deeply convinced and thus believe, there are many, far better ways in which we, as Africans, can show our national pride, inspired by, deeply rooted in and reflective of our cultures.

It’s ironic that Africans, African governments and their overfed, overweight, many fat officials bang on about colonialism and brag about how fucking “independent” they are, yet have done nothing at all to decolonise their ways, their thinking and actions.

But have done and keep doing everything to maintain, protect, defend, perpetuate colonialism; everything about colonialism what it stood for, its interests and values (value system).

By and large, African countries have almost no national cultures. What many African countries claim as national culture and what their governments (officials) demonstrate in and during national celebrations or to foreign officials, is in fact colonial culture with shades of their long lost cultures. They justify this, otherwise national shame, as “modernity“, as “civilised” – euphemism for “westernisation” and African ways of doing things.

This explains why nationals from the colonial countries have no trouble finding themselves at home, comfortable in their colonies in Africa; because it’s an extension – the african extension – of their cultures.

African national flags ought be boycotted.

Africa is The Brothel of The World: The Russia-Africa Summit, Sochi.

The gatekeepers and agents to the world’s known and most abused brothel that is Africa, are gathering; yet again, for another summit on Africa – The first ever Russia-Africa summit – outside Africa, in Sochi, Russia. Not surprising at all! Because Africa is the world’s desire, everyone wants a piece of it!

Sochi is a Russian city on the Black Sea, coincidentally, where gatekeepers and  agents to the world’s known and  abused brothel that is Africa, mainly from what is called “Sub-Saharan Africa” – a euphemism for “predominantly black” – with a bit of flare for savagery, are gathering to partake in a summit organised by Russia’s strategic and cleverly aggressive President Vladimir Putin in what’s clearly a clever and  strategic move for President Putin and  Russia to get a foot into the Brothel of the World – Africa.




Like a brothel, to men of financial and economic means but with terribly starved sexual desires and needs; every country in the world with political and economic muscle, has a plan for Africa, to get a foot in the door to Africa, the Brothel of the World and indulge their starved desires and needs.

Like every brothel, Africa – the brothel of the world, has its gatekeepers and  agents – the men and  women with fancy colonial titles, purporting themselves as its “leaders“, in fancy, usually bespoke and  expensive outfit – all designed, made and  sold to them by people they sometimes, albeit foolishly, dismiss as “colonialists“. Yet, ironically, the same people they run to for practically everything. The same people who set their agenda – political and economic. The same people who are undoubtedly treated as a frame of reference for all things these gatekeepers and agents consider “modern” and “developed”.

What’s strange but not surprising is that every plan, conference and/or summit on [about] Africa – where these gatekeepers and agents are invited, and flock to en masse, mostly each in their own private jets  or chartered jets, at public/government expense – almost always takes place outside Africa, the brothel of the world.

The implication and financial and economic costs of such travels to such conferences/ summits are, without a doubt, enormous to their economies. Such conferences/summits usually, almost as a tradition, take place in the most expensive places – cities, resorts in the world – outside Africa. Thus, these gatekeepers and agents to the most known and abused brothel of the world, Africa, spend millions of dollars (USD) out of their own impoverished, usually cash strapped economies into the rich economies of places where such conferences/summits take place, such as the current Russia-Africa Summit, in Sochi, an exclusive and certainly expensive resort beach on the Black Sea.

This quickly brings to mind the concept of “The Matthew Effect”, particularly in relation and when applied to cumulative advantage of economic capital.

Note: The concept was coined by (is credited to) sociologist Robert K. Merton. It draws on the biblical Gospel of Matthew 13:12  “For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.” New King James Version (NKJV)

Put simply, such conferences/summits on [about] Africa – the brothel of the world, have one particular thing in common, and that is, while they purport or precisely, pretend to be concerned about and centred around Africa’s “development”, they are cleverly designed and organised in such ways to ensure they benefit greatly from african resources, such as inviting africans, usually government officials, who subsequently spend money out of their own impoverished economies and treasuries into foreign economies that provide venues for such conferences/summits.

