“…Hannah Arendt, contesting some Socratic Philosophers, especially Plato…argues that in the modern era, contemplation has become insufficient and meaningfulness lie in the active life. The active life is actualized not in the private realm of the social/private concerns nor characterized by bodily necessities, but in the public realm where engagement with the world through discussions, debates and the free expression of opinions take place…for in the public life…we rediscover the truth known to ancient Greeks that action is the supreme blessing of human life…”

(An excerpt from the Abuja Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 5, 2015, page 105, being the best philosophy project in the University of Port Harcourt with the title: “An Assessment of the Notion of Revolutionary Action in the Philosophical literature of Hannah Arendt” by Sunday Anyawu).

As far as I am concerned Mr Sunday A. is not just a researcher, a philosopher but also a good actor. I remember watching him and his crew in Abuja replay a drama that left Philosophy students in Nigeria gathered in Iseluku, astounded. He is also one of the first class scholars who dared to tell the story of women philosophers (in his case, Hannah Arendt) in the midst of male/Western philosophies. 
You know what? He didn’t just emerge with the best project among his classmates, he also believes in that “philosophy of public action.”  Those friends of mine who seemed excited at how I speak in class halls, etc ought to meet Sunday, who is one of the liveliest orators I have encountered. I am also excited to note that, Dr. Pius Ekpe who moderated my first project on Aquinas also moderated Sunday Anyawu, a good blend of brains and talents. 
In Sunday , one sees, not just the audacity of the mechanics surrounding the perfect knit of ideas, but also a spirited mix of human relationship done rightly.
 Sunday’s input in the academic world is a singular reminder that knowledge, though communal albeit intangible, should be shared and approached from a power which only humans have. His, is a reminder that an intelligent man/woman should appreciate the truths too that efface not only from books, but also from human dialogues!

Author: David Francis E.


What I have discovered over the years, is that one size does not fit all while pleasuring a woman. 
Just as there are women who get turned off when you bite  (not just nible) their nipples, there are some that will frantically beg you to bite their nipples HARD while banging them or stroking their clit, before they could come….
Just as some ladies would remind you love-making is not a fight and will tell you to please go nice, slow and gentle on them to get them to climax, there are others who would not even get near orgasm until the bed is destroyed as they ask you to go rough and hard…

Just as there are women who won’t let your dick go near their pussy for penetration until you have made them cum a few times through some good head and tongue-fucking, there are others who would push your head away and not let you give them a head at all – and it’s got nothing to do with hygiene but personal preference…
Just as there are some women who will achieve crazy orgasm through finger-fucking, there are others who won’t let you put your finger into their pussy…
Just as there are women who would come with just a few strokes of the dick (and then roll over and clasp their legs, because they are done and you’re on your own if you’re still nowhere cumming), there are others who won’t come until the vagina is bruised from an hour-long pounding…
Just as there are some women who would easily get satisfied and cum quick with shallow, quick thrusts, there are some others who need you to shift their womb with slow, rhythmic penetration before they’ll get to Venus and back…
Just as there are some women who go crazy when you doggy-style tnem and sing with your name, there are some who would scream in real pain if enter them from the back and simply turn on their back for you…
Just as there are women who love the missionary position because they want to be able to see your face and kiss your lips as you stroke away, there are some who can only cum when they do reverse cowgirl on you…
Just as there are women who won’t even take off their clothes until the  room is pitch-dark (talk less of rolling in the hay), there are some women who prefer you leave the light on….
Just as there are some women who love the long foreplay (others even cum a few times before the banging starts), there are others who just want you to just get it on…
Just as there are women who cum when you stroke just the clit and inner labia with the dickhead, there are some who won’t cum until you’re hitting their cervix and pushing it into their womb…

(Images: social media)

Moral of the discoveries
Ladies, open your mouth and tell your man how to pleasure you…he is no mind reader and his last girlfriend may be ‘let’s bring down the house’ type while you’re the ‘mommy’s gentle girl’ type. 
Guys, don’t kill yourself trying to satisfy a particular lady if she’s not telling you or showing you how to pleasure her. Who knows, all that heavy banging may not make her juice flow!

Author: Ade King Ebimomi (CEO at FDIB Limited).


