According to the Sumerian records, the Anunnaki, the Old Testament gods, came to Earth from their planet Nibiru to prospect for and extract gold. Nibiru, so the story goes, was faced with an ozone depletion crisis (something Earth is experiencing in our day) and gold, an already exhausted commodity on their planet, was needed to plug the hole.
Although the Old Testament does not squarely hit the nail right on the head as regards the reason the Anunnaki (who are referred to as the Elohim or the Nephilim in Genesis in the original Hebrew), it does provide a sliver of a hint. Gold is the first metal to be mentioned in the Bible. GENESIS 2:10-11 reads, “A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first was the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold and the gold of that land is good …”
But was the plugging of the ozone hole the only reason the Anunnaki sought gold on our planet? The one thing we have to bear in mind is that the Anunnaki didn’t confide every secret to mankind. There was certain, privileged knowledge they held to themselves. Only a few, elite humans were made privy to this knowledge and these had to be members of the Anunnaki-founded secret societies. One such secret society was the Brotherhood of the Snake.
This was founded by Enki, though it was in due course infiltrated and corrupted by the Enlilites. The other was the Brotherhood of Gold. This was founded by Enlil, the primary Jehovah/Yahweh of the Old Testament. The Brotherhood of Gold was formed with a view to protect the secrets of the uses of gold and what are called the Platinum Metals. What was one of these secrets? It was that ingesting gold extended the lives of the Anunnaki both whilst they were on Earth and even on their own planet Nibiru.
BORN TO AGE
Everything in this world ages. Humans, creatures, plants, pathogens – they all grow old with the passage of time. All phenomena ages. Rocks, planets, stars, and other cosmic bodies do age too. Yet living things do not age at the same rate. Some organisms age faster than others and therefore die quicker. Cancer cells for one are capable of living forever! Even in one particular organism, such as a human being for example, specialised cells do not age at the pace.
Stomach-lining cells, for example, die every 5 days (by virtue of being exposed to hydrochloric acid, a permanent feature in the stomach pit), whereas cells of the intestinal tract live up to 15 years before they die. The red blood cells have an average lifespan of 4 months. Yet the entire body can keep chugging for up to 70 years simply because as these cells die, they are replaced by newly-born cells and the dying-replenishment cycle continues on and on.
Overall, however, our body deteriorates as we age since gradually, the rate of dying cells outpaces the rate of new cells being born. Some cells, in fact, no longer regenerate at all at some stage: they simply die off. A good example are pigment cells in our hair follicles. In most people and in particular race groups, pigment cells die by age 40, giving rise to permanent grey, silver, or white hair.
In my case, I have been using tint since age 30, a rather untimely crossroads at which my pigment cells began to die – a “curse” I inherited from my father. Thankfully though, I inherited a blessing from my relatively evergreen mum that makes me look considerably younger than most people of my age and younger still than my immediate younger sister and the brother who follows her. That’s yet another conundrum of life: we do not fade at the same rate even though we may be of the same age bracket.
FACTORS THAT DETERMINE AGING: GENETICS
Why do we age? Or rather, why do we as Earthlings age at the rate we do, which is blindingly quicker than the Anunnaki do? There are a number of factors but here we will only address the key ones. First, it has to do with genetic instructions in our DNA. As we discussed at reasonable length at some stage, DNA is like a computer programme, only a more advanced and sophisticated one by far. It has a designer who invented it (Lucifer in the case of every inhabitant of this universe) and tinkerers who gain mastery of it and thus are able to manipulate it to bring about a contrived outcome.
In our case, it was the Anunnaki who tinkered with our DNA when we were at Homo Erectus stage and encoded our age. In fact, the Anunnaki progressively reduced our lifespan, from about 70,000 years in the case of Adam/Adapa to the current threescore and ten on average (it has actually fluctuated since the days of Abraham).
Abraham lived for 175 years. In New Testament times, life expectancy was 45 years, so that when you were 30, you were regarded as a senior citizen! Only 4 percent reached the age of 65. By 1786, life expectancy had plunged to only 24 years. In 1886, it doubled to 48. Today, it is at 76. If you are programmed to die at a particular age, there is nothing you can do: you just have to go at that “appointed time”, finito. True, you can live beyond the average (Robert Gabriel Mugabe is 92; David Rockefeller, a Reptilian, is 100, albeit after 9 heart transplants; the Queen of England, another Lizard, is 90; Mandela died at 95) but that is simply within the margin of error.