Hardly do such conferences/summits take place in Africa, which would benefit african economies.

These gatekeepers and agents attend such conferences/summits where Africa – the brothel of the world, is being partitioned into fiefdoms by and among the world’s powers that be in the same manner and spirit as the the infamous “Berlin Conference of 1884–85.”

These gatekeepers and agents play a nominal role, as well fed and maintained onlookers to the process where ruthless hunters divide, rather aggressively, their hunt, each bargaining and jostling for the best part of the hunt.

They take part in conferences/summits where African land is being systematically taken over, at little to almost no cost at all. Where there’s a cost, it’s a token, by foreign interests sometimes disguised, in fact, it is the modus operandi, as “foreign investment“.

Where africans are being systematically stripped of their land, confiscated usually under the false pretext of national interests and priorities, largely through and by use of these gatekeepers and agents – most of whom treat governments and their countries as personal estates – and then freely handed over to faux “foreign investors”, rendering africans landless, propertyless and condemning them to destitution, quite likely generational destitution and landlessness and propertylessness that European  colonialism inflicted on the vast african societies.

Africa, the brothel of the world, in which everyone across the world but only a few Africans – mainly the gatekeeper and agent class, goes in, gets their pound of flesh, gets served and serviced. Yet, majority africans are being systematically jammed with an iron bar up their backsides.

It appears, the more things appear to change in Africa, particularly with such gatekeepers and agents, seemingly under control, the more not only things remain the same but in fact, the more they get worse for majority ordinary africans.

Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos – State capture and lessons for African politicians and their spouses.

There are many things about which African politicians, that is, those in power – the powerful – can and should learn from Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos especially about State capture and their lavish lifestyles . But here are a few.

Learn that power is toxic. It’s an intoxicating substance.

Don’t allow power to intoxicate you, that is, don’t get intoxicated on it.

Power obviously corrupts but only if you let it corrupt you. It corrupts the already corrupt, that is, only if you are corrupt. So in that case, it is only an excuse [trigger] that ignores the desire and habit or addiction. Much like a drug or alcohol addict, they are addicts before they use [abuse] the substance.

Once you (start to) kill for power, to protect and/or to maintain it, you’ve embarked (gone down) on a dangerous path, one that (likely) has no end and in most cases, as history shows, one that does not end well at all. There’s only how far that [strategy] path can take you. And there are only as many you can kill until [the] people say enough is enough and turn the tables on you.

As for Imelda Marcoses of Africa; and there are many, remember what happened to Marie Antoinette in France?

Everything that starts will finally come to its end. Nothing and certainly no one lives on forever. No system, social, political – monarch, empire, dynasty, however strong it apparently is or appears to be, lives on forever. It finally crumbles, and comes to its end.

Ferdinand Marcos thought he had America, that is, the strong backing of the Reagan Administration and even bolstered by his apparent “cosy” personal friendship with Ronald Reagan.

This illusion of friendship had allowed Ferdinand Marcos to falsely overestimate his importance to Ronald Reagan and his administration, hence taking liberty to stretch his iron hand and its reach, engaging in political and power mischief.

The assassination of his then main political nemesis Benigno S. Aquino Jr who was shot dead when he arrived at the Manila airport from the United States of America where had spent three years in exile, was a defining moment for Marcos’ political life and his regime.

The death of Benigno S. Aquino Jr caused widespread resentment in the country, Ferdinand Marcos, fearing that his legitimacy was in serious trouble and in his attempt to shore it up, called for a snap election in which Corazon Aquino, the widow to Benigno S. Aquino Jr, was his challenger.

The Philippine National Assembly announced that Marcos was the winner – the straw that broke the camel’s [Marco’s] back – a rebellion broke out in the Philippine military as a result.

But “when the shit hit the fan”, so to speak, and hundreds of thousands of Filipinos marched in the streets, and Ferdinand Marcos called [telephoned] Ronald Reagan seeking for his urgent help, requesting that Ronald Reagan makes the final word [decision] on whether he should or should not leave power, Reagan had only contempt for him and his behaviour.