My concern and deepest ideation is on the sanctity of humans of all ages, gender, and race; the idea that the child is an independent human being that deserves to be respected not given ideas or beauty standards at the behest of an external and often pompous source. 
No thinker or one concerned with innovative thoughts is independent in ideation, we constantly dip our hands into the historical cornucopia of knowledge, a ruthless gleaning of teachings in times past helps us formulate ideas that are relevant today. 
You will pardon my anachronistic reference points but hopefully I get a message through on the dignity, equality, and independence of every human being most especially infants! 
Modern philosophers and thinkers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke developed essays on the idea of Tabula Rasa or blank-slate, the idea that children are born with clean slates and we must have a child-centred training not an imposition of parental or societal beliefs and norms. 
While today’s neuroscience researches suggest that the brain is wired at birth to perform certain primordial life-saving tasks automatically, they are also clear on the nurturing of the brain as regards novel notions such as aesthetics and religion. 

The child doesn’t know these things hence we should have a child-centred training which gives children the dignity of choice as regards their own life rather than the imposition of what we as adults think is appealing. 
17 December, 140 AD Rome; ‘the best of days’ is at hand when the society celebrates Saturnalia, a festival dedicated to Saturn, the god of Agriculture and abundance. Society is turned on its head as servants are served by masters and parents obeying their children’s commands! 
The ideals of saturnalia is the sincere albeit comical idea of equality for all and this bellies the notion that children should not be bullied as their humanity is made of the same fabric as that of an adult. 
The imposition of ideas on children by parents and society ruins their ability to make empirical decisions through sensory perceptions and these impositions could be:
Tribal marks
Ear piercings 
Female Genital Mutilation
Male circumcision 
Political leanings 

(Image: blackslayinit)

We as parents must not impose on children, they will learn in little time and make independent choices, our duty should be that of a Roman parent at saturnalia. Parents must obey and respect children as they are good at heart though lacking in experience. 

Respecting children include respecting the sanctity of their mind and bodies because children grow up so fast, if she wants her ears pierced, she will tell you in no time; don’t impose your ideas of beauty on a baby, they are equal to you even though helpless and vulnerable sleeping cozily in parent’s arms, they are equal and deserve respect. 
This is why I don’t agree to tribal marks on children too, let them grow up and make the choice themselves, your only duty as a parent is to guide them in total obeisance if need be and work hard to ensure their needs and wants are met. 
The child’s mind is a tabula rasa that will be inundated with information mostly acquired through sensory perceptions but ensure the information they get is centred around the idea that they are individuals that can make their own choices with parental guidance if needed.

: Darren Idongesit (Philosopher).


In every generation, there seems to me, to be an increasing upsurge of puritanical fervency. It is that singular epitome of what many today might term, “the great awakening.” For ever since the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, definitions of certain concepts have either taken a different twist, a coating or have been ‘comatosed.’
Refreshingly, in each generation, there are spectacular minds who do not conform to this ‘antisexualisms.’ On the Other hand, albeit painfully, one knows that in our Universities, libraries or research centers, it is not quite as much popular to have educators who dwell or go deep into their areas of specialization – gazing through the open portal of a radical questioning of beliefs.

(Image: @pencilacademy)

The author, M. M. Uzomah, has stood out among equals to raise some existentialist questions in the world of the sexes. He is a scholar per excellence, a philosopher and an intelligent academician. His researches have been published in many journals, one of which include, “A Critical Reflection on the Epistemic Status of Locke’s Doctrine of ‘Tabula Rasa,” in the Albertine Journal of Philosophy and Related Disciplines (AJOPRED, 2017). Others include:

Uzomah, M. M. (2016). In Defence of Disobedience and the Legitimacy of Punishment of Civil Dissenters in Contemporary Era. Ekpoma Review (Philosophy and Theology Journal of Catholic Major Seminary of All Saints, Ekpoma), Vol. 3, pp. 25-43.

Isanbor, P. O. and Uzomah, M. M. (2016). Douglas Roche on Cultures of War and Peace: Global Ethics for Social Order, Justice and Development. EPHA: Ekpoma Journal of Religious Studies (Department of Religious Management & Cultural Studies, Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma, Nigeria), Vol. 11.

