David Listowel Jones

👀

[David Listowel Jones @david_listowel]

@SuxgeOfficial You realize that that is objectively not a position you should find comfort in right???

[HONITEL👑 @HonitelHQ]

1. I will not apologise to you just because I want peace to reign when you are the one who wronged me. I’d rather lose the relationship. If you cannot hold yourself accountable, you are not the person for me.

2. I do not tolerate disrespect. Not even as a joke. Especially not as a joke.

3. If you have a problem with cooking for your partner, I’m not the person for you.

4. You don’t ever have to worry about cooking because it’s one of the things I genuinely enjoy doing. However, this doesn’t negate what I said in number three.

5. Unless you are deep into fitness like me and are posting your gains, you cannot be posting your bum on social media. I’m not a “mature” boyfriend.

6. My obligation is to treat you right and love you softly, genuinely, and intentionally. But if you cannot reciprocate that energy, I’ll leave you.

7. You cannot have a male bestie under my regime.

8. Dates are important to me. I will initiate, plan, and pay for most of them, but you must also initiate, plan, and pay for some dates. I’m a baby boy too.

9. If I tell you that something you did hurt me, don’t tell me it’s not that deep. I will not let you gaslight or manipulate me into questioning my feelings. Don’t dismiss my feelings, ever.

10. Cheating is a deal-breaker. I will not forgive you for it.

11. Access to phones is important to me. This doesn’t mean I’m interested in going through your phone, but if you suddenly start guarding it around me, I’ll assume you’re hiding something.

12. I don’t want to hear about what your ex did for you. If you keep bringing him or your exes up unnecessarily, I will leave you.

13. I like sex, and I’m considerate. I also understand that I don’t own your body. However, if my sexual needs are consistently neglected, I’ll leave you.

14. Even when you are angry, talk to me softly. We can disagree without being cruel to each other. Don’t raise your voice at me, talk to me like a decent adult.

15. If you need a break from the relationship, please don’t come back.

16. Don’t use a breakup as a threat, a weapon, or a joke whenever we have a minor misunderstanding. If you tell me you want to end the relationship, I will respect your decision, and there will be no coming back from it.

[Harley knows you are lonely and so she @miss_ezeani]

Was it, improper? Depends on who you ask. Some people are into wild, spontaneous hookups.

Please let’s just… stop!

Not up to 24 hours ago, people were casually tweeting their sexual escapades with total strangers at a rave, and now it’s criminal asking a stranger “that you’ve been flirting with” for a car makeout??

How do you imagine “sex with strangers” happen?? Smoke signals? A mating howl?

Mind you, he apologized the moment he realized he’d over stepped. Multiple times, according to the complainant. He didn’t push, he didn’t double down. He apologized.

Does it make his character questionable? Again, depends on who you ask, there’re people who’re into these things. Does it make him an offender? How???

Be grossed out all you want, it’s your discretion.

He didn’t con her to a private place to harass her under false pretense.
We scream consent all day, and he was upfront with his intentions. He didn’t take her for a “walk” or a “talk” only to become sexual. He asked from the jump!

“Do you want to go”??? Yes or no!

Questionable? Depends. Criminal? Please let’s be serious.

You people should stop indulging a clout hungry bird. She even admitted to telling him, he has “nice lips”.

Ahhahahha!

What do you think telling someone they have nice lips means? Documentative journalism? When you compliment people’s erogenous zone, you’re flirting! Tf? What’re we doing???

Abeg!

[༒︎𝐒𝖚𝐱𝖌𝖊 ༒︎ @SuxgeOfficial]

Nigeria has a Crediting problem, because why would you pay me lower than my rate, know that you’re paying lower than my rate, lamba with with exposure and still not deliver on the exposure.

It takes nothing, Nigerians are greedy.

[Emika @emikadc]

Missed the first requirement to be in the Lord’s army 😭

[David Listowel Jones @david_listowel]

@DennieDiiva There’s a joke somewhere about this and that your demonic oven…the joke is somewhere

[Jude Bela @realJudebela]

Study geopolitics long enough and you stop looking for the good guys. Every actor on the board is protecting something it owns. Countries, sponsors, companies, all of them moving to keep what they have.

No country wants you better off because it cares about you. Nobody stops a war out of concern for innocent civilians. When they use that language, listen for what they want.

War is an industry with shareholders. Global military spending hit a record $2.887 trillion in 2025, the eleventh straight annual increase. The hundred largest arms companies booked $679 billion in 2024, the highest figure SIPRI has ever recorded, up 26 percent in a decade. A Czech firm, Czechoslovak Group, grew its arms revenue by 193 percent in one year making artillery shells for Ukraine. Your ally's help is somebody's order book.

