​Occidental Commonwealth
King of the Universe and his “Borg’s of Heaven”
or
“We the People”, Sovereign’s of Ourselves and the Occident
“to honor justice and shun priestcraft, for priests bring slavery”
~Frisian Oera Linda Book
​
“The footprint of the genealogy of humankind becomes evident in retrospective philological studies.
From the first tribe, using a method of maximum parsimony scientists studying mutations that serve as markers can establish nine basic ethnical groups and cultures of humankind A-B-C-D-E-F-K-Q-R out of the 18 haplogroups created named A to R.. The haplogroup that has the latest mutations in the Y segment and has discarded the most mutations that identify the first 17 groups that separated from it is the Aryan R1b1c8 [“R1b3a”] group. Therefore, the first-born of humankind has to be in this group.” ~Duke of Bretagne
​
https://web.archive.org/web/20190809113313/Https://nobeliefs.com/
​
Which Way Western Man? The way of Afro-Asian “priests”, or the way of the Occident?
Historical Centralized Monarchical Governments in Afro-Asia vs. the Occidental people of the race of Sovereign’s
Historical governments in Africa and Asia (often referred to as Afro-Asia in geopolitical contexts) were frequently characterized by centralized monarchies where power was concentrated in the hands of a single ruler or dynasty. These systems emphasized hierarchical control, divine or hereditary legitimacy, and often dictatorial authority, with limited input from the populace. Rulers typically oversaw vast bureaucracies, military forces, and economic resources, enforcing unity across diverse territories through top-down administration. This model prioritized stability, expansion, and cultural/religious cohesion over individual freedoms.
Key Examples from Asia
- **Qing Dynasty (China, 1644–1912)**: Emperors like Kangxi and Qianlong exercised absolute control through a Confucian bureaucracy, suppressing dissent and centralizing decisions on warfare, taxation, and policy. Succession was hereditary, often marked by palace intrigues, reinforcing dictatorial rule.
- **Mughal Empire (India, 1526–1857)**: Rulers such as Akbar and Aurangzeb wielded unchecked power over a centralized administration, managing regional governors while maintaining final authority on laws and military campaigns. The emperor's word was law, blending Islamic governance with absolute control.
- **Joseon Dynasty (Korea, 1392–1897)**: Kings like Sejong centralized authority via a rigid class system and bureaucratic oversight, enforcing social controls and royal rituals to limit opposition. Power was hereditary and absolute, with minimal decentralized elements.
Other historical Asian monarchies, like the Mauryan Dynasty in India (c. 321–185 BCE), exemplified totalitarian centralization, with emperors directing all state functions from a single hub.
Key Examples from Africa
- **Ancient Egypt (c. 3100–332 BCE)**: Pharaohs, viewed as divine, centralized power in a bureaucracy that managed taxation, construction, and trade. Rulers like Ramses II held absolute authority, unifying the Nile Valley under hierarchical rule.
- **Mali Empire (c. 1235–1670 CE)**: Mansas (emperors) like Mansa Musa controlled a vast centralized administration focused on gold and salt trade, with regional governors reporting directly to the capital. Power was absolute, supported by military and economic dominance.
- **Songhai Empire (c. 1464–1591 CE)**: Askias (emperors) like Askia Muhammad maintained a professional army and legal system from the capital at Gao, centralizing control over trans-Saharan trade and territories.
- **Ethiopian Empire (c. 1137–1974 CE)**: Emperors claiming Solomonic descent, such as Haile Selassie, ruled with divine authority through a centralized Orthodox Christian administration, resisting external threats via unified military command.
African monarchies, such as those in Benin or Rwanda, often featured powerful kings supported by bureaucracies, emphasizing political centralization for stability. While some pre-colonial African societies had decentralized elements (e.g., segmentary lineages in parts of West Africa), many prominent empires were monarchical and centralized.
Historical Decentralized Republics and Democracies Emphasizing Individual Sovereignty
In contrast, historical Western republics and democracies—often rooted in the "We the People" ethos of popular sovereignty—prioritized decentralization, where power was distributed among citizens, elected representatives, and local institutions. These systems derived legitimacy from the consent of the governed, emphasizing individual rights, civic participation, and checks on authority to prevent tyranny. The focus was on self-governance, with sovereignty vested in individuals rather than a divine or hereditary ruler, as seen in the U.S. Constitution's preamble ("We the People").
Key Historical Examples
- **Ancient Athens (c. 594 BCE onward)**: Under reformers like Solon, Athens developed direct democracy with citizen assemblies voting on laws, decentralizing power among free males and protecting individual liberties through reforms like debt relief.
- **Roman Republic (509–27 BCE)**: Power was decentralized via elected consuls, the Senate, and assemblies, with checks like tribunes safeguarding citizen rights. Thinkers like Cicero idealized this mixed system for balancing individual sovereignty with collective rule.
