On October 2, 2000, a male baby was welcomed into the world. His name was Andi. The baby was not your usual one and therefore was special. To begin with, he was not human. He belonged to an animal species known as Rhesus Monkeys. Moreover, Andi was not fully monkey. Yes, he did look like a typical monkey on the outside but part of him was fish! Furthermore, Andi did not come about naturally: he was a laboratory creation.
Andi was deliberately made in the image of a fish – well, sort of – by his “god” called Gerald Schatten, chief researcher at the Oregon Regional Primate Centre in the US. How did “Lord Schatten” and his team proceed about the creation of Andi? The experiment was not a mere curiosity: it was not a matter of “mad” scientists trying to play God. A type of jellyfish known as Aequorea Victoria had been known to carry a gene known as green fluorescent protein (GFP) which made it glow in the dark. So scientists reckoned that if they introduced this gene into a Rhesus Monkey (a process known as transgene integration), they could possibly get its cells to glow, therefore making it easier for them to study proteins since although they control most of the body’s functions, proteins are not easy to see even under the most powerful microscope. The Rhesus Monkey was chosen because like all ape-like creatures it belongs to an animal group known as primates, the group to which humans belong too. A Rhesus Monkey is a small ape which is easy to handle and shares 95 percent of its genes with humans. Thus what could physiologically happen to a Rhesus Monkey could possibly happen to humans too.
Schatten and his team proceeded thus: they stitched the GFP gene into a crippled virus and used the virus to infect 224 Rhesus Monkey eggs. That way, GFP was inserted into the eggs. The 224 eggs were then fertilised by Rhesus Monkey sperm but only 126 embryos resulted. Forty of the healthiest embryos were implanted two-by-two into 20 surrogate Rhesus Monkeys giving rise to only 5 successful pregnancies. In the end, only 3 baby monkeys were born alive and of these 3 only Andi (acronym for “inserted DNA” spelt backwards) carried the new GFP gene throughout his body and therefore could glow in the dark or under faint light.
Andi was hyped in the international media as “the world’s first genetically modified primate”. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Sumerians, the world’s best known civilisation of antiquity that thrived in modern-day Iraq 6,000 years ago, had already documented that the first genetically modified primate, the first Andi, was the biblical Adam, who was created 300,000 years ago. Adam’s “Schatten” was Enki and Enki’s “Oregon Regional Primate Centre” was BIT SHIIMTI, a biological research laboratory that was based in modern-day East Africa. Andi’s triple-parenthood consisted of the male monkey that produced the sperm, the female monkey that produced the eggs, and the surrogate female monkey that carried the pregnancy. Adam’s triple-parenthood consisted of the Anunnaki male who donated the sperm, Ape-Woman who produced the egg, and Enki’s sister Ninmah who carried the pregnancy. No wonder the number 3 is such a recurring feature in the Bible.
THE BODY IS A BIOLOGICAL COMPUTER
Let’s at this juncture learn something about the human body. Our body is not us. It is simply a house in which we (as a spirit-soul) reside in order to experience this physical, cyberspace-like universe. The body is to us what a space suit is to an astronaut who is touring space or the Moon. Just as it would not be possible for an astronaut to explore the Moon without a spacesuit, it would not be possible for humans to experience this world without the physical body.
The body is the most sophisticated computer ever devised. It is a biological computer, or living computer. At the heart of this biological computer is the DNA/genetic network, which communicates information between the 10 to 70 trillion cells it contains so that they can work in harmony. When the communication is working superbly because the right information is reaching the right cell at the right time, we are said to be healthy. When the communication system somehow experiences a glitch, so that the information is scrambled, the body malfunctions. We call this illness.
The similarities between a computer and our body are staggering. A computer has a memory called the hard drive, that holds information long-term, and what is called RAM, a temporary storage where information is provisionally kept and transferred to the hard drive when you click “save”. In the human body, the equivalent of the hard drive is DNA and the cellular system. The cells are like computer chips – the processing and memory units of a computer. It is said DNA can store more than 100 hundred trillion times more information than a device that human science can construct.
Like the computer, the body has a short-term and long-term memory system. As one expert puts it, “Short-term memory is that part of memory which stores a limited amount of information for a limited amount of time … This can be contrasted to long-term memory in which a seemingly unlimited amount of information is stored indefinitely.”
