In a stunning feat of genetic engineering, the Anunnaki’s greatest scientist of all time creates the first viable Earthling known as Adam
Having heard Enki’s pitch, Enlil demanded that he inspects the being he was talking about. So to East Africa the five leaders flew and the Bit Shiimti, Enki’s R&D facility, they toured. Enki had, in addition to Ape-Man proper, kept the freak creatures he and his son had biologically engineered in the cages. Recognising Enki, the creatures began to bang their fists on the cage bars as if demanding something, most likely food.
Enki told the entourage that he and Ningishzidda had already tested Ape-Man’s DNA and like the Anunnaki’s it was “entwined, like two serpents”. But Enlil, like the puritan he was, was not impressed. He was in fact outraged. Are you playing God Enki? he asked his step brother. We came here on Earth to mine gold, he was saying, not to concern ourselves with fashioning new life forms. Besides, the idea of creating a slave race was an abomination: slavery on Nibiru was abolished ages ago. “Tools are the slaves, not other beings,” Enlil emphasised.
Enki replied that it was not a slave he wanted to fashion; it was a helper. Enki’s position was supported by Ninmah and of course Ningishzidda. Ninmah said: “With wisdom and understanding has the Father of All Beginnings us endowed. To what purpose have we so been perfected if we cannot make utmost use of this capacity?” Ninurta, on the other hand, insisted that “let us with wisdom new tools fashion, not new beings create”.
It was a deadlock. Enlil decided the matter should be referred to King Anu on Nibiru. Receiving the message, King Anu was in one hell of a dilemma. Enki’s proposal that a new worker race be created via scientific means went against the grain: any attempts at artificially fashioning new sophisticated life forms Anu himself had forbidden both on Nibiru and future Anunnaki colonies. It was not up to creatures to play the Creator. When the Creator of All created life forms, surely it was not his intention that they too should assume his role at some stage. There had to be order in the universe: the laws of nature had to be upheld and adhered to through thick and thin.
Following days of introspection, Anu decided to consult with his council of advisors. The Anunnaki, who too believed in the existence of a Supreme Being they called “The Creator of All” or “The Father of All Beginnings”, distinguished between Destiny and Fate. Both were part of God’s plan, they recognised, but whereas Fate was subject to change, Destiny wasn’t. So the question the council fundamentally addressed itself to was whether Enki’s idea was in line with God’s perfect and therefore unalterable will (Destiny) or fell under his permissive and therefore flexible will (Fate). “Long and bitter the discussions were, of Life and Death, Fate and Destiny,” records Enki in his memoirs.
“Is it (the proposed fashioning of new life) from the Beginning ordained, or by us for choosing?” Following days of back-and-forth deliberation, the consensus was that “Survival (on Nibiru) is in danger! If gold must be obtained, let the Being be fashioned! Let Anu forsake the rules of planetary journeys, let Nibiru be saved!” Enki was ecstatic but Enlil was indignant as usual. Reluctantly, Enlil got Ennugi, the mining superintendent, to relay Anu’s decision to his charges. The miners were not that disappointed: though the creation of a worker race could take hundreds of years in Earth time, it would not take more than a year in Nibiru time, which was their work timetable. They could therefore afford to bide their time given Enki’s “blessed assurance”.
ANUNNAKI CROWN LAYS DOWN CONDITIONS FOR ENKI
The triumvirate of Enki, his genius son Ningishzidda, and his step-sister Ninmah, along with some rank-and-file Anunnaki assistants, cloistered themselves in the Bit Shiimti and there set to work. They were to practically work round the clock till they had produced the object of their labours – a “helper” as per Enki’s take. Now, in fashioning the Lulu Amelu, Enki was not going to have his way. He had been given strict terms by which to inviolably adhere by both King Anu, his step father, and Queen Antu, his biological mother, the former Queen of Orion.
First, the Lulu Amelu was to be made substantially beneath the Anunnaki intellectually. Enki was told it was not an equal he had been sanctioned to create: it was simply a slightly improved version of the primitive Ape Man. The Lulu Amelu should simply be capable of obeying orders and carrying out instructions and not to reason the way the Anunnaki did and possibly entertain insurrectionist ideas.
Secondly, the Lulu Amelu was to be much smaller in stature than Ape Man and much smaller than the Anunnaki themselves. Enki wasn’t to create a creature that would pose a physical threat to the Anunnaki in any way, shape or form. Third, the Lulu Amelu shouldn’t be capable of reproducing itself. It should be mass produced in the laboratory using artificial means and not innately carry the capacity to perpetuate itself through the process of heterosexual fertilisation. In other words, the sexual urge should be dampened considerably.
