We live under an empire, which is a global monetary system founded on a satanic religion. In the name of civilizing, this empire over the last few centuries, has exported to the Four Corners of the world and in particular, Africa,the previously unknown gifts of smallpox, genocide, kwashiorkor, famine, aids, ecocide, tribalism, orphans and atheists. Since the days of the world`s first multinational corporation, the Dutch East India Company, corporations have fed this empire and masqueraded as sovereign governments whilst raping, looting and enslaving. The foundation of this empire was built on the slavery of Africans; on the export of human beings . The super-wealth and super-power of this empire was later founded on the gold and diamonds of southern Africa which funded, through Cecil John Rhodes, the British based banking cartel of the Rothschild dynasty.
Painting Africans as barbaric heathen savages has been the Empire`s modus operandi since the advent of a law called Terra Nullius. This legal term justified European occupation of Africa under the Berlin Congress of 1884. The imperialist powers of European monarchy could legally occupy regions of Africa that were deemed empty ( null and void) of people.As empty land became harder to justify, this law was fitted with a clause.The new clause legalized occupation of land that was deemed inhabited by barbaric, uncivilized and heathen people.
Terra Nullius is the reason we have all been led to believe ‘not a lot was happening in Africa` prior to the arrival of the civilized Europeans. War, pillage and plunder during the `scramble for Africa` removed as many traces as possible of previous habitation of a highly advanced cultures. Artifacts, scripts, mathematical and astronomical instruments, works of art, advanced technologies and religious artifacts, anything that would belay the true nature of African civilization were shipped to the darkened rooms of European, and namely British museums. Greed was not the underlying reason for the countless wars over African soil in the `scramble for Africa’. It was obliteration. The important point to understand in terms of the origin of Africa`s cultural destruction is that it was conducted by multinational corporations charted by the European monarchies. The Dutch East India Company, the very first multinational corporation, is the foundation stone of the British Empire and the present Corporation of London.
As `uninhabited`land and land itself unclaimed by any of the European powers became harder to find in the 1800s, a new clause was needed for Terra Nullius. Carried away by the rude success of British imperialism, British courts hardly bothered to couch this new clause in appealing language.A land no longer had to be uninhabited to have Terra Nullius status for the Crown to occupy it, it could now, simply be termed a barbarous land. As long as a land was inhabited by heathens with no government, it was game for rule by the Crown in law.
“Where Englishmen establish themselves in an uninhabited or barbarous country, they carry with them not only the laws but the sovereignty of their own state; and those who live amongst them and become members of their community become also partakers of, and subject to the same laws.” Source: Ian Loveland, pg. 7,`By Due Process of Law.`
This clause of Terra Nullius was the legal foundation for the concept of barbaric heathen savages; it became the ideological foundation for the construct of racism. This law would convey the idea to British people that they were superior to African races.This ideology of racism was developed for colonization purposes, to ensure allegiance to the Crown and was founded on a historically inaccurate concept of a so-called Anglo-Saxon race.
