King Anu sends for Enki’s son with Earthling woman
Christians are hardly aware that Genesis talks not of one Adam but three. The English version of Genesis fuses the three into one composite being giving rise to a somewhat muddled account the clergy are at pains to untangle. The original Hebrew version is less ambiguous but it too does not crisply delineate the three Adams.
The first Adam appears in GENESIS 1:26-29. This is not an individual: it is mankind in general. Adama in Hebrew means mankind. The passage reads as follows:
"Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’ And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. HYPERLINK "https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ge1.26-29" l "footnote7" You shall have them for food.”
Where you read “man” in the above passage, in the Hebrew version it is “Adama”, which should best be translated as “The Adam”. That’s why at face value, the statement “in the image of God (Elohim in Hebrew) he created him; male and female he created them” comes across as absurd in the English version as a “him” cannot be at once male and female.
The Hebrew, however, makes it clear that this is talking about mankind in general. This is the stage in the evolutionary process where mankind emerges from Homo Erectus, or Ape-Man. Of course we’re aware by now that this did not happen naturally: it was contrived by the Anunnaki, the Old Testament gods represented by Enki, his step-sister Ninmah, and his genius son Ningishzidda by way of genetic engineering. Thus the use of the term Elohim in the Hebrew version is apt: it identifies exactly who was responsible for the emergence of man – the Anunnaki and not First Source, the real God.
The second Adam features in GENESIS 2:7-8 and 15-25, as well as the whole of GENESIS 3. This Adam was the first physiologically sound human being, the father of mankind. He was the first Homo Sapiens (“Thinking Man”), also known as Neanderthal Man. This is the Adam we have been talking about to date, the Adam who was married to Tiamat, wrongly identified as Eve in Genesis. This is the Adam who was taken to the Edin and then expelled after Enki intellectually conscientised him and the Shurrupak operation endued him with the capacity to produce young. He was then returned to East Africa at Enki’s life sciences laboratory known as Bit Shimti.
The third Adam debuts in GENESIS 4. This is a particularly special Adam. In the Sumerian records, he is known as Adapa. Adapa was Enki’s biological son, Earth’s first demi-god being half human, half Anunnaki.
ENKI SIRES ADAPA WITH EARTHLING LASS
Adam, the father of mankind, was a divisive figure. Though initially despised by Enlil, the Bible’s primary Jehovah, he was highly prized by Enki, his creator. A primitive being in the early stages of his development, Adam went about stark naked but he was in due course dignified with clothes by Enki. This was not simply a civilising gesture: it was a profound move. By clothing him, Enki elevated him to the same social status as the Anunnaki – a master.
As Enki continued to further enlighten and sophisticate Adam mentally and intellectually, the Enlilites took notice of him and he was duly instituted as the first human King of Earth. He was accordingly returned to Eridu in the Edin, from where he had initially been ejected by Enlil, and installed as King. He was King not over the Anunnaki though; only over fellow Earthlings, who he had himself spawned. But it was all ceremonial as he hardly had any sway over mankind: Enlil still called the shots over all and sundry anyway.
According to the Babylonian historian Berossus, Adam “ruled” for 46,800 years. Another King List titled WB-62 puts his total reign at 72,000 years. The Berossus list calls him Amelon, which means “Workman” in Akkadian, the parent language of Hebrew. This is well in accord with the Sumerian Lulu Amelu, or primitive worker – the purpose for which Adam was created. The WB-62 list calls him Enkidunnu, meaning “Fashioned by Enki”, another well-premised denomination.
Now, whilst Adam himself was bright and very civil thanks to his round-the-clock chaperoning by Enki, his offspring were not. Instead of intellectually advancing, they were actually regressing. They were reverting to the Ape-Man psyche and behavioural eccentricity as they reproduced. The Anunnaki component in them (the Adamic race DNA was partly Anunnaki as we have related) was receding. Enki decided it was time he arrested this degradation.
He was going to bring into existence a civilised man who would be the prototype for a cleverer strain of mankind. He was also going to prevail over Enlil to introduce agriculture so that the genetically upgraded mankind would grow crops and rear animals for the sustenance of the Anunnaki, who were presently reeling from rather precarious rations.
This time, however, Enki was not going to bring about the new “creation” using the laboratory route. He was going to do so naturally, by sexual reproduction in which he would be a direct participant. After all, he was famed for his sexual prowess, with his own daughters numbering among his conquests in this connection.