Isanbor, P. O. and Uzomah, M. M. (2015). Relating Peace and Human Rights Developmentally: a Philosophical Re-assessment. Polac International Journal of Humanities and Security Studies (Department of History and International Studies, Nigeria Police Academy, Wudil, Kano), Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 167-180. 

Uzomah, M. M., and Adewumi, A. O. (2015). Ethical Humanism and the Quest of African Development. Enwisdomization Journal (Catholic Major Seminary of All Saints, Ekpoma), Vol. 6, No. 3.

Uzomah, M. M., Fasuyi, A. O. and Isanbor, P. O. (2015). Towards Philosophical Foundation and Evaluation of the Roles of Educational Stakeholders for Integral National Development. Journal of Teachers Perspective (ASSONT, Cross Rivers State University of Technology, Calabar), Vol. 9, No. 2. 

He wrote, “Notes on Medieval Philosophy: Exploring the Dynamism of Philosophy and the Confluence of Faith and Reason” (2017) and also co-authored a book titled, “Fundamental Principles of Philosophy and Education” (March 2017). 

(The author M. M. Uzommah)

M. M. Uzommah is presently a PhD student in Philosophy with focus on Bioethics and Jurisprudence in Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria. He holds a Masters degree in Philosophy (with specialty in the Philosophy of Law and Gender Studies) from Ekiti State University, Nigeria (2015). M. M. Uzommah also holds a Bachelor of Arts (Philosophy, 2:1) from Benin in 2010. His thesis includes:

Uzomah, M. M. (2015). Natural Law as the Basis of the Human Law: A Philosophical Appraisal, M.A Unpublished Thesis, Department of Philosophy, Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria, 104 pp.

Uzomah, M. M. (2010). Natural Law as the Basis of the Human Law. B.A Unpublished Essay, Department of Philosophy, Catholic Major Seminary of All Saints, Ekpoma/University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria, 62 pp.

Uzomah, M. M. Gene Technology and Human Dignity: Asserting the Imperative of the Law to an Effective Bioethics. An On-going PhD Dissertation, Department of Philosophy, Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria.

He is also presently a lecturer in the Department of Philosophy, St. Albert’s Institute, Kagoma, Kaduna State, an affiliate of the University of Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria. His second book, “Fundamental Issues in Gender Studies and Human Sexuality: The Philosophy of Gender Parity,” is said to be indeed timely.

It arrived at a point where the majority of us seem to be rather devoted to gender identity and a gendered representation as a central category in analysis. One therefore cannot but be overwhelmed by the author’s incredible flawlessness and quintessential, yet simple-in-language awakening of the muted ‘tabooed’ questions regarding women, feminism, gender and politics.


 The reader would be not be left befuddled or intellectually stupefied at his or her obvious ignorance at this subjects of supreme importance. Refreshingly, the author, in his usual down-to-earth explanations, exhumes unapologetically, how race, ethnicity, location, class, nationality and disability intersect with the categories of gender and sexuality. To achieve this, M. M. Uzommah, in this 458 pages and ten chapters has paid sufficient attention to: life in a gendered world, the basic features of Gender Studies, Patriarchy, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Human Sexuality and Sexual Orientations, the Institution of Marriage, Commercial Sex, as well as the thoughts of selected feminists.


Like all lovers of knowledge and research, I could not have closed my mind to this neo-awakening. Like all who hope for a better world where both males and females sit on the dinning table of equal opportunities, etc, I dare you dear reader to step into these pages and savour the sweetness of an unregrettable voyage.
Would you like to get a copy?
To get the book call +234 803 044 5823.

Or send an email to

                                                                   David  E. Francis

                       Philosophy (University of Jos, Nigeria); Researcher (St. Albert’s Institute, Kaduna); Literature (S. E. M.S, Nassarawa State).  November 4th, 2017.


‘The first of the two essays (of Percy Ernst‘s book titled, “Hitler: The Man and the Military Leader“) in the book, “The Anatomy of a Dictator,” is based primarily on the record of Hitler’s own self revealing statements made during and after meals at his headquarters on the Russian Front from July 1941 through July 1942 (6). This essay had succeeded in bringing out the shadows and contrasts of Hitler’s extraordinary personality (9). Beyond the revelations of the book, Adolf Hitler, in the minds of many persons today has been termed a maniac, a demon, darkness, hell, and history’s worst atheist, etc.  This labelling (which are not all true) comes at a time when a lot of us try to make sense of the horrors in Germany, the role of the Vatican, and of Protestants, etc. in the wake of World War II.

