Having lost the vital Plant of Eternal Youth, Gilgamesh was so sickly depressed he asked his escort Urshanabi, Noah’s boatman, to accompany him all the way to Uruk so he could comfort him. Urshanabi kindly obliged him. The two set sail in a chartered royal ship on which they were the only passengers other than the crew.
Throughout the seaborne journey, Gilgamesh kept weeping as he feverishly paced up and down the deck, wondering why he should be so unfortunate as to let the Rejuvenation Herb slip through his fingers. Exactly who filched it from his chariot? Was it the Enkites of the Enlilites? The propaganda pitch that soon spread far and wide was that he was sabotaged by the agents of Enki given that Utu-Shamash, an Enlilite, had done all he could to help him attain eternal life.
It must be borne in mind, however, that the Enlilites, were not in one accord concerning Gilgamesh’s quest for immortality. Ishkur-Adad, for instance, had frowned upon the idea. Nannar-Sin was non-committal. So to single out the Enkites as the party that put the spanner in the works was rash. Moreover, although the Anunnaki who guarded the spring where the Rejuvenation Herb grew were called Snakes, a metaphor for Enkites, they were not necessarily Enkites. In fact, they were in all probability Enlilites in that it was Enlil who had decreed that the plant be jealously guarded.
If it had been up to Enki alone, Gilgamesh would have clinched the Rejuvenation Plant given that it was Enki who created mankind and his personal wish was to see mankind live as long as the Anunnaki did. That is not to mention the fact that being the son of Ninsun, Enki’s daughter, Gilgamesh was a grandson of Enki. As such, Enki wouldn’t want to administer a demolition job to his quest for an indefinite lifespan.
GILGAMESH HONOURS ENKIDU
After an absence of about one year, Gilgamesh was back home. When he saw the grandeur and splendour of Uruk, “with its cultivated fields and orchards and its towering ziggurat devoted to Ishtar, all of it enclosed by intricately wrought walls”, all his sorrows were immediately subsumed by a sense of pride and awe.
A great number of his people had long set up camp on the shores of the Persian Gulf awaiting his uncertain return and when they saw him, they thronged him, shedding tears of joy in their ecstasy. All the Uruk elders were sent for to come and receive him and accompany back to Uruk as per official protocol.
After he had been debriefed on the happenings in Uruk whilst he was away by his council of elders, Gilgamesh informed them, with a catch in his voice, that his quest for immortality had not been successful and that he would soon sit down to write all his experiences, including his meeting with Noah, the hero of the Deluge. The Noah encounter particularly excited the elders, whereupon Gilgamesh recounted to them all that had transpired in Noah’s subterranean Paradise. Then he asked the elders to get all the people of Uruk to assemble at a public square.
When the people accordingly gathered, Gilgamesh announced to them the death of Enkidu. They all broke down in loud lamentation in a manner akin to a mass funeral. “Gilgamesh proclaimed his grief,” says The Epic of Gilgamesh. “Everyone mourned, including the creatures of the field and plain, the elders of the city, and the prostitute who domesticated Enkidu. The pathways to the Cedar Forest, the rivers Ulaja and Euphrates, and the farmers and shepherds in their fields all mourned Enkidu’s death.”
Gilgamesh proceeded to summon the craftsmen of Uruk, comprising metalworkers, stone carvers, goldsmiths, and engravers, and commanded them to raise a statue of Enkidu to honour his deeds and celebrate his fame. That done, he assembled a team of scribes to help him document his story and the accompanying depictions on clay tablets and cylinder seals. That was how The Epic of Gilgamesh came to be.
The chief scribe introduced the epic thus: “Let me make known to the country him who the Tunnel (Noah’s abode) has seen: of him who knows the waters (where the Plant of Rejuvenation grew) let me the full story tell. Secret things he has seen, what is hidden from man he found out. He even brought tidings of the time before the Deluge.
He took the distant journey, wearisome and under difficulties. He returned and upon a stone column all his toil he engraved … When the gods (the Anunnaki) created Man, wide understanding they perfected for him. Wisdom they had given him. To him they had given Knowledge. Everlasting life they had not given him.” And so it was that for generations thereafter, scribes copied and translated, poets recited, and storytellers related the tale of the first determined but futile search for immortality by a mortal.
ENLIL ORDERS ACCOMPANIED BURIAL FOR GILGAMESH
For the remainder of his years, Gilgamesh continued to lament the fact that he had failed to secure immortality like Noah and that death for him was an inevitability. But he never gave up hope. Now advanced in years and lying on his death bed, “pursued by the Angel of Death”, he made one final appeal to Enlil to relent and confer immortality on him, especially seeing that both his Anunnaki mother Ninsun and his Anunnaki grandmother Ninmah still looked as youngish as he had always known them. It was his godfather Utu-Shamash who he urged to approach Enlil on his behalf.
Enlil’s response was a foregone conclusion: Gilgamesh wasn’t getting a new lease of life but was rejoining his ancestry. What Enlil, the Jehovah of the Bible, did next illustrated what a diabolical being he was. He decreed that since Gilgamesh was “special” – a demigod who was at once king of a great city-state in Uruk – he was not going to the Nether World, the world of the dead, alone. He was to be accompanied by “his beloved wife, his beloved son, his beloved concubine, his musicians, his entertainers, his beloved cupbearer, the chief valet, his caretakers, and the palace attendants” as compensation for his denial of immortality.
Thus it was that on the day of his burial circa 2600 BC, all the above-mentioned people were given a drug which scrambled their senses and in what is called a “accompanied burial” were buried alive in the same huge grave in which Gilgamesh was laid to rest. Jehovah, folks, hardly had any regard for the sanctity of human life: to him, we were little more than animals.