- **Dutch Republic (1588–1795)**: A federation of provinces with weak central authority, it emphasized local autonomy and merchant-led governance, rejecting monarchical centralization in favor of citizen sovereignty.
- **United States (1776–present)**: Founded on federalism, the U.S. decentralized power between federal and state levels, with the Constitution and Bill of Rights protecting individual liberties. Anti-Federalists advocated for small, decentralized republics to preserve personal freedoms, echoing "We the People" as the source of authority.
- **French Republic (1792–1804)**: Emerging from revolution, it decentralized through elected assemblies and emphasized popular sovereignty via the Declaration of the Rights of Man, though later centralized under Napoleon.
Republicanism historically ranged from aristocratic rule to popular sovereignty, but decentralized models like these protected individual rights through representation and local control.
Historical Centralized Monarchical Governments in Afro-Asia
Historical governments in Africa and Asia (often referred to as Afro-Asia in geopolitical contexts) were frequently characterized by centralized monarchies where power was concentrated in the hands of a single ruler or dynasty. These systems emphasized hierarchical control, divine or hereditary legitimacy, and often dictatorial authority, with limited input from the populace. Rulers typically oversaw vast bureaucracies, military forces, and economic resources, enforcing unity across diverse territories through top-down administration. This model prioritized stability, expansion, and cultural/religious cohesion over individual freedoms.
Key Examples from Asia
- **Qing Dynasty (China, 1644–1912)**: Emperors like Kangxi and Qianlong exercised absolute control through a Confucian bureaucracy, suppressing dissent and centralizing decisions on warfare, taxation, and policy. Succession was hereditary, often marked by palace intrigues, reinforcing dictatorial rule.
- **Mughal Empire (India, 1526–1857)**: Rulers such as Akbar and Aurangzeb wielded unchecked power over a centralized administration, managing regional governors while maintaining final authority on laws and military campaigns. The emperor's word was law, blending Islamic governance with absolute control.
- **Joseon Dynasty (Korea, 1392–1897)**: Kings like Sejong centralized authority via a rigid class system and bureaucratic oversight, enforcing social controls and royal rituals to limit opposition. Power was hereditary and absolute, with minimal decentralized elements.
Other historical Asian monarchies, like the Mauryan Dynasty in India (c. 321–185 BCE), exemplified totalitarian centralization, with emperors directing all state functions from a single hub.
Key Examples from Africa
- **Ancient Egypt (c. 3100–332 BCE)**: Pharaohs, viewed as divine, centralized power in a bureaucracy that managed taxation, construction, and trade. Rulers like Ramses II held absolute authority, unifying the Nile Valley under hierarchical rule.
- **Mali Empire (c. 1235–1670 CE)**: Mansas (emperors) like Mansa Musa controlled a vast centralized administration focused on gold and salt trade, with regional governors reporting directly to the capital. Power was absolute, supported by military and economic dominance.
- **Songhai Empire (c. 1464–1591 CE)**: Askias (emperors) like Askia Muhammad maintained a professional army and legal system from the capital at Gao, centralizing control over trans-Saharan trade and territories.
- **Ethiopian Empire (c. 1137–1974 CE)**: Emperors claiming Solomonic descent, such as Haile Selassie, ruled with divine authority through a centralized Orthodox Christian administration, resisting external threats via unified military command.
African monarchies, such as those in Benin or Rwanda, often featured powerful kings supported by bureaucracies, emphasizing political centralization for stability. While some pre-colonial African societies had decentralized elements (e.g., segmentary lineages in parts of West Africa), many prominent empires were monarchical and centralized.
Historical Decentralized Republics and Democracies Emphasizing Individual Sovereignty
In contrast, historical Western republics and democracies—often rooted in the "We the People" ethos of popular sovereignty—prioritized decentralization, where power was distributed among citizens, elected representatives, and local institutions. These systems derived legitimacy from the consent of the governed, emphasizing individual rights, civic participation, and checks on authority to prevent tyranny. The focus was on self-governance, with sovereignty vested in individuals rather than a divine or hereditary ruler, as seen in the U.S. Constitution's preamble ("We the People").
Key Historical Examples
- **Ancient Athens (c. 594 BCE onward)**: Under reformers like Solon, Athens developed direct democracy with citizen assemblies voting on laws, decentralizing power among free males and protecting individual liberties through reforms like debt relief.
- **Roman Republic (509–27 BCE)**: Power was decentralized via elected consuls, the Senate, and assemblies, with checks like tribunes safeguarding citizen rights. Thinkers like Cicero idealized this mixed system for balancing individual sovereignty with collective rule.
- **Dutch Republic (1588–1795)**: A federation of provinces with weak central authority, it emphasized local autonomy and merchant-led governance, rejecting monarchical centralization in favor of citizen sovereignty.