The other factor has to do with heredity. Some people live comparatively longer thanks to the longevity genes passed to them by their forefathers. If you look at the ages of the earlier biblical patriarchs such as Adapa, Enoch, and Methuselah, you find that they lived for thousands of years (the ages shown in Genesis are not literal; they are multipliers, something we shall expand upon in due course), the reason being that they all had a considerable component of Anunnaki blood in them.
Sometime this year, I had occasion to chat with former Vice President Dr Ponatshego Kedikilwe, now in his 70s. He told me that he comes from a family who live atypically long. He cited one uncle of his who is 114, walks straight, sees without the aid of glasses, and has virtually intact mental faculties. A further reason we age has to do with what are known as telomeres. The human body houses up to 100 trillion cells.
The greater majority of these cells divide into one or more cells at certain intervals at a pre-determined genetic time table; that’s how we grow and that’s how the body’s metabolic processes are sustained. Sadly, the vast majority of cells have a limited lifespan. On average, they can divide up to a maximum of 52 times. Once they stop dividing (that is, retire), we become susceptible to disease, infection, malfunctioning, and death.
What puts a stop to the dividing process? Each cell has 92 internal clocks – one at each end of its 46 chromosomes. These are called telomeres. Think of telomeres as the plastic caps at the ends of shoelaces, the tips or tails of a chromosome. Every time a cell divides, the telomeres become shorter and shorter till finally they shrink to a critical minimum size. At this stage, the cell takes notice and stops diving.
The telomere tip is made up of an enzyme called telomerase. It is telomerase which sustains telomeres and therefore protects the cell from fraying. As cells renew themselves over the years, the telomerase enzyme wears away: consequently the cells degrade and aging accelerates. One expert explained the phenomenon this way: “Compare the telomeres to the white margin surrounding an important type-written document.
In this analogy, the printed text is the vital DNA code while the white space is the ‘blank’ telomeres. Imagine that this paper is repeatedly slapped on a copy machine, a copy is made, and then that copy is used to make another copy. Each time the paper is copied, it is subject to errors of alignment and these errors accumulate with every copy. After enough copying, it is probable that the white space will diminish and some of the actual text will not be copied. That's what happens inside our cells and it is the reason we get old and die.”
FACTORS THAT DETERMINE AGING: PLANETARY CYCLES AND OXYGEN
A little-known determinant of age is the time the planet takes to complete its journey around the Sun, what we call a year. We will cite only four planets. One year on Venus takes 0.615 Earth years. Mars takes approximately 2 Earth years to revolve around the Sun; Neptune approximately 165 Earth years; and Nibiru 3600 Earth years. Let’s use our charismatic Republican President General Seretse Khama as an example. He is 63.
To calculate what age he would be on other planets, all we simply do is divide his age by the number of Earth years that particular planet takes to go around the Sun. Accordingly, his age on Venus would be 63/0.615, or 102 years. On Mars, he would be 32 years. Similarly, on Neptune he would be 0.38 years old, that is, a very small baby. On Nibiru, he would be 0.02 years, meaning he would still be at embryonic stage. In sum, the quicker a planet takes to go round the Sun, the faster its inhabitants grow.
On the other hand, the longer the planet takes to revolve around the Sun, the slower its inhabitants age. We can now understand why the Anunnaki lived far much longer than we do on their planet but aged much more rapidly when they came to Earth, although still slower than mankind. Another accelerator of age is the very element central to our survival – oxygen. In this way, it is much like the Sun, which is essential to life but can also destroy life with its cancer-causing ultra-violet rays. In her book, Freedom From Disease, Hari Sharma explains rather succinctly the horrors of oxygen. Let’s hear her speak:
“Oxygen, the atmospheric source of life, is also a source of degeneration, disease and, ultimately, death. We live surrounded by and suffused with oxygen. We take it completely for granted, walk through it thoughtlessly, breathe it in, sometimes greedily. Now, as if we suddenly discovered that water kills fish, we have discovered that oxygen kills cells, tissues, and, eventually, the entire body.
