OurTruth:


I'm not. Just that I don't think women deserve the amount of time and energy men devote to them.

Besides my instinctive attraction to womens bodies, which I would remove if I had the power to do so, there is no way I'll take them seriously. This is my own opinion.

Women are very shallow creatures and operate exclusively on instinct, not logic, even if they espouse logic through speech, their actions always deviate to instinct. I've done my research in this subject and I have my own personal experiences, so I'm very confident in what I'm saying.

100% facts. Men are a very stupid gender sometimes.

Follow some of CAPSLOCKED posts

Okay, so far no one assisted me. Surprising giving how interested people have been in the information I've been sharing.

Anyway, was able to connect my external hard drive to a friend's computer and I copied the relevant files to my phone, so I'll be using my phone to share the information. It's going to be a bit stressful for me but I'll do my best.

I'll continue this thread tonight.

OurTruth:


You were supporting what she was saying without clarifying whether it was valid or not. Lol.

Most of you see posts from monikers with (F) and feel the need to quote her and support her argument, and usually she never responds even after you've calmed down to type a comment that you think will impress her. I see many of you on my threads all the time. It's hilarious.

Women have a very privileged place in our world. I wish in my next life I incarnate as a woman. These people are practically worshiped as gods by most men. It's sickening

Very true. Baba didn't even remember what he just wrote, he's already changing goal post. Funny simps.

OurTruth:
Some people don't allow me finish before they start condemning me. I've only just began, I've not even gotten to the more crucial aspects of the post and people are already acting like I've finished my presentation.

Omo I'm not getting paid for this. It's tiring having to deal with people like this all the time. I'm tired honestly.

Now you know why African countries are backward. They will never allow anything to succeed even for a knowledge-based thread like this.

blaquebelle:
My brain is refuting that part of the information you just shared. I refuse to accept that I am descended from the weakest and stupidest blacks My ancestors must have been wise enough to separate themselves from the war.

Your ancestors were not wise per say. They were the remnants of the chaotic situations.

Empires Wey no dey build useful Technology, LOL!! I can accept the excuse that we took time to catch-up but with the tools and resources currently available, Africans have no reason to be in the path/Level that they currently are

pansophist:


I don't agree on Africa as a continent is geographically isolated, at least not compared to North America as a continent (which is an island), Oceania, and South America. Afro-Euro-Asia mainland is the largest and most populous contiguous landmass on Earth, and the only continents connected to each other (Euro Asia connects Africa through the Suez canal). Perhaps you can argue for other reasons why Africa is not developed, but it has never been due to geographical isolation.

Actually, geography did play a role.

Geography plays the largest role in developing a civilization.

True, Afro-Euro-Asia is the largest contiguous landmass on Earth, but that does not tell the whole story. Historically, North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa were worlds apart even though they are on the same continent.

Why did the Pharaohs of Egypt not conquer or expand southwards as the pre-eminent power/demi-gods on the continent for over 4000 years? The Pharaohs and the Royal Courts knew that sub-Saharan Africa was populated and even traded with them. Their neighbors, the Nubians, in present day Sudan were Black-skinned. They influenced the Nubians greatly, who at the height of the civilization, actually conquered Egypt during the 25th Dynasty. That was around 700 years before the birth of Christ.

That dynasty was short-lived, but even after the Egyptians chased out the Nubians, they never ventured down south.

When Alexander went on his unprecedented global conquest. He also stopped in North Africa. The Ptolemy dynasty that started after his death did not venture South. The Romans actually tried to venture deep into the South. The General Septimius Flaccus while countering raids by nomads got as far as Lake Chad. The Magnate Julius Maternus also ventured that deep four decades later for commercial reasons and actually was in the company of a local King who was trying to quell a revolt. He took back a rhinoceros with two horns as a trophy and was shown in the colosseum. A planned expedition to circumnavigate Africa from Roman ports in Morocco to a port at the North of Africa never occurred.

