Christendom has labelled him with such abominable and loathsome names as Lucifer, Satan, Serpent, Dragon, Devil, and all that jazz. To those who lived in his day, however, he was best known as Enki and acknowledged as the creator of mankind. But was mankind indeed created by Enki? Who were the Old Testament gods? And were these the creators of the cosmos too? In a reprised series titled the Earth Chronicles, BENSON C SAILI delves into the matter and traces the transmigration of the human agent from unseen realms of existence to his present existential station.
It would seem superfluous to introduce myself to you considering that you are well-schooled about me and my race, but I feel it is in order that I do so, if only for the sake of the rest of the human race.
My name is Enki.
I write you from Agade, the throne city of planet Nibiru. Nibiru, as you well know Pontiff, is the Heaven of the Hebrew Bible, which Christians have appropriated as the First Testament of their two-part canon they call their Holy Writ.
You too are a Christian Pontiff: at least you profess to be such and actually perches at the very pinnacle of Christendom. “Vicar of Christ”, so blares one of your slew of sanctimonious titles.
I write to you at a time when you are riding the crest of a wave of popularity unprecedented of any Pope in history, which I hope is not a nine days’ wonder but enduring adulation.
It is a time, too, when there is fevered excitement about the imminent return of Nibiru to the vicinities of planet Gaea – Earth in your Queen’s language. True, Nibiru is headed the direction of the ecliptic as we speak: it is just a matter of years and not centuries before it is at perihelion and before the denizens of Gaea behold its dazzling brilliance. Whether its approach will be innocuous or will spell disaster for Gaea is a subject I will reserve for another day.
As for your carefree embrace of men and women whose sexual propensities militate against the order of nature, I will not join the roll of naysayers who voice diatribes at you for your rather sacrilegious gesture. That, rest assured Holy Father, is not my beef with you, at least at this juncture.
If I have a bone to pick with you Holy Father, it is your complicity, deliberate or resigned, in glossing over the role I played in ushering mankind into existence. Even worse, you have done nothing, utterly nothing, to disabuse Terrans – Earthlings in your Queen’s language – of the base, age-old propaganda that I Enki I’m the “Tempter” of Garden-of-Eden infamy. You and your ilk, Holy Father, the so-called Illuminati, continue to perpetuate this falsity without shame or scruple – and this I say with respect – and purely for your own, mercenary motives. Well, I have decided enough is enough: you have run me too far aground. It’s time I made my deposition without necessarily calling for your arraignment before the court of posterity. True, you have been ballsy enough to call the Genesis story a legend – which it isn’t at any rate – but you have neglected to factually recast it, to remedy it in such a way that it portrays me, Enki, in my proper, untarnished light. This dereliction of patriarchal duty on your part I find calumnious and therefore inexcusable.
About 450,000 years ago – actually 432, 000 to be precise – I and a small retinue of fellow Nibiruians came to Gaea. 144,000 years later, I created mankind. I was assisted in this enterprise by my half-sister Ninmah and my son Ningishzidda – a Trinity if you will.
In an ideal world, the three of us should have ruled the world, Gaea, for it seems all rulership within the universe is Trinitarian in core. For instance, before we came to Gaea, authority on Nibiru largely vested in my father King Anu, my step-brother Enlil – then called Elu – and myself. But on Gaea, at least in earlier times, it was Enlil who called the shots: my sister Ninmah and I were subordinate to him though in the greater scheme of things we were more or less co-equal – another Trinitarian scenario if you allow.
On Nibiru, Enlil and I, for reasons purely of dynastic politics, hardly saw eye to eye; on Gaea, the status quo remained pretty much the same, without so much, indeed, as a peep of a thaw in our relations. Our rivalry reached feverpitch when Enlil by a contrived play on my title turned me into the Devil – that supremely negative, interdimensional force that has waged a cold war against the Creator of All since no-one-knows-when.
Let me reiterate this otherwise inalienable truth Holy Father: I created mankind I Enki, and needless to say, that includes you Pontiff. I imparted to my highly prized prototypes the knowledge of procreation to enable them multiply and perpetuate themselves forever. It was I, Enki, who among the Pantheon of the 12 gods championed the civilisation of mankind, who ensured that it was not consigned to oblivion during that great Deluge that engulfed much of Gaea. Yet thanks to Enlil, I became the Fiend, the Serpent who caused Adam and Eve to defy the “Creator of All”. I was not only dubbed the evil Serpent: I became the Devil himself. On the other hand, Enlil miraculously morphed into the benevolent Creator of All! Not only did he usurp from me the credit of fashioner of mankind but he declared himself the Supreme Being, the creator of all there is in the cosmos and beyond it.