Insecurity has suppliers. A ragtag militia does not stumble onto AK-47s and anti-tank missiles in the bush. Every rifle left a factory with a serial number on it. Somebody shipped it. Somebody signed an end-user certificate swearing it was bound for a legitimate army, and SIPRI found export certification practices deeply inconsistent, which is the polite way of saying the paperwork is a formality.

The guns often come from closer to home than you think. Conflict Armament Research examined weapons seized from jihadist groups in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger between 2015 and 2023. At least one fifth had been diverted from the state custody of eight North and West African countries. They came out of government armouries. And after Libya collapsed in 2011, weapons looted from Gaddafi's stockpiles turned up with armed groups in Mali, Niger, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, the Central African Republic and Syria. A war Africa did not start is still killing Africans fifteen years later.

We have had years of financial sanctions on terror organisations, and the weapons keep arriving. The money never touches the banks anyone is watching. Artisanal mines in JNIM's areas produce up to 725 kilograms of gold a year, worth roughly $34 million, moving out through the UAE, Turkey and Switzerland. Between 2017 and 2023 the group carried out 845 of the 1,100 recorded kidnappings across Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger. In Youwarou district in Mali, cattle theft alone brought in $739,200 in 2021. Gold, ransoms, livestock, fuel, cigarettes. Cash that walks across a border and never becomes a wire transfer.

Geopolitics deserves serious attention from anyone who wants their country back. That means dropping the emotional defence when our favourites get caught. They did it to protect their interests. Their rivals do the same. Morality is what states say. Interest is what they do.

Stop reading the press release. Follow the money instead.

[Lukas Not Podolski @OtitoNosike]

You should be careful not to abuse the privilege of having friends who are older and occupy a much higher station than you do, yet willingly set aside the distance that age creates and meet you at the level of your own age. Such friendships are a peculiar gift, and once that gift is abused, the friendship never quite returns to what it was.

[👑S.A.L.A.K.O🕊 @UnkleAyo]

~ On China and the Nigerian market.

[6ɪx✦ @6ixxtar]

Was at the gym yesterday doing heavy squats with my noise-canceling headphones on. I thought I was listening to my usual workout playlist, but Spotify glitched out and switched over to a two-hour documentary podcast about the mating rituals of deep-sea anglerfish.
the problem is, my bluetooth hadn’t actually paired to my headphones. It was connected to the gym's public bluetooth speaker near the front desk that staff usually forgets to turn off.
so while I was grunting through a 225-pound set, making aggressive eye contact in the mirror with three personal trainers, the entire gym was echoing with a dry British narrator calmly explaining: "the male then bites into the female's flesh, slowly dissolving his own face until he becomes nothing more than a permanent parasitic testicle."
Nobody stopped it. Everyone just silently kept lifting weights while absorbing marine biology. a guy on the treadmill next to me didn’t even look over, just whispered "nature is wild bro" between heavy breaths.

[Melissa Chen @MsMelChen]

What's happening here is that we have grown strangely uncomfortable with the idea that some people choose darkness.

Think of the stories that dominate entertainment now - almost no one is allowed to be evil on their own terms. Every villain has a prequel and an origin story. Maleficent is no longer the fairy who curses a child out of wounded pride; she is a woman whose wings were stolen.

The Wicked Witch of the West is not the terror of Oz; she is Elphaba, "othered" and failed by the system that raised her. Cruella is given a cruel mother. Even the Joker's brokenness and nihilism have become stylish and cool.

Basically no one is the author of his/her own deeds. Every person is a passive buoy, haplessly floating on the water surface, swept by the tides of circumstance and the currents of history.

Yeah of course it's true that all of us are shaped by forces larger than ourselves. But society is now over-indexing on those forces such that explaining how someone arrived at evil has turned into explaining the evil away.

By insisting that wickedness is downstream of some prior injustice, we relocate responsibility outside of the self. Which is why so much energy is poured into what Lindsay Clancy's doctors missed, what medicines she was prescribed, her husband's failures, her postpartum chemistry, etc.

So we're now left with a culture that can explain everything and confront almost nothing.

[Emeka Amakeze @EmekaAmakeze]

Funny how this sounds intelligent until you realize you qre comparing a job to a family.

That male chef you’re talking about may work 10 - 12 plus hour shifts on his feet in a hot commercial kitchen.