Because of the German susceptibility to authoritarianism, some authors like Daniel Jonah, Telford Taylor and Percy Schramm among others, in telling the truth about the Third Reich, hope to urgently immunize people intellectually with as much knowledge as possible of the most terrible regime ever.

The Churches, Antisemitism and Hitler

(Pope Pius XII had signed the concordat…)

Long before Hitler came to power in Germany, National Socialism was strong in the Universities, with support not only among a large number of the students but also religious faculty members. It was the Catholic Center Party which provided Hitler the votes in the Reichstag that were essential for the passage of the “Enabling Act” granting him dictatorial powers in March 1933. The Vatican, with the Concordat later that year, was the first foreign power to conclude a major treaty with the new and still rather widely distrusted Nazi regime. Because of the Papacy’s great moral prestige both in Germany and abroad, the Concordat was, of course, exceedingly valuable to Hitler (10). 

 Hilter who was in his early youth an altar boy and a singer in the choir said sadly in November 1941, “today no one who is convenient with scientific research can take the teaching of the church seriously any more.” At the same time, he acknowledged that the problem could not be solved simply by the stroke of a pen. The church would have to “rot away like a gangrenous limb” (cf. 46). Basically his view of the church was rooted in the unsophisticated polemicism of the nineteenth century, which in turn had it’s origins in a vulgarised liberalism derived from the popularization of the enlightment (47).

Nonetheless, before the outbreak of the WW II, the German monk and reformation leader, Martin Luther in his (65, 000 words) anti-Semitic treatise titled, “On the Jews and Their Lies,”  had argued that Jewish synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes burned, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and “these poisonous envenomed worms” should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.  He also seems to advocate their murder, writing “[W]e are at fault in not slaying them” (

There were many people before Hitler and during his own lifetime who did not like the Jews, or who hated them  or who even despised them, but no one has ever surpassed him in the extent to which he allowed anti-Semitism to grow into so intensive a mania that it completely shattered the faculty of reason (5). This anti-Semitic mania often prevented Hitler from analysing a situation objectively in order to decide on a rational course of action. To this extent Hitler was almost like the medieval person who sensed the presence of the devil everywhere. This mania led to his revenging himself on the millions of Jews who fell into his hands in Germany (50).

Darwinism, Antisemitism and Hitler

Apart from basing his ideas on Gregor Mendel’s laws of heredity, Hitler’s other touchstone was Charles Darwin, whose teaching he applied in the vulgarised form in which, by the end of the nineteenth century, it had become common knowledge. What this amounted to was “social Darwinism”: Darwin’s biological insight cited as the rationalizing for a theory of government and statecraft which attempted to justify the power politics of the strong against the weak (cf. P. E. Schramm, “Hitler: The Man and the Military Leader,” Jaico publishing house, 2006, pg 85).

Before Hitler’s practicalized albeit cruelly, Darwin’s socialism, the German people through her revolution sought to reconstitute and reshape the European social landscape according to its racial biological principles, by killing millions of people deemed, according to its racial fantasies, dangerous or expendable, and thereby to increase the proportion of the “superior races” (Daniel, 458).

The German people, the Holocaust and the Nazi Revolution

The study of the Holocaust and its perpetrators assigns to their beliefs paramount importance. Its conclusion being that the eliminationist anti-Semitic German political culture, the genesis of which must be and is explicable historically, was the prime mover of both the Nazi leadership and ordinary Germans in the persecution and extermination of the Jews, and therefore was the Holocaust’s principal cause. This is clear because Germany, during the Nazi period was inhabited by people animated by beliefs about Jews that made them willing to become consenting mass executioners (Schramm, 45 – 6). 

The Nazi German revolution, like all revolutions, had two fundamental related thrusts: a destructive enterprise, which was a thoroughgoing revolt against civilization, and a constructive enterprise, which was a singular attempt to make a new man, a new body social, and a new Nazified order in Europe and beyond (cf. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, ” Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust,” USA: Mark Stein Studios, 1996, pg 456).