But after everything, they were content with Egypt and coastal settlements in the Maghreb.

If Ramses the Great or Piye of Kush had conquered South instead of in the Northwestern direction towards the Levant; Europe for no be our mate.

So, yea, it is fair to say sub-Saharan Africa was geographically isolated. African gold and goods went as far as modern day India through the trading cities in North Africa and the Near East. But the middle-men for some reason did not try to take the rest of sub-Saharan Africa for themselves. Most of the time, they were too busy fending off attacks from the Middle Eastern aggressors to care about neighbors that never gave them any trouble or had anything they needed, they were already 2000 years ahead of them technologically.

In fact, we, who are current occupants of West, Central, and Southern Africa are not original settlers. Sub-Saharan Africa has seen hundreds of settlements. Most ceased to exist for unknown reasons. A group of the oldest settlements in modern-day Nigeria were the Nok Culture. They existed from 1500 BC - 200 AD, and no one knows for certain why they died out.

In their early days, the Noks were developmentally at the same level as mainland Europeans as that was around the time of the Greek Dark Ages. It was the Romans that built the first roads in England and made it something. France and Germany did not have an identity and were populated by loose tribes of barbarians at the time.

If the Europeans had not come, odds are the groups currently speaking the Niger-Congo family of languages and spreading primarily through the Bantu expansion which make up more than 90% of Western, Central, and Southern Africa would have died out like the Noks.

As far as I know, the only advanced civilization to have developed independently in geographical isolation are the Andean civilizations of South America. And even though the native Americans in North America shared a land bridge with the Andeans, the native Americans were far behind in development. Even the Minoan civilization of Crete--the European cradle of civilization--had established links with the Egyptians from whom they received peaceful technological transfer. That did not stop the Minoans from collapsing.

Location is a very big deal. No one is an island. We were so far away from India and the Andeans, that there was no civilization in our immediate cosmos that had any idea how to deal with the unique challenges of a tropical terrain.

Thirdly, there are many theories of why Africa is poor, but the one that seems reasonable is the plundering of the wealth of colonial masters, and the continuation of it unto this day through a complex web of extractions that is more sophisticated, self-perpetuation, and automatic. `To place the lack of development of Africa as a continent as something beyond human doing is inconclusive. Having said that, I am enjoying your write-up.

Africa, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, does not have any "wealth" to plunder. It's the truth.

If you want to talk about wealth plundering. Go ask India. One time the richest civilization in the known world, larger than the economies of every European civilization combined at its height. So rich, no one was ever able to conquer the entire sub-continent. The British went there and turned it into a drying husk. Today, Ambani is a centi-billionaire in dollars, India has the 5th/6th largest economy and they're just starting.

North Africa was feeding the entire Roman Empire at its height. In fact, Egypt and the Maghreb have seen more colonial masters than the rest of sub-Saharan Africa put together. The Carthage you read about that were the mortal enemies of the Romans were Maghrebites in North Africa. What Rome did to Carthage has not been done by a Western power to any sub-Saharan city in history. The sack of Benin by the Brits does not even come close. Yet, go to Tunisia today, you go feel say you miss road enter Europe. All the North African countries are high-income countries today.

The gold discovered in the 2nd millennium AD did not have deep reserves. We sold all of it to buy weapons to kill and enslave each other.

What Africa has is resources, and every part of the third and second world is being exploited for resources by the West and in the past decade China. Still, Africa sits at the bottom. The strong have been exploiting the weak since life started on this planet 3 billion years ago. Everyone has been exploited. The Romans exploited the Brits. The Northmen pillaged and raided the Brits until they fought them off. The Brits exploited the Americans until the Revolutionary War. We did not fight for our independence. Even the blacks that did in Haiti in the early 1800s have nothing to show after 200 years.