He doesn’t decide what he feels like cooking. The menu does.

He doesn’t decide when dinner will be served. The customers do.

He doesn’t cook for three or four people he loves. He may help prepare meals for hundreds of strangers in a single shift.

He takes instructions from executive chefs, kitchen managers and restaurant owners.

He works under deadlines, handles rushes, follows strict recipes and portions, deals with complaints, cleans according to commercial standards, and can be disciplined or fired when he doesn't perform.

And after doing all of that, many male chefs still go home and contribute to their own households.

So yes, he gets paid.

He is not being paid because cooking suddenly became valuable when a man touched the stove. He is being paid because he is performing commercial labour for someone else's business and serving paying customers.

Cooking dinner in your own home is not in any way the equivalent of being employed by a restaurant.

And before we start calling every contribution inside a family “unpaid labour,” remember that the same logic would require us to calculate a salary every time a husband pays the mortgage, repairs something, cuts the grass, drives the family somewhere, protects the home, or sacrifices his time and resources for his wife and children.

Who pays him for being a husband and father?

Nobody! And that's because a family is not a corporation and your spouse is not your employer.

There is dignity in providing for your family, and there is dignity in preparing food for your family. Neither should be demeaned simply because no invoice was issued.

A chef serves customers for a paycheck. A husband and wife serve each other because they are building a life together. Confusing the two does not make the argument progressive; it just makes the comparison inaccurate.

Ka m bịakwanụ.

[David Listowel Jones @david_listowel]

I tried but after Midnight in New York I just wasn’t feeling it. I only like Tornado because of Fola’s part. Listening to Ladipoe’s Revival and enjoying it

[Trash boat⛵️😋 @chibuikssss]

They really tryna guilt trip niggas into streaming Ayra starr😭😭😭

[The Spearhead @Spearhead_Af]

Content Monetization and The Hijack of Africa's Digital Space

The digital gold rush in Africa is a deliberate structural trap. By incentivizing sensationalism over substance, global platforms have effectively co-opted the creative energy of a generation, steering millions away from the urgent work of reclaiming sovereign narrative and towards a cycle of 'engagement' that hollows out our intellectual discourse.

The Spearhead’s @Big_Mck reports that real digital independence starts with the courage to choose quality over clicks; a challenge that demands a deliberate commitment from every viewer to amplify rather than just consume.

[Chetuya Chinagolum @Chetuyachinago]

At this stage in our historical awakening, we as Africans must immediately stop referring to the 1994 Rwandan genocide as merely an "ancient tribal war."

First of all, this narrative is historically inaccurate and criminally misleading.
The Hutus and Tutsis are not two different ethnic tribes: they belong to the exact same cultural group, speak the exact same language, inhabit the exact same geographic regions, practice the exact same spiritual religions, observe the exact same traditions, and have historically intermarried for centuries.

The historical distinction between a Hutu and a Tutsi was strictly a matter of economic class, perfectly analogous to the difference between a wealthy, cattle-owning Alhaji and a landless agricultural worker in Northern Nigeria. "Tutsi" was originally nothing more than a social title assigned to those who owned herds of cattle, held land rights, and controlled the local means of production, while "Hutu" simply referred to agrarian farmers, subsistence cultivators, and manual laborers. This class distinction was fluid rather than permanent: a wealthy Hutu who accumulated significant cattle and land through social mobility automatically underwent the cultural process of Kwihutura and became a Tutsi, while an impoverished Tutsi who lost his livestock and wealth tumbled down the social ladder to become a Hutu.

Even with these fluid class distinctions, Hutus and Tutsis lived harmoniously, coexisted peacefully, and continuously intermarried across generations.

But when German and subsequently Belgian imperialists invaded Rwanda, their colonial minds could not comprehend how a sophisticated Black African civilization could construct such an organized, highly structured, and centralized kingdom. To explain away this African achievement, they introduced the pseudoscientific "Hamitic Hypothesis."
They brainwashed the Tutsi elites into believing they were not purely Black Africans, but rather superior Cushitic descendants of Europe with lighter skin, refined features, and natural intelligence, while characterizing the Hutus as typical "Bantu Africans" who were allegedly shorter, darker, less intelligent, and suited only for backbreaking manual labor. The Belgian colonizers did not merely preach this racist theory: they constructed their entire colonial administration around it.

