The Nigerian internet bastardization of feminism

When I wrote about feminism it wasn’t what I see some people do today. 
Everything I’ve written on and supported have been through careful analysis, deep thinking and reflection after careful research and study. I used to have a large library of books and archives of documents on subjects which I espouse. But today, it seems a lot of people just wake up with their personal issues and find one “ism” to pour it into. When they open their minds to express themselves, you pick nothing intellectual, not one thing to praise as truly a deduction of a well bred mind. And this is wrong. The resultant effect of this is the pure bastardization of a noble cause, of which I am hurt to see evolve into a game of swine battling.
This is not feminism! Give it a new name.
Feminism is a cause that seeks the sociopolitical development of the woman. That a woman, like the male counterpart is of her basic right to be treated fairly, just and equitably and that every form of discrimination against persons because of their sex is a primitive wrong that must be done away with.
What some people do these days on the internet isn’t feminism; at least the one I learned of by thorough reading and research.
So many people with personal issues are hiding behind the mask of feminism to make a market-square mockery of a beautiful selfless, humanitarian and intellectual cause. We can understand why:
In psychology, Sigmund Freud the legendary psychologist highlighted what is called “DEFENSE MECHANISM” in psychology. It is simply ways or forms which the unconscious mind expresses itself and it is unknown by the individual. One of such is called “displacement”.
Put briefly in a lay sense, displacement is when a person channels their bad experiences, frustrations, anger, etc on another object. It is what happens when a person hits a knee on a chair and someone that is behind them gently collides into them, and then they explode at the person, when actually it is the chair they hit their knees into that is the cause of such frustration and explosion at another object. It is another form of aggression transfer.
It is not unnatural for  females who have suffered abused, rape, unhappy marriages, disappointments from men to unconsciously channel their frustrations and anger into what they regard as feminism. Even though they’re not aware that their subconscious mind is greatly wounded and needs healing. But many of them may deny this and still put up reasons to debunk this. But the truth is that deep down in their subconscious mind, they’re in chaos and they need help and not to assume they’re pursuing a cause. No they are not championing a cause, they’re displaced individuals. And it is not their fault and I don’t blame them. However, I can help if they desire real help. I am gifted in that and I’ve helped so many people heal their minds and pains and put them back to peace and flourish.
How do you know an individual that is displaced or hiding behind an “ism” to pour out their frustrations? I’ll give a few
– You get uncontrollably angry and explosive when someone does not agree with your point of view (POV)
– You think that everyone who disagrees with you is a misogynist, slave or what have you. 
– you want to throw your standards, which is mostly drawn from bad past experiences as a national standard of the private lives of others
– You’re happiest and feel well achieved when you vilify others, bully them or what have you if they don’t agree with you or critique you. And of course find great comfort in those who masturbate your ego.
If you cannot stand anyone criticising your “ism” you are a problem and not a solution. Getting bitter by dissenting views and voices is a sign you’re not a thinker or intellectual revolutionary. You are yet to mature mentally and otherwise.
A person who is offering knowledge, well reasoned thinking does not have to be bitter. If you’re bitter all the time, it is a sign you’re mentally or emotionally not very well, albeit you look physically fine.   It is nothing to be ashamed of. You’re human and can break down or get out of touch sometimes.
Well, I can help anyone in need of counselling and mental healing. I won’t judge you, I understand you. Be good, be humane and less bitter.

Gender 1(1): what really does it mean? What qualifies a person as a man, woman or neither?

In brief view, we shall examine the following:

– Sex and Gender
– Gender stereotype and roles
– The origins of gender stereotype

Gender: WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN?

Gender refers to the socially constructed categorisation of individuals into masculine and feminine. Unlike gender which is a social constraint, SEX on the other hand refers to the categorisation of an individual on the basis of the genetic materials they produce during sexual reproduction or intercourse. Masculine and feminine are gender categories, while male and female are sex categories. Thus, sexes are biological categorisation of individuals based on their reproductive responsibilities and capabilities and gender are social categorisation of males and females into defined roles and responsibilities. Further differentiation of gender and sex can be broken thus

Sex:

Men have the XY chromosomes while women have the XX chromosomes
Women menstruate, men do not
Women have vaginas, men have penises
Women develop breasts, men do not.
Men have testicles, women do not.