One day as he rode in a boat along a river in the Edin accompanied only by his vizier Isimud, he saw two ravishing female Lulus frolicking naked on the river bank. He made overtures to them and with their consent as witnessed by Isimud (he didn’t want another “Sudigate” – a fate that had befallen Enlil over Sud) had a threesome “quickie” with them right on the boat. It turned out they had been ovulating as both became pregnant. Nine months later, one gave birth to a boy and another a girl. This was in the 93rd shar, that is, 334,800 years after the Anunnaki’s first landing on Earth, or about 110,000 years ago.
When Enki saw his two little bundles of joy, he was over the moon. They were so cherubic, so cute. He decided there and then that they were going to be raised up not among the Lulus but in his own cosy household. But what was he going to say to his wife Ninki? He and Isimud came up with an idea.
He was to say the two kids were found stashed in reed baskets among the bulrushes as in the Moses story.. The yarn worked: Ninki actually took a great liking to the highly adorable infants. And as was Anunnaki custom, it fell to her to confer names on them as the adoptive mother.
She called the boy Adapa, which can also be rendered as Atabba. Zechariah Sitchin translates this as “One who was found”. It makes sense as Ninki believed the babies were “tapped” from a body of water (in Bemba, the dominant Zambian language, to “tapa” is to draw water). But it could also mean “The Multiplying Apa” or “Multiplying Father”. Ata in Sumerian means to proliferate and apa was the ancient term for ape. Abba meant Father.
Adapa was indeed meant to be the progenitor of a new generation of civilised mankind. As for the girl, Ninki named her Titi, meaning “Lady of Life”, also rendered Ninkhawa. In Hebrew, this is Hawah, shortened Awa – Eve in English. But the root verb that gave rise to Hawah was Hayah, meaning “to live”. Since Titi was fathered by Enki, the Enlilites would in future deride her as the “Serpent Lady”, just as they would do Marduk’s wife. This mockery would over time inform the Arabic word for female serpent – Hayah.
KING ANU SUMMONS ADAPA
In the male chauvinistic Anunnaki society, Enki’s focus was on Adapa. As he grew, he turned out to be phenomenally brilliant, the result both of Enki’s genes and devoted tutelage. Soon he was making waves among the Anunnaki and he was only a lad, maybe 12 years or so. Upon hearing of him, Enlil demanded to see him.
Enki paid heed and told him the same cock-and-bull story he had fed his wife – that he was one of two babies who had been hidden in the bulrushes by their unknown Earthling mother. When Enlil wondered as to why unlike an ordinary Lulu kid Adapa was so staggeringly intelligent, Enki rationalised to him that he was simply a new generation of Lulus as intellectual evolution was a matter of course.
Although Enlil wasn’t convinced as to tell from his appearance Adapa seemed to have substantial Anunnaki blood in him – possibly the reason the mother hid the babies as casual sexual relations between humans and the Anunnaki were forbidden – he was nevertheless smitten by the extraordinarily smart and drop-dead-gorgeous boy. Thus when Enki proposed to him that Adapa be groomed into an agriculturalist to grow food and produce meat for the Anunnaki, Enlil latched on to the idea. But first, King Anu had to be informed both about Adapa and what was envisaged of him.
At the time the message was beamed to Nibiru, the planet was already in the ecliptic plane in its 3600-year-orbit and so it was closer to Earth. Albeit, King Anu demanded that Adapa be brought to Nibiru forthwith to enable him make a firsthand assessment. The injunction alarmed all three – Enki, Enlil, and Adapa.
Enlil feared that if Anu was overly pleased with Adapa, he might provide him with the “Food of Life” and the “Water of Life” (both simply aspects of Ormus-rich foodstuffs), which would make Earthlings live nearly as long as the Anunnaki. Were that to happen, Earthlings would no longer be in awe of the Anunnaki and would treat them as equals and not as superiors. Enki feared that maybe a snare was being laid for his cherished Adapa: being a Lulu, he might suffer a subtle victimisation leading either to his demise or intellectual atrophy.
As for Adapa himself, he was loathe to venture into the anonymity and desolation of space. Enki had taught him about the possible perils of space travel and he dreaded such an eventuality as any faint-hearted kid would. But an order by King Anu was inviolable and so the journey was inevitable: Adapa just had to go to Nibiru notwithstanding lingering misgivings.
ADAPA SETS OFF FOR NIBIRU
King Anu sent his vizier, Ilabrat, to fetch young Adapa. Of course Ilabrat’s journey to Earth must have taken a few months even using the much speedier warp-drive propulsion. Meanwhile, Enki appointed two “gods”, as the Anunnaki called themselves, to accompany Adapa to the “Planet of the Gods”. They were his sons Ningishzidda and Dumuzi, both born on Earth. Then he sat them down together with Adapa to administer to them joining instructions.
