A Chinese man, Hai Shi, running for Ward 103, City of Johannesburg. Under the ANC. The People's Councillor. And there is silence. No marches. No burning tyres. No hashtags. No Operation Dudula van with loudspeakers shouting "foreigners must go." No press conference asking for his passport, his papers, his ancestry. No one asking how long he has been here, or if he is "really South African." Now imagine if that face on that yellow poster was Nigerian. Or Zimbabwean. Or Malawian. Or Mozambican. South Africa would be ungovernable by sunset. A Chinese national from 10,000 km away in Asia can become "The People's Councillor" in Johannesburg and we call it diversity, We have been taught to be Afrophobic, not xenophobic.~@Mzanziawake ~Speaks

By breadcrumbing Instead of 200k at once, make it 20k and spread it across months. Instead of getting her that iPhone 18 that you can comfortably buy, get her a 14PM Instead of opening a business, give her 20k every now and then while reminding her to get a job Instead of calling her today, and calling again tomorrow, call today and don't call again until she calls If she called to ask for money, that does not qualify as a call. Instead of asking her to come over this weekend, and then again next weekend, ask her this week, and don't ask again until she invites herself The point is 1. whenever you think of giving her something that costs x, divide x in half, then give her that half Even/especially if you can comfortably afford x. 2. Give her room to reciprocate the bare minimum things that she can reciprocate. That way, it is much easier to gauge her commitment to you. And the easiest example here is calls. If you're calling more than her, whilst spending on her, what exactly is she doing for you then. She may not be able to spend much money on you so the asymmetry there is expected. But anything else that she can do for you to balance what you do for her, you have to take a step back and allow her do it. That is where calls and initiating visits come in. She should be calling you more than you call her. That is one of the easiest ways to know when she starts cheating on you - because the calls will stop. But if you're the one doing most of the calling while also doing all of the spending, then you're setting yourself up. Your financial investment in her must be reciprocated by investments from her in other areas. And no; sex is not an investment because it is an infinite resource she gives to everybody

Asmongold is facing backlash after his controversial comments stating that he would rather pay for rockets to go to the moon than stop Africans from starving 😳 “I would much rather pay for rockets to go to the moon than pay to keep a bunch of Africans from starving. It’s not my obligation to keep every African alive. I don’t care about that.”

An angry husband catches his gypsy wife looting stores in France without masking her face

After the alleged jailbreak in October 2020, Mr Godwin Obaseki declared a 24-hour curfew in Edo State to enable the Police and other security agencies to apprehend the fleeing inmates. Some inmates were arrested within 48 hours; some left Benin for different parts of the Country and outside the Country. One week later, Mr Obaseki announced that the State would forgive inmates who surrender to the authorities or return to the Facilities - the Prisons. Within five months, over sixty per cent of the alleged escapees were back at the Facility. Some were arrested; others returned, hoping to enjoy the Governor's promises. A few weeks later, they were charged and arraigned for escaping from lawful custody. From my count, over 500 inmates were arraigned. During the trial, I centred my questions on the YouTube videos I watched that captured part of the incident. When I cross-examined the prosecution's star witness (a Warden), I asked the following questions. The answers to my questions are also captured: 1. As a Warden, you were on duty when the alleged incident happened? (he answered in the affirmative). 2. My clients (the inmates) were in the Facility at the time? (Yes, my Lord). 3. It is true they obey the rules and regulations of the Facility? (Yes). 4. That is to say, they are/were obedient and cooperative? (Yes). 5. What time did the alleged incident happen? (around 2- 3 PM). 6. That means there was no riot from inside the Facility? (There was none). 7. The people who attacked the Facility came from outside? (Yes). 8. They were more than 30,000 people? ( No, they were about 5,000) 9. They came with sophisticated weapons like AK-47 and AK-49 rifles? (Yes). 10. Did the people (i.e the marauders) attack you? (They attacked everybody; they were shooting at us, and I had to run for my life). 11. Did the marauders attack your properties? (Yes, they attacked the prison and our staff quarters. They also burnt cars on our premises). While addressing the Court, I asked one question: considering the evidence before the Court, what would a reasonable man in an enclosed or confined environment do when the environment is attacked by marauders with sophisticated weapons like the 4K 47 and AK-49? I argued that running away in that circumstance does not amount to escape from lawful custody. It was a natural reaction of a man or woman who needed to save his life. The prosecution, in addition to other arguments, argued that the inmates refused to return after they escaped. He further pointed out that some were rearrested. On that, they should be convicted. In reply, I pointed out that returning to the Prison is not part of the ingredients of the offence. The offence is said to have been completed and committed the moment an individual escaped from the prison. Whether a person decides to return or returns willingly is not part of the ingredients and should not be considered. End! Enjoy your weekend!👨🏿‍⚖️