Gender:

In most places in the world, men do not do babysitting; it is presumed a female responsibility.
In many places, women wear high heels, long nail, and skirts, men do not.
In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive and in many other places they are not allowed to participate in politics and certain trade.

THE CONCEPT OF SEX: What defines an individual as a male or female or neither?

Members of species of living organisms across all domains are divided into 2 or more categories and it is based on the complimentary materials they are capable of reproducing during sexual reproduction. Typically, species of living organisms have the male and female sexes. The female sex is defined as the individual who produces the larger gamete, that is, the one which is capable of bearing offspring. Sex is primarily based on the reproductive capability of individual specie.

In plant kingdoms, species are mostly hermaphrodite that is, they bear both the male and female reproductive capabilities. In other cases some individual species bear single gametes the case may be. However, in the animal kingdom, sexes differ in broadways across species. In mammals for example in humans, sex is determined by the X and Y chromosomes (XX for females, XY for males), thus making the sex in human a dichotomous one. All individuals in the human species have at least one X chromosome. The Y chromosome is shorter than the X.

GENDER STEREOTYPE AND ROLES

Gender roles and stereotype is more or less a cultural dictum of modalities, etiquettes, instructions, mannerism, responsibilities, etc. which men and women are expected of. Without gender, there cannot be any gender role and stereotype. Gender stereotype are laid down social manuscripts which men and women are required to correspond with. They are culturally defined social standards of relations between male and female. What is obtained as a gender acceptable norm in one society may not be obtained in the another, however, gender stereotype and roles are universal and are culturally distinct from the other and most times very similar.

In Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed to drive, engage in active politics or be ambitions, which are culturally induced, is not obtainable in Western societies where such perceptions are frown at. Thus, gender stereotypes and roles are culturally induced standards of behaviour and relations for the sexes. If individuals put up behaviours that do not confirm to these perceived standards of their gender, the social consequences maybe unpleasant. For example, in Africa where nail painting is a feminine fashion, a man who paints his nails may get a backlash and negative label from those around him.

Generally, gender stereotype cuts across cultures and domains. In a study by Williams and Best (1982) across 30 countries, stereotyping of females and males are pervasive. Men are generally believed to be more dominant, independent, aggressive and achievement-oriented while females are believed to be nurturing, affiliative, sensitive, gentle, etc. In another study by Williams and Best (1989), men and women who lived in highly developed countries perceived themselves as being more similar than their counterparts in less developed countries. A simple explanation for this is that women are more educated and independent in developed countries than their counterparts in less developed countries. Also, respondents in Christian societies were more likely to perceive similarities between the sexes than those from Muslim countries.

One may wonder: HOW and WHERE do these gender stereotypes come from?

Gender role learning and subsequently stereotype are rooted in socialization. Socialization is simply the process where the norms, beliefs, culture, perceptions, sentiments, etc of a social enclave are passed onto their members. The primary agents of socialization of gender role and subsequently, gender stereotype are: FAMILY, EDUCATION, PEER GROUP AND THE MASS MEDIA. Each of these agents services the commonly perceived gender roles and images in the minds of the members of a given society, thus setting standards and expectations of what is generally perceived as suitable for male and female. Other agents of socialization are religious organizations, social gatherings, workplace, etc.

Repeated exposure to cues from these agents of socialization elicits the individual’s perception that what he or she defines as the right or suitable gender attitude is natural, but unknown to him or her, he or she is simply a product of social conditioning. Thus, the socially accepted standards of behaviours and roles for a gender is nothing more than indoctrinated perception from social construction as a result of our repetitive interaction with the above agents of socialization. Thus, gender role can be defined as set of behavioural and social norms that are considered as generally appropriate for a man or woman. A typical example in Africa is that it is inappropriate for a woman to make passes at a man, specifically, to chase after a man. The people in these societies adhere to this and see such conception as a natural standard for gender interpersonal relationships, but these are individuals unknown to them are merely acting on a false sense of natural dictum rather than socialized sentiments.