Enlil and his brood, Your Holiness, became the Yahweh, or Jehovah, worshipped throughout Christendom, in Judaism, in Islam, and under various guises in pretty much all religious faiths. As his marks of reverence, actually his "deity", soared, my own reputation hurtled south, plumbing the depths of the Abyss, as though that was indeed where I belonged. I continued to be vilified as the Ancient Dragon, the Lucifer, the Great Satan, the Shetani. And, agony of agonies, you who know the truth have kept treasonably silent about this Slur of Slurs. In fact, you continue to fan the flames of this calumny: day in and day out, you deliriously trumpet Enlil’s cheap propaganda; you continue to champion his populist agenda, when you know full well I’m not as black as he has painted me.
Whilst I’m prepared to forgive, Pontiff, I’m not that readily disposed to forget, for the toll on my spiritual wellbeing, on my emotional equilibrium and on my whole karmic dynamic, has been considerable, if not horrendous.
Because of the ill-will, the endless spiral of hate, that mankind continues to direct toward me as the Cosmic Adversary, every aspect of my person has atrophied beyond recognition. I have become a byword for ill luck. I have aged precociously, by leaps and bounds, and to such an extent that Enlil, only a couple of shars younger, looks like a teenager next to my shrivelled and etiolated self. Everything I touch promptly turns to dust. I have become nature’s preordained nemesis.
I feel I’m now staring death in the face, Pontiff, that I’m literally at death’s door. Before I slip into the great beyond, I think it is essential that I recount to you, and to mankind at large, first the history of the cosmos, and subsequent to that all that transpired from the time we came to Gaea to the time we departed in the age of Aries.
That will be my first volume. My second volume will dwell on the life and times of Jesus the Nazarene, known in his day as Yeshua, the Palestinian who was crucified by Pontius Pilate in AD 33 and who mainstream Christianity has elevated to the same pedestal as that of the Creator of All. Finally, in my third volume, I will address myself to the immediate post-Yeshua dispensation, the protagonists of which were his brother James, his arch-disciple Simon Peter, and his greatest crusader Paul of Tarsus.
In reliving all these momentous chapters of the Earth Chronicles, Pontiff, it is not absolution I seek. All that I desire is to put the record straight so that even when I draw my last breath, I will have done so with the peace of mind that I have not left my cherished creation in eternal ignorance as to their true origins and innate potential.
Here, then, is my first volume Pontiff, the first of what as a hilarious play on your cute, adopted name I’m proud to term The Franciscan Trilogy.
I remain Pontiff Yours Truly Enki Nibirukoff
MEMOIRS OF A “GOD”
In 2017 BC, on February 17th, Enki, the second-ranked Anunnaki on planet Earth, set about documenting his reminiscences on several clay tablets. He did not actually do the writing himself; he dictated it to his Master Scribe Endubasar.
When the memoir was discovered, quoted at times repetitively in over 800 cuneiform clay tablets, modern-day scholars typically treated it as little more than “the usual Sumerian mythos”. But the now legendary, far-sighted Israeli scholar, Zechariah Sitchin, thought otherwise. Only one of a handful of people in the world who had a peerless mastery of the Sumerian language, Sitchin translated the memoir into English and published it in 2002. He titled it The Lost Book of Enki. Today the book is acknowledged as one of the most illuminating treatises on the origins of the Anunnaki.
The letter presented above is not an excerpt from the book. It is actually an excerpt from my as yet unpublished novel entitled When We Were Gods, a book in which Enki is the narrator and Pope Francis is the addressee (in the initial draft it was Pope Benedict).
Zechariah Sitchin died on October 9 2010, at age 90, after a short, gastrointestinal illness (to tell by the numerology of the date of his departure, which adds up to 13, and his age, which reduces to 9, his death was not natural but a forced “retirement” by the shadowy “powers and principalities” as the great apostle Paul described the behind-the-drapes rulers of this world). The previous year, Sitchin and I had become pen friends. We became kind of boon companions thanks to my manuscript, which was not only dedicated to him but was a fact-based fictional work largely based on his writings – 15 books in all.