A computer has a circuit board, or motherboard, to communicate electrical signals to its various parts. The body has something similar known as the meridian system, a network of energy lines passing around and through the body (it is the basis of a healing technique known as acupuncture).
Just as we have a brain, the computer has one too. It is called the CPU (Central Processing Unit). Like the human brain, the CPU reads, controls, and processes all communication traffic.
In order for the body to operate in generally good nick, it needs a protective mechanism to guard against, or fight, pathogens such as viruses. This mechanism is known as the immune system. Although it occurs naturally, it is frequently bio-medically enhanced with laboratory-created vaccines since it can weaken and be intruded upon. The computer I’m using as I type this article on October 8 2016 is equipped with an anti-virus programme known as AVG. Without AVG, my computer would be inundated with all sorts of viruses.
The initial sign that the computer has been attacked by viruses will be a gradual slowness in how it responds to the commands you key in using the keyboard. Humans also typically become slow, or inactive, when they are ill. At long last, when the disease worsens, they die. The same thing happens to a computer. In fact, some viruses are so powerful they destroy the computer immediately, like a person who has been fatally shot with a gun. When a computer dies, all the information is lost, for good in the case of a particularly virulent virus. This has happened to me twice before, when I wasn’t using anti-virus.
As we saw last time around, DNA and all forms of life, from a human to a mouse to a flower, is essentially the same. All DNA is comprised of the same four codes known as adenine (A); guanine (G); cytosine (C); and thymine (T). The only difference between a flower and a human is the order in which these four codes are put together, and very small differences in the coding can produce massive differences in physical characteristics. The DNA distinction between a human body and a mouse is marginal compared with the fundamental differences in physical form.
It is not only the human body that is a biological computer system. All forms of life in this reality we call the world are biological computers. Everything you see that has apparent physical form is a computer programme, and A, G, C and T are like computer codes.
DNA IS A COMPUTER PROGRAMME
DNA is the acidic molecule which contains the biological manual that makes each species unique. We are humans because of the instructions contained in our DNA and a dog is a dog because of instructions contained in its DNA. We function the way we do because of instructions in our DNA and dogs function the way they do because of instructions in their DNA. DNA is in effect a kind of computer programme. Says Bill Gates, one of the greatest software engineers of our day: “DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we have ever devised". Francis Collins, the man who led the team that mapped the human DNA structure, said one can think of DNA as “an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell”.
Let us compare a DNA code and a computer programme in only one respect. A computer programme is made up of a series of ones and zeroes, called binary code. These ones and zeroes can make up millions of numbers and every such number gives the computer a unique function. To type this article, I had to switch on the computer, type in an ID code using a keypad, open a blank Microsoft Word Page, and set about writing the article. Each of these steps was made possible by different numbers made up of zeroes and ones, which numbers are built into an operating computer programme called Windows 7 Ultimate. Without that programme, it would be impossible for me to write up the article on the computer: I would have to use the familiar long-hand, using pen and paper.
By the same token, DNA is made up of four chemical letters we brought attention to above – A, T, G, and C. These letters can take billions of sequences and the order in which they are arranged has a unique instruction and result in respect of the way a human being, to take just one example, functions and behaves. To type this article, I had to see the computer screen, move fingers across the keyboard, think, reason, recollect, read additional useful information, etc. Each and every one of these actions was made possible by biological instructions encoded in my DNA. For instance, the code CGTGTGACTCGCTCCTGAT might be the one that made it possible for me to see the screen, without which I would be a blind person.
Every cell in the human body contains 3 billion letters of the DNA code. "There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed … [Whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it”, noted Perry Marshall, an information specialist. Human Beings, as are all living things, are biochemical nanocomputers. The universe and the life it contains have a designer. We call this designer God though in truth he’s “Lucifer”, the “Devil”.
ADAM’S ALIEN GENES
But it was not God or Lucifer who brought mankind into existence at the physical level. It were folks called the Anunnaki, who 445,000 years ago blasted off from their planet Nibiru and headed to Earth in search of gold and 144,000 years later fashioned mankind as a worker race to deploy in mining the gold. Nibiru is a comet planet which is seen only once in 3600 years.