And what better way for Ronald Reagan to show deep contempt to, apparently, until that time, his “friend” Marcos than silence by ignoring his constant and frantic phone calls – instructing his staff to redirect the calls to one junior source who told Marcos, in no uncertain, unambiguous terms, to “fuck off” and face the people’s wrath. To accept to be roasted by the Filipino people as he had done to them and his opponents – real and/or perceived – during his 20 year dictatorship. It was payback time.

What is on record, however, is that President Ronald Reagan advised his “friend”, Ferdinand Marcos, through Senator Paul Laxalt to “cut and cut cleanly“, in other words, to quickly find ways out of the country,  to avoid what was believed could have been a military confrontation between pro- and anti-Marcos troops.

What goes around, so the the saying goes, will finally come back around to bite, in your own backside. For Ferdinand Marcos, it surely came back and bit his backside so hard and deep, unseating him from his power comforts.

It was time up for Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos and the “chickens had come home to roost”.

Ferdinand Marcos was cast adrift by his “friend” Ronald Reagan and his Administration when the hour beckoned, at the most critical and defining moment when his dead horse regime was frantically kicking and gasping for life saving breath of help, for its survival.

Subsequently, Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos fled the country, Ferdinand died three years after he was deposed from power.

PS: Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, are famous for holding the Guinness World Record for the “Greatest Robbery of a Government”.


Visit Rwanda and My Reverie at Church – Free Promotion, Free Advertisement Bonanza for David Luiz

It’s Sunday, today, I am back from Church № 999, where I had gone with my dog, TEG’AMATWI – he’s such an energetic canine but restless most times.

I went to Church to repent, or rather to pretend to repent all my past week’s transgressions, not by speaking to the priest behind something like a counter in a tightly closed space but because Church offers the best environment – space – that allows and makes it much more easier for one to convince oneself that presence at Church, and by pretending to be gracious, courteous, showing teeth, and saying praise the Lord to all, one has been forgiven of their transgressions.

At Church, my dog, TEG’AMATWI, lay next to me while the Church procession went on. From to time, he wagged his fluffy tail in reaction [response] to Church bells, the usually soothing Church Hymns – partly the reason I am motivated to go to Church, despite what I believe is profound hypocrisy at Church.

However, as my mind got carried away by the Church Hymns, it gravitated to #VisitRwanda campaign, a wonderful effort by the government of Rwanda geared towards promoting and boosting the tourism industry in the country by calling upon, encouraging people – across the globe – to visit Rwanda.

As someone of [with] Rwandan roots, however, with ancestral origins to a place in what is present day South Sudan, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sudan ) I take it as a personal duty, some might take it as a “patriotic” duty, to do my part- in my own inimitable ways – to support and promote the campaign, not so much to attract attention , to be seen to be “patriotic“. No. I am not a good sheep!

However, I do it because I’ve done my own critical analysis of it and genuinely believe in its intentions, its purpose and merits. It might, like everything, every project – if we look at it in project terms – have its own demerits, but I am deeply convinced that the underlying merits far outweigh the demerits.

Other than that, it also gives me a feel good factor, comparable perhaps to the feeling derived from giving – emphasis- GENUINE, charity. Likewise, it makes me feel connected to and part of, despite being so far away from, the country and the positive transformation it’s undergoing.

The more the Church Hymns filtered through my ears into my mind, calming it from its signature deep thoughtfulness, hence creating a serene internal atmosphere, the more it was pricked into veering off to a deep thoughtful state about the Visit Rwanda campaign, (https://www.visitrwanda.com/) and how to make it more effective, what more and other promotional and marketing tactics and approaches can be applied and employed.

As my mind finally drifted off from the attention grabbing Church Hymns, into fully engaged thoughtfulness about the Visit Rwanda campaign, one recent visit to Rwanda by David Luiz dominated my mind and thought.

David Luiz is a Brazilian professional footballer currently signed as a defender with the English Premier League Club Arsenal. Recently, he was on a visit in Rwanda, perhaps as part of the Visit Rwanda promotional campaign agreement the government of Rwanda entered into and signed with Arsenal Club.