Stereotypes generally come with negativity. The negative stereotype that emanates from gender leads to sexism- the discrimination of a person based on their gender. Women are mostly are on the receiving end of the negativity of gender. These stereotypes have evolved from the old type typical backlash of women as being less smart, less competent, less responsible, and less creative than men to the modern form of sexism which merely deals on the denial of sexism. Although in less develop countries in Africa and the middle East in particular, some these old type of sexism persists, like women being refused into political participation, jobs, violence and abuse. In places like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, women are objectified as sex objects and household pets. The recognition for their talents, capabilities and roles outside the home and marriage is often frowning at violently opposed.

Voodoo Christianity

Sometime ago, some religitard girl came to my inbox and started casting demon from me. She started attacking imaginary demons to fly out from me. That fire should catch my eyes, thunder should make me fall from behind my screen. It was in the night she sent these messages. She said that night, that God will strike me down dead except I accept Jesus. At the same time she thinks she is different from Boko Haram and that in short, I am the Devil.

The next day around 11 in the morning, she sent me a message checking whether I am still alive. I responded with a message that she should grow up and that her evil fantasies have exposed her mind as the surest evidence that religion gives people evil obsessions especially towards other life forms. That time I began writing against religion newly.

This good Christian woman, Damian Barbara began cursing me and my family- someone who I’ve never known anywhere except on Facebook. The hate was passionate and truly had it been her sky daddy answered any prayers, that woman’s faith- the arrogant certainty that her God will strike me dead would have been a testimony in her church and elsewhere.

To sum up the inanity, she added that she’s doing all this because of the Love of God to save my soul. “Cursing me, wishing me dead, threatening me and insulting my family is what you call the love of God and gospel?” I was finally enraged, because at first I was laughing and responding with sarcasm.

“If what you did here is what the love of God is about”. “I don’t need such love and may I never love anyone in this manner”, I said.

Why the tale?

The truth is, majority of the Christian population in Nigeria are this way. If you’re a Nigerian Christian and you haven’t prayed to your imaginary doodle to strike someone or punish anyone for you, then you’re a Nigerian Christian in the 1960s backwards. For these ones which I know of in this my age, you people are Boko haram with no guns and bombs. You and Abubakar are of the same sentiments and mental projections.

You don’t have to behead people to know you’re like him, but as long as you harbour malicious content in your imaginations towards another especially a non believer like me, you and Shekau are of the same mental class.

For example, if I should die now, a great number of believers will partake on the testimony that God killed me. Which God? Their God certainly. And that is kind of testimonies they celebrate in Nigerian churches- that their witch uncles, parents, step siblings, colleagues, etc who wanted to steal their destiny or what have you fell down and died because of their prayers. Yet they forget that they live in an economy that kills them slowly, that’s why life expectancy is very low, because religion, like a virus, it kills the mind of its host.

The Psychology of Social media 1 : Why are some people aggressive on social media?

Screenshot_2016-04-18-09-50-35

It is not new to the hearing that the social media is a sort of beehive for all manner of individuals. Individuals, as we knnow, are baggage of different personalities.

In psychology, personality is defined as the configuration of distinctive characteristics, behavior, traits, attitudes etc of an individual which are considerably persistent, distinguishing the individual from another.

People are on social media for a variety of reasons. As the reasons differ, so do their awareness of such reasons. Some are on social media as a result of boredom, stress, depression, or other terrifying personal issues like sadness, self-esteem, tragedy etc.

That is not to say all are on social media because they have problems to deal with. We have people on social media purely for the “socialness” of it; for marketing, promotion, networking, exposure or for getting information of latest events. Social psychologists have identified the use of social media as a form of hobby and addiction.

Humans always drag pieces of their personalities and well being into any social environment. As such, we see the mad, insolent, bitter, smiling face, the carefree, the grandeur, just to name a handful.

