In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said: ‘Let there be light’ and there was light.”
These are the opening three verses of Genesis (1-3). According to conventional Christian theology, the passage depicts the God of the Universe and all Dimensions, the First Source, creating out of nothing the heavens – that is, the cosmos – and the planet Earth as an ethereally beautiful place. Then after Lucifer, the archangel, rebels against God, he and his followers, a third of the angelic host, are banished from God’s dwelling place in the spiritual realms, also called Heaven, and cast down to Earth, as a result of which Earth becomes a chaotic, dark, convoluted God-forsaken place. Then eons later, God decides to restore Earth to its original glory in preparation for the creation of material life thereon. So in his other form, the Holy Spirit (the third person of a Trinity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit), God hovers over Earth. Since Earth is engulfed in impenetrable darkness, the first thing God calls into existence is light.
As is the norm rather than the exception, Christianity is at it again – guilty of unduly “spriritualising” the scriptures. This habit of reading into scripture a meaning wholly at variance with the facts on the ground I call deliberate distortion. Our preachers, in the pulpits and on the silver screen, peddle a whole litany of falsehoods day in and day out “in the name of the Lord” and these have been so repeated over time that Christians accept them as unimpeachable truth. Those levelheaded Christians who are well-grounded in the background knowledge and interpret the Bible factually and realistically are branded “heretics”. Mainstream Christians are perishing in ignorance because they lack knowledge; this is what the Bible itself says (HOSEA 4:6).
So let me at the risk of being called a heretic call your typical preacher’s bluff.
Firstly, what the body of Christians do not know but which their pastors conceal from them (pastors who have been to a proper Bible College) is that the tales of Genesis are simply summarised versions of very detailed records the Sumerians wrote down between two to three thousand years before the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, was compiled. The Sumerian writings were dictated by the Anunnaki, the technologically and gnostically advanced extraterrestrials from the planet Nibiru who settled on Earth 450,000 years ago and in time fashioned mankind.
According to the Sumerian records, GENESIS VERSES 1-3 ought to read as follows: When, in the beginning, The Lord created the Heaven and the Earth, the Earth, not yet formed, was in the void, and there was darkness upon Tiamat. Then the Wind of the Lord swept upon its waters and The Lord commanded, “Let there be lightning!” and there was a bright light.
The Genesis writers researched from a series of Sumerian tablets, notably the Enuma Elish, also called the Epic of Creation. Whereas the Enuma Elish documents the beginning proper – the formation of the Solar System 5 billion years ago – the Genesis writers skipped all that and went directly to the Celestial Battle of 4 billion years ago and its aftermath (refer to recent write-ups).
We have already learnt that one of the names the Sumerians gave to the planet Nibiru was “The Celestial Lord”, or simply “The Lord”, because it is Nibiru that not only caused the coming into being of planet Earth from the original planet Tiamat (a series of events Sumerians referred to as the Celestial Battle) but also basically reordered the Solar System in the geophysical effects it brought about. Nibiru fashioned Earth from Tiamat – a big, watery planet at least twice the size of Earth that lay between Mars and Jupiter – using its moons, called Winds of The Lord (Nibiru) in Sumerian, as its weapons as well as electrical bolts of lightning that it fired forth as typified a young planet. In the Hebrew version of Genesis, the word used for wind is RUACH and accurately so. But the theological English Bible translations substitute the word RUACH for “the Spirit of God”. Talk of forgery!
Thus Day 1 in Genesis, on which light is “formed”, is actually the first phase of the Celestial Battle – when Nibiru came into the Solar System from outer space and tore into the planet Tiamat not by itself but by its moons. The word translated “Heaven” in Verse 1 is the Hebrew word SHAMAIM. It literally means “where the waters used to be” – the Asteroid Belt of today, the site of the primordial, watery planet Tiamat. Thus if we were to properly recast VERSE 1, it should read as follows: Earth and the Asteroid Belt came about because of Nibiru, when it struck the watery planet Tiamat using its moons as battering rams, its lightning bolts lighting the darkness of space as it hit and split Tiamat.
