Parental Rights under Attack (Again) … with California’s SB18*

Parental Rights under Attack (Again) … with California’s SB18*

By Carolanne Wright

“I have very profound feelings about parental rights and responsibilities and great dismay in American society over the decades how much that parental right, that parental responsibility has diminished.” ~ California State Senator Jim Nielsen

Parental rights is a hot topic in the U.S. these days, as more parents feel an increasing encroachment by the government into how they raise their family. Now, this ongoing issue between parents and the State has reached an all new level with the introduction of bill SB18, otherwise known as the “Bill of Rights for the Children and Youth of California.”

Supporters claim the bill will help parents to act in the child’s best interest, by providing a safe and healthy environment. They say it’s a “push for a more child-centered approach to life in the Golden State.” But parental rights organizations and activists say the bill has a dark side — one that will lead to mandatory home visits, invade our privacy, and compromise the authority of parents. Ultimately, they believe, it’s a slippery slope toward state-regulated parenting that can jeopardize families, and potentially break them apart altogether. Here’s why…

Controversial Bill Faces Fierce Opposition

On the face of it, SB18 appears to have benign and honourable intentions. After all, who doesn’t want their children to have a solid education, access to good healthcare, live in a safe environment and have emotional well-being?

However, on closer inspection, critics point out the bill severely threatens parental rights and children themselves.

Del Bigtree, producer of the documentary Vaxxed, explains in a Facebook video that many are concerned about the vague language of the bill, where it operates under the assumption that children are to be protected from their own parents. He says the language is dangerous and puts the state in control of your children. Bigtree feels it’s essentially an anti-parenting bill.

Michelle Ford, President and found of the Vaccine Injury Awareness League, agrees.

“This legislation is frightening on so many levels, and is especially horrific to members of the vaccine-injured community,” she said.

“To imply that parents may have to submit to an in-home visitation program because they may be seeking an alternative to ‘evidence-based theories,’ which could easily be bought science such as mandatory vaccinations, is an outrage, which is exactly what SB18 is saying.”

Ford believes the bill paves the way for “egregious acts of medical kidnapping and other abuses.”

Some take issue with the fact that the legislation is based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a treaty which compromises the sovereignty of the United States and is in conflict with U.S. laws concerning privacy and family rights.

Others find the author of the bill — Dr. Richard Pan, a paediatrician turned California Senator — to be a problem. Pan is known for his prominent role in passing SB277, a highly contentious bill that removed religious and personal vaccination exemptions in California, thereby requiring all children attending public and private schools to be vaccinated, unless they could secure a medical exemption. Pan has been under fire since his involvement with the legislation, some claiming he was bought-off by the pharmaceutical industry.

“According to ElectionTrack.com, which tracks campaign contributions, Pan has … received money from Genentech, a company that develops drugs “to address significant unmet medical needs” ($1,500); Tenet Healthcare, a Dallas-based corporation providing “leading healthcare services” around the country such as vaccinations ($4,100); Gilead Sciences, a “research-based biopharmaceutical company” ($1,500); mega-health care corporation Johnson & Johnson ($4,100); BioMarin Pharmaceuticals, which “develops and commercializes innovative biopharmaceuticals for serious diseases and medical conditions” ($1,000); Eli Lilly, a global Big Pharma corporation which developed a number of vaccines including the SARS vaccine and which won protection from autism lawsuits shortly after the turn of the century ($4,100); biopharmaceutical firm AmGen ($1,000); McKesson Corporation, a pharmaceutical distributor ($1,000); drugstore chain Rite Aid ($1,000); and others.” [source]

He was also previously involved in passing another controversial bill concerning the vaccine Gardasil.

“Dr. Pan was among more than two dozen California lawmakers who received campaign donations on record from Merck in the 2010 election cycle, ahead of supporting a 2011 law allowing girls as young as 12 years old to receive Gardasil vaccinations for HPV (manufactured by Merck) without parental consent.” [source]

As Del Bigtree points out, Senator Pan has lost credibility and the trust of his constituents because he has not followed through on his promises — such as assuring the public that doctors would not be persecuted for signing medical vaccine exemptions, when in fact, the opposite occurred as soon as the legislation was passed. He also doesn’t sit down and talk with his constituents, but instead runs from discussion.

Bigtree strongly recommends that those who live in California — and disagree with SB18 — contact their representatives before the legislation moves forward. Already we’ve seen positive changes made to the draft bill due to public outcry, with the most contentious chapter, 18987.84 to be “inoperative on November 30, 2024, and, as of January 1, 2025, is repealed.” California state legislators contact information can be found here.

For more information, have a look at No On SB18.

Overruled: Government Invasion of your Parental Rights

Source*

Related Topics:

Pennsylvania Bill SB 217 Takes Away Parents’ Right to Object to Child Vaccinations*

New York Redefines Biological Parental Rights*

Vaccine Rights without the Parents!

Toddler Permanently Brain Damaged by a Mystery Combination Vaccination That Her Parent’s Did Not Consent To*

A School Field Trip turns was a Trip to Get Birth Control Implants without Parental Consent*

Parents Told Five Times to Abort Boy with ‘no brain’ – Now He’s a Thriving 4-year-old*

 

15k Sexual Assaults by U.S. Military in 2016*

15k Sexual Assaults by U.S. Military in 2016*

A new report from the Pentagon has revealed that there were around 14,900 sexual assaults in the U.S. military last year, ranging from groping to rape. The majority of those who reported such incidents faced retaliation.

Although a total of 6,172 sexual assault reports were filed in fiscal 2016, that figure represents only a fraction of the actual number of incidents that took place, as many victims do not officially report the crimes.

To better understand the actual number of sexual assaults, the Pentagon combined the official reports with the results of an anonymous survey which it conducts every two years.

After compiling the two sets of data, the Defense Department found that there were around 14,900 incidents of sexual assault in the military last year, ranging from groping to rape.

The significant discrepancy between official reports and informal survey responses is largely due to fears of retaliation for reporting sexual assault.

According to the report, 58% of victims experienced reprisals or retaliation for reporting sexual assault.

“Today’s report disappointingly shows a flat overall reporting rate and a retaliation rate against survivors that remains at an unacceptable six out of 10 for a third year in a row,” Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said in a statement following the report’s release.

Navy Rear Adm. Ann Burkhardt, director of the Pentagon’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, acknowledged the issue of retaliation, saying it is a critical area which is still being addressed by the Defense Department, according to The Washington Post.

Progress isn’t success

Despite the large number of sexual assaults that took place last year that number is actually at its lowest since the military began surveying service members about a decade ago. To put last year’s figure in perspective, there were 20,300 cases in 2014, and a whopping 34,000 in 2006.

Furthermore, even though the number of incidents went down in 2016, reporting of incidents went up from the year prior. In fact, the 6,172 reports filed last year represent a record high.

However, Elizabeth Van Winkle, performing the duties of assistant secretary of defence for readiness, said the numbers don’t mean the issue is solved.

“The fight to end sexual assault, sexual harassment, and related misconduct in the military is far from over,” she said at a press conference, as quoted by Reuters.