When I emailed him my manuscript, I hilariously addressed him as “Lord Enki”, a nickname I gave him by virtue of his surpassing mastery of the saga of the Anunnaki, the extraterrestrials who 450,000 years ago came to Earth from their planet Nibiru and created mankind. In his reply to my correspondence, he too jokingly addressed me as “My Master Scribe Endubasar”.
I also made known to him that I had bestowed on him my own personal accolade – The Man of the 20th Century (Time magazine conferred that title on Albert Einstein, which of course was deserving though Sitchin deserved it more for practically “discovering” the planet Nibiru and introducing to us its people, the Anunnaki, who were the reason Einstein and the rest of mankind existed in the first place). He did not comment on this tribute, perhaps because he was such a modest human being.
In The Lost Book of Enki (subtitled Memoirs and Prophesies of an Extraterrestrial God), Enki records developments on the planet Nibiru and what drove the Anunnaki to come to Earth, among other things. Endubasar’s preface begins as follows:
“In the 7th year after the Great Calamity (the upheavalling in 2024 BC of Sodom and Gomorrah), in the 2nd month, on the 17th day, I was summoned by my Master, the Lord Enki, Great God, Benevolent Fashioner of Mankind, Omnipotent and Merciful … Then the voice said: ‘Endubasar offspring of Adapa, I have chosen you to be my scribe, that you write down my words on the tablets’."
Enki was acknowledged by his fellow Anunnaki as “The Knower of Everything”. He was hailed as Nibiru’s greatest scientist, greatest inventor, greatest engineer, and greatest genetic biologist. In his memoirs, Enki makes the case that it was he who created mankind, not his step-brother Enlil, called Yahweh/Jehovah in the Bible, who unblushingly laid claim to this feat too and even today is worshiped as the Universal God particularly in Judaism and Christianity.
So who really created mankind? Was it Enki (maligned over the ages as a form of the Devil) or Jehovah? Was it God with a capital “G” (the God Jesus of Nazareth introduced to us in the first century) or god with small letter “g” (one of Enki or Enlil)? We will dwell comprehensively on this apparent dilemma in the course of the Earth Chronicles, but first let us declare our beef with the iconic Sitchin.
THE PROBLEM WITH SITCHIN
Let me underline the point that this is not the first time I’m relating the Earth Chronicles. It was actually my first series but I was not even half way when I decided to deviate to another subject. The reason I did so was because I realised I had drawn too much on Sitchin alone, who wasn’t infallible and was fraught with shortcomings it turned out.
First, Sitchin restricts the saga of the Anunnaki to only planet Nibiru and Earth (with tidbits on Mars here and there) when in truth it began in the Sirius and Orion star systems. Second, Sitchin by deliberate design only mentions the Anunnaki (who like us were humanoids) as the engenderers of modern man when in actual fact various other cosmic races did play a part too, notably the Reptilians. He does not even make mention of the Reptilians once. Third, Sitchin interpreted the Sumerian records rather too literally and at times casually when some of the aspects of the Sumerian chronicles were allegorical and not literal. In some cases, few though these are it must be admitted, he’s plainly mistaken.
My fans also overwhelmingly urged that the Earth Chronicles resume, more so those who had missed out on the earlier series, which ran at a time when our paper was still new and so was not that well-known.
Having augmented my research with the writings of other luminaries in the field of cosmology such as Robert Morning Sky and Barbara Marciniack as well as the revelations of people who have been in direct and physical contact with beings from other worlds such as Stewart Swerdlow, Alex Collier, Dr Jamisson Neruda, and the LPG Group, to mention only a few, I am now in position to offer a better informed account of the saga of mankind, that of the Anunnaki, and the fate of the universe as a whole.
So let us press “rewind” and this time begin at an even earlier juncture of cosmic history than we did last time around.
Intelligence and Security Service Act, which is a law that establishes the Directorate of Intelligence and Security Service (DIS), provides for establishment of a Parliamentary Committee. Recently, the President announced nine names of Members of Parliament he had appointed to the Committee.
This announcement was preceded by a meeting the President held with the Speaker and the Leader of Opposition. Following the announcement of Committee MPs by the President, the opposition, through its leader, made it clear that it will not participate in the Committee unless certain conditions that would ensure effective oversight are met. The opposition acted on the non-participation threat through resignation of its three MPs from the Committee.