“The European colonial powers had by this time begun to develop an elaborate jurisprudence to `justify` their colonialism of foreign lands, whether in Africa, the Indies, or Australia. The audiences for such justification were primarily the colonising governments themselves: the emergence of a mutually acceptable set of international law principles to regulate colonial land acquisition served as a useful (and much cheaper) addition to war as a tool for the conduct of foreign policy. The model of international law created by the European colonial powers recognised several techniques through which a country could acquire sovereignty over lands beyond its original borders. The most significant were conquest, cession and occupation of terra nullius. The principle that a conquering people acquired sovereignty over the lands which they subjugated was, in legal terms, unproblematic. Acquisition of territory through cession-that is to say through treaties negotiated with the present government of the land concerned-raised slightly more legal difficulty. The colonising power had to be sure, for example, that its co-signatory was indeed possessed of the sovereignty it purported to be relinquishing. Questions might also arise as to the extent to which the former governments of acquired territories had exercised informed consent in treaty negotiations, or had acted under duress; if not the threat of conquest by the negotiating European power, then the offer of `protection` against other European powers who might offer even less advantageous terms in future. The legal uncertainties attaching to territorial acquisition through conquest and cession were a matter of significance more for the regulation of the European colonial powers` claims against each other than against the colonised lands. The third mode of acquisition, occupation, raised similar difficulties. The substance of the technique of `occupation` underwent a significant change during the nineteenth century. Occupation could only be effected on land which was terra nullius. As originally conceived by the Spanish jurist Vittoria, terra nullius was narrowly construed to denote only land that was utterly devoid of human population. The colonizing power which discovered such lands was able to acquire sovereignty by establishing effective occupation of the territory, in the sense of creating an organised form of colonial government. Attempted colonization of unpopulated land could provoke disputes among European powers over such matters as which of them had initially discovered the territory, and whether or not a country`s presence there did indeed amount to `occupation`. But such land did not, of course, present the additional complication of how to address the presumably competing claims to sovereignty of indigenous peoples. The presence of such peoples would mean that the land was not terra nullius, and that colonising powers could gain sovereignty over it only by either cession or conquest. The perception of terra nullius as wholly unpopulated land was also accepted in English law in the mid-eighteenth century. Sir William Blackstone`s authoritative `commentaries on the Laws of England` suggested that English law recognised occupation as a route to sovereignty only in respect of land that was `desart and uncultivated` or `uninhabited`. The `Commentaries` also suggested that there was no moral justification for colonial `occupation` of lands which demanded the displacement or enslavement of an existing native population……”how far the seizing on countries already peopled, and driving out or massacring the innocent and defenceless natives, merely because they differed from their invaders in language, in religion, in customs, in government, or in colour…was consonant to nature, to reason or to Christianity, deserved well to be considered by those who have rendered their names immortal by thus civilising mankind.”…Blackstone`s moral scruples worked but little influence on the political leaders of nineteenth century European colonial powers. Even by 1800, there were few parts of the world that were entirely unoccupied by human beings. This proved an inconvenient demographic truth for European governments, since it seemed to remove the possibility of using occupation as a means to gain sovereignty of colonised lands. The solution adopted was not to abandon occupation, but to bolster its utility by redefining the concept of terra nullius to include lands whose indigenous peoples were not `civilised` in the European sense……A `barbarous` people was necessarily not a a `civilised` one, and its lands were thus ripe for occupation as terra nullius. But the label conveys little precise meaning. Later writers added a somewhat more elaborate gloss to this `enlarged` notion of terra nullius, drawing on such considerations as whether the inhabitants were Christian or whether they organised their collective relations into a stable, permanent form of political government that could maintain internal order, make effective provision for the internal transfer of political power, and represent the people as a whole in dealing with other sovereign states. The test had some meaning as a mechanism to regulate disputes between the European powers, but it was manifestly a euro-centric concept which constructed `civilisation` largely in accordance with European historical and political traditions. That the Dutch East India company claimed (on the Dutch government`s behalf) to have occupied the Cape rather than gained it through cession or conquest indicates that the Dutch did not see the Khoikhoi and San as `civilised` peoples. Neither, presumably, did either the French or the British who successively acquired through treaties the sovereignty of the Cape which the Dutch occupation had evidently established. The enlarged notion of terra nullius was also manifestly a concept whose boundaries might expand or contract according to changing perceptions among European colonial governments as to the desirability of further colonial expansion. Throughout much of the nineteenth century, the European powers regarded a great deal of southern and south central Africa as terra nullius (in the enlarged sense). This may have been a happy conclusion from a jurisprudential perspective, since it removed the legal impediment to colonisation that might be offered by a people already in occupation of the territory concerned. The conclusion seemed however to lack any defensible factual basis in respect of much (if not all) of the land in question, which had long accommodated indigenous African peoples with viable agricultural economies and stable political societies. That inconvenience was not seen as an insuperable barrier to occupation of new lands, still less to expansion through conquest and cession, either by European governments themselves or by the colonists with whom they were increasingly populating their newly claimed lands.”.” Source: Ian Loveland, `By Due Process of Law, Racial Discrimination and the Right to Vote in South Africa 1855-1960.`