“We do not confuse progress with success.”

The report comes as the U.S. military, particularly the Marines, is embroiled in a scandal which saw the nude photographs of service members being shared without their permission, in a saga known as ‘Marines United.’

The Marines United investigation is focused on about 1,200 people, including 725 active-duty service members, an official told reporters last month.

Source*

Related Topics:

Over 100 U.N. Peacekeepers ran a Child Sex Ring in Haiti, and were ever Jailed*

Dyncorp, the Private Military Corporation at the Heart of U.S. Foreign Policy Scandal*

Former Dyncorp VP Charged With Rape Of a Minor*

Dallas Mum Discovers New Secret Service Sex scandals through Public Information Requests*

Japan Officially asked the U.S. to Stop Military-related Rapes*

The International Criminal Court is investigating U.S. War Crimes, with a Huge Catch*

Child Abuse – The Scourge of the West*

U.S. Sponsors Rape in Congo*

US Military Sexually Abused 54 Colombian Children*

U.S. Rape and Sodomy of Iraqi Women and Children*

U.S. Soldiers Raping Afghan Women*

More Paedophiles Exposed Amongst U.S. Military and U.K. Politicians!

Senator Arrested for Child Prostitution after Being Caught with Teen Boy*

Ex- House Speaker Says Child He Raped Should Pay Back Hush Money Since He Broke His Silence*

S. Korean Women Sue US Military for Forced Prostitution*

FBI Investigate Child Sex Ring Within U.S. Police Force*

 

German Soldier ‘posed as Syrian Asylum-seeker to Carry out Terror Attack and Blame it on Refugees’*

German Soldier ‘posed as Syrian Asylum-seeker to Carry out Terror Attack and Blame it on Refugees’*

The lieutenant, who has not been identified, was living a double life

 

By Justin Huggler

An officer in the German army who spent more than a year posing as a Syrian refugee has been arrested on suspicion of planning a terror attack.

The 28-year-old lieutenant, who has not been named under German privacy laws, was living a double life, prosecutors said on Thursday.

Police are believed to be working on the theory that the officer, who has a history of expressing anti-foreigner views, planned to carry out a “false flag” terror attack and blame it on refugees.

No details of the suspected terror plot have been released.

The arrested man successfully posed as Syrian asylum-seeker despite the fact he is of German background and speaks no Arabic.

He spent some time living in an official refugee shelter and was paid benefits as an asylum-seeker.

“This is quite an unusual story,” a spokesman for prosecutors in Frankfurt said.

“It’s more than strange. We will have to wait for the investigation to uncover his motives.”

The officer first came to the authorities’ attention in February, when he was arrested by Austrian police after being caught trying to hide a gun in a toilet at Vienna airport.

Although he was swiftly released, German police and the MAD military intelligence service began investigating him, and uncovered an extraordinary trail of evidence.

To investigators’ astonishment, they found that the lieutenant, who was posted to a joint Franco-German unit in France, was also living some of the time as a Syrian asylum-seeker at a refugee shelter in Germany.

He first presented himself as an asylum-seeker in December 2015, in the midst of the influx of more than 1 million migrants who flooded into the country under Angela Merkel’s “open-door” refugee policy.

He was given a place to stay in a refugee shelter in the town of Giessen, near Frankfurt, and formally applied for asylum under a false name in January 2016.

Prosecutors were at a loss to explain how he was able to register as a Syrian asylum-seeker despite the fact he speaks no Arabic and is not believed to be of Syrian origin. The authorities raised no suspicion at the time of his application.

He is believed to have continued living sporadically at a refugee shelter in the months that followed, dividing his time between there and the military base in France where he was posted.

“Just because he was stationed in France does not mean that he had to stay there every day. He was able to move freely during his free time,” a police spokesman said.

One theory being pursued by investigators is that he may have posed as a refugee to set up a false trail of evidence ahead of a terror attack. According to this theory, he would have deliberately left his fingerprints at the scene of an attack so they would lead back to the fake refugee.

A second man, a 24-year-old student from the officer’s home town of Offenbach, has also been arrested in connection with the case. Prosecutors described him as an “accomplice”, though they gave no details of his role in the alleged plot.

“We know from various voice recordings that both men had anti-foreigner views,” the prosecutors’ spokesman said.

Source*

Related Topics:

Mass Sexual Assault by Refugees in Germany was Fake News*

Children Sexually Assaulted at E.U.’s Official Refugee Camps*

Who Is Responsible for Sexual Violence in Europe?*

Fake News on Muslim Attack on German Church*

130,000 Refugees Vanished after Being Registered in Germany*

Belgian Reporter Sexually Assaulted by 3 White Men in Cologne*

Teenage Girl Admits Making up Migrant Rape Claim That Outraged Germany*

Far-right Activists Impersonated Police, Attacked Refugees, Stole their Possessions in Calais*

Syrian Refugees Protect Woman from Sexual Harassment in Germany*

Refugees Donate Time and Money to Help Italian Earthquake Victims*

French Caught Planning an ISIS False Flag Terror Attack on the French*

Putin: ‘95% of World Terrorist Attacks are Orchestrated By The CIA’*

“Jack the Ripper” was Winston Churchill’s Father*

“Jack the Ripper” was Winston Churchill’s Father*

According to John Hamer, the Masonic ritual murder of four prostitutes was carried out by Winston Churchill’s father. The prostitutes were blackmailing the royal family.

Lord Randolph Spencer Churchill, 1849-1895

 

“Churchill was not only the ‘brains’ behind the entire operation, but he was also personally responsible for the cutting of Masonic emblems and symbols into the bodies of the victims, whilst William Gull’s surgeon’s hands  performed the organ removals.”

“Naturally, Eddy absolutely enraged the establishment with his ‘illicit’ marriage which threatened to spark a constitutional crisis of major proportions.  So, as is always the case, the monarchy set in motion a huge cover-up operation. “

By John Hamer

The story begins in the late summer of 1888, the heyday of Queen Victoria’s reign, in the gas-lit streets of London, when a woman’s horrifically mutilated body was discovered in a tawdry slum street in the Whitechapel area of East London….

On the evening of the 31st August 1888, the body of Mary Ann Nicholls, a common prostitute, was found. She had been brutally hacked to death. Her throat had been slit and her torso internal organs exposed.  She was the first of five victims of the now legendary killer, ‘Jack the Ripper’.

The so-called ‘Ripper’ murders came under the jurisdiction of the London Metropolitan Police Force and in particular Inspector Frederick George Abberline.

It is important to note that the diaries of Frederick Abberline did not see light of day until around 70 years after the unsolved murders. They were in the possession of Walter Sickert, art tutor to Prince Albert Victor, the Duke of Clarence, otherwise known by his colloquial name of ‘Prince Eddy’.

Eddy was the eldest son of Albert Edward the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) and Princess Alexandra (later Queen Alexandra), the grandson of the reigning monarch, Queen Victoria and older brother of the future king of England, King George V.  As such, he would have been first in line to the throne.