In 1933, the Belgians issued mandatory ethnic identity cards, permanently freezing what was once a fluid economic class into rigid, unchangeable racial categories. This myth was systematically taught in Catholic mission schools, where generations of Tutsi children were brainwashed into believing they were natural-born aristocrats destined to govern, while Hutu children were conditioned to believe they were born to be exploited laborers. Naturally, this divide-and-rule strategy perfectly served the extraction interests of the European masters, as Hutus performed unpaid forced labor in the coffee fields while Tutsis served as intermediate colonial overseers, ensuring that raw agricultural wealth flowed seamlessly to Western metropoles.

The fundamental problem for the colonizers, however, arose when the educated Tutsi elite, utilizing their Western education, began developing anti-colonial consciousness, organizing political parties, and fiercely demanding immediate national independence. Deeply threatened by this nationalist defiance, the Belgian colonial administration and the Catholic Church executed a sudden, cynical, and hypocritical geopolitical pivot. They completely abandoned the Tutsi monarchy and shifted their total support to the Hutu majority. Overnight, the colonial narrative was inverted: instead of being praised as "superior civilizers," Tutsis were suddenly re-framed as alien "foreign invaders" and feudal parasites who had brutally oppressed the "indigenous" Hutus for centuries. During the 1959 to 1962 transition to independence, Belgian military officers actively assisted Hutu political elites in seizing power, orchestrating widespread political violence, burning Tutsi villages, and driving hundreds of thousands of Tutsis into permanent exile.

For nearly 30 years, these Tutsi refugees languished in border camps across Uganda, Burundi, Tanzania, and Zaire (now the DRC). In the early 1980s, young Tutsi refugees who grew up in Ugandan camps, most notably Fred Rwigyema and Paul Kagame, joined the National Resistance Army (NRA) rebel movement led by Yoweri Museveni. They gained extensive, high-level combat experience, intelligence training, and tactical mastery while helping Museveni overthrow the Ugandan government and capture power in 1986. Leveraging these formidable military skills, these seasoned exile fighters formed their own revolutionary movement in 1987: the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). In October 1990, the RPF launched a highly organized, full-scale military invasion into northern Rwanda from Uganda to demand their non-negotiable right of return, political representation, and an end to state-sponsored discrimination.

At this critical juncture, while Belgium had originally planted the seeds of division, French imperialism moved aggressively into the center of the picture. The French government, under François Mitterrand, viewed the English-speaking, Uganda-backed RPF as a dangerous "Anglo-Saxon" geopolitical conspiracy designed to strip France of its neocolonial sphere of influence in Francophone.
French officials viewed Juvénal Habyarimana's dictatorial Hutu regime as a vital, submissive client state that had to be defended at all costs. To this end, the French-backed government in Kigali launched a massive, state-directed propaganda campaign, labeling the invading RPF not as freedom fighters coming to end Western imperialism, but as alien invaders, while branding all Tutsis living inside Rwanda as a treacherous "fifth column" and a security threat that had to be eliminated.

But state propaganda alone was not enough to execute a mass slaughter. French military officers, intelligence advisers, and specialized troops directly armed, equipped, and trained the notorious Interahamwe death-squad militias. Between 1990 and 1994, the French government poured millions of dollars in military aid, heavy artillery, intelligence telemetry, and endless shipments of ammunition into the Rwandan military, actively enabling the regime to organize, prepare, and execute the 1994 genocide while attempting to stall the advancing RPF.

So, it was absolutely never an "ancient tribal war." That dishonest, racist narrative was deliberately constructed by European powers and American diplomats as a cynical geopolitical weapon to evade international law.
Under Article 1 of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, all signatory nations (including the US, France, Great Britain, and Belgium) are strictly, legally obligated to intervene, deploy troops, and spend resources to stop a genocide the moment it is officially recognized as such. If Western powers had officially acknowledged the 1994 slaughter as a state-organized, French-backed genocide, they would have been legally compelled to intervene, risk their own soldiers' lives, and expose their own complicity. To escape this binding legal obligation, Western governments, the US State Department, and the United Nations executed a masterclass in bureaucratic gaslighting. The US State Department explicitly instructed its diplomats, press secretaries, and spokespeople in 1994 to avoid using the word "genocide" on the record, demanding they use sanitized phrases like "acts of genocide," "ethnic clashes," or "widespread civil violence." Western media outlets simultaneously framed the systematic, state-executed slaughter of over 800,000 human beings as an "uncontrollable explosion of primitive, tribal hatreds" or a chaotic, senseless African civil war.

