With Respect, You Are Wrong, Your Majesty.

At a banquet in Windsor Castle on 18 March, 2026, in honour of Nigeria’s President King Charles said in his speech: “There are chapters in our shared history that I know have left some painful marks. I do not seek to offer words that dissolve the past for no words can”. This wimpish half-apology for the years that Britain ruled Nigeria with competence, humanity and fairness and without corruption is, to put it mildly, BONKERS.

British rule in Nigeria ended the slave trade there, built the roads, railways, ports and bridges, and gave peace, order and security to its people – a peace, order and security that they did not know before the introduction of British rule and which they have not known since their Independence in 1960. Instead of proudly noting these achievements of British rule (with which most Nigerians would agree) the King embraced woke-ism and contributed to the false notion that somehow British colonial rule was something that we should be forever ashamed of.

In 2024 Tross Publishing published a book “The British Empire; A Force for Good” by John McLean which deals with 101 colonies that lived under British rule at one time or another. It compares colonial rule in each colony with what preceded it and what has come after. So as not to be confused by the King’s nonsense we print below the section on Nigeria. This book, “The British Empire; A Force for Good”, is available at Paper Plus and independent bookshops or can be purchased through the Tross website: www.trosspublishing.com

Nigeria

“We are grateful to the British officers whom we have known first as masters and then as leaders and finally as partners, but always as friends”.

Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa speaking on the occasion of Nigeria’s Independence in October, 1960. 34

As with the Gold Coast it was the traders who established British influence in Nigeria before the Government took formal control and sovereignty. After the slave trade was made illegal in 1807 the Liverpool traders switched to the palm oil of the Niger Delta, a key ingredient in soap which at last was becoming in regular use by people in Europe. Exports of palm oil from the Delta rose from 150 tons in 1806 to over 30,000 tons by the 1870s. However, the British traders, fearing disease from the mangrove swamps inland, stayed at the mouths of the Oil Rivers, which were the mighty Niger’s outlets to the sea.

In 1851 Britain got its first foothold in what was to become Nigeria. As was so often the case in acquiring African colonies, the suppression of the slave trade was the motive for establishing British rule. Lagos, under its Oba (king), Kosoko, was a key slaving port that refused to give up its trade in human beings and so it was bombarded by a flotilla of the Royal Navy in two battles in November and December, 1851, in which a total of fifteen British sailors were killed.

Kosoko was deposed and replaced by Akitoye, who signed a treaty with Britain that required Lagos to abolish the slave trade, liberate enslaved Africans, expel European slave traders, abolish human sacrifice, and allow British subjects to have legitimate trade access to its port.

However, shortly after signing the treaty Akitoye died and was succeeded by his son, Dosunmu, whose observance of the treaty terms was more lax and so, in pursuit of the same goal of ending the slave trade, Britain acquired a formal protectorate over Lagos in 1861 and the following year it was declared a British colony, being ruled directly by the Crown. This, the only effective method of stopping the slave trade, was done somewhat reluctantly as “acquiring territory and administrative responsibility was definitely not part of Britain’s policy”. 35

Under the Union Jack Lagos became a haven for runaway slaves but it was opposed by the Yoruba people in the hinterland. However, these people were preoccupied by a series of civil wars which were brought to an end in 1888 when a treaty with the Alafin of Oyo brought all of the Yoruba country under British protection.

In 1877 Sir George Goldie – a type of mini Cecil Rhodes – arrived in the area where he reformed the United African Company into the National African Company with a view to obtaining a charter to administer this potentially rich territory on behalf of the Crown. This became more urgent as a result of French trading activities along the Niger River.

Goldie got rid of the French by trading at a loss, forcing the French firms to sell out to him. By the time of the Berlin Conference for dividing up Africa in 1884 Goldie was in the position to say that Britain was “now alone on the Niger” and so the other powers had to agree to British control in the area of this, the greatest river of West Africa.

In 1886 Goldie’s company (by now the Royal Niger Company) received its royal charter from the British Government, authorising it to administer the banks and hinterland of the Niger and Benue rivers, the latter being more easterly than the former. Law and order were to be maintained by the Company’s armed constabulary. It suited the British government very nicely as the Company would bear the financial burden of opening up these areas and not the government.

Although it was declared that the two rivers would be open to all, the Company used its semi-official powers to charge duties and even stop trade other than its own on the Upper Niger. The Company made treaties that brought states like Sokoto and Gwandu into the British sphere of influence, thus hampering the French.

The King of Nikki, said France, was the true ruler of Borgu, a large territory on the Upper Niger, and not the chiefs with whom the Company had made treaties. To enforce its rights on behalf of the Company Frederick Lugard led a force of forty British soldiers against Nikki and in the ensuing encounter Lugard got a poisoned arrow in his head. “His men dragged him about the ground by the arrow in their attempts to pull it out, until someone braced his feet on Lugard’s shoulders. The arrow, which was extracted with a sizeable piece of his skull attached, was poisoned. He chewed some antidotal roots, led a successful counter-attack, and marched thirteen more miles before calling it a day”.36 It was this sort of toughness that built the Empire.