Go ask Central Europeans, the Baltics, and those in the Caucasus, so you'd hear horrific stories. Skin is white, but their own exploitation from those who share the same skin-color from all angles over a much longer period make ours seem like a kindergarten tussles.

Sub-Saharan Africa is not ready to develop. When we are ready, it'll be self-evident. Now, our main purpose in life na to win gold medal for 'Pity Olympics', carry plate dey beg the full planet, and flood embassies.

-Lord

LordAdam16:


Actually, geography did play a role.

Geography plays the largest role in developing a civilization.

True, Afro-Euro-Asia is the largest contiguous landmass on Earth, but that does not tell the whole story. Historically, North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa were worlds apart even though they are on the same continent.

Why did the Pharaohs of Egypt not conquer or expand southwards as the pre-eminent power/demi-gods on the continent for over 4000 years? The Pharaohs and the Royal Courts knew that sub-Saharan Africa was populated and even traded with them. Their neighbors, the Nubians, in present day Sudan were Black-skinned. They influenced the Nubians greatly, who at the height of the civilization, actually conquered Egypt during the 25th Dynasty. That was around 700 years before the birth of Christ.

That dynasty was short-lived, but even after the Egyptians chased out the Nubians, they never ventured down south.

When Alexander went on his unprecedented global conquest. He also stopped in North Africa. The Ptolemy dynasty that started after his death did not venture South. The Romans actually tried to venture deep into the South. The General Septimius Flaccus while countering raids by nomads got as far as Lake Chad. The Magnate Julius Maternus also ventured that deep four decades later for commercial reasons and actually was in the company of a local King who was trying to quell a revolt. He took back a rhinoceros with two horns as a trophy and was shown in the colosseum. A planned expedition to circumnavigate Africa from Roman ports in Morocco to a port at the North of Africa never occurred.

But after everything, they were content with Egypt and coastal settlements in the Maghreb.

If Ramses the Great or Piye of Kush had conquered South instead of in the Northwestern direction towards the Levant; Europe for no be our mate.

So, yea, it is fair to say sub-Saharan Africa was geographically isolated. African gold and goods went as far as modern day India through the trading cities in North Africa and the Near East. But the middle-men for some reason did not try to take the rest of sub-Saharan Africa for themselves. Most of the time, they were too busy fending off attacks from the Middle Eastern aggressors to care about neighbors that never gave them any trouble or had anything they needed, they were already 2000 years ahead of them technologically.

In fact, we, who are current occupants of West, Central, and Southern Africa are not original settlers. Sub-Saharan Africa has seen hundreds of settlements. Most ceased to exist for unknown reasons. A group of the oldest settlements in modern-day Nigeria were the Nok Culture. They existed from 1500 BC - 200 AD, and no one knows for certain why they died out.

In their early days, the Noks were developmentally at the same level as mainland Europeans as that was around the time of the Greek Dark Ages. It was the Romans that built the first roads in England and made it something. France and Germany did not have an identity and were populated by loose tribes of barbarians at the time.

If the Europeans had not come, odds are the groups currently speaking the Niger-Congo family of languages and spreading primarily through the Bantu expansion which make up more than 90% of Western, Central, and Southern Africa would have died out like the Noks.

As far as I know, the only advanced civilization to have developed independently in geographical isolation are the Andean civilizations of South America. And even though the native Americans in North America shared a land bridge with the Andeans, the native Americans were far behind in development. Even the Minoan civilization of Crete--the European cradle of civilization--had established links with the Egyptians from whom they received peaceful technological transfer. That did not stop the Minoans from collapsing.

Location is a very big deal. No one is an island. We were so far away from India and the Andeans, that there was no civilization in our immediate cosmos that had any idea how to deal with the unique challenges of a tropical terrain.



Africa, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, does not have any "wealth" to plunder. It's the truth.

If you want to talk about wealth plundering. Go ask India. One time the richest civilization in the known world, larger than the economies of every European civilization combined at its height. So rich, no one was ever able to conquer the entire sub-continent. The British went there and turned it into a drying husk. Today, Ambani is a centi-billionaire in dollars, India has the 5th/6th largest economy and they're just starting.