In mid-July 1994, the French-backed Hutu regime was decisively defeated, and the capital city of Kigali was captured by Paul Kagame's disciplined RPF forces. Upon taking power, the new RPF government immediately, permanently abolished the colonial ethnic identity cards and outlawed all public categorization by "Hutu," "Tutsi," or "Twa." Under strict new laws, weaponizing ethnic divisionism or publicly framing political, economic, or social issues around tribal identities was made strictly illegal. Under the visionary and institutionalized leadership of Paul Kagame, Rwanda completely rebuilt its shattered infrastructure, eradicated administrative corruption, revolutionized public healthcare, modernized its cities, and transformed itself into one of Africa's fastest-growing economies, cleanest societies, and safest, most technologically sovereign nations.

[Illimitable Man (IM) @SovereignIM]

The ugliness of man is to believe it is beneath him to take what is the best of the feminine and add it to himself to become a greater man, because he cannot see the greatness within the feminine at all. He is blind to it. He is one-dimensional. He thinks everything feminine is a humiliation and a downgrade. This, unironically, is often the very type of man who dislikes women who are blind to the greatness within the masculine, which he takes for granted as a self-evident fact, despite lacking many of those qualities himself. But he is her counterpart. The reverent woman he desires is not the woman he deserves, because his relationship with her femininity is solely extractive, not appropriately co-reverent.

[Okong' Okuna @XivTroy]

It's about priorities not the cab money/picking itself. If you cannot afford something as basic as transport as an adult woman, I think you have bigger problems than a man that you ought to invested in. It signals absence of discernment. Bad judgement. I don't want such shallowness around me.

If you can afford it but still choose to bill me, when I'm only keen on genuinely knowing you, then it speaks to a lack of personal initiative, which is very hard to overlook in an adult. I don't want to haggle over fare or cab money with an adult. It doesn't matter your economic standing in life. There are varied forms of transport to use. Use what you have been using. What you can comfortably afford. I won't think you any less for it.

I'd like to go on dates, and always have, with someone who is honest with themselves first. An invite to a date is not an invite to live tastes and fantasies you can't afford, or have been yearning for. It's an invite to explore MUTUAL attraction. I am not inviting a woman to a date to convince her to like me or sleep with me. I don't perform that redundant dance. I want her to be there because she is also keen on exploring the MUTUAL attraction, not to tolerate me for salary.

I'm more forgiving of it in younger women. They do not always have their priorities in the right place on account of immaturity. But after 27/28, you should be thinking straight. You've experienced life long enough. You should have the right priorities and judgement even if you lack means. And you should be honest with yourself. And if say, out of one reason or another you are not, I don't want that kind of underdevelopment around me either.

It would also be okay if all I wanted was sex but, as a rule, I don't invest that much time or effort on women I only want to sleep with. Sex has never been that much a labor in my world. I have never needed it so bad to posture. Dates are always and only for women I actually like beyond the physical. Women that I am actually keen on knowing - the very purpose of a date. Absence of discernment & lack of personal initiative I do not want to know.

We've all experienced being broke or poverty at some point. That's okay. But in my world, when a woman asks me out and I am not in good financial standing (even when I could still afford cab money or driving), I always led with that, because I understand - as an adult - how much finances impact romance.

So I am always honest about my station in life. I tell them I am not in a good place to be seeing anyone or partake in activities I can't afford. That I have different priorities at that time and that turning it down is not because I do not like them.

I am not asking everyone to be rich before they date, I am just saying act your age. If you are an adult (27+), show initiative. Have discernment. Be honest. If you've been driving, drive to the date. If you've been using the bus, use the bus. If you've been walking, walk. As you have been to things that matter to you.

If this matters to you.

If it doesn't, say no to the date and keep it pushing.

[The Spearhead @Spearhead_Af]

Peller’s Wedding Guests: Foreign Espionage And African Entertainment

When influencers and "foreign guests" collide, as is the case here, we are not watching a wedding but a social engineering operation

It is very clear here that the rise of our internet sensations is often engineered. When foreign money starts flowing into our digital spaces, it is time to start asking who is really behind the screen and what they’re buying with those "gifts." It’s time for Africans to stop being spectators to our own subversion.

[Okong' Okuna @XivTroy]

Please don't ask for Uber money to the initial dates if you're anything above 28. Or to be picked up. It's a total turn off. Get other cheaper means or get your priorities straight. You can't be 35 asking for Uber money, man. It smacks lunacy. And an egregious lack of seriousness.

I would sooner you postponed the date until such a time you can afford an Uber, if you must use it. There are buses. There are motorcycles. Find your way to the date if it's really a date you seek. I don't want to get you an Uber, not because I can't but because I do not wish to validate that kind of irresponsibility in an adult.