In recent years, the Moon has received very bad rap from certain diehard but well-meaning “detractors”. One particular school of thought, which has been advanced by several researchers of renown who include the iconic David Icke, holds that the Moon is not a natural satellite of Earth but is in fact an artificial construct. That is to say, it is secondarily artificial, as initially it was a natural celestial body which was mechanically hollowed out and transformed into a spaceship – what the Orions call a MATA – which was finally stationed around planet Earth as a watchtower and as a base from which to broadcasts frequencies that serve to manipulate mankind at an energetic, physical, mental and emotional level.
The Moon certainly does affect our planet and its people in a number of ways. Everybody who has done geography will be aware that the Moon is behind much of the tides we see at sea thanks to its gravitational tugs at our planet. As humans, we are 75 percent water and if the Moon can affect insentient bodies of water such as oceans, then we too are bound to be affected by it as a matter of course. It is common knowledge that people who are mentally deranged take a turn for the worse when the Moon is at full brilliance, the reason another term used to refer to such people is “lunatic” – from lunar, meaning moon. A woman’s menstrual cycle occurs once every 28 days – a lunar month, the time it takes for the Moon to make one revolution around the Earth. The full term of a pregnancy is 280 days, which is 10 lunar months.
There are also certain aspects about the Moon itself that are particularly concerning. We only see one side of its surface. It’s like it doesn’t rotate at all (which many including myself believe is the case), which is unusual for a celestial body as all natural celestial bodies rotate around their axes. The Moon is also unusually huge to be Earth’s natural satellite. It is quarter the size of Earth, which makes it the odd one out: all major satellites of other planets in the Solar System are much smaller in proportion to the size of the planets they circle around. For example, Jupiter’s largest moon, Ganymede, is in fact the largest satellite in the Solar System and is larger than Mercury and Pluto and only slightly smaller than Mars. Yet compared to Jupiter, Ganymede is about 26 times smaller. As an inner planet, Earth is by rights not supposed to have a moon of its own. There are four inner planets – Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. Mercury and Venus do not have moons and the two moons we see about Mars are, we now know , captured asteroids. But the enigma of our Moon does not end here.
On November 20 1969, the Apollo 12 crew crashed a lunar module into the surface of the moon from the safety of the command module in a bid to artificially create a “moonquake” and study the results thereof. What happened astounded and astonished the astronomical buffs at NASA. The moon rang like a bell for about 30 minutes, raising suspicions that it was not an entirely compact mass like Earth but was actually hollow and was largely made of processed metallic material. In April 1970, Apollo 13 repeated the same experiment and this time around the reverberations lasted for 3 hours and 20 minutes and the Moon in fact wobbled slightly.
Signs abound that the Moon is more artificial than natural. What exactly is the truth?
A DRIFTING EGG?
The hypothesis of a hollow Moon is supported by the legendary Zulu shaman, Vusamazulu Credo Mutwa, who is respected the world over as arguably the most knowledgeable man (in terms of the saga of planet Earth) on our continent. Mutwa, now 94 but with all his faculties intact despite one episode of a serious stroke of which he was metaphysically cured by two Germans (his healing was recorded live and you can watch it on YouTube on this address: HYPERLINK "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z66nUYyIrHc" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z66nUYyIrHc), says the Moon was brought here ages ago by two “Reptilian” brothers called Wowane and Mpanku, having been dragged all the way from the cosmic region of the “Great Fire Dragon” (the Draco star system). Mutwa says Zulu legends characterise the Moon as an “egg” because before it was rolled across space, it was emptied of its “yoke”, or outer core, so that Reptilians could dwell inside it.
To those who like me are avid students of the chronicles of our planet, Mutwa’s take does ring a familiar bell. The Sumerian records talk of the brothers Enlil and Enki who came from the planet Nibiru and whilst on Earth vied for its control. The Gnostics, the secretive, spiritually enlightened brotherhood of which Jesus was a member, make repeated mention of an extraterrestrial race they called the “Archons” – the Reptilian rulers of Earth who the apostle Paul described as “powers and principalities” (EPHESIANS 6:12). We have also previously related that the hollowed-out planetoids constituted part of the SSS race’s (the Orion beings) spacefaring warfare technology, which they called the MATA. The Moon therefore could have been exactly such before it was finally parked around our planet.