North Africa was feeding the entire Roman Empire at its height. In fact, Egypt and the Maghreb have seen more colonial masters than the rest of sub-Saharan Africa put together. The Carthage you read about that were the mortal enemies of the Romans were Maghrebites in North Africa. What Rome did to Carthage has not been done by a Western power to any sub-Saharan city in history. The sack of Benin by the Brits does not even come close. Yet, go to Tunisia today, you go feel say you miss road enter Europe. All the North African countries are high-income countries today.

The gold discovered in the 2nd millennium AD did not have deep reserves. We sold all of it to buy weapons to kill and enslave each other.

What Africa has is resources, and every part of the third and second world is being exploited for resources by the West and in the past decade China. Still, Africa sits at the bottom. The strong have been exploiting the weak since life started on this planet 3 billion years ago. Everyone has been exploited. The Romans exploited the Brits. The Northmen pillaged and raided the Brits until they fought them off. The Brits exploited the Americans until the Revolutionary War. We did not fight for our independence. Even the blacks that did in Haiti in the early 1800s have nothing to show after 200 years.

Go ask Central Europeans, the Baltics, and those in the Caucasus, so you'd hear horrific stories. Skin is white, but their own exploitation from those who share the same skin-color from all angles over a much longer period make ours seem like a kindergarten tussles.

Sub-Saharan Africa is not ready to develop. When we are ready, it'll be self-evident. Now, our main purpose in life na to win gold medal for 'Pity Olympics', carry plate dey beg the full planet, and flood embassies.

-Lord

I don't know much about the depth of African history. But thanks for explaining. Also, I strongly believe that in the modern world, Africa can develop if we want it to be.

Lots of regions around the world have a harsher terrain than Africa and they not only developed, but they thrived. I'll rather live in a comparable develop part of Africa than anywhere in Scandinavia for example.

I know this is not the right place but i could not resist.
Your Ukraine friends need help oh

https:///rtnews/25597

Ukraine to Decide How Much Territory It Trades for Peace – NATO

The US-led alliance aims to strengthen Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table, but added that any peace deal would involve compromises, including territory, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said at the Kultaranta Talks in Finland Sunday.

Stoltenberg said that the West was willing to “pay a price” to strengthen the Ukrainian military, Kiev will have to make some territorial concessions to Moscow in order to end the current conflict.

The secretary general did not directly endorse the ceding of Ukrainian territory, but he did bring up the example of Finland, which gave up Karelia to the Soviet Union as part of a peace deal during the Second World War.

Stoltenberg’s statement comes amid growing sentiment that Ukraine may soon be pressed into a peace deal by its Western backers.

pansophist:


I don't know much about the depth of African history. But thanks for explaining. Also, I strongly believe that in the modern world, Africa can develop if we want it to be.

Lots of regions around the world have a harsher terrain than Africa and they not only developed, but they thrived. I'll rather live in a comparable develop part of Africa than anywhere in Scandinavia for example.

pansophist:
I don't know much about the depth of African history. But thanks for explaining. Also, I strongly believe that in the modern world, Africa can develop if we want it to be.

Lots of regions around the world have a harsher terrain than Africa and they not only developed, but they thrived. I'll rather live in a comparable develop part of Africa than anywhere in Scandinavia for example.

Well said Oga.
If we want to, and work for it, as we do for individual success.

logicalhumour:


Juju is bad. The whites said so. Haha.

As OP said, the whites were master War planners. The Bible might have been given to us to water down our Juju effect. And it's funny because these white men had abandoned the bible long before handing it down to us.

Yes, they abandoned the bible after humans discovered lands (and peoples) that weren't mentioned in the bible (e.g., America)

They simply stopped believing in the bible, and used it as a tool when/where necessary. There was a lot of drama and denial when they saw a continent as large America (of which God apparently wasn't aware of), the drama and denial even got worse when the Spaniard conquistadors appeared.