TIAMAT SPLITS INTO NEW EARTH AND ASTEROID BELT
The formation of the Asteroid Belt is described in a little bit more detail in VERSES 6-8. Properly translated, the verses read as follows: And the Elohim said: Let there be a Firmament in the midst of the waters and let it divide the waters from the waters. And the Elohim made the Firmament, dividing the waters which are under the Firmament from the waters which are above the Firmament. And the Elohim called the Firmament “Heaven”.
In English versions of the Bible, the term Elohim is rendered “God”. This is false: the proper translation is “gods”. Elohim is a plural word: the singular is El. The route word for El is the Sumerian ILU, meaning “the lofty ones” or “those who came from the sky”. Who were the Elohim? They were the Anunnaki – the so-called “gods” from the planet Nibiru. Anunnaki means “those who to Earth from Heaven came” – the same meaning as Elohim.
Yet even the attribution of the creation of the Asteroid Belt to the Elohim by the Genesis writers is outright deception. The Asteroid Belt was the culmination of the motions and impacts of the planet Nibiru during the Celestial Battle. It was Nibiru, through the fashioning of the Asteroid Belt, that separated the waters below from the waters above (“waters” is another name for space, which the ancients called the “Ocean of the Kaa”). The word translated “Firmament” is the Hebrew word “RAKIA”. It literally means “HAMMERED-OUT BRACELET”. This is exactly what the Sumerians called the Asteroid Belt. It is the Asteroid Belt that is referred to as Heaven (VERSE 8). Says Zechariah Sitchin: “Our Earth and Asteroid Belt are the ‘Heaven and Earth’ of both Mesopotamian (Sumerian) and biblical references, created when Tiamat was dismembered by the Celestial Lord (Nibiru)”.
So Day 2 in Genesis actually refers to the second phase of the Celestial Battle – when Nibiru returned and itself split Tiamat into two, with the one part of Tiamat assuming a new orbit and becoming the planet Earth and the other breaking into pieces to become the Asteroid Belt.
Genesis VERSE 9, properly translated, reads as follows: And the Elohim said, “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place and let the dry land appear. And it was so. And Elohim called the dry land “Earth” and the gathered-together water he called “Seas”. This is a description of the original Earth, which was made up of one huge land mass on the one side, the super-continent called Pangaea, and basically one huge sea on the other side, the Pacific Ocean. Pangaea began to drift apart 65 to 225 million years ago to form the seven separate continents we have today and give rise to smaller seas – Mediterranean, Caspian, Red Sea, and the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.
So Day 3 – its beginning – was the formation of Earth proper, an embryonic Earth severed from Tiamat to become master of its own destiny with its own orbit. Day 3 also marked the beginning of plant life. Since these “days” referred, in this context, to the periodic appearance of Nibiru – once every 3600 years – Nibiru had in its earlier collision with Tiamat seeded life forms on Earth and vegetation had therefore now luxuriantly sprouted (“it was good”).
In sum, the planet Nibiru, folks, is the “God” of the opening verses of Genesis. This was 4 billion years ago – before the Elohim, the Anunnaki, had appeared on Earth and before they themselves had even come into existence on their own planet.
BIRDS, THEN DINOSAURS AND NOT VICE VERSA
Scientists today believe Earthly elements came about in this order: first, there were volcanic eruptions, then the formation of the atmosphere, followed by the formation of oceans and finally the continents. Exactly, says the Enuma Elish, the so-called Epic of Creation as set down by the Sumerians 6,000 years ago.
Zechariah Sitchin: “The fifth tablet of the Enuma Elish described the gushing lava as ‘spittle’. This spittle, the text states, was ‘laying in layers’ as it poured forth. The phase of ‘making the cold’ and the ‘assembling of the water clouds’ are described; after that the ‘foundations’ of Earth were raised and the oceans were gathered.”