One set of people I do want to draw attention to are the conflict personalities. Observable on social media are those who have hard time keeping an amicable relationship with others

This is very typical on social media platforms like Facebook, where people interact in a more personal context. Such individuals exhibit behaviours of unnecessary insolence, bitterness, anger and intolerance of opinion of others. They find it difficult to maintain a decent conversation or disagreement with others on social media. They often have no difficulty in the use of abusive and derogatory words.

What possibly could be the cause of this?

The reasons are many but top on the list is mental health. Yes, it takes a mentally unhealthy person to have a consistent relationship of conflicts. Fighting and quarreling consistently on social media is a clear sign that one is not socially and mentally healthy.

Poor mental health is a term people interprete as some kind of break down of brain functions. Not necessarily is the case. One can have good cognitive skills, verbal and articulatory processes but a very terrible social life. Neuroticism can be an instance.

Neuroticism is a disorder characterized by excessive anxiety. Neurotic individuals are normal people with normal lives. But what is not normal about them is their response to issues. It is difficult to be neurotic and maintain healthy relationships. This pervades into the social media. Neuroticism comes with the gift of temperamental imbalance, accompanied by undisciplined emotions such as carelessness of the tongue, rude remarks, fighting etc. In short, if you’re neurotic, you’ll be blocking people indiscriminately on social media.

Neurotic personalities on social media have a hard time communicating their opinions, disagreements on subjects with others amicably. Their aggression poisons everything.

Another reason some exhibit behaviours of conflict is due to personal stressors. This could be marital stress, job stress, family stress etc. These stressors may invariably evolve into frustration. People who are unhappy about their lives will unconsciously project their unhappiness and bitterness at others.

Research has shown that frustration can increase the probability of an aggressive response. This is very imminent when the frustration is unpleasant.

However, this is subject to individual differences. Some people have a disciplined ego which keeps their emotions from wandering bitterly against others. But others don’t.

Self-esteem is another factor. Individuals with low self esteem in real life often resort to social media as a form of compensation for their self esteem and other issues in real life. They may resort to the use of phantom names and photos as a form of anonymity, where they can confidently express themselves or hit on others without fear of retribution- something they are unable to do in real life. Thus, social media is a means for role play for such individuals. It is unsurprising to find that a lot of folks who display unnecessary insolence and tongue-lashing roles on social media are actually shy people who barely can confidently look people in the eyes to speak.

On the physiological point of view, aggressive behaviour whether physical or verbal can be influenced by certain chemicals known as neurotransmitters. For example serotonin a neurotransmitter that plays a role in inhibiting impulsive aggression, when disrupted, aggressive behaviour becomes increasingly rampant. Research have shown that violent criminals have particularly low levels of serotonin. They same can be said of neurotic individuals. And so, when such individuals come on social media, their physiological disruption in these chemicals like serotonin, will naturally make them act impulsively aggressive at others when not necessary.

Sometimes when you see a person who is consistent at being unnecessarily bitter, confrontational, angry at others not only on social media but in real life, it may be they are passing through a lot which unconsciously project their nasty attitudes. In cases as this, they are to be understood and be patient with. The use of positive words and appealing to their conscious mind that they are not behaving well can be a good way to sort things out.

Recommending they see a psychologist is the best option. Resorting to negative responses do not solve the problem.

However, in cases where the individual is a pure sociopath- individuals who are sadistic, unconcerned about the emotions of others, the best is often to completely avoid them.

Imoh Son Of David is the author of the best selling book The Ultimate Curse on Mankind.

Atheists Are Demon Possessed!