At Nikki the king refused to see Lugard, believing that, if his eyes should perceive a white man, he would die. In the event he gave his oral approval and the treaty was signed by Nikki’s senior officials. However, sixteen days after the British left, the French arrived with 300 soldiers and began occupying the area, claiming that Britain had got its treaty by force.

This was not Lugard’s only problem as the Brassmen of the Niger Coast Protectorate were justifiably annoyed at the Company’s Upper Niger monopoly because it denied them their traditional sources of palm oil. In January, 1895, they raided the Company’s fort of Akassa, killed many of its employees and ate forty-three of them.

Continuing to ignore Britain’s treaty with Nikki, the French were progressively occupying parts of the Upper Niger. Under the leadership of Joseph Chamberlian, the Colonial Secretary, the British government realised that continuing to rely only on the chartered company to uphold British interests in the Niger region was no longer feasible and so Chamberlian instructed Goldie to organise an army of 3,000 men. This, the new West African Frontier Force, was put under the command of James Willcocks and in May, 1898, he led it into the area which the French were occupying in defiance of treaties which Britain had made with the local rulers.

There were some small, bloodless confrontations and it wasn’t long before the French realised that the British were serious and, not wanting to start another war between France and Britain, they withdrew. This was what Chamberlain had planned all along – get them out but without fighting.

Under the Anglo-French agreement of 1898 Britain was able to keep the richest part of Borgu and she also won recognition of her claims to the northern provinces of Sokoto and Bornu. Like British rule on the Gold Coast, the bringing of Nigeria into the Empire was done in a graduated way.

One result of this struggle with the French was that London decided to end the charter to the Royal Niger Company and take over the territory itself on 1st January, 1900, Goldie and his fellow shareholders being adequately compensated. They had done the hard yards but more was now required than could be performed by a chartered company. This ended the story of Goldie on the Niger. The epitaph on the grave of this empire builder in Brompton Cemetery, London, reads “Founder of Nigeria”.

The Company’s former territory (land in the Niger Delta and along the lower reaches of the river) was added to the Niger Coast Protectorate, which itself was renamed Southern Nigeria while the northern part of the country became the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria, with Lugard as its High Commissioner. As such, he assumed control over around ten million people spread over more than a million square miles, most of it still unexplored by the white man. It was a mixed bag – from tribes that had not yet invented the wheel to relatively sophisticated Islamic societies living within walled cities. It was certainly a daunting challenge for him and his handful of European administrators supported by about 3,000 African troops under British officers.

At the time British authority barely touched one tenth of this vast domain and the rest was in the power of slave-raiding tribes. “There is probably no part of the Dark Continent in which the worst forms of slave raiding still exist to so terrible an extent,” Lugard wrote dolefully.37 Thus, as in Sierra Leone and Gambia and to a lesser extent the Gold Coast, the suppression of the slave trade was a – if not the – main driver for Britain to assume control of the place as nothing but full sovereignty could defeat that continuing evil.

The worst of the slave trading groups was the Fulani who were as fanatical supporters of Islam as they were of slavery. In a particularly brutal jihad they had conquered much of the territory of the pagan Hausas. Their raids to capture slaves had turned much of the Hausa land’s productive areas into wastelands. The Fulani regarded the Hausas as fit only to be slaves and so it was not surprising that the Hausas preferred British rule to that of the Fulani. At the time that Lugard took over Northern Nigeria these Moslem raiders were moving south and confrontation with the British became inevitable.

Lugard’s biggest challenges in his struggle to end slave raiding were the Fulani city-state of Kano and the two emirates of Sokoto and Gwandu (also Islamic). In the words of the Sultan of Sokoto, “Between us and you there are no dealings except as between Musselmans and Unbelievers: War as God Almighty has enjoined on us”. 38

This attitude emboldened some in the already occupied areas and in 1902 a British Resident, Captain Moloney, was murdered by the Magaji of Keffi within his palace. The Magaji fled to Kano where the emir made a great fuss of him for the achievement of killing a representative of the British Empire. In Lugard’s words, “If the life of a European can be taken with impunity, the prestige of the government would be gone, and prestige is another word for self-preservation in a country where millions are ruled by a few score.”39

As punishment for this murder Lugard ordered a force of 800 men under Colonel Thomas Morland to march up to Kano where they encountered an army of about 6,000 Fulanis inside the city walls that were fifty feet high and forty feet thick. With superior firepower the outnumbered British broke down a gate and managed to kill about 1,200 Fulanis with artillery fire.

With Kano in the hands of Morland’s forces Lugard arrived and set himself up in the palace of the emir, who had fled with his army and his family. The once busy slave market in this Islamic city was immediately closed down.

One of the emir’s brothers, Wombai, returned to Kano and submitted himself to Lugard and here we see the beginnings of the Indirect Rule which forever more has been associated with Lugard’s name and was responsible for bringing peace and order to northern Nigeria. Indirect Rule brought the chiefs into the ambit of British authority, persuading them to co-operate rather than resist the new order.

Lugard nominated Wombai as the new emir and explained to him and other chiefs that ultimate authority would be in the hands of the British who would appoint emirs and chief officers. The people could continue to live by Islamic law so long as it did not conflict with the British laws of the Protectorate. Slave raiding and trading were forbidden but at this point, with British rule so tenuous, it was not felt feasible to outlaw slavery itself. In the meantime people could keep their existing slaves but buy no more. In view of Lugard’s minimal resources of government in such a vast territory it was as much as he could do.

From Kano Lugard went on to Sokoto where a Fulani force of 15,000 horsemen and 3,000 infantry were lined up in front of the city. The Fulanis charged but hundreds were killed by the Maxim guns and the others dispersed. The British casualty was one dead as they marched in and took charge of Sokoto.

Again Lugard appointed a friendly Sultan to govern under Indirect Rule. From there he went to Katsina where he confirmed the rule of the existing sultan who had given no trouble. Then to Zaria where he deposed an unfriendly sultan and installed a better one. “Within a month and a half and with a force that never numbered more than 700 African troops and 35 British officers, he had completely overturned an old and powerful empire”.40 The chiefs appointed by Lugard had their own treasuries and received a proportion of the taxes for their administration.

Indirect Rule, which was being widely practised in the princely states of India, was the only effective way for the British to rule such a vast new territory as Northern Nigeria. In fact, without Indirect Rule both in Africa and beyond, the British Empire could not have been as large as it was.

Lugard was smart enough to see this and energetic enough to get it up and running in only six weeks. “It is obvious that we cannot in any sense administer it,” he said of his new territory. “We must use the existing machinery and endeavour only to improve it”.41 This he did by slowly but steadily getting rid of their traditional despotism and pulling them towards British law – through courts and otherwise.

“It was Lord Lugard, more than any other single individual, who set the style for future Crown rule throughout the British territories in Africa”, wrote Charles Allen in Tales from the Dark Continent. “In particular he was the architect of indirect rule, the system of dual government which came about partly because in various parts of Africa we’d bitten off more than we could chew. We couldn’t possibly administer all these people and these vast territories closely. So our policy was always to leave as much as possible to the people themselves and not to interfere with their lives unless it was obvious that what they were doing was wrong. If they could settle their own quarrels, so much the better.” 42

Each emir was “advised “ by a British Resident. In the more sophisticated societies of this vast new domain the Resident was indeed an advisor but in the more primitive areas he had to be a lot more; in fact, nothing less than the local government itself.

It was these committed and incorruptible Residents, drawn initially from his occupying force, who were the main factors in bringing peace and stability to northern Nigeria. “And it was they that really gave substance to a somewhat extravagant boast within a few years of the occupation that a virgin could walk from Lake Chad to Sokoto with a bowl of eggs on her head and neither the virgin nor the eggs would be spoiled.” 43

Administrators and traders travelled largely by water. The coastal area was mainly mangrove swamps with many creeks and rivers proceeding inland. In the smaller waterways launches and canoes were used while the bigger, crocodile infested rivers accommodated sternwheelers with engines heated by wood. In the very early years of the twentieth century there were no roads in northern Nigeria – just canoes, camels and native carriers who could each carry 56 pounds of baggage and supplies.

In 1927 when Martin Lindsay arrived on attachment to the Nigeria Regiment “There was only one railway line, from Lagos in the south to Kano in the north, and if you were stationed at one of the outstations like Sokoto in the north-west or Maiduguri in the north-east, from the moment you left the railhead you walked. You walked for three weeks to get to your post, with sixteen to twenty bearers carrying your kit on their heads”.44

In the words of Nigel Cooke, a District Officer, these early administrators laid up “a capital of prestige and goodwill. One was very conscious all the time that in most places the British administrators were there and the people wanted them to be there because there was a need for law and order.” 45

In 1906 a rising took place in Satiru when fanatical Islamic followers of Sudanese Mahdism massacred all 70 soldiers of C Company of Lugard’s Mounted Infantry. Lugard feared that neighbouring emirs would join the rebellion, which would bring to an end his noble and hopeful concept of Indirect Rule.

However, so well had he done his job over the previous five years with the emirs and so satisfied were they with Indirect Rule that they stood by him, the Sultan of the once troublesome Sokoto even taking the Europeans in his city under his protection. In fact, the people of Sokoto marched on nearby Satiru, the centre of the uprising, and “razed the town, slaughtered its inhabitants, and impaled the heads of the leading rebels on spears.” 46

That the emirs stood by him at this moment of crisis when Mahdi madness could easily have spread across the Islamic world of northern Nigeria was a true vindication of the merits of Indirect Rule. Islamic though they were, they preferred the stability and light touch of the foreign British rule to embracing Mahdism and seizing back the power that they had before the British presence. Of course, there was also the little matter of the Maxim gun and its effectiveness. Therefore it is not surprising that, when the two Nigeria Protectorates and the Colony of Lagos were united under a single government in 1912, the new Governor of this huge and still primitive colony was Frederick Lugard.

It was a mammoth task to unify the very different south and north of Nigeria. “Lugard carried through an immense task of unification. Historians must judge the event by the decision of the Nigerians to obtain their independence in 1960 as a united state and to defend it against the attempted Ibo secession to set up an independent state, Biafra, in the late 1960s.” 47

That a unitary state was established and that it lasted is a tribute not only to the perseverance of the British but also to their imagination, for the north was largely Hausa speaking Muslims who looked down on the darker skinned people of the south while the west, including Lagos, was dominated by the Yoruba, and on the eastern side of the Niger River were the poor and densely populated Igbos. In addition to these were about 250 different ethnic minority groups who constituted about a third of the population and who each spoke a different language and had its own area. Not many administrators of the Empire faced challenges more difficult than turning this almost unlimited mosaic into a functioning state – something it had never been before.

The pagans of southern Nigeria were helped along the road to Western civilisation by the missionaries, such as the mission of the Church of Scotland at Calabar on the eastern coast, which was set up as early as 1846 by missionaries from Scotland, Ireland and Jamaica. It was a Scotswoman from Dundee, Mary Slessor, who took a leading part in suppressing infanticide in the Calabar region after she arrived at the mission there in 1876.

It was believed by the natives that the birth of twins was an evil curse and the poor little mites were put in a clay pot shortly after they were born and left to die in the forest – either by starvation or being eaten by animals. This Scottish spinster scoured the bush, saving every abandoned baby twin that she could find and taking them to the nearest mission station, some of which were alive with crying babies. She also made efforts to stop the practice of determining guilt by making suspects drink poison.

Mary Slessor was the driving force behind the establishment of the educational facility, the Hope Waddell Training Institute, in Calabar. The Empire gave her the scope to perform these good works to the mutual benefit of the British colonial authorities and the natives themselves.

In 1954 there was a new constitution which set up the federation of Nigeria and on 1st October, 1960, this federation, the product of Britain uniting all the tribes and city states by a combination of diplomacy, treaties and force in the late nineteenth century, became independent with Abubakar Tafawa Balewa becoming its first – and only – Prime Minister. The reason why he was Nigeria’s only Prime Minister is because, after he was deposed, Nigeria has known only military dictators.

In his book, State of Africa, Martin Meredith wrote, “When Nigeria was finally launched as an independent state in 1960, it was with a notable sense of optimism. Led by popularly elected politicians, endowed with a strong, diversified economy and an efficient civil service, Nigeria, by virtue of its size, population and resources, was marked out as one of Africa’s emerging powers.” 48

After a small amount of trouble in the parliament Abubakar Tafawa Balewa unwisely declared a state of emergency in the Western region and brought a treason charge resulting in a conviction and imprisonment against Chief Awolowo, a local leader, and others of his party. This resulted in violent protests which brought about the ousting and murder of this first Prime Minister (and other leaders) in a military coup on 15th January, 1966.

The dead Prime Minister was succeeded by General Johnson-Aguiyi-Ironsi, who became the first of several military heads of state for Nigeria. He was removed and killed in a counter-coup in July, 1966 (dubbed “the July Re-match”), and was succeeded by the next dictator, General Gowon who in turn was overthrown in another coup in 1975 by Brigadier Murtala Mohammed.

It was during the Gowon dictatorship that the Hausa started to persecute any Igbos who were living among them in the north and so the Igbos fled to their homeland of the eastern region. Tribalism, long the curse of humanity but which the British had kept reins on, was rampant and others followed the example of the Igbos and fled from where they were living and working to their own ethnic areas. “By the end of the year [1966] more than a million refugees, many of them wounded, exhausted and in a state of shock, sought safety in the East”.49 And all this only six years after Independence.

The rich oilfields were largely in the eastern region (67% of them) and so the Igbos decided that they could “go it alone”, declaring their eastern region, known as Biafra, to be independent of the rest of Nigeria on 30th May, 1967. Like Abraham Lincoln when faced with a similar secession by the Southern states, the government in Lagos decided to fight in order to retain the union of the country that the British had bequeathed to them at Independence. The result was the Biafran war or, as it is sometimes called, the Nigerian Civil War.

Bombed and strafed by Nigeria’s air force, the people of Biafra suffered terribly – more from starvation than anything else. By the time that the utterly hammered state of Biafra surrendered in January, 1970, some one to three million people had been killed. 50

As already stated, General Gowon was overthrown in 1975 and the new military government organised multi-party elections, resulting in a win for Alhaji Shehu Shagari.

By 1979 Nigeria should have been on the road to economic recovery after all the instability and blood-letting as it had become the sixth largest oil producer in the world, with a revenue of US$24 billion a year. This was to set off a scramble for riches among the corrupt political elite that would bring ruin to the country and its people.

Shagari, the only civilian to have led Nigeria since its first prime minister, turned out to be the king of corruption and, after shamelessly and blatantly rigging the 1983 election, he was overthrown in yet another military coup on 31st December, 1983, by Major-General Mohammed Buhari. The position of head of state of Nigeria was fast becoming the most dangerous job in the world – so different from the long line of distinguished, competent and incorruptible British colonial governors.

Buhari ruthlessly repressed both the media and people’s rights. He had people whipped for forming disorderly queues at bus stops, and had an opponent snatched from a London street, drugged and packed into a crate as “diplomatic baggage”. Buhari in turn was ousted by General Ibrahim Babangida whose goons would stop drivers on the road and shoot them dead, especially drivers of petrol tankers, the petrol then being sold on the black market.

In November, 1993, a new dictator appeared, Sani Abacha, whose specialty was killing anyone whom he perceived as a political opponent, e.g. Ken Saro-Wiwa, the Ogoni rights activist.

Nigeria had become a horror story. Each new administration, according to Doctor Beko Ransome-Kuti, a campaigner for democracy who was held for years in solitary confinement, “plunged to new depths of venality, incompetence and corruption” 51 with the result that the country was barely functioning – closed hospitals, collapsing education, a corrupt justice system, a brutal, extorting, bribe-taking police force, broken roads, regular power cuts and – unbelievably for an oil producer – petrol shortages.

With oil revenues being grabbed by dictators and their cronies the ordinary Nigerians were worse off than they had been three decades earlier, with more than half the people getting by on no more than US30 cents a day. Short of food and clean drinking water, the child mortality rate was almost 20% by the turn of the 21st century.

Abacha died from apparently natural causes on 8th June, 1998. By the time of his death he had salted away a fortune “estimated at £3.6 billion during five years in power”.52 His wife fled to Saudi Arabia with thirty-eight suitcases containing several million dollars in foreign currency; his son, Mohammed, always kept around US$100 million in cash in his house while on the streets people were dying of malnutrition.

As David Blair wrote in London’s Daily Telegraph on 25th June, 2005, “The people who endure life in the fetid slums of Lagos are bitterly aware that thieves dressed as politicians have robbed them of practically everything. Much of Nigeria’s commercial capital, teeming perhaps with 15 million people, is an urban hell. Some shanty towns are so overcrowded that they spill into the sea – their shacks perched on wooden stilts above about three metres of water.

Among the potholed roads and alleys, patrolled by armies of hawkers and street children, there is palpable anger over the corruption that bled Nigeria of £220 billion during the first four decades of independence, impoverishing the great majority of its people. ‘Our leaders are corrupt, greedy and selfish men,’ says Jide Kwaku, who lives in a Lagos shanty. ‘They siphon our money into their bank accounts – and look, our education system is zero; our roads zero; our hospitals zero’. ”

In June, 2005, it was revealed by Nigeria’s anti-corruption commission that more than £220 billion of oil revenues reaped in Nigeria in the previous three decades had been looted by past leaders and their cronies. This was the equivalent of all Western aid given to all of Africa over the previous forty years, or the equivalent of six Marshall Plans. Result: two-thirds of Nigeria’s then 130 million people “live in abject poverty, a third is illiterate, and 40% have no safe water supply”. 53

The following year the Economist reported, “The country is in a crisis. Last week insurgents in the oil-rich Niger Delta region kidnapped nine foreign workers and blew up oil facilities there, forcing the world’s eighth largest oil exporter to cut its output by a fifth. This week, in the Muslim dominated north, mobs went on the rampage, burning churches and killing dozens in the most violent demonstrations sparked so far by the Danish cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad. And in the east, Christian mobs have retaliated by torching mosques, killing dozens of Muslims and forcing thousands to flee their homes.” 54

By 2007 this oil rich country was ranked at 159th out of 177 on the U.N.’s human development index.55 Three years later journalist Daniel Howden wrote in London’s Independent of “a toxic cocktail of unemployment, fuel shortages, pollution, poverty and power cuts”.56

In 2014 Amnesty International reported, “Increasing atrocities by extremists and uncontrolled reprisals by security forces have killed at least 1,500 people this year in north-eastern Nigeria’s Islamic uprising” with “more than half of those killed this year being civilians, including scores of students who were gunned down in schools, had their throats slit or were burned alive in locked dormitories set aflame while they slept”. 57

This uprising got worse as the Muslims of Boko Haram carried out thousands of murders of Christians, abductions of schoolchildren and other atrocities. Like their fellow Muslims in ISIS controlled areas of Iraq and Syria Boko Haram jihadists engaged in slavery – especially of young women and schoolgirls, “using them as sex slaves as in the medieval glory days of Islam”.58 A return to the slave days that preceded Nigeria becoming British territory.

In a video message in May, 2013, the Boko Haram leader, Abubakar Shekau, claimed to have captured young women and girls as slaves, the first open claim of slavery in the 21st century. He justified it by saying, “What we are doing is an order from Allah, and all that we are doing is in the Book of Allah that we follow”.59 According to Wikipedia’s List of Wars by Death Toll, Boko Haram had started a war that had killed more than 350,000 people between 2009 and 2023.

Nigeria, with a population of around 200 million people and some of the largest oil reserves in the world, should be the richest country in Africa and providing its people with at least the basics of life that they were enjoying at the time of Independence. Instead, it is the most indebted of all African nations “with loans of almost £20 billion (2005), because previous rulers not only looted the country but also borrowed heavily against future oil revenues”.60 By 2023 a whopping 97% of Nigeria’s revenue was being applied to servicing its debt of US$91.46 billion.

In June, 2024, Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) reported that 31.8 million Nigerians were suffering from hunger while the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) reported that this oil rich nation had “the largest number of food insecure people globally”. 61 This was the result of a foreign exchange crisis, big inflation in food prices, a shortage of fertiliser for farmers and the abandonment by northern farmers of their land because of kidnapping, extortion and killing of farmers by Boko Haram and other jihadist groups. In the first three months of 2024 some 175 farmers were murdered.62 In 2024 a third of Nigerians were living on less than £1 a day and the soaring food inflation was starving many of them to death.

Another country that has enjoyed similar oil revenues over the same period is Norway. There the government, without a taint of corruption, has used the money wisely, reducing debt to virtually zero, paying full fees for students at university, and building excellent infrastructure. A sad contrast with Nigeria, where the hopes were so high when it was decided to cut its colonial ties with Britain and go its own way.

References:

34. Tales from the Dark Continent, Charles Allen, P. xix‚

35. The British Empire, Vol. 3, P. 104‚

36. Ibid P. 195‚

37. Ibid P. 106‚

38. Ibid‚

39. The British Empire, Vol. 3, P. 111‚

40. Ibid‚

41. Ibid‚

42. P. 10‚

43. Tales from the Dark Continent, Charles Allen, P. 1‚

44. Ibid, P. 17‚

45. Ibid, P. 20‚

46. The British Empire, Vol. 3, P. 112‚

47. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 7, P. 550‚

48. P. 77-8‚

49. State of Africa, Martin Meredith, P. 202‚

50. Wikipedia List of Wars by Death Toll‚

51. Times, 3 July, 1998‚

52. Ibid‚

53. Daily Telegraph, 25 June, 2005‚

54. 25 Feb. 2006‚

55. Economist, 4 August, 2007‚

56. Amnesty No Cure for Militant Rage Created by Poverty, David Howden – as reported in Dominion-Post, Wellington, NZ, 10 April, 2010‚

57. AP as reported in Dominion-Post, Wellington, NZ, 1 April, 2014‚

58. Jihad; Blood and Slavery, M.A. Khan, P. 406‚

59. ABC News, 5 May, 2014, – Lee Feran: Boko Haram; Kidnappers, Slave-owners, Terrorists, Killers

60. Daily Telegraph, 25 June, 2005‚

61. Guardian, 1 July, 2024

62. Ibid

 

So Maori Claim to be Genetically Superior

By William Chambers

The ironic claim by Te Pati Maori of genetic superiority in those of Māori lineage showed through when, in an interview on the National Radio Programme, a part-Maori woman was asked whether she would be happy for her children to marry Pakeha.  This self-opinionated woman replied that it would certainly not be acceptable, because Maori bloodlines need to be kept pure!

Can you imagine if, in the same context, a Pakeha had said that on radio.  All hell would have broken loose.

 

The question that should be asked regarding the racist claim of genetic superiority is: “In what way”.  The fact being, IF Maori were superior in the way of intelligence and business acumen, then they wouldnt need hand-outs or hand-ups.

Of course, Maori will explain away their failings by playing the blame card, i.e. there arent opportunities for them to succeed, because due to colonisation, they are a dispossessed and oppressed race.

And on top of that, face ‘discrimination’.

But hang on, how come other races of people such as Asians, Indians, Filipinos, and black Africans etc. who come to this country with nothing, manage to do very well for themselves.

The truth is, they succeed (achieve “EQUITABLE” outcomes) through work ethic and self-discipline.  Without being granted preferential “rights”.  Nor exploiting Welfare and/or resorting to crime.

And because they are not blighted with an “attitude” problem, it doesnt enter their heads that theyre discriminated against.  Theyre too busy leading decent lives and setting high standards for themselves and their children to exhibit a ‘grievance’ mentality anyway.

 

Therefore, we should not be blamed (or feel guilty) about any Maori failure  which can be due to lack of personal responsibility.

The fact is, offering help based exclusively on race is apartheid, i.e. unlawful.  And, is totally unjustified because what the Treaty guaranteed is equality of citizenship.

Which ironically means it is non-Maori who should feel aggrieved, due to being unfairly burdened with the cost of supporting people who, in many instances, expect it  in the sense of taking the easy way.

Besides which, the more support you offer one category of people, the more reliant they become to being carried through life.  Thats not good for any society.

 

TALKING ABOUT SUPERIORITY  if Maori were superior regarding CAPABILITY, then why would so many rely on Welfare?

Well, laziness isnt a modern phenomenon, because as stated in Ian Wishart’s book ‘THE GREAT DIVIDE’ a Chief known as Ihakara Tokonui was brutally honest about this trait evident in Maori, when he admitted, quote: “You know what the bee is.  Some bees work, some bees are lazy.  The Pakeha are like the working bee.  But the Maori is like the other bee … the lazy one.  And Maori take advantage of the Pakeha’s work.”

 

THEN, if Maori were superior as regards being HONEST, why would they make up around 51% of the prison population, even though theyre only 18% of the total population.

The irony is that some Maori (and woke “snowflakes”) blame this also on the perceived effect of colonisation.

So, theyre saying that when Europeans first arrived, Maori were honest people.  Well, recorded history tells otherwise.  For example, in ‘LETTERS FROM THE BAY OF ISLANDS: The Story of Marianne Williams’ by Caroline Fitzgerald, there is a quote: “When some chiefs were challenged about their dishonourable behaviour they admitted it was true, and agreed they were bad people.”

 

ANOTHER matter is “CHARACTER” or lack of it.  If Maori were superior in this department, then why would so many Maori toddlers be abused and murdered, by their so-called caregivers.

Past history also tells very badly on them regarding character.  Ill give another quote from the ‘LETTERS FROM THE BAY OF ISLANDS’  “A chief called Rangi admitted that Maori generally just think to themselves … I will eat, I will fight, I will distress some poor people, and take their children for slaves.”

I will also quote an excerpt from Charles Darwin’s ‘JOURNAL OF A VOYAGE AROUND THE WORLD, 1831 – 1836.’  After leaving Tahiti, the HMS Beagle visited New Zealand, and Darwins description of Maori is thus: “Looking at Maoris, one naturally compares them with the Tahitians … both belonging to the same family of mankind.  The comparison, however, tells heavily against the Maoris.  In every respect, their CHARACTER is of a lower order.”

While being brutally honest about the subject of “character” I’ll quote a visiting British envoy who was sent to New South Wales in 1835.  His words were: “The Maori chiefs, as well as the Tribes to which they belong, have one and the same distinguishing features, of which rapacious, thieving, and greedy disposition is a principal one”.

NOTE: the word “rapacious” is defined in the Oxford dictionary as: “Wanting more than you have a right to”.

So nothing has changed.

 

Of course, Maori may claim to be genetically superior at sport  but theyre certainly not as good as their Polynesian cousins, especially Samoans and Tongans.

 

THE ONE, and only thing Maori might be able to come up with to justify any perceived superiority, is their so-called wisdom in the way of spirituality.  But that claim is based on nothing but the fact that, in an evolutionary sense, they are only minutes removed from a primitive, stone age existence.  So, theyre still clinging to hocus-pocus beliefs that defy logic or SCIENTIFIC scrutiny.  Which signals a sign of ignorance – not superior knowledge.

And any ‘special’ knowledge that Maori might imagine is unique to “indigenous” peoples, is just like the claim of them actually being indigenous  utter baloney.

 

CONCLUSION: the outrageous delusion of Maori superiority is not backed-up by reality.  But is a totally unwarranted put-down to all other races of people.  So, this claim must be called out for what it is  blatant racism.

 

Which is instigated by the few stirrers at the top trying to wear us down … by resorting to the tactic of using any, and every opportunity to gain the upper hand.

In other words, its all about ultimate “control“.

And theyre well on their way to achieving their goal.

THE SMEAR OF “ANTI_SEMITISM” 

When Tross Publishing published its latest book, Who was behind the Bolshevik Revolution?, we expected criticism from the highly organised lobby that seeks to intimidate into silence any publication that shows any group of Jewish people in a bad light no matter how accurate such description might be. And, of course, the more powerful the book (and this is a very powerful and convincing book), the more intense the criticism and the mindless cries of “anti-Semitism”. What Tross Publishing did not expect was how unnecessarily nasty and utterly pathetic such criticism would be – and here we are talking of Peter Cresswell’s review of the book, which is more a diatribe of smear tactics than a review.

He vents his fury on virtually everyone who has ever said the slightest thing against Jewish activities, including people who are not even mentioned in the book and are therefore irrelevant to a review of it. In his very first paragraph the reviewer calls for the book to be “withdrawn” – i.e. BANNED. And this from someone like Mr. Cresswell who has always presented himself as an advocate of free speech – unless, of course, any book gets up his nose, in which he urges that it should not see the light of day.

His 24 page (A4) review of a book of only 98 pages is a case of overkill and suggests that he is working to an agenda. His lengthy review is mostly nit-picking about citations (is it the first edition of a book or the second?) and complaints that a quoted sentence should have included further citation from the same quoted book. Very hard going for any reader of the review.

He wrote in his review, “They [the Jews] were driven to it, says the author, because they were Jews”. The author never wrote that. On the contrary, the last paragraph of his Introduction to the book is: “In his 1922 book, entitled The Jews, Hilaire Belloc wrote: ‘Bolshevism is a Jewish movement but not a movement of the Jewish race as a whole’. It is important to keep this in mind when reading the book as the crimes of some members of a group cannot and must not be attributed to all of them”. Can’t be much clearer than that. This is an instance of the reviewer using misinformation as part of his smear campaign.

He then says that Lenin “was not at all Jewish”. If he had read the book, he would have known that Lenin was one quarter Jewish through his maternal grandfather whose parents, Alexander and Miriam Blank, were Yiddish speaking Ashkenazi Jews.

The reviewer claims that “Jews as a community suffered enormously under Soviet rule”. That came two decades after the Revolution and is not relevant to the events of 1917 and its immediate aftermath, which is the subject of the book.

Another of the reviewer’s strange and unsubstantiated claims is that there were only five Jews out of twenty-one on the Bolshevik Central Committee

The review claims that Hilaire Belloc rejected the idea of a “vast age-long plot [of the Jews] culminating  in the contemporary Russian affair”, and that this “contradicts Asher’s thesis”. Well, it doesn’t because Mr. Asher, the author of the book, neither wrote of nor implied and “vast age-long plot” or even anything like it.

Unable to help himself in his rage, the reviewer wrote of the “Recrudescence of Anti-Semitic feeling of which Mr. Asher’s book is an ongoing part” the usual standard smear of “anti-Semitism” and further misinformation. His barely concealed anger even resulted in him devoting two paragraphs in lashing out at Kerry Bolton, a writer who was neither mentioned nor cited in the book. Why this irrelevance?

However, Mr. Bolton was not alone in being the victim of the smear. In fact, virtually every person and authority quoted in the book has suffered the same fate. Some examples. Belloc – “the noted anti-Semite” (again, the standard smear), Denis Fahey – “a fascist, would-be theocrat”, a JU.S. Congressional report of 1919 headed “Bolshevism and Judaism” – “a dumping ground for everything anyone had ever heard about the topic”, the claim by Jacob Schiff’s grandson, John, that Jacob had given US$20 million to finance the Russian Revolution – “comes only from a 1949 gossip column”, and “the White Russian propaganda tradition into which Mr. Asher is trapped”. However, only one White Russian is quoted in the whole book and that is A, Stolypin, the son of the former Tsarist Minister, Pyotr (Peter) Stolypin.

The reviewer even damns Winston Churchill as an “old bluffer”. Churchill was the most widely acclaimed man of modern times and everyone of us owes our present freedom to his courage and leadership in 1940 when the British Empire stood alone against Nazism and, but for the leadership of Churchill and his government, things could so easily have gone wrong. This particular smear suggests that the reviewer is ignorant of the events of 1940 or is just plain ungrateful.

In the relevant newspaper article of 1920 Churchill, the best informed member of the British government on Bolshevism and events in Russia at the time, wrote: “With the notable exception of Lenin the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders”. The reviewer denies this, relying – wait for it! – on a 1922 party census from the Bolsheviks, who were always such notorious liars. “These figures”, claims the reviewer, “from the Bolsheviks’ own census, directly contradict Churchill’s ‘majority’ claim and every percentage figure Asher deploys”.

This is unbelievable as Mr. Asher’s figures are taken from informed observers in Russia at the time – people like Victor Marsden, the Saint Petersburg correspondent of Britain’s Morning Post newspaper, Robert Wilton, the London Times correspondent in Russia during the Revolution, Rev. George Simons, the Superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Saint Petersburg, and Captain Montgomery Schuyler, the chief intelligence officer of the American Expeditionary Force based in Omsk, Russia. And yet the reviewer takes his figures from the most notorious machine of deceit that Europe had seen in many a long year. This alone destroys the credibility of the entire review.

Unable to help himself, the reviewer claims that Robert Wilton’s number of nine Jewish members out of twelve on the Central Executive Committee of the Bolshevik Party “is contradicted by Soviet records showing six Jewish members out of fifteen”. Ah yes, those honest Soviet authorities and that horrid Mr. Wilton.

In the next paragraph the reviewer claims that after the Bolsheviks took over, the preponderance of Jews in its government “quickly died”. So how does he explain the fact that by 1935 the Central Executive of the Third International, which ruled the Soviet Union, consisted of 58 men of whom 55 were Jews. (Their names are given on Pages 32 and 33 of Mr. Asher’s book). The other three, Stalin, S.S. Lobow and V.V. Ossinsky, were married to Jewesses.

The reviewer claims in respect of a paragraph quoting Alexander Solzhenitsyn in the Introduction to the book that “He [Solzhenitsyn] didn’t write it”. And neither he did. In the book the relevant quote is preceded by the words “In the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn…” You see, like all human beings Solzhenitsyn had a mouth as well as a hand for writing. These words of Solzhenitsyn were quoted by David Duke in his book, The Secret Behind Communism, and were spoken to Duke by Solzhenitsyn during an interview in 2002.

The reviewer’s final smear is in respect of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which are neither mentioned in the book nor even been read by the author. But, says the reviewer, “one does wonder if our author may have a copy near his desk” – both an assumption (wrong) and a smear. As Socrates said, “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers”.

The  reason for the unnecessarily savage and brutal tone of the review is because the book, using facts, figures and observations of reputable witnesses of the time, is so conclusive in showing that the Bolshevik Revolution was largely – but not exclusively – the work of Jewish revolutionaries – 9 Jews out of 12 on the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, 17 Jews and 5 Gentiles on the Council of People’s Commissars (Sovnarkom) in 1918, 43 Jews and 18 Gentiles on the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (1918), 45 Jews and 5 Gentiles on the High Commissaries of the People (1919), 23 Jews and 13 Gentiles on the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission (the Cheka secret police) while of the 17 countries in which the Soviet Union had ambassadors in 1935-6, 14 were Jews. In the book names of all the members of these groups are given, together with their ethnicity. Why shouldn’t all this be known?

And next time the reviewer bangs on about the value of free speech he, who says that the book should be withdrawn, should be laughed off the stage. Why not let people read it themselves and form their own opinion? The best way for anyone to understand these important historical issues is to get a copy of the book and read it – especially Chapter 10 which contains quotes from 21 rabbis, Jewish writers and magazines actually boasting about the dominant Jewish role in Bolshevism at the time.