Unfortunately, due to centuries of Royal in-breeding, Eddy was partially deaf and of well below average intelligence. He was thus shunned by the majority of his cold-hearted family.

Queen Victoria, the reigning monarch at the time was a great supporter and patron of Freemasonry as were all the Royal males of the age (and as they still are today).  Indeed, the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family (the current British royals) had sponsored the rise of Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati.  Weishaupt was indeed born and raised in the Bavarian town of Gotha.

There are several Masonic lodges in the Royal palaces of Britain, the most significant one perhaps being the Royal Alpha Lodge in Kensington Palace.  In 1885 Prince Eddy was initiated into the Royal Alpha Lodge at the behest of his father.

PRINCE EDDY

As well as his membership of the lodge, Eddy was also a regular ‘customer’ at a homosexual-paedophile brothel in Cleveland Street, London; and indiscreetly instigated a series of explicit love-letters with a young boy employed at these premises.

The well-known Satanist, Aleister Crowley had these letters in his possession for many years but eventually they were lost or more likely destroyed.

Eddy had also made a young Catholic ‘commoner’ of Irish descent by the name of Annie Elizabeth Crook, pregnant with his child.

Eddy had foolishly married her in a clandestine church service and this in effect barred him from ever becoming king as British royals are not permitted to marry Catholics, let alone a commoner bearing an illegitimate child.

In 1883, Eddy’s mother, Princess Alexandra, had asked the young painter Walter Sickert to introduce Eddy to the artistic and literary life of London.

Sickert’s studio was at 15 Cleveland Street near to Tottenham Court Road in north London.  He duly introduced the teenage Prince to many of the area’s ‘bohemian types’, including the theatrical friends he had made when he had been a minor member of the Lyceum Company.

Sickert also introduced Eddy to one of his models, a pretty Irish Catholic girl, the afore-mentioned Annie Crook who lived nearby at 6 Cleveland Street and who worked by day in a local tobacconist’s shop.

They fell for each other and, according to Sickert, went through two clandestine marriage ceremonies, one Anglican and one Catholic.  Soon afterwards Annie became pregnant and her employer needed someone to fill in for her during her confinement.

Walter Sickert was asked if he knew anyone suitable and, after consulting friends, found a young girl called Mary Jean Kelly from the Providence Row Night Refuge for Women in Whitechapel.

For some months, Mary worked alongside Annie Crook in the shop and the two became friends.  In due course, on the 18th April 1885, Annie gave birth to Eddy’s daughter, Alice Margaret, in the Marylebone Workhouse.

When she returned home, her new friend Mary Kelly moved in as the child’s nursemaid.  Mary also worked as a prostitute in the evenings to supplement her meagre income.

Naturally, Eddy absolutely enraged the establishment with his ‘illicit’ marriage which threatened to  spark a constitutional crisis of major proportions.  So, as is always the case, the monarchy set in motion a huge cover-up operation.

Annie was kidnapped from the shop where she worked and at the same time Eddy was confined to Buckingham Palace.

Fortunately, fearing the worst, Annie had given the child, Alice to Walter Sickert for safekeeping shortly before she was forcefully taken to Guy’s Hospital in London.

She remained there for five months and whilst she was there, Sir William Gull, the Queen’s personal physician performed a partial frontal lobotomy on her, in effect rendering her docile and compliant and thus easily controlled by these inhuman monsters.

Certified insane by Gull, Annie lived for the rest of her life in institutions, spending her last days in the Lunacy Observation ward of St George’s Union Workhouse, Chelsea and dying there in obscurity in early 1920 at the age of 57.

MARY KELLY’S BLACKMAIL

There the matter might have ended, but for Mary Kelly’s greed.  Back in Whitechapel, Mary had befriended three other local prostitutes to whom she boasted of her ‘royal connections.’  In the spring of 1888, the quartet hatched a plan to demand money from Walter Sickert, threatening to otherwise make the story public.

She had not fully comprehended the fact that not only was she in effect attempting to blackmail royalty but because of the Freemasonic connection, she was also holding-to-ransom a group of psychopathic murderers who would literally stop at nothing and had the means to kill with impunity whilst enjoying the ‘protection’ of people in high places.

Sickert immediately passed word to Eddy who informed his father.  The Prince of Wales discussed the threat in the greatest secrecy with trusted fellow Masons in the Royal Alpha Lodge. A special meeting was arranged at the Lodge by the Royal Masons known as the ‘Princes of the Blood Royal.’ They agreed to form a ‘hunting party’ to literally hunt-down and kill the hapless girls as punishment for their audacity and as a Masonic blood-sacrifice.

The ‘hunting party’ was drawn exclusively from the Royal Alpha Masonic Lodge and included Sir William Gull, Eddy’s former Cambridge University tutor J. K. Stephen and Sir Charles Warren, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police (who took no active part in the killings but who helped facilitate the plot and expedite the cover-up.)  To drive them about their sordid business, they recruited a coachman who had previously betrayed Prince Eddy’s indiscretions to the Royals, one John Netley.

Warren provided information on the girls’ whereabouts using his privileged position in the police force. Sir William Gull prepared grapes injected with opium, which would be offered to the victims to subdue them so that the dastardly deed could take place with a minimum of fuss.

It was arranged that John Netley, the coach driver and a particularly nasty character was to be the ‘getaway driver.’ The ‘lookout’ would be J.K. Stephen, a cousin of Virginia Woolf and another Freemason with royal links. The murders were planned to occur within Gull’s carriage – away from prying eyes.

It should be noted that Abberline’s diaries confirmed that the modus operandi was that the murders were planned and performed by more than one person according to Masonic ritual, similar to a fox-hunt.  These are facts which were never allowed to come to light.

THE RING LEADER

So, who was the ringleader of this murderous gang?  None other than the prominent Freemason, Secretary of State for India, the Leader of the House of Commons and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Randolph Spencer-Churchill, father of the future prime minister, Winston Churchill.

Churchill was not only the ‘brains’ behind the entire operation, but he was also personally responsible for the cutting of Masonic emblems and symbols into the bodies of the victims, whilst William Gull’s skilled surgeon’s hands of performed the organ removals.

The assassins set about discovering the blackmailers’ whereabouts with ‘insider’ help from Warren and then systematically plotted their executions.  The ritualistic, murderous spree began on the 31st August 1888 with Mary Ann Nicholls as their first victim and continued with the killing of Annie Chapman on the 8th September.

In turn each woman was lured inside the coach, then killed and mutilated in the ritualistic way that the three ‘Juwes’, Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum, the murderers of Hiram Abiff, were executed in the old Masonic legend.  Their throats were ‘cut across’, their bodies torn open and their entrails ‘thrown over’ the left shoulder.

On the 30th September, there were two further killings but on that night, things did not go smoothly.  As the murderers were dumping that night’s first victim, Lizzie Stride, in Berner Street, they were interrupted and had to abandon her corpse before its ritual mutilation had been completed.

More alarming still, the night’s second victim, Catherine Eddowes, was, according to Sickert, killed in error.  It was learned that poor Catherine had for some time lived with a man called John Kelly, had often used his surname and so had been wrongly identified as the blackmailer-in-chief, Mary Kelly.

