Moving past Saturn and onwards in the direction of Jupiter, Nibiru’s path was bent further inwards by the giant planet. That way, the fire-breathing Nibiru, “armed” with seven moons three of which it had grabbed from Uranus, was now set on a collision course with Tiamat, which the Epic of Creation describes as a “watery planet”. In these formative days, Tiamat was not exactly spherical; it had a kind of head-and-tail shape.
On this first encounter, however, Nibiru itself did not slam into Tiamat. It was its moons that did. One of Nibiru’s satellites – called the Evil Wind – smashed into Tiamat, “distending her body, making in her a wide cleavage”. In the words of the Enuma Elish, Tiamat was “badly wounded”. Of Tiamat’s 11 satellites, ten were splintered by Nibiru’s moons, dragged off, and forced into new orbital paths but in the opposite direction. In other words, in their new paths, the satellites, most of which now in fragments, travelled clockwise, like Nibiru, when in the past they had travelled anticlockwise, like Tiamat. The exact terminology the Enuma Elish used to describe this new stance on the part of Tiamat’s broken-up satellites is, “Trembling in fear, they turned their backs about”, meaning to say, they started moving in the reverse direction to what they used to do before – from a anticlockwise direction to a clockwise direction Nibiru-style. Tiamat’s moons thus became what we today call comets.
Even today, astronomers have been unable to come up with a satisfactory explanation as to how comets came about and why they behave in a way that is inconsistent with the rest of the celestial bodies of the Solar System other than Pluto. Their orbits are elongated instead of circular, as a result of which we see them once in several years to thousands of years. Halley’s Comet, for example, is seen only once in 75 years. Planets revolve around the Sun in the same general plane we call the ecliptic; on the other hand, comets go round the sun in distinct, multi-directional planes. And as stated above, comets take a clockwise direction around the Sun whereas planets take the opposite direction.
But the minds of astronomers need not boggle over the “abnormal” behavior of the comets and their “mysterious” origin. The Sumerian records explain it all for us. The comets all were once integral parts of the ten moons of a primordial planet known as Tiamat and when planet Nibiru invaded the Solar System and “locked horns” with Tiamat, the ten moons were smashed into pieces by Nibiru’s own moons. Furthermore, Nibiru’s moons imparted to these fragments their (the moons) own orbital characteristics and sent them into helter-skelter circuits around the Sun. These fragments are what we call comets.
Meanwhile, what was the fate of Kingu, Tiamat’s largest moon? Last time around, we saw that Kingu was about to upgrade from a moon of Tiamat to a planet in its own right. It was just about to detach from the immediate space surrounding Tiamat and found its own orbit in consequence of the gravitational tugs on her by the giant planet Jupiter mostly. In other words, it was about to become master of its own destiny both literally and figuratively as the term destiny in Sumerian also meant “orbit”. The arrival of Nibiru scupperred Kingu’s “plans”. The Enuma Elish says Nibiru took away from Kingu “the Tablets of Destiny”, meaning Kingu was prevented from founding its independent orbit, and “with fetters bound him (Kingu)” so that Kingu remained a satellite of Tiamat as before. Kingu’s promotion to an independent planet so that it becomes master of its own fate was “withdrawn” on the spur of the moment because Lord Nibiru did not “approve”. Furthermore, Nibiru reduced Kingu to a “DUGGAE”, a “pot of lead”. Exactly how this came about we shall explain at the appropriate time.
PLANET EARTH COMES INTO BEING
The above is what happened on the occasion of Nibiru’s first foray into the Solar System, where it had now been permanently caught up as the tenth planet and the 12th most eminent celestial member from the point of view of Earth as made plain in the Enuma Elish in these words: “He (Nibiru) crossed the heavens (Solar System) and surveyed the regions, and Apsu’s (the Sun) quarter he measured …”
About 3,600 years later, Nibiru returned as per its orbital timetable. This time around, it entered the lists itself in its confrontation with Tiamat as per this passage in the Enuma Elish: “The Lord (Nibiru) paused to view her (Tiamat, which had been “mortally injured” in the first encounter 3600 years before) lifeless body. To divide the monster (Tiamat), he (Nibiru) then artfully planned. Then, as a mussel, he split her into two parts.” Nibiru struck Tiamat, splitting it into two, whilst one of its moons, the North Wind, slammed into Tiamat’s severed upper half. It was the impact of the North Wind that thrust the severed upper part of Tiamat “to places that had been unknown”, that is, into another circuit – between Mars and Venus – where it assumed a new destiny as a new planet.
