₦airaland Forum

We4all:
I am not holding brief for Tu Face because he is not a disciplined man. But, he also accepted so many nasty things from you, so both of you deserved each other and crying foul now is pointless. You knew you were a mother, but you were getting hooked on drugs. What sort of responsible mother does that? By the way, are the girls in the picture her daughters? The one standing on the left look like her younger daughter, but I can barely recognize the girl standing on the right. Why lay emphasis on the singular word 'daughter', when you have two daughters, or the second one is not that important as the first?

Lamasta:
He was led by the Holy Spirit to do that and it was never going to fail because God is the one that led him to do it...

The same way God led Moses to hand over to Joshua, Elijah to Elisha etc

Kobojunkie:
Well, women have also been showing you a lot that they too cannot cheat since they can also have side-dicks in marriage.

Kobojunkie:
You did exactly that when you declared that a husband who cheats on his wife cares for her. Clearly, indicating that submissives are indeed a hated class of women by men like you.

stasius:
You see the advice a big man is giving his daughter?

But today many of these money miss road will tell you, you are equal to your husband. Infact some will even tell you, "you are superior to your husband".

I na afụ ya

Kobojunkie:
The heartbreak is merely the rod that broke the camel's back and not the real reason behind her actually deciding to end it all. Depression has ways of terribly messing with people's brains.

KAM3KAZI:
Big man. Love, be it true love or any other form of love, by itself is not enough to hold a marriage.

Kobojunkie:
Turning her into a glorified housemaid, namgmama(assuming he still has sex with her, laundry maid, nanny, etc.,) is a sign that he cares for her?

Na the women wey raise Una I go blame for this. Clearly, they did not raise you lot well enough to realize that women are humans too. 🥱🥱🥱

JovialJune:
Of course the obvious thought process of an average Nigerian man, their purpose in life, is to diick as much women as they can like it's a lifetime achievement, nothing to emulate from them, nothing worthy to pinpoint as their legacy

That's why this one above can boldly say a Nigerian man can do whatever he likes not minding if it hurts the mother of their kids

Thats why I always say that the generation of old failed young adults of this generation in their method of upbringing, because the end result is the obvious menace in Nigeria today.

koladata:
Life is more complicated when you are not married at mid or old age. You can't even trust a wife that claimed she loves you, how do you then trust a baby mama or girlfriends.

1. What if she wipes your entire savings at the middle of the night after sex
2. What if she poisons your food just because she noticed you just received one huge money and since she's not married to you or have kids for you, your life means nothing to her.
3. How do you sleep with a woman whom you don't have rights to ask where she goes when she lives your house.
4. Who will stay with you on the sick bed if you have to spend 15 days in the hospital

You won't really know the importance of marriage until you get to some certain age.

Kobojunkie:
A man who keeps a sidechick cares about his wife, abi?

Samantha125:
Some women are just too nice and innocent... If it was me, I'd neither confront the husband, the side chick, or post it online... But I'd instead sit down and play a game of chess and by the time I say checkmate, I'd make sure that he's getting admitted into psychiatric hospital while I play the role of a concerned wife... He'd think his village people are after him...

Namaster:
That is the difference between an ASSET and a LIABILITY.

A wife is a standing LONG-TERM LIABILITY by every measure. A wife is a constant DRAIN on your resources. Even a "good wife". You'll support her. You'll support her family. You'll entertain her. You'll "upgrade" her.

And the sex is NEVER guaranteed.
In fact, the more you do the above, the LOWER the frequency and quality of the sex.

Wives NEVER want to let their husband think they deserve sex because of ALL their husbands have done.

Meanwhile, the GF on the other hand needs LITTLE maintenance. And pleasure flows from her.

If a side chick dies on Friday, the man would take his family to the wedding ceremony of a third cousin without missing a beat.

By the following Friday, another Side Chick would have taken her place.

Plus, this woman phrased it as "suffering with 2 kids" like it's not the man that drives them around. She made it sound like the man NEVER takes them anywhere.

Finally, she didn't "think much of it" because the car is likely over 15 years old with more than 5 years on Nigerian road. It's OLD and DOWNTRODDEN.

In fact, I can GUARANTEE that the current market value of the car is LESS than what the man has spent on his wife this year.

koladata:
Yes, it is possible, just tell the school you want to apply to that you identify as master's holder.

Unclebayo:
Hello fellow nairalanders,

There’s this issue that have been giving me trouble mind recently about my girlfriend.

So I just got a girlfriend 10 days ago , me and the girl have been friends for almost 2 month before asking her out.