In the least, our Artifacts (which could generate good museum revenue in their country) would become easier for them to steal if they could make us believe that our Gods were fake and evil. Lol

So the God's that killed twins and need seven human head to bury a king wasn't evil ?.

Hmmm tell me more.

Africa is developing at it's own pace , no need for comparism at least we don't suddenly get homelsee as a result of natural disasters which is most likely in other part of the world.

cherryCola:


So the God's that killed twins and need seven human head to bury a king wasn't evil ?.

Hmmm tell me more.

Haha. Dude, don't get me started on the white man's God's evil deeds! Do you remember when God purposely hardened Pharaoh's heart so he can kill all first borns and babies among other plagues? Umm... That's pretty worse than killing twins let alone the countless times the white man's God commanded his 'servants' into wars, killing tens of thousands of his own creation, etc.

Guy, Gods don cast. All of them liked blood.

Every God in human history have their evil parts. The Gods your forefathers worshipped where kind of the most peaceful God. We were foolish to accept that theirs was superior. It was simply power play.

I love God sha... So brutal and no nonsense nature I wonder why he left/became silent after the new testament.

logicalhumour:


Haha. Dude, don't get me started on the white man's God's evil deeds! Do you remember when God purposely hardened Pharaoh's heart so he can kill all first borns and babies among other plagues? Umm... That's pretty worse than killing twins let alone the countless times the white man's God commanded his 'servants' into wars, killing tens of thousands of his own creation, etc.

Guy, Gods don cast. All of them liked blood.

Every God in human history have their evil parts. The Gods your forefathers worshipped where kind of the most peaceful God. We were foolish to accept that theirs was superior. It was simply power play.

I love God sha... So brutal and no nonsense nature I wonder why he left/became silent after the new testament.

What ever dude , I don't believe in any shitty being called God or whatever.
But I do believe there is a supreme being but not this murderer xtians and terrorist organization (know as Muslim) believes.

angelfallz:
I know this is not the right place but i could not resist.
Your Ukraine friends need help oh

https:///rtnews/25597

Ukraine to Decide How Much Territory It Trades for Peace – NATO

The US-led alliance aims to strengthen Ukraine’s position at the negotiating table, but added that any peace deal would involve compromises, including territory, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said at the Kultaranta Talks in Finland Sunday.

Stoltenberg said that the West was willing to “pay a price” to strengthen the Ukrainian military, Kiev will have to make some territorial concessions to Moscow in order to end the current conflict.

The secretary-general did not directly endorse the ceding of Ukrainian territory, but he did bring up the example of Finland, which gave up Karelia to the Soviet Union as part of a peace deal during the Second World War.

Stoltenberg’s statement comes amid growing sentiment that Ukraine may soon be pressed into a peace deal by its Western backers.

Let me elaborate on how to negotiate effectively, and that is exactly what Putin did with Ukraine.

A bit of background here. So Putin waited for solid eight years, exhausting all diplomatic options to make Kyiv transpose the Minsk agreement. Kyiv not only refused but instead, keep shelling and dehumanizing the Donbas people.

Kyiv naively thought that Russia won't do anything, because the US is busy cheerleading from behind. Putin even threatened by stationing troops at the border in late 2021, while Sergey Lavrov was busy flying from Washington to Brussels, to look for a diplomatic option. But Kyiv vehemently refused. Little did those idiots know that Putin already have a plan. He is not begging them to implement the Minsk agreement, he just hopes they choose that option because the alternative will be worse.

On Feb 28, he invaded. And with every consequent meeting after the invasion for a ceasefire, the conditions offered to Kyiv become worse than the previous. Now even if Kyiv implements the Minsk agreement, that era has passed. And with every territory that Russia conquers, the bargaining power of Kyiv reduces. So Kyiv doesn't have much bargaining power left, and if their western sponsor dumps them as they did with Georgia, then Ukraine is done for.