I read a comment on a Facebook post where someone said “Atheists are demons.” I am an atheist and it can only be offensive to me as calling me a unicorn. And such an offense will only provoke me to more laughter and entertaining ridicule. That is why I love listening to religitards in their description of atheists; nothing more compensating of a rich humor is equal to hearing the opinion of a religitard on what atheism is. And I’ll really love to take my laughter even further…
.
First of all, have anyone noticed that it is the practice of the religitard to explain a reality with a very unrealistic proposition? An atheist is a realist, but pass the mic of explanation to the religitard, he says it is a demon. What the hell is a demon? An imaginary evil bad guy in the mental movie of the religitard, possessing supernatural powers and schemes to cause harm. Lol.
.
Pass on that same mic to an atheist like myself to define a religitard. I’ll simply say it is one that is not only highly deluded but allows his/her delusion drive them to the extremes of destruction of his mental abilities and human essence.
.
What is the difference between my opinion and that of the former which is birth by a religitard? Evidence! Unlike the religitard, who can never proof to us the existence of his imaginary enemy which he alludes to me (the atheist), except in fancy drawings and comic illustrations, bearing horns and an arrow-headed tail, and most times dark skin, which I personally find very offensive to me as a dark skin race human specie. It is offensive to attribute your imaginary illustration of evil to my skin color. That’s why I spare not in my assault on religious madness.
Because it insults me without reservation. I only return the favor to the first respondent.
.
Now, if you ask me to show you evidence of my description of a religitard, I’ll begin with my country Nigeria, chorused to be the most religion place on earth- a country where 99% of its population are theists and 80% are definitely religitards, surpassing Donald Trump standards.
.
Now, my country, being occupied by a population of great religitards, we’ve never had one nobel, pulitzer or whatever awards in the sciences. Only the likes of Wole Soyinka and Chinue Achebe have saved our faces by being great literary icons because of their outstanding novels that stand the test of time. That was in the 70s, 80s, at the time, we were not as religious as we are now, because the Western subversion was still ongoing. Now their medicine has perfectly worked on us. Now, we are madder than those brought the religion to us by force and fraud.
.
That’s one, this is a country that is ranked international as the 7th dumbest nation on earth. Yes, I confirm this to be a dishonest generosity of an undeserving accolade. Because, this is the only country where one of its most powerful and respectable icons, a Pastor, named Adeboye, a former mathematics/statics lecturer in the University told people that he drove from Benin to Lagos without a fuel, because God told him to obey his voice. They clapped and believed him. Do you know the distance between Benin and Lagos? I don’t even wanna go there, you won’t forgive our intelligence.
.
In this same country, a minister of power said that the cause of our monumental epileptic power outage is because these same DEMONS are attacking our power supply. His solution? We should pray. And of course, that’s the best love song you can play to an average Nigerian- “Let us pray”. The minister comfortably served his tenure peacefully and nobody complained.
.
The most religious nations on earth are struck by poverty, threatening illiteracy, crime, corruption, women and child abuse and above all, chaos.
If I should go on, we will sleep on this post.
.
But I have provided a resounding evidence. But the religitard have a natural problem of evidence provision. And so, when some of us call them deluded and religitards, they now turn around accuse of being arrogant and verbally abusive.
.

Tell me how labelling a real human being an imaginary demon is not being arrogant without providing evidence to it? That is how they’ve been going about it and killing people accused of witchcraft in the dark ages, which they still do in this religitard nation!
.

Have you ever heard an atheist being delivered of demons before? Is it not always the religitard that is always delivered from imaginary demons by other religitards? No wonder their immediate environment is always looking demon haunted. Only people that are possessed by demons drop bombs on others to proof whose imaginary friend rocks the best Nike sneakers of celestial standard.
.
Atheists that I know which they accuse of being demon possessed have never led a crusade or jihad to behead anyone. Is this how bad a demon possessed individual like us can be? May we be demon possessed and be good humans. Demon-possessed is the new good. I am demon-possessed and proud. You are not demon-possessed but you’re deluded and social retard. May I be demon possessed for the good of humanity.

Nigerian Super-Feminist, Writer and Newspaper Columnist Temidayo Ahanmisi Reviews The Ultimate Curse on Mankind by Imoh “Son of David” and Rates It a 5 Star!!! (The Complete Review)

I should begin this review with a preamble about the thematic purview of the book, or any random relative that would arrest the attention adequately.

This work however makes nonsense of any such academic pretentiousness.

‘Religion – The Ultimate Curse on Mankind’ by Imoh David does not hesitate in the least. It starts right off sounding like a sudden loud clap in dormitory of sleeping bodies, and like such a sudden intrusion into the ongoing somnolence, it audaciously demands and grabs attention…from title to conclusion.