Planetary scientists and pundits are not short of voices that punt the fact of the Moon being a hollow body. In 1962, NASA scientist Dr Gordon MacDonald stated that, “If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the Moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere”. The Nobel-winning American physical chemist Harold Urey said large areas in the Moon were “simply a cavity”. The planetary geologist Sean C Simon wrote that, “The Lunar Orbiter experiments (mentioned in the first section of this piece) vastly improved our knowledge of the Moon’s gravitational field … indicating the frightening possibility that the Moon might be hollow”. The famous astronomer Carl Sagan pointed out that if the Moon was hollow, then it was not a natural satellite because “a natural satellite cannot be a hollow object.”
In a 1970 article titled Is the Moon the Creation of Alien Intelligence in the Soviet magazine Sputnik, Mikhail Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov concluded that the Moon was a hollowed-out planetoid. Dr Don Anderson, a professor of geophysics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, seemed to confirm this inference when he said “the Moon is made inside out”, meaning it has been dug up over the ages.
The argument that the Moon is “hollow as an egg” is a persuasive one but the notion that it was artificially driven over by extraterrestrial beings is not and should be taken figuratively and not literally. What must have given rise to the legend that “two Reptilian brothers” conveyed the Moon aloft are aspects of the Sumerian records. As we have already hinted, Enki, the great Anunnaki scientist who genetically engineered modern man into existence, and his step brother Enlil, the Jehovah of the Bible, had colonies on the Moon when they were directly running the affairs of Earth, a topic we will dwell on at length in due course. Administrative-wise, control of the Moon, as was that of Earth, alternated between the Enkites (Enki’s clan) and the Enlilites (Enlil’s clan) from one zodiacal age to another, or in periods of roughly 2160 years. It is this state of affairs that could have confused matters and spawned the legend that the Moon was brought in Earth’s vicinity by two “Reptilian” brothers.
Otherwise, the Sumerian records are mater-of-fact as to how the Moon became Earth’s satellite. It all resulted from the Celestial Battle 4 billion years ago as we have already narrated, when Nibiru smashed the primeval planet Tiamat, splintering it into a screen of asteroid debris and one intact piece which was thrust into a new orbit and became our Earth. Tiamat’s major moon, Kingu (meaning “Earth’s sentry”, or protector), was dragged along by the new Earth to become the Moon.
A RELATIONSHIP BORN OF CHAOS
Planetary geologists who have studied samples of the Moon’s rocks and dust brought to Earth through various Apollo missions have found that there is significant variation as to the age of the Moon’s geophysical features. Like Earth, the Moon is essentially 4.6 billion years old but Moon rock and dust samples range from 3.9 billion to 5.3 billion years old, with the dust upon which the rocks rest older than the rocks themselves. Even the chemical composition of the dust upon which the rocks sit differ remarkably from the rocks themselves.
One particular rock, dubbed the Genesis Rock, turned out to be 4.1 billon years old. Scientists actually note that “the age of many samples of lunar rocks (that formed by intense impacts with celestial trajectiles) cuts off rather sharply at 4 billion years; few older rocks have survived.” This phenomenon they attribute to a “widespread cataclysmic episode of intense bombardment that destroyed older rocks and surfaces of the planets” and which took place “between the origin of the Moon about 4.6 billion years ago and 4 billion years ago, when the catastrophe occurred”.
Exactly what this “catastrophe” that occurred 4 billion years ago was remains a unsolved puzzle. Well, the Sumerians did detail this catastrophe in their cuneiform clay tablets 6000 years ago. They called it the Celestial Battle, which pitted an incoming planet Nibiru against the primordial planet Tiamat in the main and resulted in the “creation” of Earth and the disposition around it of a sole satellite the Sumerians called Kingu but which we call the Moon.