The Act at Section 38 provides for the establishment of the Committee to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Directorate. The law provides that the Parliamentary Committee shall have the same powers and privileges set out under the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act.
On composition, the Committee shall consist of nine members who shall not be members of Cabinet and its quorum shall be five members. The MPs in the Committee elect a chairperson from among their number at their first meeting.
The Members of the Committee are appointed by the President after consultation with the Speaker of the National Assembly and Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly. It is the provision of the law that the Committee, relative to its size, reflect the numerical strengths of the political parties represented in the National Assembly.
The Act provides that that a member of the Committee holds office for the duration of the Parliament in which he or she is appointed. The Committee is mandated to make an annual report on the discharge of their functions to the President and may at any time report to him or her on any matter relating to the discharge of those functions.
The Minister responsible for intelligence and security is obliged to lay before the National Assembly a copy of each annual report made by the Committee together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of the provision of the Act.
If it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Parliamentary Committee, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Directorate, the Minister may exclude that matter from the copy of the report as laid before the National Assembly.
So, what are the specific demands of the Opposition and why are they not participating in the Committee? What should happen as a way forward? The Opposition demanded that there be a forensic audit of the Directorate. The DIS has never been audited since it was set up in 2008, more than a decade ago.
The institution has been a law unto itself for a longtime, feared by all oversight bodies. The Auditor General, who had no security of tenure, could not audit the DIS. The Directorate’s personnel, especially at a high level, have been implicated in corruption. Some of its operatives are in courts of law defending corruption charges preferred against them. Some of the corruption cases which appeared in the media have not made it to the courts.
The DIS has been accused of non-accountability and unethical practices as well as of being a burden on the fiscus. So, the Opposition demanded, from the President, a forensic audit for the purpose of cleaning up the DIS. They demand a start from a clean slate.
The second demand by the Opposition is that the law be reviewed to ensure greater accountability of the DIS to Parliament. What are some of the issues that the opposition think should be reviewed? The contention is that the executive cannot appoint a Committee of Parliament to scrutinize an executive institution.
Already, it is argued, Parliament is less independent and it is dominated by the executive. It is contended that the Committee should be established by the Standing Orders and be appointed by a Select Committee of Parliament. There is also an argument that the Committee should report to Parliament and not to the President and that the Minister should not have any role in the Committee.
Democratic and Parliamentary oversight of the intelligence is relatively a new phenomenon across the World. Even developed democracies are still grappling with some of these issues. However, there are acceptable standards or what might be called international best practices which have evolved over the past two or so decades.
In the UK for instance, MPs of the Intelligence and Security Committee are appointed by the Houses of Parliament, having been nominated by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. This is a good balancing exercise of involvement of both the executive and the legislature. Consultation is taken for granted in Botswana context in the sense that it has been reduced to just informing the Leader of Opposition without much regard to his or her ideas; they are never taken seriously.
Furthermore, the current Committee in the UK has four Members of the ruling party and five MPs from the opposition. It is a fairly balanced Committee in terms of Parliamentary representation. However, as said above, the President of Botswana appointed six ruling party MPs and three from the opposition.
The imbalance is preposterous and more pronounced with clear intentions of getting the executive way through the ruling party representatives in the Committee. The intention to avoid scrutiny is clear from the numbers of the ruling party MPs in the Committee.
There is also an international standard of removing sensitive parts which may harm national security from the report before it is tabled in the legislature. The previous and current reluctance of the executive arms to open up on Defence and Security matters emanate from this very reason of preserving and protecting national security.
But national security should be balanced with public interest and other democratic principles. The decision to expunge certain information which may be prejudicial to national security should not be an arbitrary and exclusive decision of the executive but a collective decision of a well fairly balanced Committee in consultation with the Speaker and the minister responsible.
There is no doubt that the DIS has been a rogue institution. The reluctance by the President to commit to democratic-parliamentary oversight reforms presupposes a lack of commitment to democratization. The President has no interest in seeing a reformed DIS with effective oversight of the agency.
He is insincere. This is because the President loathes the idea losing an iota of power and sharing it with any other democratic institution. He sees the agency as his power lever to sustain his stay in the high office. He thought he could sanitize himself with an ineffective DIS Committee that would dance to his tune.