There are photos on internet, various social media platforms, of David Luiz in Rwanda, in different places, meeting with various high profile government officials, taking photos with Arsenal fans in Rwanda.

But the highlight of his visit to Rwanda is of him standing shoulder to shoulder with the Rwandan President, H.E Kagame, at the presidential office – Village Urugwiro – for a photo opportunity – in and of itself, a rare opportunity many would wish to have because President Kagame is an inspiration.


There are photos of David Luiz training in the volcano mountains (Volcanoes National Park) and planting a tree, in the North of Rwanda, a rare sight of environmental natural beauty with which nature so generously endowed Rwanda. It’s, in and of itself, a rare opportunity for anyone from anywhere to experience.

Training with Gorillas in the Mist: Arsenal’s David Luiz Finds His Best Ground in Rwanda

But David Luiz is no ordinary person, he’s a celebrity already, with world fame. But here’s an already famous person being given such wonderful limelight, free promotion.

I read many messages by Rwandans on various social media platforms, expressing their gratitude to David Luiz for visiting their beautiful country. I thought, but it’s David Luiz who should be thanking Rwandans for inviting him to their country and granting him such free promotion, for how generously he was treated – in fact, pampered.

This, however, does not mean to suggest, David Luiz did not express his gratitude to Rwandans for their generous treatment of him, for their exceptional hospitality. It wouldn’t be expected of/from someone of his fame let alone one who proudly wears an Arsenal jersey.

Thinking and reflecting on the exceptional hospitality, the generous free promotional space – in media and other platforms – David Luiz was given in Rwanda, and being at Church, quickly reminded me of the following Biblical scripture “For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him

Note: I am not suggesting David Luiz’s visit in Rwanda, and subsequent national attention he was given, took anything away from anyone. Far from it, I believe it’s likely to have positively contributed, in various ways, to many people, especially in, but also outside, Rwanda.

It may have inspired many, in various ways, and positively contributed to business in Rwanda especially in the hospitality sector but more importantly; I strongly believe it has done more to inspire others, particularly of similar fame, outside Rwanda to consider visiting Rwanda.

Similarly, I believe it created what I will call the “association effect“, that’s, the stimulated (created) desire to be associated with something or someone, particularly because of influence. This is an important factor in business terms. If a business is able to create an environment in which people – therefore potential customers – want and will spend to associate with it, it’s a winner.

Seeing that free “personal” promotion given to David Luiz by Rwanda, I also thought, wait, what if the Visit Rwanda promotional approach is tweaked a bit, and promoted to offer the opportunity for “Free promotion, advertisement” to anyone?

The opportunity for people to be given a free (except for their travel expenses to Rwanda) platform for free promotion, the potential for gaining world fame by being given the same limelight David Luiz and others of his fame are granted while on their visit in Rwanda?

The opportunity to turn a fairly unknown, less known, obscure anybody, into an internationally known somebody – figure – simply by visiting Rwanda, and having the rare opportunity to hobnob and stand shoulder to shoulder with Rwanda’s inspirational President?

The opportunity, the knowledge and promise that they will be given a first class treatment and countrywide tour to see the country’s beautiful flora and fauna?

At this point, the voice of the person leading the service (I don’t know the formal name) roared, interspersed with high pitched sounds of prerecorded Church Hymns, Church bells – not quite surprising, everything is artificial in that Church – and TEG’AMATWI, my energetic dog, disturbed by the amplified combination of the service leader’s roaring voice, Church Hymns and bells, was getting restless and screaming for help, I was suddenly pulled out of my deep thoughtfulness about #VisitRwanda

It was, nonetheless, deeply engaging, as I visualised the various possibilities and opportunities that could potentially be created by a simple tweak in the outlook (mindset) towards the promotion and marketing approach to the campaign.

But it quickly dawned on me, I am just a dreamer, thinker. It was time up, me and TEG’AMATWI, quietly left the Church, for it was getting unbearably noisy for TEG’AMATWI.