And dear comrade, that is how you bargain effectively. You make sure that the alternative option is worse than what you are offering them now, and with each passing time, the options get even worse. So they better choose this present inconvenience or it would be the devil they will dine with tomorrow. The US-led Western bloc has learned the hard way through their ignorance that power is power, and that Russia is actually a superpower. Upon all the sanctions unleashed by all the western countries unified to destroy Russia, it not only stays alive but thrives.

This is true independence. That person gathered to destroy you but you not only survive, but got better than before. A pure example of when they throw you a lemon, you make lemonade out of it.

Gbam!!

pansophist:


Let me elaborate on how to negotiate effectively, and that is exactly what Putin did with Ukraine.

A bit of background here. So Putin waited for solid eight years, exhausting all diplomatic options to make Kyiv transpose the Minsk agreement. Kyiv not only refused but instead, keep shelling and dehumanizing the Donbas people.

Kyiv naively thought that Russia won't do anything, because the US is busy cheerleading from behind. Putin even threatened by stationing troops at the border in late 2021, while Sergey Lavrov was busy flying from Washington to Brussels, to look for a diplomatic option. But Kyiv vehemently refused. Little did those idiots know that Putin already have a plan. He is not begging them to implement the Minsk agreement, he just hopes they choose that option because the alternative will be worse.

On Feb 28, he invaded. And with every consequent meeting after the invasion for a ceasefire, the conditions offered to Kyiv become worse than the previous. Now even if Kyiv implements the Minsk agreement, that era has passed. And with every territory that Russia conquers, the bargaining power of Kyiv reduces. So Kyiv doesn't have much bargaining power left, and if their western sponsor dumps them as they did with Georgia, then Ukraine is done for.

And dear comrade, that is how you bargain effectively. You make sure that the alternative option is worse than what you are offering them now, and with each passing time, the options get even worse. So they better choose this present inconvenience or it would be the devil they will dine with tomorrow. The US-led Western bloc has learned the hard way through their ignorance that power is power, and that Russia is actually a superpower. Upon all the sanctions unleashed by all the western countries unified to destroy Russia, it not only stays alive but thrives.

This is true independence. That person gathered to destroy you but you not only survive, but got better than before. A pure example of when they throw you a lemon, you make lemonade out of it.

pansophist:


I don't agree on Africa as a continent is geographically isolated, at least not compared to North America as a continent (which is an island), Oceania, and South America. Afro-Euro-Asia mainland is the largest and most populous contiguous landmass on Earth, and the only continents connected to each other (Euro Asia connects Africa through the Suez canal). Perhaps you can argue for other reasons why Africa is not developed, but it has never been due to geographical isolation.

Secondly, the map you uploaded is wrong, its the Mercator map which makes Africa as a continent looks small. I mean, see how Russia is bigger than Africa as a whole, meanwhile, Africa is larger than Russia almost twice. Greenland is not even bigger than Algeria, but somehow the maps make it bigger than the whole over fifty African countries.

Thirdly, there are many theories of why Africa is poor, but the one that seems reasonable is the plundering of the wealth of colonial masters, and the continuation of it unto this day through a complex web of extractions that is more sophisticated, self-perpetuation, and automatic. `To place the lack of development of Africa as a continent as something beyond human doing is inconclusive. Having said that, I am enjoying your write-up.

I somewhat agree with you that Africa may be bigger than Russia but I’d like to know how you arrived at this proposition. I have my own reasons for believing but I really want to know your proof.

logicalhumour:


Juju is bad. The whites said so. Haha.

As OP said, the whites were master War planners. The Bible might have been given to us to water down our Juju effect. And it's funny because these white men had abandoned the bible long before handing it down to us.