The fashioning of the first man, Adam, was done by Nibiru’s greatest scientist of all time, Enki, the step-brother of Enlil, the Bible’s Jehovah/Yahweh. Enki, who was assisted in the enterprise by his son Ningishzidda and his step-sister Ninmah, combined the genes of Homo Erectus with those of his race, the Anunnaki, to create Adam and in due course Eve. This process is variously known as genetic engineering or cloning. The Anunnaki desired Adam to be like them – in their image and likeness – but only just: they didn’t want to create an equal. What that meant was that they had to transfer a few of their genes to Homo Erectus, also called Ape-Man, who was still evolving and was a million years down the road to transform into a human being like the Anunnaki were. How many genes did Enki on-pass to Ape-Woman? We know the number yes: it was 223!
On February 16, 2001, Science magazine published an article they titled “A HEAD-SCRATCHING DISCOVERY”. In the article, scientists reported that they had found that human beings had 223 genes which seem to have arisen in mankind only relatively recently. Now, genes evolve, just as creatures evolve. Since we evolved from single-celled organisms to invertebrates (organisms without backbones) to vertebrates (organisms with backbones such as an ape), genes are supposed to trace this evolution. But of mankind’s 20,000-plus genes, 223 had no predecessors.
To explain this enigma, some ranks of scientists reckoned that at some stage in the relatively recent past, modern humans acquired an extra 223 genes not through gradual evolution, not vertically on the Tree of Life, but horizontally, as a sideways insertion of genetic material from bacteria. Indeed, of these 223 unique genes, 113 were also found in bacteria. But a contemporary report in another science magazine, Nature, said, “We did not identify a strongly preferred bacterial source for the putative horizontally transferred genes”. Another leading geneticist, Robert Waterson, said, “It is not clear whether the transfer was from bacteria to humans or from humans to bacteria,” as quoted in Science. In fact, the proteins which the 223 genes expressed showed that out of a total of 35, 25 proteins were unique to man: they were not even found in bacteria!
As modern-day scientists scratched their grey matter-packed heads, the Sumerians had meanwhile long told us 6000 years prior who transferred these enigmatic genes to our common ancestor Adam. It was Enki. Both the numbers 223 and 25 are tell-tales. 223 can be expressed as 2+2+3, which equals 7. 25 can also be expressed as 2+5, which again equals 7. 7 was the Anunnaki number for Earth because Earth was the seventh planet from Nibiru counting from Pluto. And since the difference between mankind’s and a chimpanzee’s gene count is only about 300 genes, those 223 genes must be the reason why we are humans and chimpanzees remain apes. Enki’s cue was therefore not even encrypted: it was there for all to see, only our modern-day scientists exhibit a blindness worse than that of Stevie Wonder!
ONLY 2 PERCENT OF WORKING CODE
Since the Anunnaki created us as a kind of slave race, they ensured that although we would carry their genes, we should be substantially beneath them. They didn’t even want us to be half like them; otherwise, they would have imparted half of their genes to us and not a mere 223. The most profound deprivation they “inflicted” on us was that they deleted 98 percent of our DNA code. The implications of this lack were profound. We may have an Einstein or a Plato here and there but we’re in general a third-rate intelligence. The Anunnaki were incredibly bright primarily because they probably had up to 100 percent use of their DNA code. Enki taught his son Ningishzidda practically every branch of science without the need for him to go to a learning institution. Formal education to the Anunnaki was a mere formality.
The Anunnaki were able to build gravity-defying aeronautical technology and precious other technological feats using techniques that we are yet to acquaint with ourselves. They could transfer huge blocks of stones weighing thousands of tonnes without employing machinery of any kind: they had certain knowledge of physics, of energies, that made this possible. The Anunnaki had excellent memories. We struggle to retain our pin codes, mobile phone numbers, bank account numbers, etc, because we find this mentally taxing. We fail exams because in general we have cripplingly poor memories. We rely on calculators and the like for mathematical computations that are not even that complex. Imagine if we were able to remember everything and to mentally process information in the twinkling of an eye! That’s how the Anunnaki essentially were thanks to a virtually intact DNA code.
So when Enki said, “Let us make man in our own image and likeness”, this was a much diminished image and likeness.
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’!