That mistake nearly led to the group’s undoing.  In the belief that this was to be the climactic move of their campaign, the group had already arranged Catherine’s corpse, more completely mutilated than any of her predecessors, in Mitre Square opposite the Masonic Temple and close to the Whitechapel Road.

They had chalked on a nearby wall a Masonic slogan to act as a postscript to the whole sordid affair.  A policeman copied it down into his notebook and it said:

“The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.”

Arriving on the scene Sir Charles Warren, to the acute surprise of his underlings, ordered that the chalked epitaph, presumed by observers to be in the killer’s hand, should be immediately washed down and erased.  The reason he gave was that he did not want anti-Jewish sentiment to be inflamed, but Sickert suggested the real reason was that too many insiders would recognize that the message referred not to the ‘Jews’ but to the ‘Juwes’ of Masonic legend, and would therefore identify the killers as Freemasons.

After this setback there was a pause of more than a month, the longest interval between the killings, while the group redoubled their efforts to find the real Mary Kelly. Meanwhile, rumours of the killer’s associations with Freemasonry and with the Royal family continued to grow.  It was not until the 9th November that Mary Kelly was finally tracked down.  To use the coach again was deemed too dangerous now, so she was dispatched in her own Dorset Street lodgings, more bloodily mutilated than any of her fellow-conspirators, her throat slashed, her body brutally cut apart and her intestines arranged ritually about the room.

There is in existence a police drawing of the last person to be seen with Mary whilst she was still alive and this bears an uncanny resemblance to no less a person than Lord Randolph Spencer-Churchill himself.  Of course, this particular ‘lead’ was never followed-up by the Masonic-controlled and run Metropolitan Police.

J.K. Stephen, again according to Abberline’s diaries, actually went to the police, made a full confession and surrendered himself in a fit of guilt but of course no arrests were made and Stephen was also released without charge. Abberline resigned his position with the force and retired forthwith as a direct result of his disgust at the inaction and cover-up on the part of the police.  Indeed there are still files in existence in Scotland Yard that have been sealed forever to prevent the truth from ever being revealed.

CONCLUSION

When Prince Eddy found out that his wife had been lobotomized, he had a nervous breakdown and was never the same again thereafter.

Sickert fled the country upon hearing the news of Annie Crook’s abduction and took up residence in Dieppe, France in an attempt to protect the child, Alice.  When Alice grew up, she and Walter Sickert became lovers and in turn had a child themselves who went by the name of Joseph Sickert –  who kept Inspector Abberline’s diaries unpublicized for 50 years after inheriting them from his father.

This then is the real story of Jack the Ripper, straight from the ‘horse’s mouth’.  These facts must be known by the current establishment but as always, they close ranks to prevent the truth from becoming known.  All of the multiplicity of theories that abound as to the identity of the killer and the many films, documentaries and TV programmes that portray an unending search for the ‘truth’ are nothing more than elaborate smokescreens, born from the deliberate confusion engendered by the Elite to protect the guilty, as is their usual modus operandi.  This is another tiny example of how easy it is for these psychopaths to provide us all with a completed distorted view of both the past and our existing reality.

A further legacy of this sorry affair was that the payoff for the Spencers was two terms as Prime Minister for Lord Randolph’s son and two generations later, Lady Diana Spencer became the wife of the future King Charles III and mother to the future King William V and his brother Harry, only to be famously discarded once she had produced an ‘heir and a spare.’ In 1997, she was brutally and ritually murdered herself in Paris.

c.2011 John Hamer

Note: The 1991 book, “The Ripper and the Royals” by Melvyn Fairclough covers the diary as well. John Hamer is indebted to the research of Chris Everard, a British alternative film maker who made a film about the depravity of the royals throughout the ages. 

 

This is an excerpt from his book, ‘The Falsification of History – Our Distorted Reality’ 2012.

John Hamer is a British researcher and author.  Twitter: @johnhamerauthor

Web site: http://falsificationofhistory.co.uk/onecoin/

Books:  http://www.amazon.co.uk/John%20Hamer/e/B00B8X4CB6/ref=la_B00B8X4CB6_af?rh=n:266239,p_82:B00B8X4CB6&sort=author-pages-popularity-rank

 

Related- this ridiculous story in the Daily Mail  that DNA has identified a Polish immigrant “Aaron Kosminski” as the killer.

Obviously the Illuminati go on covering their tracks for decades, even centuries.

 Source*

Related Topics:

Secret Archive: Jack the Ripper Was a Freemason Committing Ritualistic Murders along with Royals and the Elite*

World Freemasons Gather in Tokyo to Select New Leader as Golden Age Dawns*

Winston Churchill’s Brutal Oppression of the liberty-loving Irish*

Queen’s Speech: Tories Push Ahead with Controversial Plan to Scrap Human Rights Act*

Whistle Blowers Incarcerated, While Queen Elizabeth is Free, but Found Guilty in Missing Children Case*

Why is the Legalization of Gay Marriage so Important to the Queen?*

Paedophilia: Enough Evidence against the Queen of England and Her Prime Minister*

Fears of a British Policed State Rising Midst the Elite Paedophile Scourge*

The Windsor-Bush Bloodline Traced Back to the Roman Caesars and Egyptian Pharaohs*

 

Trump Authorizes the Pentagon to Manage Troops on the Ground in Iraq and Syria*

Trump Authorizes the Pentagon to Manage Troops on the Ground in Iraq and Syria*

If the West is bankrupt from all the wealth, natural resources, and blood spilt in Africa and Asia, and all the taxes they rob their citizens of are they in any position to rule the world…

U.S. soldiers gather at a military base north of Mosul, Iraq © Mohammed Al-Ramahi / Reuters

 

U.S. President Trump has given the Pentagon authority to independently set troop levels in Iraq and Syria, and to ensure commanders’ flexibility. Over 5,000 troops are deployed in Iraq, and 500 in Syria, where they operate without Damascus’ invitation.

“The President has delegated the authority for Force Management Levels (FML) for Iraq and Syria to the [Defense] Secretary [James Mattis],” said Captain Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, as cited by ABC.

He also said that no change has been made at this stage to the number of U.S. troops in the Middle East, adding that the current military strategy involves rendering support to local militias fighting Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).

The move does not mean that the numbers of troops in Iraq and Syria will change “nor does it change the process by which we will manage those forces,” said Davis.

“Bringing the authority really back here where it’s historically been enables military commanders to be more agile, to more quickly and efficiently support partners, to have more rapid decision-making, and to keep units together,” he said, adding, “it simply restores authority and it’s a more effective way of managing it.”

The Force Management Level (FML) system was introduced in Iraq and Syria during the Obama administration, in order to exert control over the military. Control of the system is being transferred from the White House to the Pentagon, where it had typically existed before the Bush and Obama administrations.

Obama, from time to time, increased FML limits, but the scheme was criticized by military commanders, arguing that the bureaucratic process complicated their ability to deploy troops in the midst of the wars in Iraq, and later, Syria.