Says the Enuma Elish in the above regard: “The Lord (Nibiru) trod upon Tiamat's hinder (lower) part: with his weapon the connected skull (upper part) he cut loose. He severed the channels of her blood and caused the North Wind to bear it to places that have been unknown.” The new planet carried along with it its now lone satellite Kingu. The new planet became what we today call Earth, or Ki in the Sumerian records, and Kingu is its satellite we call the moon. What we learn, therefore, is that Earth did not begin as an original, own planet: it was once part of the body of the planet Tiamat, which is also known as Maldek. Then when Tiamat was destroyed by “The Lord”, or Nibiru, Earth resulted. Figuratively speaking therefore, it was Nibiru that created planet Earth.
Meanwhile, the stump, or tail, that had remained after the part that became planet Earth had been chopped off was not destined to stay in one piece. When Nibiru returned for its third circuit around the Sun 3,600 years later, it blasted this piece into millions of fragments of varying sizes to create what we call the Asteroid Belt, which lies between Mars and Jupiter. The Enuma Elish describes this phenomenon thus: “The other half of her (Tiamat) he (Nibiru) set up as a screen for the skies. Locking them together (the millions of rock debris), as watchmen he stationed them … He bent Tiamat’s tail to form the Great Band as a bracelet.” This “Great Band” formed a canopy between the inner planets – Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars – and the outer planets – Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. In the Sumerian records, the Asteroid Belt is referred to as RAKIA, meaning “hammered out bracelet”, whereas in GENESIS, it is called SHAMAIM, translated as “Heaven” or “Firmament” which separated the “waters below” (the the section of Solar System space where the inner planets are found) from the “waters above” (the section of Solar System space where the outer planets are found). SHAMAIM means “where the waters used to be”, that is, the place where Tiamat, a watery planet, once was found. The Old Testament book of JOB is clearly referring to the Asteroid Belt when it says, “The Heavens (Asteroid Belt) bespeak the glory of the Lord (Nibiru); the Hammered Bracelet (Asteroid Belt) proclaims his handiwork.”
The Sumerians designated Nibiru’s tempestuous destruction of Tiamat, its fashioning from it of a new Earth, the scattering of Tiamat’s moons to turn them into comets, and the creation of the Asteroid Belt as the Celestial Battle. The Celestial Battle is referenced in several passages of the Old Testament. JOB, for instance, says, “The hammered canopy (Asteroid Belt) stretched out in the place of Tehom (Tiamat as we explained at some stage). The Earth suspended in the void. … His powers the waters did arrest; his energy the Haughty One (Tiamat) did cleave. His Wind the Hammered Bracelet (Asteroid Belt) measured out. His hand the twisting dragon (Nibiru) did extinguish.” The prophet ISAIAH talks of an event in which “The Lord” (Nibiru) “carved the Haughty One (Tiamat), made spin the watery monster (Tiamat), dried up the waters of Tehom-Raba (Great Tiamat)”. In PSALMS it is said: “By thy (Nibiru) might, the waters thou didst disperse; the leader of the watery monsters (Tiamat) thou didst break up.”
A PLANET KNOWN AS “THE LORD”
The planet Nibiru has been called by several reverential names. In the Sumerian records, it is referred to, amongst other names, as the “Planet of the Gods” as well as the “Planet of the Throne of Heaven”. The term “Gods” of course stands for the Anunnaki, who created us, that is, genetically engineered us into existence through a fusion of their genes and that of Ape-Man 300,000 years ago. Nibiru was the planet of the throne of Heaven because every time Anu, the Anunnaki King, came to Earth on a state visit, he did so via Nibiru. Anu had a secondary throne on planet Nibiru although his main throne was based in the Sirius star system, a topic we shall dwell upon in detail at a later stage.
In the Old Testament, Nibiru is in precious many passages referred to as “The Lord” or “The Lord of Hosts”. Why is it called “The Lord?” Well, there are several reasons but the cardinal one is that it “created” the Earth from the primordial planet Tiamat by way of the “Celestial Battle” it launched 4 billion years ago. That way, it became the “Great Heavenly Body” and “The King of Gods”. In this latter context, “Gods” simply means the planets of the Solar System.