Yes, they abandoned the bible after humans discovered lands (and peoples) that weren't mentioned in the bible (e.g., America)

They simply stopped believing in the bible, and used it as a tool when/where necessary. There was a lot of drama and denial when they saw a continent as large America (of which God apparently wasn't aware of), the drama and denial even got worse when the Spaniard conquistadors appeared.

In the least, our Artifacts (which could generate good museum revenue in their country) would become easier for them to steal if they could make us believe that our Gods were fake and evil. Lol

Funny homie

LienwaltAbel:

If you want to trade insults you're on your own. I simply concurred with what she said which was how I felt. Hell most of what you post self doesn't really make sense, so why feeling like budatuum.

Slavery isn't a goddamn reason that we should be held back. Have you asked the Balkans why they still get on far better than we do after being under the ottoman rule for hundreds of years. Have you asked Russia how it managed to stand on its feet after being pillaged by the Mongols ages ago. Have you even bothered looking at Korea that was under the boots of China and Japan at the same time and still suffered a bloody dumb civil war. Have you even bothered to ask why Japan that was devastated by two atomic bombs is still ages ahead. Biko, make I exit your thread. You can eat it.

Have you ever bothered to think that it’s a combination of some of these issues that we’re backward? You’re looking at these factors in isolation. Chill bro

OurTruth:


I'm not. Just that I don't think women deserve the amount of time and energy men devote to them.

Besides my instinctive attraction to womens bodies, which I would remove if I had the power to do so, there is ;Dno way I'll take them seriously. This is my own opinion.

Women are very shallow creatures and operate exclusively on instinct, not logic, even if they espouse logic through speech, their actions always deviate to instinct. I've done my research in this subject and I have my own personal experiences, so I'm very confident in what I'm saying.

This is prejudice bro

…but I’ve got nothing against your disposition. Females are most men’s Achilles heels. For me it’s logic over emotion all day, it’s not easy to abide by but it’s definitely the way to go

@OurTruth u promised to update. Come and continue...

iLoveYouToo:



I somewhat agree with you that Africa may be bigger than Russia but I’d like to know how you arrived at this proposition. I have my own reasons for believing but I really want to know your proof.

How exactly do you want me to prove it to you? Should I carry measuring tape and surround Africa with Russia, for measurement? Measuring agbada and countries are not the same thing

But the easiest way I can prove it to you is Google. Just Google it bro. Like put the keywords in Google "Russia land area", and "Africa land area'. You'll see the exact size of both. Russia is over 17 million square km, while Africa is over 30 million square km.

So if you divide Africa into two, Russia is bigger than half. Isn't that insane?

pansophist:


How exactly do you want me to prove it to you? Should I carry measuring tape and surround Africa with Russia, for measurement? Measuring agbada and countries are not the same thing

But the easiest way I can prove it to you is Google. Just Google it bro. Like put the keywords in Google "Russia land area", and "Africa land area'. You'll see the exact size of both. Russia is over 17 million square km, while Africa is over 30 million square km.

So if you divide Africa into two, Russia is bigger than half. Isn't that insane?

Apologies for being cynical, but based on the topic title, when people mention "Africa", they mean the black part of the coninent aka sub-Saharan Africa not the entire Africa that includes North Africa - a region composed of people who have nothing in common with those south of the Sahara. Based on that, Russia is larger in size than "Africa".

pansophist:


Let me elaborate on how to negotiate effectively, and that is exactly what Putin did with Ukraine.

A bit of background here. So Putin waited for solid eight years, exhausting all diplomatic options to make Kyiv transpose the Minsk agreement. Kyiv not only refused but instead, keep shelling and dehumanizing the Donbas people.

Kyiv naively thought that Russia won't do anything, because the US is busy cheerleading from behind. Putin even threatened by stationing troops at the border in late 2021, while Sergey Lavrov was busy flying from Washington to Brussels, to look for a diplomatic option. But Kyiv vehemently refused. Little did those idiots know that Putin already have a plan. He is not begging them to implement the Minsk agreement, he just hopes they choose that option because the alternative will be worse.