The decision to allow the Pentagon to manage troop levels comes as U.S. public approval for expanded engagement in Syria shows signs of strength. A Morning Consult/Politico poll published in mid-April found that 31% of Americans believe the U.S. should be doing “much more” in Syria, while another 32% said the U.S. should be doing “somewhat more.”

The poll also found that 66% supported the Trump administration’s decision to launch a massive cruise missile strike on a Syrian Army airbase in Shayrat – a move that was described as an act of aggression by Damascus and Moscow.

The delegation of authority over FML does not apply to Afghanistan, where 8,400 American soldiers are still deployed. The Trump administration is currently reviewing its Afghanistan strategy, and the authority for setting troop levels there will still be handled by the White House.

“When the White House has oversight, [the figure] has a political dimension, good or bad. Trump was elected so there is a degree in which he is abdicating. That’s a pretty big decision to delegate to your Secretary of Defense,” Colin Kahl, national security adviser to former Vice President Joe Biden, told BuzzFeed.

“This allows the Pentagon to race ahead of the inter-agency process, which is designed to produce holistic strategies to address our most pressing challenges.”

Source*

Related Topics:

U.S. Deploying Thousands More Ground Troops to Kuwait to Fight in Iraq and Syria*

Desperate Cabal Use UFO to Attack Caught Over Syria, Countless Structures Destroyed*

Deep State in Panic Mode, Creating Events to Distract from their Activities*

Major U.S. Politicians Are Being Blackmailed by the Deep State

The Satanists who destroyed the Middle East are back in Washington*

The Satanists who destroyed the Middle East are back in Washington*

By Jonas E. Alexis

Wolfowitz was elated when he heard that Trump attacked Syria, and he has had private email conversation with “Trump Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and national security advisor H.R. McMaster, both long time contacts since his Bush days.” He hopes that the Trump adiministration “will pursue a U.S. strategy of stepped-up engagement in the Middle East.”

 

Paul Wolfowitz

The Satanists who literally created chaos in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are back in the White House. They are currently chilling with the Trump administration. One of those Satanists is none other than Paul Wolfowitz. A little background of this dude.

When he was told by deputy national security advisor Stephen Hadley that there was no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, Wolfowitz responded with certainty,

“We’ll find it. It’s got to be there,” which is another way of saying that if it does not exist, they would make it up.

Both Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith were under investigation for passing classified documents to Israel. In other words, these people were and obviously still are agents of the Israeli regime. It must be stated in passing that the FBI has numerous documents tracing Israel’s espionage in the U.S., but no one has come forward and declared it explicitly in the media because most value their careers and lives.

For example, when two top AIPAC officials—Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman—were caught passing classified documents from the Pentagon to Israel, Gabriel Schoenfeld defended them. In the annual FBI report called “Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage,” Israel is a major country that pops up quite often.

This is widely known among CIA and FBI agents and U.S. officials for years. One former U.S. intelligence official declared,

“There is a huge, aggressive, ongoing set of Israeli activities directed against the United States. Anybody who worked in counterintelligence in a professional capacity will tell you the Israelis are among the most aggressive and active countries targeting the United States. They undertake a wide range of technical operations and human operations. People here as liaisons… aggressively pursue classified intelligence from people. The denials are laughable.”

In 1991, the Israelis tried to recruit a former U.S. intelligence official, but he declined.

“I had an Israeli intelligence officer pitch me in Washington at the time of the first Gulf War. I said, ‘No, go away,’ and reported it to counterintelligence.”

Covert operations were done by the Israelis in “a 1997 case in which the National Security Agency bugged two Israeli intelligence officials in Washington discussing efforts to obtain a sensitive U.S. diplomatic document. Israel denied wrongdoing in that case and all others, and no one has been prosecuted.”

Yet this has rarely seen the light of day in the popular media. Pointing these facts out, according to the reasoning of Omri Ceren of Commentary, is tantamount to anti-Semitism. And since criticism of Israel and Jewish behavior is anti-Semitism, then Satanists like Paul Wolfowitz can walk on the political platform as they so choose because no one can touch them.

Wolfowitz has obviously seen that Iraq is not paradise, but he still wants to bludgeon America in the region—presumably for Israel.

 “The alternative is to let a very important, critical part of the world go to hell literally and lose American influence,” he declares.

“We may not like to talk about oil, but this is the engine of the world economy and if it’s dominated by the wrong people, the consequences here in the United States are very serious.”

Wolfowitz was elated when he heard that Trump attacked Syria, and he has had private email conversation with “Trump Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and national security advisor H.R. McMaster, both longtime contacts since his Bush days.” He hopes that the Trump administration “will pursue a U.S. strategy of stepped-up engagement in the Middle East.”

Wolfowitz actually sees the Trump administration as a puppet which needs to be manipulated. “I think there is a fantastic opportunity here,” he diabolically declared.

“It’s only a first step, it’s only an opportunity.”

Opportunity to do what? To con the American people again? To send a six-trillion dollar bill to decent Americans who cannot even afford to feed their families? To loot pension funds for perpetual wars?

Keep in mind that Wolfowitz completely disavowed Trump during his election precisely because Trump kept talking about “America First,” an idea which is antithetical to perpetual wars in the Middle East. Now Satanists like Wolfowitz are all over the Trump administration because Trump has already prostrated before them.

Source*

Related Topics:

How America Betrayed its Sunni Allies in Middle East?

Suicide Kills U.S. Troops More than Active Duty in the Middle East*

U.S. Opposed to Sovereignty of Muslim Nations*

Greater Israel” Requires the Breaking up of Existing Arab States*

The Secret Oil War Has Begun*

Queen Elizabeth Warns Of ‘Holy War To End All Wars’ *

How the World Map Looks Wildly Different from What You Think*

How the World Map Looks Wildly Different from What You Think*

From Alexandra Bruce

Most of us have an idea of what the world map looks like, based on its most popular representation, the Mercator Projection. This is an extremely flawed 2D representation
of the Earth’s landmasses, due to the spherical shape of the planet.

This clip shows how completely skewed the actual sizes are the world’s countries, according the Mercator Projection.

I have been being trolled by Flat Earthers in the Comments sections lately and I invite all reasonable people to correct perpetrators and/or victims of the nefarious newfangled Flat Earth psyop/trope at will.

Related Topics:

Nine Ancient Maps that SHOULD NOT exist in Western Eyes*

Ancient Pyramids in Antartica’s Landscape and the Piri Reis Map*

The TRUE Size Of Africa*

ICA Finally Admits World Map is a Propaganda Tool for Power, Western Cartographers Deliberately Shrunk Africa*

 

European Museums to ‘loan’ Looted Benin Bronzes to Nigeria!?*

European Museums to ‘loan’ Looted Benin Bronzes to Nigeria!?*

Credit: K. Opoku

 

By Kwame Opoku

The idea of Europeans establishing in Benin City a permanent display of looted Benin artefacts that continue to be in European ownership should be considered by every African as an insult to Nigerians and African peoples. Successors to looters become arbiters of the location and display of Benin artefacts. The wishes of the Oba of Benin are simply ignored. The Benin artefacts should be returned to the Oba of Benin and his people who may decide to organize a display showing artefacts that were looted in 1897 by a violent British army.