Planetary scientists have also noted that the Moon has all the attributes of a planet in its own right: the only thing it lacks is an own circuit around the Sun. “Perhaps the most important of all, exploration of the Moon has shown that it is not a simple, uncomplicated sphere but a true planetary body,” said a 1972 article by an astronomer in a highly esteemed magazine. One upon a time, say astronomers, the Moon had a “full-fledged atmosphere whose volatile elements and compounds included hydrogen, helium, argon, sulfur, carbon compounds, and water,” all of which are conducive to organic life. In point of fact, the Moon, like Mars, is not entirely a vacuum even in our day: it has a thin atmosphere.
The few astronomers who voice doubt as to the Moon’s de facto status as a planet should consult the Sumerian records for a rude awakening. The Sumerians tell us that at about the time of the Celestial Battle, Kingu, Tiamat’s lead satellite of the total collection of 11 moons, was just on the cusp of becoming an independent planet when Nibiru “intervened” and kept Kingu in its place. Kingu had grown to an unusual size because of the ongoing perturbations and chaotic conditions in the newly formed Solar System. In the allegorical language of an iconic Sumerian text dubbed the Enuma Elish, Kingu’s “promotion” is related thus: “She (Tiamat) gave him (Kingu) a Tablet of Destinies (it’s own orbit around the Sun), fastened it on his breast … Kingu was elevated, had received a heavenly rank (had become a “god” as planets were generally referred to in the Sumerian cosmogony).”
We have already brought attention to the fact that the moon is just too big to be a natural satellite of a small planet like Earth. The moon is 3456 km in diameter, a quarter of Earth’s, and one-eighth of its mass. It’s the fifth largest satellite in the Solar System and is even bigger than Pluto. Moreover, scientists have wondered that “instead of a swarm of smaller moons, a too small Earth has ended up with a single, too-large moon.” Well, isn’t that what the Sumerians have been telling us all along – that Kingu (the Moon) was once one of the 11 satellites of the much larger, watery planet Tiamat and had grown to a size where it was just about to become its own planet with its own orbit around the Sun? Says the Enuma Elish: “She (Tiamat) has set up an assembly… and added matchless weapons, has borne monster-gods… withal eleven of this kind she has brought forth; from among the gods who formed her assembly, she has elevated Kingu, her first-born, made him chief …”
Earth and the Moon are not spontaneous kinsfolk: they are circumstantial relatives. Their relationship was forged out of chaos and no by natural design.
A POT OF LEAD
Planetary scientists have documented two significant elements about the Moon as a physical feature. The first is that it is shrinking and that this process has been on-going since days immemorial. In 2010, NASA announced on its website that analysis of images from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (a robotic spacecraft currently orbiting the Moon and which was launched in 2009) showed that the Moon was shrinking and that “newly discovered cliffs in the lunar crust indicate that the Moon shrunk globally in the geologically recent past and might still be shrinking today”. The shrinking arises from its being greatly depleted of iron, resulting in a low mean density.
The second is that the Moon has a substantial portion of what is called “parentless lead”. This resulted from the moon’s radioactive elements such as uranium and radon having “decayed” to give rise to lead as happens in the intermediary stages of the radioactive decay process (the top few miles of the Moon are said to be very rich in radioactive elements such as Uranium). According to studies done by scientists at Britain’s New Castle Upon Tyne University, this degenerative transformation of uranium and radon to lead began 4 billion years ago – the exact time of the Celestial Battle courtesy of the Sumerian chronicles!
During the Celestial Battle, says the Enuma Elish, Nibiru, when it disrupted Kingu, reduced it to a DUGGAE, meaning “pot of lead” as captured in this passage: “And Kingu, who had become chief among them (the moons of Tiamat), he (Nibiru) made shrink; as God DUGGAE he counted him.” Thus what has only recently come to be scientifically attested by modern science was already known by the Sumerians 6000 years ago as a fact of history. Says the iconic Sumerologist Zechariah Sitchin in his book Genesis Revisited: “The Apollo discoveries suggest that the Sumerian term (DUGGAE) was literally and scientifically correct. The Sumerian assertion that Kingu was turned into a pot of lead is an accurate scientific statement.”
More will be said about the Moon in a special lunar series at a later date.
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’!