On Feb 28, he invaded. And with every consequent meeting after the invasion for a ceasefire, the conditions offered to Kyiv become worse than the previous. Now even if Kyiv implements the Minsk agreement, that era has passed. And with every territory that Russia conquers, the bargaining power of Kyiv reduces. So Kyiv doesn't have much bargaining power left, and if their western sponsor dumps them as they did with Georgia, then Ukraine is done for.

And dear comrade, that is how you bargain effectively. You make sure that the alternative option is worse than what you are offering them now, and with each passing time, the options get even worse. So they better choose this present inconvenience or it would be the devil they will dine with tomorrow. The US-led Western bloc has learned the hard way through their ignorance that power is power, and that Russia is actually a superpower. Upon all the sanctions unleashed by all the western countries unified to destroy Russia, it not only stays alive but thrives.

This is true independence. That person gathered to destroy you but you not only survive, but got better than before. A pure example of when they throw you a lemon, you make lemonade out of it.

The bolder is something the African continent, especially Sub-Sahara Africa has in abundance but we are too blind to see. We have what it takes, we just need to see.

OurTruth:


I'm not. Just that I don't think women deserve the amount of time and energy men devote to them.

Besides my instinctive attraction to womens bodies, which I would remove if I had the power to do so, there is no way I'll take them seriously. This is my own opinion.

Women are very shallow creatures and operate exclusively on instinct, not logic, even if they espouse logic through speech, their actions always deviate to instinct. I've done my research in this subject and I have my own personal experiences, so I'm very confident in what I'm saying.

You are blessed beyond the measure of an ordinary mind bro.

You are different

Good job dear

kumulus:



The bolder is something the African continent, especially Sub-Sahara Africa has in abundance but we are too blind to see. We have what it takes, we just need to see.

Stop using we as you agree to nonsense


Sanctions are not because anybody wants ALL Russians dead

Gerrard59:


Apologies for being cynical, but based on the topic title, when people mention "Africa", they mean the black part of the coninent aka sub-Saharan Africa not the entire Africa that includes North Africa - a region composed of people who have nothing in common with those south of the Sahara. Based on that, Russia is larger in size than "Africa".

Nothing in common yet in the same continent at least according to other continents??


The world has no purpose

iLoveYouToo:



Have you ever bothered to think that it’s a combination of some of these issues that we’re backward? You’re looking at these factors in isolation. Chill bro

Who's backward?

Who's forward?


Nobody....... I mean no race or continent because ALL continents or races are interdependent on one another.



Google can't nullify my lines.

Dmacqh:
There’s nothing like the truth. It’s all based on assumptions, sourcing , time etc.
All these are subject to changes, which is constant.
The @op wants us to swallow every thing . He is quoting from authors , books and other people works.He’s writting from other people information.
Every information here isn’t first hand knowledge.So where he writes “ wrong “ , he should be open to critics.
There are many authors like Dan Brown whose books are more factly expressive, yet he acknowledges critics.
He should upload his thread . And reply to some opinions if he have time.
His intros are always full of oneself. If he was Magellan or Marc maybe we did kneel to get his knowledge...lol.
I enjoy his write ups.

i just dey wait for ourtruth to bring his research on Zeus/Odin if they ever existed.

OurTruth:


I'm not. Just that I don't think women deserve the amount of time and energy men devote to them.

Besides my instinctive attraction to womens bodies, which I would remove if I had the power to do so, there is no way I'll take them seriously. This is my own opinion.

Women are very shallow creatures and operate exclusively on instinct, not logic, even if they espouse logic through speech, their actions always deviate to instinct. I've done my research in this subject and I have my own personal experiences, so I'm very confident in what I'm saying.

Write exclusively about this
Nobody would accuse u of Women-hating

It will go a long way to enlighten most men even generations after generations