Bruh, look at these polls. How is Tinubu still getting votes despite all we witnessed in his first tenure?? We are really fighting against demons in this country bruh😩

Kids making fun of influencers just restored my faith in humanity. Nature is healing🤣

The last 2 men in the world

Robert was not a bad man at all, regardless of any angle you want to judge acrimony from.

“Without the white man’s technology, the natural resources in Africa is just dirt under the ground..” This is a flawed and malicious logic. And it falls apart when you examine it closely. The logic is basically: finders keepers. You didn’t know what was beneath your feet, so someone else came along, discovered its value, and now your claim to it is somehow less legitimate. The outsider supplied the knowledge, therefore the outsider deserves the wealth and your claim to it is greedy, What exactly are you claiming when you couldn’t even make use of them? But this miss some very important points. First, technology is cumulative. Technology belongs to no single race, because it accumulates. China gave the world gunpowder, paper, and the compass. Indian mathematicians created the decimal system and the zero. Al-Khwarizmi, a Persian scholar in Baghdad, gave us algebra and the algorithm. Africans developed advanced ironworking, and the Haya of Tanzania made carbon steel about 2,000 years ago. Europeans built on all of it. Calling it the white man’s technology is a gross cultural erasure. Second, it assumes that because you haven’t discovered a use for something, you never will. European societies spent centuries without knowing how to exploit many of the resources they use today. The knowledge accumulated over generations. Just because one society discovered something earlier does not mean we would never have discovered it. Nobody knows what Africans would have developed, invented or discovered had history taken a different course. Third, the resource may have been underground, but the land was not worthless. People lived on it, farmed it, hunted on it, drew water from it and depended on its forests and ecosystems. Extracting the mineral introduces new economic possibilities, but it can also destroy existing sources of value. And then there are the environmental costs: polluted water, contaminated soil, poisoned air, displaced communities and damaged livelihoods. You cannot declare the resource worthless before extraction while ignoring everything that extraction takes away. Fourth, and this is something people rarely consider, these resources are finite. Suppose a country has a million tonnes of coal. An outsider discovers that coal can power trains and proceeds to extract 600,000 tonnes. Decades later, the country develops its own technology and discovers a far more productive use for coal. It now has only 400,000 tonnes left. The outsider’s early discovery has depleted a resource that the country might have used more productively with knowledge it had not yet acquired. Every tonne extracted today is a tonne unavailable for a future use. Every deposit exhausted closes off possibilities that might have become valuable as knowledge advanced. You are not doing a country a favour simply because you found a use for its resources before it did. Finally, even if we grant that an outsider supplied the technology, capital and expertise required to extract a resource, how does that establish an exclusive or disproportionate claim to the resulting wealth? The land belongs to someone. The mineral belongs to someone. The right to extract it belongs to someone. The labour involved belongs to someone. The investor’s contribution can justify compensation and returns on investment, but it does not erase everybody else’s claim. If discovering a technology first were sufficient to justify exclusive control, whoever developed a technology could claim disproportionate rights over every finite resource that technology made profitable, regardless of who owned the land or what the people living there stood to lose. That is the logic hiding behind the mockery of “our resources.”

I just finished watching The Rookie Season 2 Episode 14(I think) where Officer Nolan's account was hacked and all his money taken. The LAPD found out and was going to cut him off from the program coz an officer having money problems is a liability who would compromise on his values to make ends meet. This thing is not even about hatred for poor people. Its simply a universal law because we exist in a capitalist world. Its something that applies in every corner of the world. When people have their backs against the wall, they will do anything to survive. It gets worse in the poverty capital of the world where the average person worships money and was raised with the mentality that cheating or stealing from other people makes them sharp and smart. I don't hate poor people. I will help them from afar whenever I have made enough but marrying them or bringing them anywhere close to me or my children is one thing I will use every resources I have to actively avoid because they are walking time bombs.