‘We, Europeans, who have received and transmitted and continue to transmit these objects, are on the side of the conquerors. To a certain extent, this is also a ‘heritage that weighs us down’. But there is no fatality. The good news is that in 2017 the history of Europe being what it is and has also been for centuries, a history of enmity between our nations of bloody wars and discriminations painfully overcome after the Second World War, we have within ourselves the sources and resources to understand the sadness, or the anger or hatred of those who, in other tropics, much further away, poorer, weaker, and have been subjected in the past to the intensive absorbing power of our continent. Or to put it simply: it would be sufficient today to make a very tiny effort of introspection and a slight step aside for us to enter into empathy with the dispossessed peoples’’ Bénédicte Savoy

Queen-Mother Idia, Benin, Nigeria, now in British Museum, London, United Kingdom.

I read with great interest an article entitled ’University-owned Benin collections may be loaned to Nigeria’ written by Monty Fynn on 4 April 2017, in Varsity, independent student online newspaper of the University of Cambridge.

The article reports that an agreement was reached at meeting of a so-called Benin Dialogue Group that met in Cambridge during the first week of April 2017 with delegations of the Benin Court, Nigerian museums, and a number of European museums with major Benin collections to establish in Benin City an exhibition of a certain number of Benin artefacts loaned by European museums. According to the article, ‘the display will consist of rotating material from a consortium of European museums.’  There are no details about which artefacts will be in the projected display or about the museums that will make contributions. We do not know whether the British Museum, the museum that holds the greatest number of the looted Benin artefacts, will be participating in this project, or whether any artefacts from British museums will be loaned and when this project will start. The participation of the British Museum cannot be taken for granted. When the museums met in 2013 to draw the so-called Benin Plan of Action, the venerable museum did not participate owing to alleged logistic difficulties to travel to Benin.

The reported information seems to have come from a statement by Prince Gregory Akenzua. A spokesperson of the University of Cambridge is also reported to have stated that the agreement builds on the Benin Plan of Action of 2013. We prefer not to comment here on that miserable document. It may be symptomatic of the nature of the discussions said to be going on that the public receives very little information. We are to be surprised by a scheme that may raise many controversies.

In the absence of more details about the proposed display in Benin City, we reserve our right to make detailed comments later. Meanwhile, we offer a few preliminary comments on the available information. We believe that ideas should be discussed vigorously before they are concretized and before it is to late to change or challenge them. The long 500-year period of relations between Africa and Europe has taught us several lessons which should not be ignored even by museum officials.

We should pay careful attention to the idea of successors to the looters of the Benin artefacts making a loan to the rightful and legitimate owners of the artefacts looted in 1897 by the members of the nefarious British Punitive Expedition.

Since when do looters or their successors loan the very stolen objects to the owners instead of simply and correctly returning them?

What will be the status of the Benin artefacts that were wrenched from their locations with great violence and mayhem?

Would this mean that, for instance, Nigerians cannot send any of the artefacts to Ghanaians for a Pan African festival in Accra without the consent of Europeans? Are we moving forwards or backwards? We should be aware that by accepting a loan of looted Benin artefacts, one could be considered to have recognized thereby the ownership or ownership rights of the museums in the artefacts. One will be estopped, in English law, from asserting a contrary position later. So far, no such recognition of ownership has been formally accepted. Once we reach such a situation, we can forget all our claims for restitution of looted African artefacts. A dangerous precedent would have been set for other African States.

It would be interesting to know what price Nigerians would pay for this revolving display of Benin artefacts. Would they have to pay money for the loan? Would they be paying for the loan of their own artefacts to the successors of the notorious looters? Or would there be some other consideration such as renouncing forever any claim to the looted artefacts? There is in the museum world, as elsewhere, no such thing as free lunch. The danger here is that much of the arrangements between African museums and their European counterparts are usually shrouded in mystery and the public never gets to know the details. The need for transparency is not felt by many African and European museum officials. Many museums appear to be run almost as secret societies. No one knows about their expenditures and they react badly to questions about details of their finances. They do not see it as a duty to inform the public about arrangements with other institutions.

They invite the public to see and admire the objects in exhibition but do not want an inquisitive public that seeks information about the administration of the museum. For example, nobody knows what the Russians paid for having a Parthenon marble flown to St. Petersburg for exhibition. We also do not know how much Nigeria received for Benin: Kings and Rituals-Court Arts from Nigeria in Vienna, Paris, Berlin and Chicago. Nor is one informed about the expenses of Kingdom of Ife: Sculptures from West Africa.

Members of the nefarious Punitive Expedition of 1897 posing proudly with looted Benin artefacts

 

It is true though that many African governments have not provided sufficient funds for their museums which must often rely on external funds from the very states that are holding our looted artefacts. That clearly weakens the bargaining position of African museum officials in their dealings with European museums. Think of the deleterious effect of such situations on the production of knowledge in museum studies. The often-stated commitment of African governments to African culture is not generally followed by any concrete acts. Hardly any politician follows the example of Léopold Sédar Senghor who made sure that the budget of Senegal made sufficient provisions for arts and culture.

The idea of Europeans establishing in Benin City a permanent display of looted Benin artefacts that continue to be in European ownership should be considered by every African as an insult to Nigerians and African peoples.  Successors to looters become arbiters of the location and display of Benin artefacts. The wishes of the Oba of Benin are simply ignored. The Benin artefacts should be returned to the Oba of Benin and his people who may decide to organize a display showing artefacts that were looted in 1897 by a violent British army. This would be the true history of the Benin Bronzes, however painful and shameful this may be for some persons and institutions. For the sake of all those who lost their lives and properties in the notorious invasion, the true story of Benin should be preserved. Falsification and distortion of history will not do.

Nigerian officials should finally pay some attention to the so-called manifest destiny of Nigeria on the African continent and bear in mind that any arrangement they reach with European museums and governments will be cited as precedent for similar agreements regarding restitution of looted artefacts from other African States.

Head of an Oba, Benin, Nigeria, now in Bristol Museum, Bristol, United Kingdom of Great Britain.

 

The report on the proposed display of Benin artefacts on loan from European museums demonstrates once more, if another proof were necessary, European contempt for Africans and our intelligence. How could anyone, conversant with the history of the violent detachment of the artefacts from the palace of Oba Ovonramwen in 1897 make such a proposal? Would Europeans accept such a proposal if their looted treasures were in Nigeria and were shown from time to time in London and then returned to Benin where they would be kept for good? Do Benin artefacts belong to Nigerian history or European history? And how can any respectable African agree to such a proposal? Where is the self-respect of African representatives?

Queen-Mother Idia, Benin, Nigeria, now in the Ethnological Museum, Berlin, Germany.