If nudging people aside in a crowd to get to an elevation of safety during a melee which threatens to lead to a life-threatening riot is considered rude, then this book can be safely adjudged as rude.

The style is at once argumentative and confrontational, but it is a brusqueness which begs its necessity from sheer expediency.
Written in form of a soliloquy in parts, and a factually historical treatise in a few others, ‘Religion – The Ultimate Curse on Mankind’ reads more like one side of a conversation with a somewhat overbearing, but astutely observant and engaging lunch companion. The language is at times brusque, the style uncompromisingly opinionated.

It is a hard book to read, and this not because of its language. It is as tasking in the same sense that listening to a speech that challenges a hitherto cherished Life stance can be arduous. This book does not try to make friends. It takes brazen swipes at the Nigerian society in particular, and extends its reach to the broader African society and the black race in general.

The author switches easily between extremes of sarcasm to a strait-laced excoriation of prevailing popular culture and religion with suggestions of a deep exasperation which at once intimate the reader with a probable inner worldview of the artist as one who must either have endured some deep personal injury from the behemoths he confronts, or else is an especially prolific artist who may have just created an important sub-genre of the literary form of the Spoken Word.
The reader swings with the author from the same pendulum, but it is not altogether an unpleasant experience, as mental interruptions like these usually go…much like watching a performance by a skilled word artist.
The reader is aware of his own separation from the performer. At the same time, he frowns, smiles or jerks upright in tune with the performer’s changing cues.

The political incorrectness is in parts cringe worthy, and in other parts endearing.
The author uses epithets like ‘’sheeple’’ and ‘’religitard’’ in describing religious persons with an audacity some might find vexatious.
Perhaps it could be argued that the author could not possibly escape such descents into bare-knuckled affronts to social niceties and related courtesies, as this work takes on an unmistakably formidable adversary – Religion.
This author laughs at Religion, even taking broad swipes at God in parts. He takes a swipe at the holy writs of the two biggest world religions with the least of apprehensions, boldly taking on those questions most have always grappled with, but did not dare voice. A lack of civility quickly becomes the least of the reader’s concerns as he progresses in the delightfully interesting tour of religious and socio-cultural reality the author so eagerly takes him on.

The book makes a few claims which must be questioned. The process of querying these claims however throws up an interesting conundrum.
Take this instance:

‘’If God hears not the prayers of the religious Nigerians and accord the largely irreligious Japanese military triumph over Nigeria, does it not show that God is on the side of the man whose abilities and resources will make his work easier? …’’
The Japanese are not irreligious. Buddhism is the popular religion in Japan.

Then again in a rather queer twist, the author’s argument is redeemed, seeing as his ‘God’ in focus is clearly the Muslim god, Allah, and the Christian god, Jehovah (or Yahweh).
If Yahweh or Allah is not the controlling deities of the Japanese, how then is the argument by born again Christians that economic success is dependent on affiliation with Jehovah (Yahweh) tenable?
Who prospers Muslims? Who ensures success and progress to Hindus, Buddhists and Ifa adherents?
This is yet another way this work intrigues. It creates a special difficulty in its critique, because it drags you into its queries. It is like an inquisition the whole community of its readers cannot help but attend. Problem is it is their inquisition. They are their own examiners.
Again, in questioning the recent Forbes list of wealthiest preachers on the globe, the author wonders:
. ‘’…isn’t it ironic that people like (the) Dalai Lama and Rumi did not make the list?’’

If this ‘’Rumi’’ refers to the Persian poet and mystic Jalal ad Din Rumi, then one has to imagine that citation could only be asking for a posthumous listing, just as of Mansa Musa of the ancient Malian empire, as Rumi has been dead since 1273.
I was in the process of writing this review when news broke that a state governor in Nigeria had approved the sum of fifty five million Naira to sponsor a Quran recitation fest. This just after it was reported that all 36 states governors in Nigeria were agonizing over the payment of a mere N18, 000.00 (about $95 USD) monthly minimum wage for government workers.