Fourth, up to 99 percent of the Lulu Amelu’s DNA should be erased so that it was not capable of feats and leaps of ability both at the physical and metaphysical level matching those of the Anunnaki. Fifthly, Queen Antu insisted that the brain stem of the Lulu Amelu should be Arian, that is, of predominantly Orion DNA, which was significant as we shall explicate at a later stage.
Finally, King Anu insisted that the brain of the Lulu Amelu should be rigged with certain organic structures that would render it vulnerable to corrective manipulation. Enki was not exactly amenable to the conditions imposed upon him yet he had no choice but to simply play ball. Enki called the undertaking Project Adama. Adama can also be rendered as Atamo or Mo-ata in that in olden languages, terms could be reversed without changing the meaning. It has two interconnected meanings basically. The first is “He of Earth”, or simply Earthling. The second is “Progenitor” or “Multiplier”, that is, he who will give rise to countless others of his kind.
PROJECT ADAMA’S LITANY OF FAILURES
Would Project Adama succeed? The chances were it could. Enki and Ningishzidda had on their own come so close yet so far. They had, after mixing genes of various animal species, come up with all sorts of creatures such as centaurs (part human, part horse), griffins (body of lion but with head and wings of an eagle), and minotaurs (head of a bull, body of a man). This time around, Enki wanted to try something revolutionary, which would be wholly focused on Ape-Man, or Homo Erectus, the creature that within a few million years' time was to evolve, so Enki reckoned, into Homo Sapiens like the Anunnaki were.
Enki had decided that for the sake of the toiling Anunnaki, this evolutionary process be fast-tracked, so that Earthly Homo Sapiens emerges now rather than in the unforeseeable future. In other words, Enki had decided to intervene in the natural evolutionary process. The first thing Enki and his team attempted to do was to artificially inseminate Ape-Woman in a bid to get her to conceive.
They implanted a Test Tube-fertilised egg (a mixture of Anunnaki sperm and Homo Erectus ovum) into the creature’s womb. In so doing, Enki made sure (at the insistence of Enlil) that the Anunnaki gene was substantially tweaked – in a process we today call gene splicing – so that the Anunnaki component in the ensuing hybrid creature was minimal though sufficient for the purpose.
The Anunnaki as pointed out above did not intend to create an equal: they wanted a reasonable but considerably inferior being. After several attempts at gene modifications, along with a series of miscarriages, Ape-Woman finally started conceiving. However, all pregnancies went indefinitely beyond term, forcing chief midwife Ninmah to perform caesarian sections. Moreover, all offspring were males and all were, if not stillborn, badly deformed from the womb – deaf, dumb, blind, crippled, and worse. At long last, there was what seemed to be a breakthrough when an apparently able-bodied offspring was delivered, it too by caesarian section.
“In desperation, Ninmah a cutting made, that which was conceived with tongs she drew out,” recalls Enki. “A living Being it was!… Shaggy with hair all over was the newborn, his foreparts like of the Earth creatures were. His hindparts to those of the Anunnaki more akin they were…” But disappointment soon set in. “Taller the Earth child grew, in the image of the Anunnaki he was not. His hands for tools were not suited, his speech only grunting sounds was! We must try once small, Ninmah was saying. The admixture needs adjusting.”
Enki agreed and once again Ninmah proceeded with the gene tinkering under the supervision of Enki. “One bit she took from one (the Anunnaki gene), one bit she took from another (the Home Erectus gene).” The results were no better: in one case, the offspring “his senses they tested, they found them deficient. The Earth child could not hear, his eyesight was faltered.” In other cases, “his semen was dripping … One had hands too short to reach the mouth, one had lungs for breathing unsuited.” Enki was saddened by this concatenation of failures year upon year. Meanwhile, the labouring Anunnaki were relentless in their badgering of Enki. “How far are you Lord Professor?” was the one, monotonous question Enki kept fielding day in, day out.
NINMAH OFFERS HERSELF AS AN INCUBATOR
Now desperate but still resolved, Project Adama Leader Enki opined that maybe the reason Ape-Woman’s offspring were failing was because the container – the Test Tube – in which the zygote was grown before being inserted into her womb was not made of appropriate and compatible material. The Test Tube was made of “Nibiru crystals”. So Enki suggested that a new “purifying bath” be made out of Earthly clay rich in copper and gold. Ninmah accordingly moulded such a vessel.