Since the Celestial Battle, Nibiru has been the supreme planet of the Solar System, as a result of which the Sumerians revered it even more than they did the Sun. Their records describe Nibiru as the "One Who Illumines"; "He who scans the heights of the distant heavens … wearing a halo whose brilliance is awe-inspiring …”; “He who scans the hidden knowledge”; “He who sees all the quarters of the universe”; “The monitor of all the planets”. The term “Illuminati”, which refers to elitists who possess special knowledge withheld from the rest of mankind, partly derives from their identification with the beings of the planet Nibiru, the Anunnaki. Also, the ubiquitous symbol of the All-Seeing Eye has a lot to do with Nibiru and the Anunnaki in light of the afore-mentioned characterisations of their planet.
Once every 3600 years approximately, Nibiru returns to the scene of the Celestial Battle, the place where planet Tiamat used to be, the only time Earthlings see it. Indeed, the figure 3600 was significant to the Sumerians. Pictographically, it was presented as a large circle. The number 3600 was known as shar in Sumerian. But shar was also one of the many epithets of the planet Nibiru. It meant “supreme ruler” as indeed Nibiru was, being the foremost planet of the Solar System. Shar also meant a “complete circle”, referring, in this context, to the 3600 Earth years Nibiru takes to make one complete turn around the Sun. “Planet/orbit/3,600 – it could not be a mere coincidence,” observes Zechariah Sitchin.
THE CROSS AND THE WINGED GLOBE
In Sumerian times, the everyday name of the planet Nibiru was exactly that – Nibiru. Nibiru means “the planet of the crossing”. This name we glean from a Sumerian text that reads thus: “Planet Nibiru: the Crossroads of Heaven and Earth he shall occupy. Above and Below, they shall not go across; they must await him. Planet Nibiru: planet which is brilliant in the heavens. He holds the central position. To him they shall pay homage. Planet Nibiru: it is he who without tiring the midst of Tiamat keeps crossing. Let ‘Crossing’ be his name – the one who occupies the midst.”
Nibiru was called the planet of the crossing because every time it returned to the ecliptic, the furthermost point it went was where the destroyed Tiamat used to be. It is at that point it crosses the ecliptic. When it crosses that passage (a journey that takes six years), it is said to “hold the central position” or “occupy the midst”. How so? Because it divides the Solar System’s main celestial bodies other the Sun into two equal parts – Mercury, Venus, Earth, the moon and Mars on the one hand, and Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto on the other.
Charting the path of Nibiru as it approached, this is what the ancients said: “Planet Marduk: upon its appearance – Mercury; rising 30 degrees of the celestial arc – Jupiter; when standing in the place of the Celestial Battle – Nibiru.” What did the ancients mean when they so stated? Marduk was the name of Nibiru in Babylonian times, after the Sumerian era. Nibiru was first seen from Earth when it astronomically aligned itself with the planet Mercury and loomed even larger when it aligned itself with Jupiter. Its closest position to Earth was attained at the place where the original Earth used to be – the space between Mars and Jupiter, which the Sumerians also called the “Place of the Crossing”. At this point, it became Nibiru proper, Planet of the Crossing. The Sumerian mention of the planet’s 30 degree inclination to the ecliptic is confirmed by modern astronomers.
Obviously as a nod to its being a planet of the crossing, Nibiru was depicted as a radiating cross. As a cuneiform sign, the cross also stood for Anu, the Anunnaki King, and “divine”. The cross evolved to become the letter “Tav” in the Hebrew alphabet, which meant “sign”. Why sign? This was very much in keeping with how the ancients received the planet Nibiru. When it was seen, it was considered to be a harbinger of both good and bad tidings – floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, great advances scientifically and knowledgewise as well as in the standard of living in general, the arrival of the “God” Anu, etc.
But if there was one symbol that seemed to fascinate Sumerians the most, it was the Winged Globe. It was everywhere and anywhere, around them and about them. Observes Zechariah Sitchin: “Wherever the archeologists uncovered the remains of the Near Eastern peoples, the symbol of the Winged Globe was conspicuous, dominating temples and palaces, carved on rocks, etched on cylinder seals, painted on walls. It accompanied kings and priests, stood above their thrones, hovered above them in battle scenes, was etched into their chariots. Clay, metal, stone, and wood objects were adorned with the symbol. The rulers of Sumer and Akkad, Babylon and Assyria, Elam and Urartu, Mari and Nuzi, Mitanni and Canaan – all revered the symbol. Hittite kings, Egyptian pharaohs, Persian shar's – all proclaimed the symbol (and what it stood for) supreme. It remained so for millennia.”
The planet was depicted as a winged globe because when it is seen, it has a glow around it that extends sideways, giving it a fuzzy wings-shape.
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’!