I struggled to deal with the sense of despair this engendered in my insides, so I could be detached adequately from the task before me.

It wouldn’t have done for me to immerse myself in the raw ire seeping through the pages of the work before me.
If I did, I would have been content to simply say:

‘’you know what?
Read ‘Religion – The Ultimate Curse on Mankind’ by the hugely promising new-kid-on-the-block, Imoh David, the Nigerian atheist, visual artist and writer.

Read this book and be substantially wiser.

You might be indicted. You will be indignant for the most. You will come out smarter nonetheless.

What’s more, you could perhaps manage some sense of gratitude that in your lifetime you had the privilege of entering the mind of another human who made the venture of being human the most profoundly honourable privilege there ever could be.
If nothing, this sense of gratitude could be your own personal salvation from the Hobbesian drudgery the larger swathes of our shared humanity seem so bent on pulling everyone and everything into!’’

I would finish with that exclamatory flourish, and publish, content with the conviction that I have in the space of those few words managed to encapsulate my honest opinion and the entire review necessary of this work.

The Caveats would have been sufficiently conveyed. The overall conclusions as to the readability and quality of the work would have been settled too.

This would have been a good review, and as the exercise goes, that should one of the most imperative concerns of any critique of a creative work, whether it is of architecture or of literature – its necessity and usability.

This honestly brave work would have however suffered an unfair injury from such a review.
No.

It would have been visited by a rather cruel malison delivered by the hands of this reviewer.
If you are left scrambling as I did, for a dictionary to look up ‘’malison’’, then be sure that you are not in any way imagining my smug grin of a ‘’serves you right’’ satisfaction. The one who elects to find companions to share their misery would understand my contentment only too well.

This was my major grouse with this work. One has to wonder if perhaps the author was either enjoying himself a bit too much for general comfort, or worse, was just being clever.
While I can understand the possibility of someone who delves into the decidedly difficult terrain of daring to challenge the behemoths of Religion and even God with a charmingly dexterous literalism such as this author employs so breezily, finding some heady exhilaration with the whole exercise, I have to wonder also if the author is not delving into sheer cleverness at the expense of his own creation.
And while I yet mull over the author’s intents, I would take the liberty to say this book makes no attempts at bending to the irenic in any way.

I wanted to say ‘’irenic’’. I came across it in my foray into Webster’s world in my search for the meaning of ‘’malison’’.

Forgive me. Such is the unwitting effect of reading this book. The charm is subtle, but its effects are unmistakable. Imoh David can make you enjoy words just a bit more.

This book paints a haunting picture of today’s society, so that the reader is immediately unsettled.

‘’Nigeria is a country that boasts of some of “God’s best generals”. Some of these so called God’s generals work so hard and are in constant demand for miracles by their flock that they have purchased private jets to improve their efficiency. Yet, not once has God used them or any number of millions of devoted Christians to separate our Siamese twins or grow the limbs of our amputees. When it comes to these types of cases, it appears that God prefers the miracle of medical science…’’

The age-long question evangelizing persons have always posed to the potential proselyte has always been: ‘’why don’t you believe (in God)?’’

The respondent is usually left squirming for good reason. Seeing as our society is so rampantly pious, the idea that there could ever be a remotely honourable reason for not believing in God is inconceivable.

The query of our age has begun to shift, and not a moment too soon. Courageous secularists, humanists, atheists and other shades of freethinkers have helped reshape the query to:

‘’Why do you believe (in God)?’’

The venture of belief is under attack.
This would logically unsettle anyone who strives for tolerance and some measure at least of ecumenism within and among religious philosophies and adherents.

Imoh David queries this discomfort
There is very little conciliation to the finer points of the highest counter-arguments in favour of Religion by scholars and all shades of apologetics in that realm. The author wields his scythe a little too brutally, and so might have opened up his conclusions to vociferous excoriation by those his weapon injures, as well as other critics.
The author leaves a few blindsides in his most compelling arguments. For a work taking on a subject that is as vexingly controversial as criticizing religion, such oversight could prove grievously injurious in the hands of the aggrieved.