The improvement was significant but the results were not dramatically different; the offspring still fell far short of a fully-functional Being. Then an idea struck Enki. Thus far, they had been using Ape-Woman as a surrogate mother. Why not try an Anunnaki surrogate? In other words, why not let an Anunnaki female carry the pregnancy instead of Ape-Woman?
Enki’s suggestion was hotly debated by the Bit Shiimti team. As Ninmah put it, the odds that a normal being or a monster would result were fifty-fifty. Just who would be the Anunnaki woman to take such a risk? The selfless Enki, since he did not want to endanger anybody else’s life, offered his wife Ninki. But Ninmah, having thought the matter over, volunteered herself instead. “The admixtures by me were made,” she said. “Reward and endangerment should be mine! I shall be the one the Anunnaki womb to provide, for good or evil fate to face.” Enki impassionedly embraced his step-sister as a tribute to her sacrificial gesture.
The die was now cast. Enki now addressed the Bit Shiimti team officially and for the record thus: “We have with us Ninmah, who we will now call BELET-ILI, a birth-giving goddess. Let her fashion a LULU. Let an AMELU bear the toil of the gods! Let her create a LULU AMELU. Let him bear the yoke!” Put differently, Enki was formally lending his blessings to the creation of a Lulu – a mixed one, or hybrid – for utilising as an Amelu – a workman – to take over the Anunnaki’s gold-mining toil, using Ninmah as the surrogate mother. If anything went amiss, such as Ninmah dying, for instance, he was prepared to face the wrath of both Anu and Enlil, who were kept in the dark about this turn of events.
“MY HANDS HAVE MADE IT!”
Let us at this juncture turn to the Bible. Why did “God” decide to create mankind? The answer is found in GENESIS 2:5 – there was no man to work the ground. It is crystal-clear: “God” created mankind primarily as a worker. Obviously, this selfish “God” could not have been the God Jesus introduced to us in the 1st century. It turns out this “God” was actually Enki! The term “God” in Genesis is used sometimes as a plural (ELOHIM in the original Hebrew) and sometimes as a singular. As a plural, it refers to the Anunnaki leadership; as a singular, it generally refers to Enlil though it at times refers, as in the present case, to Enki and other leading Anunnaki figures.
As we keep reiterating, Genesis was written in the 6th century BC by the Levites whilst they were in captivity in Babylon. It was in Babylon that they came across accounts of Earth’s beginnings inscribed on thousands of clay tablets that were at least 2500 years old. The inscriptions were done by the Sumerians, the world’s best known civilisation of old.
The process by which Enki set about fashioning mankind proceeded thus: the TE’EMA, that is, genetic DNA, was obtained from the blood of a volunteer “young” Anunnaki male. This Te’ema was injected into the TI-IT, that is the ovum, of Ape-Woman and the mixture was retained in a Test Tube made of clay rich in copper and gold before finally being implanted into Ninmah’s womb – a procedure we today call cloning! Although there was clay involved in this mixture, the Bible throws up the notion that man was actually made from clay, or “the dust of the ground”. Once again, the Genesis authors got it wrong. They employed the Akkadian word TIT, Akkadian being the father of the Hebrew language. TIT of course means clay, but the original Sumerian records used the term TI-IT, which means “That Which Is With Life,” or simply reproductive cell!
Ninmah’s pregnancy lasted nine Earth months, not nine Nibiru months (a Nibiru month lasts 360 Earth years). In other words, the gestation period ran according to Earth’s natural cycles, not Nibiru’s. Ninmah was naturally delivered and the offspring was a baby boy! There were clear-cut signs that the newborn was viable. Says The Lost Book of Enki: “Enki the boy child held in his hands; the image of perfection he was. He slapped the newborn on his hindparts; the newborn uttered proper sounds (cried)! He handed the newborn to Ninmah; she held him up in her hands. My hands have made it! victoriously she shouted!”
Project Adama had borne results: Adam, Earth’s first viable Test Tube Baby, was born. Enki had become a God! GENESIS 2:7 says, “The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living being”. The misconception of “dust” we have already unravelled above. As for the “breath of life”, this was simply a mix-up with the place Adam was created in. He was created in the Bit Shiimti, which means “Place Where The Wind of Life is Blown In”, or simply “A Man-Making Factory”. As we have seen, this was Enki’s organic Research & Development facility in East Africa.
The evolutionists have been right all along: Africa is the cradle of mankind.
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’!