I loved NSFWcorps, didn't make the crossover to pando. But the war nerd was consistently on point. I felt like he argued convincingly in a narrative fashion from facts, and it seemed natural to appreciate his stance on things (American drones, there were a bunch of [48 hour] links I enjoyed).

The thing about Wikipedia is that it's nearly indespensible for getting a snapshot of things, it's so handy for looking up references that someone drops in an essay, but it's dry. I could try and look up Nigeria to try and understand it's place in the world and how it's doing internally, but I would never take the Demographics and History and Government components and be able to picture it as the war nerd paints it here. I sometimes have no idea where to start when I try to understand something. Case in point: Hinduism. The Wikipedia article on it couldn't possibly do it justice, and I've been looking all my life to understand Hinduism the way I "understand" Nigeria currently by way of the war nerd while only having Wikipedia as a starting point. Sorry, tangent.

The US was neutral, too busy with the idiotic distraction in Vietnam to pay any attention…or maybe the US was also in favor of keeping Africa a continent full of coups and poverty. All I know is that the more I look at the recent history of Africa, the more I see unanimous opposition to the strong peoples like the Igbo and the Tutsi. Seems like we like our Africans hungry and corrupt.

It's a bit heartbreaking, to put it mildly, but I can think of no evidence to believe otherwise.