The author takes a quite literal view of the religious texts for one. He highlights one of the most questionable Muslim hadiths:

Tabari 1:280: “Allah said, ‘it is my obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.’ Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid.”

The more significant numbers of religious apologetics usually interpret these troubling verses in largely metaphorical terms, when the argument of contextual expedience does not suffice.

‘’Stupid ‘here is usually explained away by apologists as the Ancients’ understanding of pre-menstrual symptoms.

Again even without much strain, the author makes a solidly good case against the opponent. If the ancients were so terribly misled, how could the present age not be endangering civilization and human progress itself by following the dictates of men so flawed in reasoning and rationalization of natural phenomena?
The book is peppered with famous quotes from contemporary and historical thought icons – from the fields of philosophy, the humanities, arts and science, but I daresay it is the originally quirky quips by the author himself that would more likely remain indelible in the readers memory, what with their uncanny ability to stir either mirth or vexation in the mind long after the book has been put down.
The possibility that you would never hear or witness most commonplace cliché events without recalling a quote from this book is especially strong.
‘’ Sex sells, but Fear is the superior salesman’’, is one of such instances.
The author displays a skill with descriptive coinages that most would find delightful, as they interrupt the somberness of the discussion at choice points.

The fact that they are easily understood helps quite some.
Words like ‘’Pastorpreneur’’ which have slowly crept into the informal Nigerian street lexicon, and ‘’Pulpitarian’’ come to mind here.

‘’Pimpingstry’’, which is obviously the author’s creation suggest a carefully restrained wit, the kind which provokes a winsome smile of comprehension from not a few readers especially in the millennial demographic.

This work does not sneak itself into the tapestry social discourse. It comes bellowing. Querulously.
It is not abashed at its imperfections. The author for instance admits to an unawareness of Islamic Feminism.
‘’ I do not know if there are any such people as Muslim feminists, but if they are, I won’t be surprised…’’
For a work which so carefully researched much of Islamic history in its course, this oversight would appear to be deliberately dismissive.
In all, the author’s thoughts on Feminism Vis a Vis Religion, with special emphasis on Christendom is groundbreaking and audacious. Considering the general audacity of the thrust of the entire book, this is not surprising.

‘’…A Christian feminist sounds as awesome a Jewish Nazi.’’

The author in a nutshell, challenges the Christian woman to throw religion overboard without apologies. As he holds that the idea of the religious feminist is quite the offensive paradox.
The commonsense logicality of some of his assertions is self-evident. The fact that they bear repeating, and have to be defended or emphasized with any strain at all is the major indictment against our present age. It is also the most compelling argument for this work.

What this reveals is that Religion – The Ultimate Curse on Mankind is much more than just a book. It is an ongoing conversation which merges into the long-term sociopolitical discourse of our civilization – a world grappling with the inevitable berthing of Reason and Secularism on the philosophical landscape.

Sequels to this monumental work would certainly not be unexpected…and why not? Works of art should be about Life. The creativity worth its adjective is that creativity that transcends the confines of its presentational form and sneaks its tentacles into and around just about every area of human engagement, affecting the very realities that undergird their existence.
This book delivers on these grounds. It delivers well. I daresay it is one book that is expected to earn a very comfortable listing beside some of the best known works by the leading voices on Secularism, Humanism and Atheism.

Nigeria’s answer to the Dawkins, the Hitchens and the Hirsi Alis of our world might have just been born in Imoh David.

In conclusion, the author makes a solidly good case for the re-examination of the venture of Belief; the necessity of Religion, especially as an integral aspect of our public life; of the impeccability of Faith.
This book is a worthy read across all fields of thought.
I personally hope this author finds and keeps his voice for a very long time to come.

Temi Ahanmisi.
Nov. 22, 2015.

You can get Imoh Son of David’s best selling book The Ultimate Curse on Mankind on Amazon here http://www.amazon.com/dp/1770765484/ref=cm_sw_r_fa_awdm_FGFhwb024RR8Q

To support the author’s work, you can also get the Ultimate Curse inspired designers T-shirts here: https://teespring.com/UltimateCurse

%d bloggers like this: