To the People of the Global Village
Empress Nzinga, in her decree of unity and sovereignty among the African nations in the 17th century, provides a compelling counterpoint to the narrative of Queen Anne. Empress Nzinga, in her unwavering defense against foreign incursions and in her strategic alliances, demonstrated the necessity of unity not through submission but through the assertion of sovereign power and strategic diplomacy. Her words and actions offer a template for Noocratic unity, one built not on forced consolidation under imperial rule but on the harmonious alignment of natural order and collective progress.
“A union founded on wisdom and justice is the only safeguard against division and decay. It will fortify our spiritual, intellectual, and economic wealth; expel discord amongst brethren, and dissolve the artificial enmities imposed upon us. It must elevate our strength, prosperity, and rightful dominion; and by this union, our lands and peoples, bound in mutual respect and free from imposed conflicts, will be empowered to repel all adversaries.”
This decree embodies the Noocratic vision—a society governed by sound reasoning, where unity is not coerced but arises from an alignment of shared purpose and divine order. The folly of fragmented governance has been laid bare throughout history, not merely in the European model of statehood but in the disunity sown among African nations by colonial interventions. The Noocratic State must heed this lesson: division weakens, while a unity of principles strengthens.
It has been observed in previous discourses that internal discord invites external manipulation. The Noocratic model seeks not only political unity but an intellectual and spiritual cohesion that safeguards against the weaknesses of fractured governance. The historical divisions within Africa, much like those of Great Britain, reveal the vulnerabilities of separate entities pitted against one another. While the British waged internecine wars under manipulated jealousies, Africa, too, suffered from the divisive tactics of external actors who sought to inflame internal disputes to weaken the continent as a whole.
If the people of the Noocratic State were to fragment into separate confederacies, would they not fall into the same cycles of discord and manipulation? Would not foreign interests exploit these fractures, ensuring that no single entity rises to its full potential? Instead of being “joined in harmony,” mutual suspicion would erode trust and weaken collective progress. Where trust is absent, economic and intellectual growth is stunted, and states that should be allies become adversaries, vying for supremacy rather than mutual upliftment.
Those who advocate for confederations within the Noocratic State fail to understand that power is not distributed equally, nor can it be maintained in equal measure over time. Even if an initial equilibrium were achieved, natural advantages—be they geographical, intellectual, or strategic—would soon disrupt the balance. One faction, through superior governance or greater resources, would inevitably overshadow the others, leading to envy, competition, and ultimately conflict. In such a scenario, alliances would be based not on genuine cooperation but on temporary, self-serving calculations that would crumble under the weight of shifting interests.
It has often been observed that the North holds the seat of power in many geopolitical structures. The histories of empires show that once a particular region consolidates economic and military strength, its influence expands, often at the expense of less organized neighbors. In Europe, the “Northern Hive” concept invoked fear of expansionist threats; in Africa, colonial invaders utilized similar fears to stoke division, ensuring that no singular force could resist their encroachment. The lesson for the Noocratic State is clear: if it allows itself to be divided into weak, competing factions, it will become vulnerable to both internal strife and external domination.
Some argue that separate confederacies could maintain diplomatic and military alliances to preserve their collective security. But history proves otherwise. When has a divided land successfully resisted a unified adversary? The states of pre-colonial Africa, fractured by tribal rivalries, failed to present a united front against European invasions. Similarly, the scattered city-states of Europe only found enduring strength when consolidated into nations. Independent yet cooperative governance under a shared philosophical framework is the key to true unity.
Consider the ramifications of foreign entanglements under a divided Noocratic State. Each confederacy, driven by its own economic and political ambitions, would form separate treaties and commercial agreements, leading to inevitable conflicts of interest. The Southern confederacy might seek alliance with one foreign power, while the Northern confederacy aligns with its rival. In such a scenario, these confederacies would not be shields against external threats but rather conduits through which foreign manipulation could take root.
Furthermore, let us not forget the peril of welcoming foreign forces under the pretense of alliances. History is replete with examples of so-called protectors becoming conquerors. The Romans, under the guise of aiding their allies, established dominion over them. European mercantile powers entered Africa with promises of trade but soon imposed their dominion over commerce and governance alike. To divide the Noocratic State would be to invite a repetition of these historical tragedies.
Let the wise among us consider these lessons and recognize that true unity is not born of artificial constructs imposed by colonial frameworks but of an organic, philosophical alignment under the principles of Noology. A fragmented Noocratic State would be formidable only to itself, locked in internal strife while the world exploits its divisions.
Therefore, I declare: The Noocratic State must stand as one. It must forge a union not of mere convenience but of higher purpose, one where governance is guided by the immutable principles of divine intellect and collective progress. Only through such unity can we secure a future free from the errors of the past and the dangers of external interference.
H.I.M. Dr. Lawiy Zodok
Leave a comment