Many of us have heard about the British denial of support for Biafra. However, not many of us know that the whole problem with Nigeria or the problem called Nigeria or the Problem of Nigeria was caused and still being caused by the British.
It is on record that the British incited the old Northern and Western region for war against the Eastern region called Biafra in the 60’s . Available records and documentation show clearly that the British caused the war, financed the war and prosecuted the war along the lines of same philosophy of an escaped and recaptured slave, hung publicly as a deterrent for other slaves who may be considering escape. In his book “The Biafran War” Micheal Gould p.43 stated: “Cumming –Bruce was able to persuade the Emirs that secession would be an economic disaster”.
As the British high commissioner Sir Cumming Bruce himself testified p.43 “it wasn’t on the face of it easy to get them (the North) to change, but I managed to do it overnight. I drafted letters to the British Prime Minister, to send to Gowon as Nigerian Head of State, and for my Secretary of State (Micheal Stewart) to send letters to each of the Emirs. I wrote an accompanying letter to each of them because I knew them personally. I drafted all these and they all came back to me duly authorized to push at once. The whole thing was done overnight and it did the trick of stopping them (the North) dividing Nigeria up.”(Nwobu, 2013)The British does not do anything for free and if they were “friends” the North would have been like Dubai today- No single good thing from the British to the North and all they do is using BBC Hausa to brainwash them.
For the many that express surprise or find the British position newsworthy today, it may be worthwhile for them to spend time to read the “Manual of subjugating and enslaving black people” given to the British by Frederick Lugard and published in 1922. The book was called The Dual Mandate in British tropical Africa by Fredrick Lugard who had created the contraption called Nigeria less than nine years earlier.

In exposing the British penchant for lies and a legacy it had sold to the Nigerians in a bid to continue their subjugation of black people and in obedience to what Lugard presented to them as a guide in his book, we must analyze the numerous lies of the British and see how they are similar in pattern to the lies told by the Nigerian and the Northern establishment who are British lackeys.
In the last letter denying being in support of Biafra, the British had in their usual subtle nature, exposed their treachery although many may not decode their lies easily due to mental slavery.We will examine the hypocritical issues raised in the letter stating their stance on the Biafra agitation in no particular order.
In the said letter the British serpent stated that “The Biafran War caused great suffering and the UK sup­ported the reconciliation work that followed the conflict. The UK supports the territorial in­tegrity of Nigeria and President Buhari’s commitment to work for a secure and prosperous Nigeria for all Nigerians.”
One key line of note here is the lie that the British Government supported the reconciliation work that followed because there was no reconciliation work whatsoever --and then we ask -Does any Nigerian living or dead know about any reconciliation work that was done after the war? The British chief slave boy Obasanjo says the emergence of Ekwueme as vice president was the reconciliation effort after just 10 years since the war ended-Everyone saw the Obasanjo slavery mentality in that argument that after stealing people houses and money and picks one lackey of his choice as vice president was reconciliatory? This is again one of the arguments that the British with laugh at as evidence of black man's inferior reasoning capacity.
Was it not after the war that the same British who had found in the Northern establishment and the likes of Obasanjo good British lackeys guided them on how to remove any trace of Igbo from Portharcourt by stealing houses of perceived Igbo people?
Was it not after the same war that with heavy British support that the Nigerian government came up with a fiscal policy that robbed the Igbos of any amount they held in the Bank and gave them only 20 pounds? In case you are a freeborn and not a mental slave reading this - what they did was If an Igbo man had a Million Pounds in the bank before the war, he or she gets 20 pounds but if he or she had 5 pounds, he or she still gets 5 pounds and this was only possible if the Igbo provided evidence of the account.
Just in case you wonder why providing an evidence should not be just a commonsensical thing, remember that with the British lackeys like Obasanjo and the Northern establishment, the Biafran war did not follow the rules of (engagement)war but instead the rule of a recaptured slave. Hospitals, schools churches, Markets and every target was bombed to the cheer of the Nigerian blacks happy with the British unleashing terror on their fellow blacks,This was during the civil rights movement in USA and Apartheid in South Africa.
After the war, Igbos and even non Igbos found to be with any form of Biafran sympathies were sent out of jobs. It was consequent upon this British incited man's inhumanity to man that people started denying being Igbo, others started changing their names while many resorted to the trading you see Igbo do today.
For those who still struggle to understand how bad the British inspired hatred of the Igbos or Eboes as they used to call them works, do some research and find out if there is any war you know where the victims were robbed after the war and no effort of Rehabilitation or Reconstruction except just words. You can't even talk about Biafra without being arrested let alone reconciliation. The war was fought in the old Eastern region but reconstruction started in the Western region and has never gotten to the Eastern region to this day. To better understand how mean the British and their lackeys are, soon after the war, the Lagos port was congested and the war machine called Benjamin Adekunle was brought to oversee it no consideration was really given to diverting the excess ships to the ports in Warri, Port Harcourt or Akwa-Ibom -that policy has continued till today.

Not too long after the war, a patch of oil deposit was discovered in what was then Imo state and because with British incitement, Port Harcourt had been cleaned of any traces of Igbos, they quickly arranged a Boundary adjustment just to cede the oil producing portion to Rivers state.This is British reconciliation as you can see. The same treatment was meted out to the old Cross-River areas because of Philip Effiong.If you remember that this same British not only incited the war but imposed an air, land and sea blockade of Biafra during the war and masterminded the starvation of innocent children and pregnant women, did not allow medical supplies and used the BBC to misinform the world, then it will tell you why they are afraid of discussing the war to this day.

In the same letter also, the British government went further to say that the British supported the territorial integrity of Nigeria and President Buhari’s commitment to work for a secure and prosperous Nigeria for all Nigerians.”
One thing we must all remember is that the British installed Buhari as president of Nigeria in the last “S”election exercise. Let us leave the debate on how they rigged the election for another day. When the British who conducted a referendum for Scotland to secede from the UK is supporting the territorial integrity of Nigeria, does it them mean they did not support the territorial integrity of the UK?
For many who may be wondering what I am driving at, Scotland with less than 6 million people which is just about the number of voters in Kano wanted to secede from the UK. Their union with the Uk is more than three hundred years and a referendum was conducted. No one demonized Scottish people, no one arrested the leader of the Scottish national party and the exercise went well at least on the surface. Comparing the British attitude to the Biafran question shows clearly that the British penchant for subjugating and enslaving black people has continued unabated.
If the British were indeed “good colonial parents” what does it take them to tell their minions in Nigeria to conduct a referendum also? Why does the British engage in telling lies that even a 10 year old knows are just lies and hypocritical? Assuming you have never taken time to study the lies of the British and how they are the cause of all Nigerian problems, take a little time and read Frederick Lugard's book and his description of black people(pages 65-71 maybe). That on its own will help you decode every move the British makes.
Fredrick Lugard for example had said in his book about black Africans “He lacks the power of organization, and is conspicuously deficient in the management and control alike of men or business. He loves the display of power, but fails to realize its responsibility ….he will work hard with a less incentive than most races”
Do you then not wonder why the British wants a group who they believe cannot manage to be in a contraption of over 170 million according to them but working to have Scotland of less than the size of Kano be an independent country?
Just in case you think it has anything to do with oil, remember that all the British oil are actually in Scotland and moreover simple common sense shows that we don't need oil exports to survive as a nation. If you fall into the group of those that think oil is as important as the British has made it, I refer you to a British communication from Bight of Biafra in December 1860 which says "The want of a person wholly unconnected with trade as Consul for Fernando Po and Rivers in the Bight of Biafra is greatly felt, and with a gun-boat attached to the division for his disposal when necessary, I feel confident we should have little or no trouble in protecting our interests, improving the trade, and keeping peace in those rivers from which the bulk of palm oil on the coast is derived"
This should clearly tell us that the British subjugation of blacks has been going on for ages and they come up with one new thing at any time. Biafra is about Black emancipation from Mental slavery and should be encouraged instead of being demonized. It is clear that blacks had moved from suppliers of physical slaves to suppliers of mental slaves as our journey was thus
SlavesPalm OilCoal and LimestoneGroundnuts and CocoaCrude oil today
When will black people then become productive if we continue with a Nigeria being managed by British lackeys? All black countries that sell oil are poor -why do we still think we are developing by selling oil?

If you still believe the British that we need oil to survive it means you have not taken time to evaluate what we really need. The only reason we sell oil is because the British lackeys are in power and use the money to feed the British while fellow blacks remain hungry.
When you express surprise that the British is not supporting Biafra, you must remember that the Biafran problem is British made and oiled with the gullibility and subservient mentality of the likes of Obasanjo and the Northern establishment. Remember also that the British and Americans connived to stop buying Nigerian oil during the Goodluck administration in anger over contracts going to a cheaper China?
The British have been the worst enemy of Nigeria and indeed the North. You cannot point to any good thing they did for the North be it education or industrialization. They may start building one crap after reading this because trust them they are great data miners and depend on research just as they use the Lugard's manual to subjugate blacks perfectly and many blacks still support them.All the British invested heavily on is the BBC Hausa service to enable it brainwash Northerners without offering them anything good in return.
Fredrick Lugard in his book had also said about blacks thus “The African negro is not naturally cruel, though his own insensibility to pain, and his disregard for life—^whether hisown or another's—cause him to appear callous to suffering.He sacrifices life freely under the influence of superstition, or in the lust and excitement of battle, or for ceremonialdisplay.”
This should show you why the British supports the Northerners and their penchant for killing and bloodshed. The Northern violence and religious related crisis was there even under Lugard and while the old eastern region resisted the British, the North fought over their religion.
Also Read: Explaining miscreants and how Biafra was defeated a second time
The British apparently observed this trait in Northerners as recorded by Lugard that they will be good lackeys where he wrote “the virtues and defects of this race-type are those of attractive children, whose confidence when it is won is given ungrudgingly as to an older and wiser superior and without envy”
Today, you can see that the North being a great loser in a relationship with the British, but still working for the British. The Northerners are ready to die for a relationship that favours the British and renders the North a self destructive enclave and taking the rest of Nigeria with it.
In conclusion -if the black people had an objective mindset of their own, shouldn't the Biafran agitation have been a time for discussion? A time for healing and a time for the so called Nigerians and Biafrans to dine together on the table of brotherhood? Think about it - Cameron a 49 year old British boy who was a baby when Buhari slaughtered Biafrans in a war for the British to gain revenge against Igbos for their loss in ekumeku battlefield, commands Buhari to arrest one Nnamdi kanu a black man in his forties, just about the same age as Cameron, and Buhari a 75 year old black man(or monkey according to the British) obeys Cameron - What do you call that?
Why did Cameron not use his “rule of Law” and democracy to stop Nnamdi Kanu or radio Biafra in the UK? In case you suggest that Nnamdi Kanu was criticizing Buhari, remember the same Nnamdi Kanu or radio Biafra criticized Goodluck and Cameron as well--How foolish can the black man be?In case you harbour any doubts about the British and how they use Buhari and other British lackeys, were we not all here when Tony Blair came to tell Buhari to crack NNPC to succeed? Did Buhari ask him if he would have done so to british gas or BP in the UK? Would a British PM sack workers(fellow Britons) at the instance of a Buhari or any other black monkey? If you look at the corruption lies, you don't sack people based on allegations, you investigate and then you act on that result of the investigation. How long will black people continue to be this brainless?
If Buhari and the old brigade and British mental slaves can be emancipated from mental slavery, perhaps Gowon or Obasanjo can come out like Mbeki did here to tell us how the British deceived them to fight the civil war http:///H2jkTK
Their confession will remove the British serpent from the affairs of Nigeria and perhaps initiate a healing process and like the Holocaust, the British can be made to pay reparations for their atrocities on blacks and Biafrans in the 1967 -1970 British genocide on Biafra. The reparation from the UK if pursued by every black person would go a long way in emancipating black people from the stranglehold of the British who incidentally are no longer productive and depend on milking countries like Nigeria where they succeed in installing British lackeys as Presidents.

http://www.news24.com.ng/MyNews24/british-support-for-biafra-20151109

This is just the truth.

WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state revealed


The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.

The company's top executive in Nigeria told US diplomats that Shell had seconded employees to every relevant department and so knew "everything that was being done in those ministries". She boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.

The cache of secret dispatches from Washington's embassies in Africa also revealed that the Anglo-Dutch oil firm swapped intelligence with the US, in one case providing US diplomats with the names of Nigerian politicians it suspected of supporting militant activity, and requesting information from the US on whether the militants had acquired anti-aircraft missiles.

The latest revelations came on a day that saw hackers sympathetic to WikiLeaks target MasterCard and Visa over their decision to block payments to the whistleblowers' website.

The website's founder, Julian Assange, spent a second night in jail after a judge refused him bail prior to an extradition hearing to face questioning over sexual assault charges in Sweden.

Campaigners tonight said the revelation about Shell in Nigeria demonstrated the tangled links between the oil firm and politicians in the country where, despite billions of dollars in oil revenue, 70% of people live below the poverty line.



Cables from Nigeria show how Ann Pickard, then Shell's vice-president for sub-Saharan Africa, sought to share intelligence with the US government on militant activity and business competition in the contested Niger Delta – and how, with some prescience, she seemed reluctant to open up because of a suspicion the US government was "leaky".

But that did not prevent Pickard disclosing the company's reach into the Nigerian government when she met US ambassador Robin Renee Sanders, as recorded in a confidential memo from the US embassy in Abuja on 20 October 2009.

At the meeting, Pickard related how the company had obtained a letter showing that the Nigerian government had invited bids for oil concessions from China. She said the minister of state for petroleum resources, Odein Ajumogobia, had denied the letter had been sent but Shell knew similar correspondence had taken place with China and Russia.

The ambassador reported: "She said the GON [government of Nigeria] had forgotten that Shell had seconded people to all the relevant ministries and that Shell consequently had access to everything that was being done in those ministries."

Nigeria is Africa's leading oil producer and the eighth biggest exporter in the world, accounting for 8% of US oil imports. Although a recent UN report largely exonerated the company, critics accuse Shell, the biggest operator in the delta, and other companies, of causing widespread pollution and environmental damage in the region. Militant groups engaged in hostage-taking and sabotage have proliferated.


The WikiLeaks disclosure was today seized on by campaigners as evidence of Shell's vice-like grip on the country's oil wealth. "Shell and the government of Nigeria are two sides of the same coin," said Celestine AkpoBari, of Social Action Nigeria. "Shell is everywhere. They have an eye and an ear in every ministry of Nigeria. They have people on the payroll in every community, which is why they get away with everything. They are more powerful than the Nigerian government."

The criticism was echoed by Ben Amunwa of the London-based oil watchdog Platform. "Shell claims to have nothing to do with Nigerian politics," he said. "In reality, Shell works deep inside the system, and has long exploited political channels in Nigeria to its own advantage."

Nigeria tonight strenuously denied the claim. Levi Ajuonoma, a spokesman for the state-owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, said: "Shell does not control the government of Nigeria and has never controlled the government of Nigeria. This cable is the mere interpretation of one individual. It is absolutely untrue, an absolute falsehood and utterly misleading. It is an attempt to demean the government and we will not stand for that. I don't think anybody will lose sleep over it."

Another cable released today, from the US consulate in Lagos and dated 19 September 2008, claims that Pickard told US diplomats that two named regional politicians were behind unrest in the Rivers state. She also asked if the American diplomats had any intelligence on shipments of surface to air missiles (SAMs) to militants in the Niger Delta.

"She claimed Shell has 'intelligence' that one to three SAMs may have been shipped to Nigerian militant groups, although she seemed somewhat sceptical of that information and wondered if such sensitive systems would last long in the harsh environment of the Niger Delta," the cable said.

Pickard also said Shell had learned from the British government details of Russian energy company Gazprom's ambitions to enter the Nigerian market. In June last year, Gazprom signed a $2.5bn (£1.5bn) deal with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation to build refineries, pipelines and gas power stations.

Shell put a request to the US consulate for potentially sensitive intelligence about Gazprom, a possible rival, which she said had secured a promise from the Nigerian government of access to 17trn cubic feet of natural gas – roughly a tenth of Nigeria's entire reserves. "Pickard said that amount of gas was only available if the GON were to take concessions currently assigned to other oil companies and give them to Gazprom. She assumed Shell would be the GON's prime target." Pickard alleged that a conversation with a Nigerian government minister had been secretly recorded by the Russians. Shortly after the meeting in the minister's office she received a verbatim transcript of the meeting "from Russia", according to the memo.

The cable concludes with the observation that the oil executive had tended to be guarded in discussion with US officials. "Pickard has repeatedly told us she does not like to talk to USG [US government] officials because the USG is 'leaky'." She may be concerned that ... bad news about Shell's Nigerian operations will leak out."

Shell declined to comment on the allegations, saying: "You are seeking our views on a leaked cable allegedly containing information about a private conversation involving a Shell representative, but have declined to share this cable or to permit us sufficient time to obtain information from the person you say took part in the conversation on the part of Shell. In view of this, we cannot comment on the alleged contents of the cable, including the correctness or incorrectness of any statements you say it contains."

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-shell-nigeria-spying

summary,

In Nigeria, Shell told US diplomats that it had placed staff in all the main ministries of the government.

Biafra shud seek alliance with Russia and China asap

speedyGonzales:
WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state revealed


The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.

The company's top executive in Nigeria told US diplomats that Shell had seconded employees to every relevant department and so knew "everything that was being done in those ministries". She boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.

The cache of secret dispatches from Washington's embassies in Africa also revealed that the Anglo-Dutch oil firm swapped intelligence with the US, in one case providing US diplomats with the names of Nigerian politicians it suspected of supporting militant activity, and requesting information from the US on whether the militants had acquired anti-aircraft missiles.

The latest revelations came on a day that saw hackers sympathetic to WikiLeaks target MasterCard and Visa over their decision to block payments to the whistleblowers' website.

The website's founder, Julian Assange, spent a second night in jail after a judge refused him bail prior to an extradition hearing to face questioning over sexual assault charges in Sweden.

Campaigners tonight said the revelation about Shell in Nigeria demonstrated the tangled links between the oil firm and politicians in the country where, despite billions of dollars in oil revenue, 70% of people live below the poverty line.



Cables from Nigeria show how Ann Pickard, then Shell's vice-president for sub-Saharan Africa, sought to share intelligence with the US government on militant activity and business competition in the contested Niger Delta – and how, with some prescience, she seemed reluctant to open up because of a suspicion the US government was "leaky".

But that did not prevent Pickard disclosing the company's reach into the Nigerian government when she met US ambassador Robin Renee Sanders, as recorded in a confidential memo from the US embassy in Abuja on 20 October 2009.

At the meeting, Pickard related how the company had obtained a letter showing that the Nigerian government had invited bids for oil concessions from China. She said the minister of state for petroleum resources, Odein Ajumogobia, had denied the letter had been sent but Shell knew similar correspondence had taken place with China and Russia.

The ambassador reported: "She said the GON [government of Nigeria] had forgotten that Shell had seconded people to all the relevant ministries and that Shell consequently had access to everything that was being done in those ministries."

Nigeria is Africa's leading oil producer and the eighth biggest exporter in the world, accounting for 8% of US oil imports. Although a recent UN report largely exonerated the company, critics accuse Shell, the biggest operator in the delta, and other companies, of causing widespread pollution and environmental damage in the region. Militant groups engaged in hostage-taking and sabotage have proliferated.


The WikiLeaks disclosure was today seized on by campaigners as evidence of Shell's vice-like grip on the country's oil wealth. "Shell and the government of Nigeria are two sides of the same coin," said Celestine AkpoBari, of Social Action Nigeria. "Shell is everywhere. They have an eye and an ear in every ministry of Nigeria. They have people on the payroll in every community, which is why they get away with everything. They are more powerful than the Nigerian government."

The criticism was echoed by Ben Amunwa of the London-based oil watchdog Platform. "Shell claims to have nothing to do with Nigerian politics," he said. "In reality, Shell works deep inside the system, and has long exploited political channels in Nigeria to its own advantage."

Nigeria tonight strenuously denied the claim. Levi Ajuonoma, a spokesman for the state-owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, said: "Shell does not control the government of Nigeria and has never controlled the government of Nigeria. This cable is the mere interpretation of one individual. It is absolutely untrue, an absolute falsehood and utterly misleading. It is an attempt to demean the government and we will not stand for that. I don't think anybody will lose sleep over it."

Another cable released today, from the US consulate in Lagos and dated 19 September 2008, claims that Pickard told US diplomats that two named regional politicians were behind unrest in the Rivers state. She also asked if the American diplomats had any intelligence on shipments of surface to air missiles (SAMs) to militants in the Niger Delta.

"She claimed Shell has 'intelligence' that one to three SAMs may have been shipped to Nigerian militant groups, although she seemed somewhat sceptical of that information and wondered if such sensitive systems would last long in the harsh environment of the Niger Delta," the cable said.

Pickard also said Shell had learned from the British government details of Russian energy company Gazprom's ambitions to enter the Nigerian market. In June last year, Gazprom signed a $2.5bn (£1.5bn) deal with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation to build refineries, pipelines and gas power stations.

Shell put a request to the US consulate for potentially sensitive intelligence about Gazprom, a possible rival, which she said had secured a promise from the Nigerian government of access to 17trn cubic feet of natural gas – roughly a tenth of Nigeria's entire reserves. "Pickard said that amount of gas was only available if the GON were to take concessions currently assigned to other oil companies and give them to Gazprom. She assumed Shell would be the GON's prime target." Pickard alleged that a conversation with a Nigerian government minister had been secretly recorded by the Russians. Shortly after the meeting in the minister's office she received a verbatim transcript of the meeting "from Russia", according to the memo.

The cable concludes with the observation that the oil executive had tended to be guarded in discussion with US officials. "Pickard has repeatedly told us she does not like to talk to USG [US government] officials because the USG is 'leaky'." She may be concerned that ... bad news about Shell's Nigerian operations will leak out."

Shell declined to comment on the allegations, saying: "You are seeking our views on a leaked cable allegedly containing information about a private conversation involving a Shell representative, but have declined to share this cable or to permit us sufficient time to obtain information from the person you say took part in the conversation on the part of Shell. In view of this, we cannot comment on the alleged contents of the cable, including the correctness or incorrectness of any statements you say it contains."

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-shell-nigeria-spying

brittania supports you since you hate mugabe and julius malema and idi amin and you also try to internetfight with me.