Experiments conducted at the Institute for Molecular and Cellular Evolution at the University of Miami deduced that algae (primitive nature forms that are neither plant, animal nor fungi but give off oxygen) were the first one-celled living creatures on Earth. Algae are still found in ponds and damp places today and they remain basically unchanged despite the passage of billions of years. For more complex life forms to emerge – that is the animal species – oxygen was needed. This oxygen became available after algae spread upon the dry land. But the oxygen that algae released was on its own poisonous at the time; so for new, emerging life-forms to utilise it, they needed an environment of rocks containing iron with which to “bind” the oxygen and therefore render it safe for uptake. Scientists say “as such banded-iron formations sank into ocean bottoms as sediments, the single-celled organisms evolved into multicelled ones in the water” and that was the beginning of maritime (that is, sea-borne) life. In other words, algae were crawling all over the Earth before maritime life emerged.
That is what the Bible also says. On Day 3, “God” said: Let the Earth bring forth green herbage, and grasses that yield seeds, and fruit trees that bear fruit of all kinds in accordance with the seeds thereof (GENESIS 1: 11).
At this stage, Genesis informs us, animal life had not yet appeared on Earth. For this to happen, “Earth had to set the patterns of the biological clocks that underlie the life cycles of all living forms on Earth,” says Zechariah Sitchin. “The Earth had to settle into its orbital and rotational patterns and be subjected to the effects of the Sun and the Moon, which were primarily manifested in the cycles of light and darkness”.
Modern science agrees with this sequence of phenomena. It explains why the writers of Genesis inserted a “celestial phase” (Day 4) between the evolutionary period of Day 3 (that is, the time when the earliest life forms appeared) and Day 5, when the “creatures” appeared. Day 4 partially reads thus: And God said: “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the Earth (GENESIS 1: 14-15).
This was not a chronological event as the Sun and moon existed long before plant life did. It was incorporated for purposes purely of science – to demonstrate the necessity for life-forms on Earth to be subjected to the biological and geographical effects of the Sun’s, the Moon’s, and the Earth’s rotational and revolutional cycles (e.g. we age at the rate we do because as Earthlings our DNA is influenced by celestial cycles unique to us; the Anunnaki on their planet Nibiru age at a different rate because their DNA programmes according to their own celestial cycles which are significantly different from ours.)
On Day 5, “God” said: Let the waters swarm with living creatures and let the aves fly above the Earth, under the dome of the sky. And God created the large reptilians, and all the living creatures that crawl and that swarmed in the waters, all in accordance with their kinds, and all the winged aves by their kinds. (GENESIS 1:20-21).
By “aves” is meant birds and by “large reptilians” is meant dinosaurs and lizards, creatures that began life in the sea and later took to land life before they suddenly became extinct about 65 million years ago in yet another cosmic cataclysm. Now, for a long time scientists held that birds evolved from dinosaurs. But in the later stages of the 19th century, skeletons of a creature called Archaeopteryx were discovered. The creature was found to be a fully developed bird by and large and it was found not to have evolved from dinosaurs but from an ancestor that predated the dinosaurs.
What scientists “discovered” in the 19th century was already recorded in Genesis courtesy of Sumerian records. Genesis lists birds before dinosaurs and not vice versa. It was not until dinosaurs became extinct that mammals, which began life in the sea, spread across the Earth. According to the Bible, this happened on Day 6. And God said: “Let the Earth bring forth living animals according to their kind; bovines and those that creep, and beasts of the land according to their kind” (GENESIS 1:24).
The “creation” engendered by “Lord Nibiru” was thus complete within one zodiacal year (about 26,000 Earth years). The days were not Earth days as your pastor will erroneously preach to you: they were shars, periods of 3600 Earth years for 3600 Earth years constitute one year on planet Nibiru. The six biblical days thus totalled 21,600 Earth years.
So what do we see? We see that science, the theory of evolution, and Genesis do not conflict: they are actually in agreement. But before modern science and before Genesis were the Sumerian texts. The Genesis writers researched from Sumerian records. Genesis is so scientifically accurate because the inconceivably advanced Anunnaki, who dictated to the Sumerians texts such as the Enuma Elish, had already figured out the course of evolution here on Earth. Sadly, modern science will never acknowledge the Anunnaki even when evidence of their having been on Earth is so glaring apparent. This Earth, My Brother…
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’!