 

We expect nothing short of the full restitution of the famous Benin bronzes such as the hip-mask of Queen Mother Idia, now in the British Museum, the bust of Queen-Mother Idia, now in the Ethnological Museum, Berlin, the plaque of Oba Ozolua and his retainers, now in World Museum, formerly Ethnological Museum, Vienna, the altar with Oba Ewuakpe, in the Ethnological Museum, Berlin, Germany, as well as the altar with Oba Akenzua I. in the same museum. These Benin nobles must return home to occupy their rightful place in the history and culture of the Benin and Nigerian peoples.

Altar group with Oba Ewuakpe, Benin, Nigeria, now in Ethnological Museum, Berlin, Germany.

 

The famous and well-known bronzes, relating to Benin history and culture, should be returned to Benin unless the Oba of Benin agrees that some of them may stay abroad. It would not be acceptable that European museums select for their own use the better-known objects and return to Nigeria lesser known artefacts.

What the people of Benin need is not a museum of rotating artefacts, here today in Benin City and back tomorrow in Berlin or London. We do not know whether other countries have such a system, apart from special exhibitions. In most countries, historical figures, such as Queen-Mother Idia, would have their statues standing at a definite place in a definite museum for decades. Students and pupils would visit such figures at places known by all. But how do you teach the public about such personalities when they are constantly changing and returning to the countries that have been keeping them since the invasion of 1897? How do you create and build knowledge on such a basis? No one could prepare a history of Benin for schools on such basis.

Regarding the number of artefacts to be returned, one would hope that the Nigerians may agree to leave a few in European museums but the majority should be returned. For example, the Ethnological, Berlin, holds some 508 Benin artefacts. There is no reason why at least 300 should not be returned to their original abode in the palace of the Oba of Benin from where they were looted. [5] We believe Benin should have most of Benin artefacts just as the Europeans have most European artefacts. Alas, Westerners have banned justice and morality from issues of restitution. For example, instead of seriously considering returning many Benin artefacts to Benin City, German museum officials are busy working on how they can display the artefacts in the new Humboldt Forum now under construction in Berlin. Those holding looted items do not seem to have any urge to return them.

Western museums holding looted Benin artefacts are not likely to change their attitudes so long as countries like Nigeria do not increase the pressure on them to release stolen objects. Since independence in 1960, Nigerian parliaments and governments have frequently requested the restitution of the looted artefacts and have mandated officials to contact the holders but so far not even one of the looted artefacts in the museums has been returned. In a speech delivered in Vienna, at a conference on New Cultures of Collaboration, Sharing of Collections and Quest for Restitution: The Beni Case, Vienna, December 2-3, 2010, the Director-General of the National Commission on Museums and Monuments (NCMM), Nigeria, invited what he called ‘international museums’ to establish museums with branches in source countries.

The idea is not new and has been mentioned by a Nigerian scholar some decades ago. We consider this idea very dangerous. When we have Western museums known for holding looted Nigerian artefacts, refusing to return any, it does not seem right to invite them to open branches in Nigeria. In effect, one is inviting them to open a depot at the source for the looted/stolen artefacts in their museums. As the Director-General would know from the examples of British lootings he mentioned, the universal museums, (which he prefers to call international museums) have always played a major role in such lootings. For example, Richard Rivington Holmes, an assistant in the manuscripts department of the British Museum, had accompanied the expedition against Magdala, Ethiopia, as an archaeologist. He acquired a number of objects for the British Museum, including around 300 manuscripts which are now housed in the British Library.   http://www.britishmuseum.org

Whether in Beijing, (China,1860), Magdala, (Ethiopia, 1868), Kumasi, (Gold Coast, Ghana, 1874) or Benin City, (Nigeria, 1897), it is obvious that the looted articles were not taken at random by wild soldiers hungry for loot; the objects were taken with advice from experts from museums or auction houses. Even in our days when meetings are held on ‘what objects we should save in case of war’, this is usually a training seminar by experts to instruct on what is valuable in a museum or palace which one should take out. Looters in time of invasions do not simply loot on instinct but with knowledge, training and skill.

We can imagine the consequences of inviting universal museums to open branches in Nigeria, as regards corruption and looting of artefacts. One facilitates the transfer of looted artefacts from Nigeria. We used to think that one of the major mandates of the NCMM was to secure the return of the thousands of Nigerian artefacts abroad but instead it now seems to be inviting the illegal holders of the artefacts to open branches in Nigeria. Something is not right here.

Readers may have noticed that it is only when an international meeting is on the question of restitution of looted African artefacts that the word ‘sharing’ features prominently. There has never been a meeting between Africans and Westerners on artefacts where sharing is mentioned in connection with European artefacts. We have mentioned often that we could also share with Europeans their cultural artefacts but nobody has taken up the suggestion or criticised it. It appears the Europeans are so shocked by the idea that a European painting, for example, a Turner or Picasso could be sent to an African museum. The European attitude is: mine is mine, yours is ours. It appears that those who talk about sharing are not really interested at all in sharing the looted artefacts they hold. What they mean by ‘sharing’ is that Africans agree to their keeping the objects and from time to time they may display one or two objects to Africans. Otherwise where is the difficulty for the Ethnological Museum of Berlin sharing the 508 objects it has with Benin? Has the museum shown its goodwill by, for example, sending a few of the artefacts to Benin until there is agreement on the eventual number of artefacts to be returned? Numbers are not even being discussed.

African delegates are sent to argue for the restitution of our looted artefacts and they end with discussions on sharing the looted African artefacts with Europeans. It seems in the opinion of many Europeans, Africans do not even deserve to have African artefacts. If Nigerian representatives feel they cannot, after all these years, make any progress towards the recovery of Nigerian artefacts, they should inform their people and government so that they may take other measures and relieve them of their impossible mandate. Above all, there should be no attempt to create any illusions that Nigeria has been successful in the recovery of looted artefacts. When Nigerian peoples, parliaments and governments request the return of Nigerian treasures abroad, they are surely not thinking of customs and police seizures of criminal attempts to transfer artefacts abroad: they think of the thousands of Nigerian artefacts in museums and other institutions in the West – they think of the Benin bronzes in the British Museum, London, Ethnological Museum, Berlin, World Museum, Vienna and Metropolitan Museum of Arts, New York and Museé du quai Branly, Paris.

Routine police and customs seizures of unlawful attempts to smuggle Nigerian artefacts should not be confused with efforts at restitution that have so far failed. The return of some of the artefacts looted in 1897 was not a result of Nigerian efforts but a decision by an individual British subject, Dr. Mark Walker, who, disturbed by his conscience that the artefacts inherited from his great-grand father were secured through violence against the Benin people, returned them to Benin. [9] The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, voluntarily returned 8 pieces of looted art to Nigeria. Again, this was not due to any Nigerian demand or pressure. Moreover, the museum’s action was related only to artefacts stolen after 1970 thus excluded artefacts looted in 1897. The museum is still holding artefacts stolen in 1897.