The non-participation of the opposition MPs renders the Committee dysfunctional; it cannot function as this would be unlawful. Participation of the opposition is a legal requirement. Even if it can meet, it would lack legitimacy; it cannot be taken seriously. The President should therefore act on the oversight demands and reform the DIS if he is to be taken seriously.
For years I have trained people about paradigm shifts – those light-bulb-switch-on moments – where there is a seismic change from the usual way of thinking about something to a newer, better way.
I like to refer to them as ‘aha’ moments because of the sudden understanding of something which was previously incomprehensible. However, the topic of today’s article is the complete antithesis of ‘aha’. Though I’d love to tell you I’d had a ‘eureka ‘, ‘problem solved’ moment, I am faced with the complete opposite – an ‘oh-no’ moment or Lost Leader Syndrome.
No matter how well prepared or capable a leader is. they often find themselves facing perplexing events, confounding information, or puzzling situations. Confused by developments of which they can’t make sense and by challenges that they don’t know how to solve they become confused, sometimes lost and completely clueless about what to do.
I am told by Jentz and Murphy (JM) in ‘What leaders do when they don’t know what to do’ that this is normal, and that rapid change is making confusion a defining feature of management in the 21st century. Now doesn’t that sound like the story of 2020 summed up in a single sentence?
The basic premise of their writing is that “confusion is not a weakness to be ashamed of but a regular and inevitable condition of leadership. By learning to embrace their confusion, managers are able to set in motion a constructive process for addressing baffling issues.
In fact, confusion turns out to be a fruitful environment in which the best managers thrive by using the instability around them to open up better lines of communication, test their old assumptions and values against changing realities, and develop more creative approaches to problem solving.”
The problem with this ideology however is that it doesn’t help my overwhelming feelings of fear and panic which is exacerbated by a tape playing on a loop in my head saying ‘you’re supposed to know what to do, do something’. My angst is compounded by annoying motivational phrases also unhelpfully playing in my head like.
Nothing happens until something moves
The secret of getting ahead is getting started
Act or be acted upon
All these platitudes are urging me to pull something out of the bag, but I know that this is a trap. This need to forge ahead is nothing but a coping mechanism and disguise. Instead of owning the fact that I haven’t got a foggy about what to do, part of me worries that I’ll lose authority if I acknowledge that I can’t provide direction – I’m supposed to know the answers, I’m the MD! This feeling of not being in control is common for managers in ‘oh no’ situations and as a result they often start reflexively and unilaterally attempting to impose quick fixes to restore equilibrium because, lets be honest, sometimes we find it hard to resist hiding our confusion.
To admit that I am lost in an “Oh, No!” moment opens the door not only to the fear of losing authority but also to a plethora of other troubling emotions and thoughts: *Shame and loss of face: “You’ll look like a fool!” * Panic and loss of control: “You’ve let this get out of hand!” * Incompetence and incapacitation: “You don’t know what you’re doing!”
As if by saying “I’m at a loss here” is tantamount to declaring “I am not fit to lead.” Of course the real problem for me and any other leader is if they don’t admit when they are disoriented, it sends a signal to others in the organisation stating it’s not cool to be lost and that, by its very nature encourages them to hide. What’s the saying about ‘a real man never asks for direction. ..so they end up driving around in circles’.
As managers we need to embrace the confusion, show vulnerability (remember that’s not a bad word) and accept that leadership is not about pretending to have all the answers but about having the courage to search with others to discover a solution.
JM point out that “being confused, however, does not mean being incapacitated. Indeed, one of the most liberating truths of leadership is that confusion is not quicksand from which to escape but rather the potter’s clay of leadership – the very stuff with which managers can work.”
2020 has certainly been a year to remember and all indications are that the confusion which has characterised this year will still follow us into the New Year, thereby making confusion a defining characteristic of the new normal and how managers need to manage. Our competence as leaders will then surely be measured not only by ‘what I know’ but increasingly by ‘how I behave when I accept, I don’t know, lose my sense of direction and become confused.
.I guess the message for all organizational cultures going forward is that sticking with the belief that we need all-knowing, omni-competent executives will cost them dearly and send a message to managers that it is better to hide their confusion than to address it openly and constructively.
Take comfort in these wise words ‘Confusion is a word we have invented for an order not yet understood’!