To Adapa he said thus: “Adapa, to Nibiru, the planet whence we had come, you will be going. Before Anu our king you will come, to his majesty you will be presented. Before him you shall bow. Speak only when asked, to questions short answers give! New clothing you will be given; the new garments put on. A bread on Earth not found they to you will give; the bread is death, do not eat! In a chalice an elixir to drink they to you will give; the elixir is death, do not drink! With you Ningishzidda and Dumuzi my sons will journey, to their words hearken, and you shall live!”
Note that Enki warned Adapa not to take any kind of food he was given at the palace as he was of the strong suspicion his son might be tactfully eliminated by Anu, who like Enlil did not have a very high regard for Earthlings and frowned upon cross-racial intercourse. Adapa’s riddance would serve as a warning to the Anunnaki not to sexually consort with the inferior Lulus. King Anu would straightaway know Adapa had Anunnaki blood in him as he way lighter than Adam. As we have already pointed out, the Anunnaki were predominantly chalky white: only a tiny minority were dark-skinned, such as the Olmecs.
To Dumuzi and Ningishzidda, who like Adapa were visiting Nibiru for the first time, Enki said thus: “Before Anu the king, my father, you are coming. To him you shall bow and homage pay. By princes and nobles do not be cowered, of them you are the equals. To bring Adapa back to Earth is your mission, by Nibiru's delights be not charmed!” Enki made a point of emphasising to his sons that they were not to stay for good on Nibiru having been mesmerised by its infrastructural beauty and sophistication. Their commission was to deliver Adapa to King Anu and ensure he was returned safely back to Earth. He also reiterated to them that they were not to be in awe of the Nibiru nobility as they too were nobles. They were not subordinate in any way.
Finally, the day of departure arrived. It was the first time Adapa had boarded a flying craft. When it took off, he was at once amazed and apprehensive that an “Eagle” could “fly without wings”, a reflection both of his naivety as a youngster and Earthlings as a whole, who regarded Anunnaki technology as “magic”. And when at long last the sky ship was coursing yonder in space and Earth had disappeared from view, Adapa thought he had been lured into a death trap: he cried out aloud to be returned back to the planet. Among Ningishzidda’s personal effects was a parcel Enki had given him to deliver to King Anu, a “sealed tablet”, which was simply an encrypted data stick.
ADAPA WOOS NIBIRUIANS
The moment the flying saucer touched down on the landing apron in the throne city Agade, there was a lot of fanfare. Throngs had gathered to see a being from another planet. Adapa was conducted to the palace in an open-topped levitating vehicle so that the masses who had lined the streets could see him. The first Earthling to set foot on Nibiru, he impressed them immensely as he was beautiful and looked a great deal like them when most had envisaged an animal-like being.
At the palace, the three visitors were given new clothes, Nibiru attire, and doused with perfumed oils, a precondition if one was to come before the presence of the King. A whole contingent of the Nibiru nobility was also in attendance, each craning his or her neck to glimpse the cute young human.
When Ilabrat led the three into the throne room, King Anu was exhilarated to see his two grandsons, shedding tears of glee as he bear-hugged and kissed them. It struck the King that they looked much older than they would have been had they been born and lived on Nibiru.
The King had Ningishzidda and Dumuzi sit on his flanks. Then turning to young Adapa, who stood before him in a rather pensive mood, he asked Ilabrat: “Does he our speech understand?” Ilabrat replied: “Indeed he does; by the Lord Enki he was taught.” The great King, the most powerful man in the Peshmeten, the 9th Passageway of the Milky Way Galaxy, asked the young lad to step forward. “Come hither Adapa ,” he said. “What is your name and your occupation?” The King asked Adapa of his occupation because in Anunnaki culture, one began to cultivate a trade from childhood.
“Adapa is my name,” the boy answered. “Of the Lord Enki I am a servant! He’s training me in all sorts of crafts.” Up until now, Enki had not divulged to Adapa that the two were father and son. Adapa therefore was of the belief that he was Enki’s resident student and understudy. He called him Master and not Dad as he ideally should have.
After asking him a series of probing questions, Anu thought he sounded as intelligent and as eloquent as any of the Anunnaki savants and yet he was only a little boy. “A wonder of wonders on Earth has been attained,” the King declared, highly extolling Enki. Thus impressed, he now announced that, “Let there a celebration be, let us our guests thus welcome!”
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’!