Two artefacts returned by Dr. Mark Walker. rbp.blogspot.com

 

The lack of enthusiasm in pursuing the recovery of looted Nigerian treasures has been noted by many. Plankensteiner, a curator of the exhibition, Benin Kings and Rituals-Court Arts from Nigeria, has written:

‘Sotheby’s had informed the Nigerian authorities in advance about the upcoming sale with an official letter to the Nigerian National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM). The Art Newspaper reported that Nigerian official bodies made no formal claims in the end; also, an approach to the family seemingly never happened, although it had been planned by officials of the NCMM’.

‘Willett also deplored the slow reaction of the NCMM in replying to reports they received from customs or international colleagues who informed them about detected stolen objects and in officially claiming them back.’

It is interesting to note that the auction sale of a Benin bronze, Queen-Mother Idia mask, mentioned above was finally aborted because of agitation by Nigerian students abroad. There was no input from Nigerian authorities nor was there any follow-up on the issue by Nigeria. The Galway family may have sold the mask privately without too much publicity. Again, Cambridge students succeeded in making the university authorities consider the return of the Benin Cockerel without any real input from Nigerian authorities and yet we are given the impression that the student agitation was somehow the result of the so-called quiet diplomacy.

Prof. Wilhelm Östberg, has also stated that Nigerian officials may have other interests in lending national treasures without seeking reciprocity and that may also explain why the same officials are not keen to submit formal requests for restitution:

‘There are many ways to develop relationships besides returning museum objects. Informally, it also appears that different kinds of collaboration that are currently in progress are more important to Nigerian museums. That might explain why Nigeria has not registered any formal demand for the return of the Benin collections, but has preferred to engage in dialogue and cooperation with museums that have Benin collections. It seems Nigeria is chary of bringing the matter to a head. How does one otherwise explain that the National Museum of Nigeria was willing to lend its extensive and unique collection of Ife art to the British Museum for a special exhibition 2010, without demanding reciprocity?’

No one has challenged this assertion by the former Director of the Ethnological Museum, Stockholm, a museum that organized with Nigeria an exhibition on Benin artefacts in Stockholm.

We do not know exactly how many artefacts were stolen in 1897 but we accept that more than 3,000 artefacts were looted as stated in a plea before the British House of Commons by Prince Edun Akenzua, great-grandson of Oba Ovonramwen in whose reign the artefacts were removed from the Oba’s palace. What is more important for the issue at hand is the number of Benin artefacts that the various Western museums hold. This number could be easily established if the museums were interested in helping. As stated in the annex below, most museums refuse to divulge the number of Benin artefacts they hold. And yet they are public institutions or claim to serve the public.

It would be interesting to know how the displayed Benin objects would be insured. Who will pay for the insurance? Would it be the European museums who would be acting as ‘owner’ or Nigeria as a ‘user’? Would the objects be insured with a European insurance company or a Nigeria company? Would the details be made known to taxpayers? We recall that during FESTAC the proposal to bring home the hip-mask of Queen-Mother Idia was accompanied by exorbitant claims for insurance that Nigeria was finally unable or unwilling to accept.

We note that the discussions on the return of Benin bronzes have so far involved only European museums. What about American museums? Is the British government, that is ultimately responsible for the looting and dispersal of the Benin artefacts, going to assume its responsibility, and ensure that the looted artefacts are returned or will the Nigerians have to negotiate separately with Americans and thus free the British Government from its responsibility of having sent its troops to Benin who looted the artefacts?

We would expect Nigerian officials and their European counterparts to elaborate a set of principles that would make the choice of artefacts to be returned apparent and recognizable. The whole process should be transparent and not be shrouded in a cloak and dagger operation as some are wont to do. The Nigerian public, the European public and students of Benin culture should be enabled to follow discussions and measures on a matter of a wider public concern. Nor should Nigerians accept a procedure that would keep the people of Benin waiting for another hundred years before they finally see the return of their valuable treasures. The proposed arrangement would turn looters and their successors into owners and make owners and their successors miserable beggars. The arrangement would clearly reduce the pressure on the holders of looted artefacts to return them.

It seems that international cooperation and solidarity cease for many Westerners when it comes to restitution of looted African artefacts. They will do everything except return them to the legitimate owners. Westerners, even today, seem to have a deep-seated reluctance to admit that slavery, colonialism and imperialism and indiscriminate use of violence against Africans are all wrong, and hence their unwillingness to restore looted African artefacts as they have done for other peoples. Compensation for loss of life and destruction of property are clearly not on their agenda. And they find Africans to accept this situation.

The latest proposal to establish a rotating display of Benin artefacts in Benin City shows clearly that Western museums have not yet abandoned their pretentious claim to universalism which was used to justify their retention of looted artefacts from around the world. That unfounded and arrogant racist claim based on imperialist and colonialist assumptions about Caucasian superiority, supported by some Enlightenment philosophers, has been demolished in the last decades and is no longer directly presented but still appears to be the basis of many Western thoughts and actions. The notion still seems to reign in museum circles but must African officials and intellectuals accept such racists beliefs, even if they have done their apprenticeship and studies in Western universities and museums?

Contemporary Westerners purport to condemn the imperialism and colonialism of their forebears but are unwilling to give up any of the artefacts looted during previous eras. They appear in this light to be worse than their predecessors. Could Western museums be the last bastions of colonialism and imperialism by holding on to looted artefacts which should have been returned at the time of independence?

Does anybody find it proper to propose to the Oba of Benin, owner of the Benin bronzes, the sharing of the looted Benin artefacts in the western world? Do our senses of legality and morality permit such a proposal? In effect, successors to the looters are saying to the successors of the Benin owners, let us share what our predecessors stole from your ancestors. Can self-respecting Nigerians accept such a proposal and become accomplices after the fact of the looting of 1897?

Arrogance, denigration, humiliation, racism and lack of respect have been the hallmarks of Western discourse on restitution of looted African artefacts and the recent proposal of displaying Benin artefacts in Benin City is no exception. Nothing demonstrates more clearly the powerlessness of the African continent than the issue of restitution of looted African artefacts.

Future generations will marvel at those who proclaim the freedom of art and artistic creativity at every occasion but stubbornly refuse to return looted African artefacts they have been holding illegally for decades. They have hijacked the most important African contribution to the civilisation of the universal advocated by Léopold Sédar Senghor.

‘But should the recipient countries continue to be so completely oblivious to the feeling of deprivation which is suffered by the loser countries? What is more, in many cases, objects which now adorn museums and private homes in the recipient countries and which are merely regarded as curios or objets d’art have overriding cultural and historical importance for the countries of origin. That is why the discussion on the restitution or return of cultural property is often accompanied by impassioned outbursts’. -Ekpo Eyo.

Oba Ozolua and his retainers, Benin, Nigeria, now in World Museum, formerly Ethnological Museum, Vienna, Austria.

 

Source*

Related Topics:

Hiding Africa’s Looted Funds and the Silence of Western Media*

The Return of Looted Antiquities

Destroying Nigeria Vital to World Entropy *

Blood and Gold: Children Dying as Egypt’s Treasures are Looted*

A 55,000 year Old Artefact Found in Sierra Leone made Out of Oxygen?*

Looted Palmyra Treasures Discovered in Geneva Warehouse*

Indigenous Mexicans Slam Misappropriation of Native Designs*