These political views had given birth to Hitler’s obsession and denouncement of communism and capitalism. Of note too are the events following the Great Depression of 1929 – where American banks withdrew their loans from Germany. This singular act had infuriated the German people in the aftermath of an election which Hitler had lost to Von Hindenburg . However, Hitler had taken advantage of the people’s anger, offerein them convenient scapegoats. His speeches, which expoited people’s fear had also seen a growth in percentage (3% – 18%) in 2 years of the Nazi Party. Hitler – an extraordinary demogogue with Germany’s highest decorations, with an excellent combat record, a man of uncommon discipline – played on the sensitivities of the masses, with breath taking virtuosity, mesmerizing listeners with his infectious conviction that he could not fail (Percy, 9). 

In 1932, after the Nazis emerged as the largest political party in Germany with nearly fourteen million votes to their credit, he was appointed as Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. Hitler was considered the undisputed dictator of the Third Reich and by the beginning of August 1934, and after the death of von Hindenburg, he had all the powers of the state in his hands (cf.
In the article titled “The Mind of Adolf Hitler,” published as the introduction to an English translation of Hitler’s table conversations, Hitler’s Secret Conversations, 1941- 1944 (NY, 1953), The Oxford professor (H. R. TrevorRoper) writes of Hitler’s mind as being “like some huge barbarian monolith, the expressing of giant strength and savage genius, surrounded by a festering heap of refuse…”


To further concretize this German eliminationism, the event of January 25, 1944, comes to mind. Himmler, in the midst of three hundred Generals and Staff officers gathered in Posen, spoke openly as someone does before an approving crowd. Indeed, when Himmler announced that German was wiping the Jews off the face of the earth, the military leaders broke into applause. The applause was not scattered; it was well-nigh unanimous. A dissenting General looked about him to see how many in the audience abstained from applauding. He counted five (Daniel, 430). 
Hence, it suffices to say that, “be decent, moderate, spiritual, ethical anti-Semites, eliminate the Jews, but do not slaughter them” was the spoken or unspoken maxim that informed nearly all of the relatively few German objection to the countrymen’s systematic slaughter of the Jew. 
In fact the bishop of Linz, Johannes Maria Gfoellner, in a pastoral letter circulated in 1933, exhorted the Nazis thus: “If National Socialism…wants to incorporate only this spiritual and ethical form of antisemitism into its program, there is nothing to stop it” (Quoted in Friedrich Heer, “God‘s First Love,” Worcester: Trinity Press, 1967, p. 272).

Towards a conclusion

In the conclusive analysis therefore, being ordinary in the Germany that gave itself to Nazism was to have been a member of an extraordinary, lethal political culture (cf  Daniel, 456). This perspective was quite as much appealing to Steven Fry who was asked  the question during an interview, “If Hitler wasn’t born, can we suppose that the world would be better, same or worst?” To this he responded by asserting that “if Hitler hadn’t been born as at the time of the Great Depression or the World War, certainly the political culture, and horror of Germany would have still given birth to him; another who also hated the Jews would have been born” (paraphrased), and then no one today would be talking about Hitler.

It is now clear to assert that one should embrace the indisputable fact that although innocent their intentions, the German people, resoundingly endorsed Hitler’s Third Reich – a totalitarian regime without effective provision for separation of powers or even for registering the dissent of the governed. They (Germans) did this indirectly through through their representatives in the Reichstag and then directly through Plebiscites ( Schramm, 13).

Hitler himself was never ignorant of this, for he had written:

“To truly ‘learn’ history means to open your eyes and discover the forces that cause historical events to happen. The art of reading and of learning, means remembering the important parts and forgettimg the unimportant…My professor, Dr. Leopold Pötsch of the Linz school,… not only illuminated the past by the light of the present, but he taught me to dra conclusions for the present from the past. More than anyone else, he gave us an understanding of the current problems (Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf,” 1924, pg. 12). 

One can now see that Hitler was ipso facto, not just a lover of history but also a careful leader who had paid attention to the concerns of the German people at the time. To further understand the fuel to which Hitler’s passion to eliminate the Jews was ignited, one ought to herein pay attention to the political philosophy of the time too (and this is what the author intends) – afterall, Hitler could have been anyone; Hitler could be nonetheless summarized as the perfect creation of Germany’s paradise and a deadly devil to the Jews – the devil in paradise! 
Author: David Francis E.