. The first issue that’s giving concern about the girl is that I’m a Christian and she’s a Muslim , she always tells me that her parents use to warn her severally not to date a Christian or someone she can’t marry.

I sat her down to talk about this but it seems she has already fell in love with me and the only response I get from her is “Let’s continue”.

I know both of us are still young but I don’t want to waste my time and resources over something that will end in tears for me.

I told my best friend about this but his response was “did you want to marry her before, keep fucking yourselves till you depart “

I don’t want to follow this advise because the girl is too innocent for that. She also has a worst experience with her ex that I’ve promised her it won’t happen again.

The second one is her past really bothers me a lot to be sincere with you people. She only had sex once according to her but that one time sex lead her to using p*stinor and other stuffs.

I play maturity immediately she told me but to be sincere here she’s too young for that and I’m concern.

Can I move on and tell break up with her please I need advice .

I know she’ll be hurt like hell if I did but I need to protect my dignity too…. Thanks family

jesusjnr2020:
I don't discourage the showcasing of one's talent to the public however to what purpose in a supposed place of worship?

It just doesn't look right to me.

Except it wasn't a worship or prayer service.
Sadly y'all seem to miss the point that the purpose of gathering in church isn't to showcase man but God. Therefore it's not about how much relevance or how many people from how many countries were gathered, but the purpose they were gathered.

If so many youths were gathered and following the program, it even makes the error worse, because it wasn't exemplary to encourage such a thing in the church, especially in a day and age when many in the church, including the youths, have become as distracted from God than ever and focused on themselves and men.

When the centurion came and ignorantly bowed down to Peter, even though it wasn't in a church building, Peter still made him realize the error in that even though he could have just ignored him, so that's what's expected from a good church leader because even the youths can make mistakes, but it's up to their leaders to correct them and give them the right example to follow.

A church youth focused on drawing Oyedepo instead of God while Church service was going on, and you're still asking what's wrong with that? Today's church has really lost it! SMH!

Gs001:
By Godsent Ogbebor

EXPOSED: America’s Secret Plan to Control Nigeria’s Population, Oil, and Future and how the Government may be Helping Execute It

America’s relationship with Nigeria has never been a simple one, it has always been about more than diplomacy or goodwill. Beneath the surface, U.S. policymakers have treated Nigeria not just as a partner but as a variable to be managed, a set of numbers on a chart that could either stabilize or disrupt the global system. The most revealing evidence of this comes from a secret memorandum written in 1974, known as National Security Study Memorandum 200, or the Kissinger Report. It was drafted at a time when oil prices had skyrocketed, when Western economies were reeling from inflation and recession, and when newly independent nations across Africa were asserting sovereignty over their resources.

The report identified rapid population growth in countries like Nigeria as a direct threat to American access to food, fuel, and strategic minerals. Its recommendation was blunt: reduce fertility in key nations, use aid as leverage, anticipate resistance from religion or culture, and frame it all as development policy. Population control, the memo concluded, was not merely a matter of health but of national security.

From the start, Nigeria was at the heart of this plan as it was not just another developing country; it was a nation with vast oil reserves, an expanding population, and influence across Africa. For U.S. strategists, that combination was dangerous. More people meant greater domestic demand for food and fuel, which in turn meant higher prices and less oil available for export. More people also meant stronger nationalist politics and more pressure on the government to demand fairer terms from foreign corporations. As the Kissinger Report framed it, Nigeria’s growth had to be managed.

The archival record in the Foreign Relations of the United States series confirms that this was not speculation but policy. As Document 200 shows, American officials in 1973 were already worried about Nigeria’s growing independence. The Bureau of Intelligence and Research noted that relations were deteriorating not because of any one dispute but because Nigerians felt the U.S. was indifferent to their aspirations. American officials, in turn, dismissed Nigeria’s cautious approach as inefficiency.

The result was mistrust on both sides. Document 201, written in September 1973, even suggested that Nigeria deliberately complicated a planned meeting between President Nixon and General Gowon to enhance its leverage. When the meeting collapsed, Document 203 recorded how Nigerian hawks used the snub to harden attitudes against the U.S. These early records confirm that Washington saw Nigeria’s assertiveness not as normal politics but as something to be contained.

By March 1974, when the Kissinger Report was drafted, the U.S. was already exploring how to tie Nigeria closer to its orbit. Document 204 laid out strategies to influence Nigeria through aid and engagement. Later that year, Document 205 captured a conversation between Henry Kissinger and Nigerian Foreign Minister Arikpo, reflecting Washington’s attempts to balance engagement with suspicion. Document 206, in January 1975, warned bluntly that Nigeria might restrict U.S. oil access if tensions continued, showing how central crude was to American calculations.

Document 207 proposed specific measures: setting up commissions, hosting business forums, and arranging high-level visits to draw Nigeria into predictable cooperation. Kissinger’s handwritten comments on that memo reveal the delicate act he was willing to engage but only on terms that preserved American advantage. Document 208, written after a Nigerian coup in 1975, advised caution in political dealings but still encouraged a commercial mission, proving that oil and business were never to be neglected.

The clearest example of America’s strategy to restrain Nigeria appears in Document 209, a Treasury memo from January 1976. It recommended that the U.S. oppose World Bank loans to Nigeria on the grounds that oil revenues made such loans unnecessary. In reality, the intent was to limit Nigeria’s independence in global finance. Kissinger himself pushed back slightly in Document 211, urging that cutting loans too sharply would damage relations. But the underlying logic remained: Nigeria was too rich in oil to be allowed the same financial support as others. This was a way of disciplining the country, ensuring it did not become too powerful.

Document 210, after a failed coup in February 1976, recommended a posture of reassurance and “business as usual,” demonstrating the consistency of American tactics: never panic, never overreact, but always keep Nigeria within the frame of control. The last series of documents, from 212 to 216, reveal the diplomatic dance of cancelled visits and mutual suspicion. Nigeria first hinted at normalizing relations but later rejected Kissinger’s trips outright, leaving the Americans frustrated. Through it all, one thing was clear: Washington would persist, using aid, oil, loans, and diplomacy to shape Nigeria’s choices.

These records form the historical backdrop to the Kissinger Report’s blunt message: Nigeria’s population, oil, and sovereignty were problems to be managed for U.S. benefit. And if we fast forward to the present, the continuity is striking. Structural Adjustment Programs in the 1980s forced Nigeria to devalue its currency, remove subsidies, privatize industries, and open its markets. These measures were hailed as modernization but left millions poorer, schools and hospitals weakened, and dependency on imports deeper.

Oil continued to be exported as crude and imported as refined fuel, enriching foreign companies while draining Nigerian resources. Family planning campaigns, often supported by donor funding, expanded access to contraception but also limited real choice, with rural women frequently offered only what donors supplied in bulk. Security partnerships grew in the 2000s, with U.S. equipment, training, and intelligence shaping Nigeria’s counterinsurgency operations. At every stage, the Kissinger template was visible: manage the numbers, shape the economy, secure the oil.

This pattern is not only historical; it is alive in the policies of today. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu came into office with bold announcements. Subsidies were removed, the naira was floated, and preparations began for a digital census and ID system. International creditors and investors applauded these steps as courageous. But for Nigerians, the impact was immediate and painful. Fuel costs doubled overnight, transport fares soared, and food prices climbed. A tricycle rider in Benin City explained that his fuel bill had jumped by half, yet he could not raise fares because his passengers were also struggling.

A rice trader in Kano saw the price of imported rice skyrocket with the currency depreciation, which in turn pushed up the price of local rice. Customers reduced their purchases to tiny measures, and her profit margins shrank. A teacher in Enugu watched her salary lose value by the week, while parent-teacher levies rose to cover gaps in school funding. A farmer in Taraba paid more for fertilizer, diesel, and transport, while middlemen pressed him harder on prices. These stories are not statistics; they are the human cost of reforms that mirror, almost word for word, the prescriptions of the 1980s and the logic of the 1970s.

The digital census adds another layer. On paper, it is a modern tool for planning counting everyone fairly, distributing resources, and strengthening governance. But Nigerians know the history. They know that in 1974, the U.S. described Nigeria’s growing population as a threat to its access to oil.

They know that population programs were tied to aid and loans. In clinics today, women still find that the contraception on offer is shaped more by donor shipments than by informed choice. A midwife in the southwest put it clearly: when implants are funded, implants are available, even if a woman prefers pills or injectables. Choice, she said, exists in rhetoric but is limited in practice. The echoes of the Kissinger Report are still loud.

Tinubu’s reforms, therefore, cannot be understood in isolation. They fit into a much longer story of external influence and internal compliance. The harshest critics argue that his government is completing what Kissinger set in motion: constraining domestic consumption by raising prices, disciplining the currency, tying population programs to donor agendas, and keeping oil exports stable for foreign markets. Supporters respond that these are necessary measures to restore fiscal sanity, attract investment, and prevent economic collapse. Both perspectives contain truth. But the question that matters most is one of agency: are these reforms chosen freely by Nigerians for Nigerians, or are they the continuation of a blueprint written in Washington fifty years ago?

As Document 200 revealed, the U.S. never truly saw Nigeria as an equal partner. It saw it as a country whose ambitions needed to be managed. As Document 209 demonstrated, financial tools like World Bank loans were used to discipline Nigeria’s independence. As Document 210 confirmed, even after coups and instability, the U.S. insisted on business as usual so long as oil flowed and population programs continued. These are not relics of the past; they are foundations of a strategy that endures. Tinubu’s policies, intentionally or not, fall neatly into this template.

The Nigerian people, however, are not numbers on a chart. They are market women in Lagos balancing rising transport costs, teachers in Enugu struggling against inflation, farmers in Taraba trying to keep their families afloat, and young people in Abuja building startups in music and technology despite poor infrastructure. They are resilient, creative, and resourceful. The tragedy is that for decades, their energy has been framed as a problem rather than a possibility. The Kissinger Report saw population as a threat. The FRUS documents saw Nigeria’s sovereignty as a risk. Today’s reforms, while justified as modernization, too often feel like the same old discipline under a new name.

The continuity is undeniable as America’s secret plan to control Nigeria’s population, oil, and future was laid out in memos and telegrams in the 1970s. It was implemented through adjustment programs in the 1980s, donor-driven health campaigns in the 1990s and 2000s, and security partnerships in the 2010s. And now, under Tinubu, it is being completed through subsidy removal, currency float, digital census, and population management programs. The question for Nigeria is whether this cycle will continue indefinitely or whether a new path will finally be chosen, one in which population is seen as a resource, oil as a tool for domestic growth, and sovereignty as non-negotiable.

As Document 212 records, Nigeria abruptly cancelled Kissinger’s planned visit in April 1976, citing security reasons but clearly signaling political distrust. The cancellation was more than a scheduling issue, it reflected Nigeria’s deep suspicion of American motives. By then, the U.S. had already tied its Nigeria strategy to oil flows and population control. Kissinger himself, as Document 213 shows, sought to soften Nigerian skepticism with carefully crafted speeches. Yet the embassy noted that Nigerians continued to believe American policies were not about partnership but about self-interest.

This distrust came to a head in Document 215, when Nigeria outright rejected another Kissinger visit in September 1976. The Americans described the decision as rooted in “xenophobia” and nationalist pride. Document 216, from Tanzania, reported Kissinger’s frustration, admitting it was impossible to portray relations with Nigeria as “normal” after repeated rejections. What these records show is that the U.S. understood Nigeria’s independence but never stopped pressing for influence. Even rejection did not end the effort; it only reshaped the tactics.

If we place these documents alongside NSSM 200, the continuity is clear; the memorandum argued that Nigeria’s population growth and oil wealth were dangerous variables for U.S. interests. The diplomatic cables and memos of the 1970s show how that logic was applied in practice through financial pressure, selective aid, and persistent engagement. Aid was tied to family planning programs, loans were withheld to discipline independence, and diplomacy was framed as reassurance but aimed at control. This was the real architecture of U.S. policy: treat people as numbers, oil as leverage, and sovereignty as negotiable.

The Nigerian experience in the decades that followed bears the imprint of this architecture and structural Adjustment Programs in the 1980s followed the same prescriptions discussed in Document 209 reduce subsidies, open markets, limit state intervention. The result was devaluation of the naira, removal of fuel and food subsidies, privatization of state assets, and dependence on imported goods. Economists praised these measures as reforms, but ordinary Nigerians experienced them as hardship. Real wages fell, schools and hospitals declined, and poverty deepened. The same cycle repeated again and again: policy measures designed to please international creditors but leaving citizens worse off.

Family planning programs also carried this dual legacy and on one hand, they brought genuine benefits reducing maternal mortality, expanding access to contraception, and empowering women with more choices. On the other hand, they were shaped by donor priorities rather than local preferences. Rural women often found themselves offered only implants or injectables because those were the commodities supplied in bulk.

A health worker in a northern state explained that when women complained of side effects, switching methods was difficult because alternatives were simply not available. This was not a failure of medicine but of policy choice narrowed by external supply chains. It was exactly the kind of instrumentalization predicted in NSSM 200, where population control was framed as development but served strategic goals.

Oil, the lifeblood of Nigeria’s economy, also reflects this continuity and for decades, Nigeria exported crude and imported refined fuel, a cycle that drained resources and enriched external interests. The lack of domestic refining capacity was not accidental. It was the product of political choices, vested interests, and a global system that profited when Nigeria remained dependent. The Kissinger-era memos treated Nigerian oil as a stabilizer of global markets before it was ever considered a foundation for Nigerian development. That logic persists today, where refineries remain stalled, modular projects struggle, and imports continue. Oil is a blessing for revenue but a bind for sovereignty.

Security partnerships add another layer since the rise of insurgencies and terrorism, Nigeria has relied heavily on training, equipment, and intelligence from the U.S. and other partners. These measures have saved lives and strengthened certain capacities. But they also bind Nigeria more tightly into external networks of influence. Security budgets grow while development spending lags. Drones, rifles, and patrols multiply, but schools and clinics often remain closed. As the FRUS documents show, American concern was always about stability for oil and strategy, not human security for Nigerians. That imbalance continues.

Nowhere is the continuity more visible than in the reforms of President Tinubu which is the removal of subsidies, the floating of the currency, and the push for digital census and ID systems all echo the prescriptions of the past. Economists argue that subsidies were distortionary, that the naira peg was unsustainable, and that accurate data is necessary for planning.

These arguments have merit. But the way these measures were implemented swiftly, simultaneously, and without adequate safety nets made ordinary Nigerians bear the heaviest costs. A tricycle rider in Benin City now works longer hours for less income, a rice trader in Kano shifts from bulk sales to sachets because customers cannot afford more, a  teacher in Enugu sees her salary eroded by inflation while school levies rise, a farmer in Taraba pays more for fertilizer and transport but earns less from his crops. These are the human faces of reform. They are the same faces that bore the cost of adjustment programs in the 1980s and 1990s.

The digital census, hailed as modernization, revives old fears, communities ask who will hold the data, how it will be used, and whether it will be another tool for control. They remember that in 1974, population was described as a threat to U.S. access to oil, however, they know that donors shape family planning programs by what they supply, not what women request. A midwife in the southwest explained that when implants are funded, implants are available, even if women ask for alternatives. This is the practical reality of donor influence. The rhetoric is empowerment, but the effect is limitation.

Tinubu’s policies, then, are not merely Nigerian choices in isolation as they sit squarely within a historical template built by American strategy. As Document 200 showed, the U.S. never saw Nigeria as an equal, it saw it as a country to be managed. It is revealed that Document 209 demonstrated, financial tools like World Bank loans were used to discipline independence. As Document 210 confirmed, even after coups, the U.S. insisted on business as usual so long as oil flowed. And as Documents 212 to 216 revealed, even outright rejection of American visits did not end the effort, it only changed the tactics. Today, the tactics look like subsidy removal, currency float, and census modernization. The continuity is unmistakable.

What this means is that Tinubu’s reforms, whatever their intent, help to complete a project that began decades ago by raising domestic costs, they discipline consumption also by floating the currency, they align Nigeria with international financial expectations, by pushing a digital census, they create population data that can be used for both planning and leverage, by continuing donor-driven family planning programs, they entrench external influence over reproductive health. By keeping oil exports steady while refineries lag, they sustain global supply chains at Nigeria’s expense. Each of these measures can be defended on technical grounds. But taken together, they fulfill the logic of NSSM 200: control the numbers, shape the economy, secure the oil.

The Nigerian people deserve more than this, they are not variables in a foreign equation, they are citizens with agency, culture, and aspirations, they are young people in Lagos building tech startups despite unreliable power, they are musicians and filmmakers in Abuja and other parts in the nation reshaping Africa’s cultural economy; they are farmers, traders, teachers, health workers, and families who endure hardship but remain resilient. The tragedy is that for too long, their resilience has been framed as a problem rather than a possibility. The Kissinger Report saw population as a threat and the FRUS documents saw sovereignty as a risk. However, Tinubu’s reforms, for many, feel like a continuation of that mindset.



NB: NAIRALAND DO ALLOW SUCH LONG INVESTIGATIVE PIECE, BY THIS I CAN'T INCLUDE THE FULL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT.
CLICK ON THIS LINK TO READ MORE AND ALL ABOUT IT.... Read also: https://mediaerrandsnews.com/americas-secret-plan-to-control-nigeria/

Charly68:
The Govt should be careful ...how many house owners can insure their houses in this economy ? They should stop their illusive profiteering policy in the insurance sector if not the system will collapse in Jesus name.