“The two-edged nature of oxygen is known as the oxygen paradox. On the one hand, oxygen bestows life-giving energy. Without oxygen a living cell can still extract energy from glucose molecules through anaerobic metabolism (anaerobic means ‘without air,’ or, more precisely, ‘not in the presence of oxygen’). With oxygen, however, the body can extract sixteen times as much energy from the same number of glucose molecules. Given the energy demands on the human system, the difference is life and death.
“Neurons in the brain are especially energy sensitive, and even minutes of oxygen starvation lead to rapid neuron death. On the other hand, as a moment’s reflection reveals, oxygen is extremely corrosive. A fine new automobile, left to the mercies of oxygen, will eventually rust down to a pile of dust. Oxygen, if given the chance, destroys the molecular components of the body just as surely as it rusts metal and burns buildings. At its most destructive, oxygen combines with hydrogen into various unstable and highly reactive free radical molecules, as well as other reactive oxygen species (ROS).
In these virulent forms, oxygen will systematically destroy a cell’s DNA, enzymes, proteins, and membranes, unless the body’s defenses keep the attack in check. “This is the dark side of oxygen. Seen from the most extreme point of view, in fact, oxygen is a poison gas. Anyone who breathes pure oxygen for 48 hours will die, a victim of oxygen’s damage to the tissues of the lung. Living in the earth’s atmosphere, we continue to survive only because inert nitrogen dilutes oxygen down to 20% of the air we breathe and the body has developed coping mechanisms to counter oxygen’s destructive effects at levels this low.
“Our use of oxygen is thus a Faustian bargain, life-giving boon with a lethal curse attached. Oxygen powers the chemical reactions that provide energy for motion, sensation, and thought for all that makes possible animal and human life on this planet. But the oxygen that saturates our cells is also a constant threat to our survival. It mounts a relentless attack that eventually wears down our defenses and destroys our biological machinery.
The body gets old because, in large part, oxygen wastes it away. The body suffers from a heart attack, or a stroke, or an outbreak of cancer because, in large part, oxygen has done its damage. “Oxygen gives life, and oxygen takes it away.”
FAMILIAR USES OF GOLD
Let us now return to gold, the most cherished of all metals. Most of its uses we’re familiar with. Let’s sum them up. Nearly 80 percent of all recycled or mined gold is used in the manufacture of jewellery. For over 6000 years (that is, dating back to the Sumerian days), gold has been used as a store of value, as itself (alongside silver) or as a medium of exchange. Gold coins, first minted in about 560 BC by King Croesus of Lydia in today’s Turkey, were commonly used in transactions until the early 1900s when paper currency was introduced.
In fact, all paper money was backed by gold held in safekeeping for every unit of money that was placed in circulation. The gold was held in the form of gold bars, also known as "gold bullion”. Until the onset of the 70s, most countries in the world used god as a standard to back every unit of currency in circulation.
The most important industrial use of gold is in the manufacture of electronics. As a conductor of heat and electricity, gold is third to diamonds and silver. As a highly efficient conductor, gold can carry these tiny currents and remain free of corrosion. Thus a small amount of gold is used in almost every sophisticated electronic device. This includes cell phones, calculators, global positioning system (GPS) units, television sets, and desktop and laptop computers.
Gold has many uses in the production of glass. The most basic use in glassmaking is that of a pigment. A small amount of gold, if suspended in the glass when it is annealed, will produce a rich ruby colour. Gold is also used when making specialty glass for climate-controlled buildings and cases. A small amount of gold dispersed within the glass or coated onto the glass surface will reflect solar radiation outward, helping the buildings stay cool in the summer, and reflect internal heat inward, helping them stay warm in winter.
In dentistry, gold alloys are used for fillings, crowns, bridges, and orthodontic appliances. Gold is also critical in aerospace technology. Space vehicles are fitted with gold-coated polyester film to reflect infrared radiation and to help stabilize core temperatures. Without gold, darker coloured parts of spacecraft would absorb significant amounts of heat. The visor on the helmet of an astronaut's space suit is coated with a very thin film of gold. This thin film reflects much of the very intense solar radiation of space, protecting the astronaut's eyes and skin.
Finally, gold is used as a lubricant (in place of oil) between mechanical parts in the vacuum of space. But as we pointed out above, the Anunnaki had classified uses for gold that had to do with human physiology. We delve into these in detail in the next instalment.
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’!