- **United States (1776–present)**: Founded on federalism, the U.S. decentralized power between federal and state levels, with the Constitution and Bill of Rights protecting individual liberties. Anti-Federalists advocated for small, decentralized republics to preserve personal freedoms, echoing "We the People" as the source of authority.
- **French Republic (1792–1804)**: Emerging from revolution, it decentralized through elected assemblies and emphasized popular sovereignty via the Declaration of the Rights of Man, though later centralized under Napoleon.
Republicanism historically ranged from aristocratic rule to popular sovereignty, but decentralized models like these protected individual rights through representation and local control.
Key Contrasts
The following table summarizes the primary differences between these two governance models, based on historical patterns:
Aspect | Centralized Monarchical Governments in Afro-Asia | Decentralized Republics/Democracies with Individual Sovereignty
Power Structure | Highly centralized; authority concentrated in the monarch and bureaucracy (e.g., pharaohs or emperors directing all state functions). | Decentralized; power distributed among citizens, assemblies, and local entities (e.g., federalism in the U.S. or provincial autonomy in the Dutch Republic).
​
Source of Legitimacy | Divine right, heredity, or conquest; rulers often seen as god-like or infallible (e.g., Egyptian pharaohs or Chinese emperors). | Popular consent and individual sovereignty; power from "We the People" through elections or assemblies (e.g., Athenian democracy or U.S. Constitution). |
|
Individual Rights | Limited; subjects owed obedience, with rights subordinate to the ruler's will (e.g., suppression of dissent in Qing China). | Emphasized; protections against tyranny via laws and representation (e.g., Roman tribunes or American Bill of Rights). |
|
Governance Style | Dictatorial/autocratic; top-down decisions for unity and expansion (e.g., Mali's mansas controlling trade empires). | Participatory/representative; civic virtue and checks o on power (e.g., Roman Senate balancing authority). |
|
Stability and Scale | Effective for large empires but prone to succession crises (e.g., Mughal decline due to internal centralization failures). | Promoted adaptability through local input but risked factionalism (e.g., Roman Republic's internal conflicts). |
|
Historical Outcomes | Often led to long-term dynastic rule but vulnerability to external conquest (e.g., Songhai's fall to Moroccan forces). | Evolved into modern democracies, influencing global norms of individual freedom (e.g., U.S. model inspiring revolutions). |
These contrasts highlight a broader historical divide: Afro-Asian monarchies focused on unified control for imperial strength, while Western republics stressed individual empowerment to foster liberty and innovation. However, not all Afro-Asian systems were purely centralized—some African societies had democratic elements like consensus-based rule—and Western models sometimes centralized over time.| **Individual Rights** | Limited; subjects owed obedience, with rights subordinate to the ruler's will (e.g., suppression of dissent in Qing China). | Emphasized; protections against tyranny via laws and representation (e.g., Roman tribunes or American Bill of Rights). |
| **Governance Style** | Dictatorial/autocratic; top-down decisions for unity and expansion (e.g., Mali's mansas controlling trade empires). | Participatory/representative; civic virtue and checks on power (e.g., Roman Senate balancing authority). |
| **Stability and Scale**| Effective for large empires but prone to succession crises (e.g., Mughal decline due to internal centralization failures). | Promoted adaptability through local input but risked factionalism (e.g., Roman Republic's internal conflicts). |
| **Historical Outcomes**| Often led to long-term dynastic rule but vulnerability to external conquest (e.g., Songhai's fall to Moroccan forces). | Evolved into modern democracies, influencing global norms of individual freedom (e.g., U.S. model inspiring revolutions). |
These contrasts highlight a broader historical divide: Afro-Asian monarchies focused on unified control for imperial strength, while Western republics stressed individual empowerment to foster liberty and innovation.
​Which Way Occidental Man?
Afro-Asiatic “Global” “Borg’s of Heaven” Judeo-Christian Despotic Levitical Monarchism (Rev. 19:15)
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9399049-herodian-messiah
or personal sovereignty within the OCCIDENT’S Commonwealth…
...take back everything contra the Borg’s of Heaven and the suicide death cult:
The Borg’s of Jewdeo-Heaven ::
https://web.archive.org/web/20190809113313/Https://nobeliefs.com/
​
​
“that the “god” of the ancient Israelites—the god of Abraham, universally referred to in the masculine today—was originally understood to be a dual-gendered, male-female “god”. He goes on to write that the “personal name” “YHWH” of the “male androgyne” god is a cryptogram. The priests of ancient Israel would have read the letters in reverse as Hu-Hi, meaning ‘He-She’” (ix). [Reviewer’s note: the word for “he” in Hebrew is pronounced “hu,” the “u” sound like the double o in the word moon, balloon, or swoon; the word for “she” in Hebrew is pronounced “hi” “
Clearly, this is a form of warfare “by other means” as is the modern variant, ie. “trans-humanism” propaganda, on our race!
​
​​​