We were expendable apes. When British missionaries came to Africa in the 19th century and learnt that Shaka the Zulu, on his mother Nandi’s death, ordered that ten handmaidens be buried alive with her, they denounced his legacy as that of a savage. Yet the very god they worshipped was guilty of exactly the same barbarity and even worse if Old Testament accounts of his penchant for mass murder are anything to go by.
Altogether, Gilgamesh lived for about 300 years, having been born circa 2900 BC, and ruled for 126 years. After his death, he was succeeded by his son Ur-Lugal, who in turn was succeeded by his son Utu-Kalamma. The two ruled a combined 45 years. Five more kings followed after Utu-Kalamma and they ruled for a total of 95 years. At the time kingship was transferred from Uruk to Ur, Nannar-Sin’s cult city, 12 kings had sat on Uruk’s throne for a total of 2310 years, beginning with Enmerkar, the grandfather of Gilgamesh.
But of all the 12, the greatest was no doubt Gilgamesh. It is he who is the most comprehensively documented. Even his father and predecessor Lugalbanda pales in comparison to feats wrought by Gilgamesh. Yet Gilgamesh owed his greatness not to he himself as such but to his bosom friend Enkidu, who was genetically engineered into existence by Enki with a view to help mould him into a better person. Before Enkidu’s advent, Gilgamesh was a despicable king who ruled his domain like a thug.
THE CONTENDING FOR BAALBEK
The thunderclap failure by Gilgamesh to obtain immortality did not deter other mortals from trying their luck. In their case though, their pilgrimage was restricted to the Landing Place at Baalbek in modern-day Lebanon, where Gilgamesh, accompanied by his great friend and mentor Enkidu, had his first futile attempt at securing access to a Nibiru-bound shem circa 2860 BC. Tilmun, the spaceport in the Sinai Peninsula, was too remote and doubly difficult to access than the Cedar Forest in Lebanon.
Even when the Anunnaki had officially departed Earth, Baalbek remained of great symbolic and religious value compared to Tilmun, which the Anunnaki obliterated with a nuclear blast in 2024 BC, an event we shall relate in detail in due course. Since Baalbek was, courtesy of the saga of Gilgamesh, associated with man’s efforts to live forever, the terrestrial allegory of Heaven (that is, Nibiru), it became a religious monument over which ancient superpowers fought.
When it came under the control of the Greeks in 331 BC, they built a temple they dedicated to their god Zeus, that is, Nannar-Sin, Enlil’s second-born son, who is today best-known as Allah. When the Romans occupied the place in 63 BC, not only did they erect a vast, 4000 ft-above-sea-level horizontal platform there but they also built a temple for the worship of their god Jupiter. Jupiter was actually Enki but the Romans wrongly (or was it deliberately) used the name to refer to Nannar-Sin.
Constantine the Great (A.D. 306-337) upon turning Christian (deceptively) accordingly turned Baalbek into a Christian shrine after scrapping all the works that had been going on there to date. In 440 BC, Roman Emperor Theodosius II “destroyed the temples of the Greeks. He transformed into a Christian church the Temple of Heliopolis (Baalbek as it was called by the Greeks) to that of Baal Helios (Utu-Shamash, Nannar-Sin’s most prominent son)”. In 637 AD, it was the turn of the Muslims, who “converted the Roman temples and Christian churches atop the huge platform into a Mohammedan enclave. Where Zeus and Jupiter had been worshiped, a mosque was built to worship Allah”. The names had changed but it was still the same god, Nannar-Sin.
In the Bible, the prophets Ezekiel and Amos referred to Baalbek as “The Place of the Gods” (note the plural, suggesting that these were the Anunnaki being spoken about) or “The Eden Abode”. At the time, Baalbek was in the hands of the Phoenicians, not the Israelites, but the prophets still venerated it as the holy place of the gods because it had been a space facility of the Anunnaki and was therefore a consecrated place. Rockets, along with a place where rockets landed and took off, were synonymous with the gods or holiness in that rockets were a means by which eternal life could be conferred by way of travel to Nibiru, the planet of the Anunnaki.
FATE OF THE KING OF BABYLON
Post-Gilgamesh, the mortals who like him set their sight on Baalbek to try their luck at gaining immortality were Nebuchadnezzar, Ithobalus III, and Alexander the Great. We will start with Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar (634-562 BC) was the King of Babylon from 605-562 BC. It was Nebuchadnezzar who presided over the Babylonian captivity – the capture of the Jewish people in 582 BC and heir deportation to Babylon, where they were held for 70 years as punishment by their god Enlil for repeatedly defying his decrees.
Unlike Gilgamesh, Nebuchadnezzar did not set foot on the Baalbek platform or ride in a shem: he was in the process of setting out for Baalbek when he was tactfully intercepted by Ishkur-Adad, Enlil’s third-born son, who at the time was the most powerful Enlilite. Nebuchadnezzar could not be allowed to come near Baalbek, a “holy place”, because he was a protégé of Marduk, an Enkite, and Baalbek was controlled by the Enlilites.
As such, what he planned to do as the most powerful king of the day was force his way to Baalbek, commandeer a shem, and blast off to Nibiru to be conferred eternal life by King Anu, “Our Father Who Art In Heaven”. But Adad stopped him in his tracks by afflicting him with a disease that made him deranged, roam among animals, feed on grass, and finally die in ignominy. Isaiah’s mockery of Nebuchadnezzar, who was in the throes of death at the time of the pronouncement, is recorded in ISAIAH 14:12-20, which partly reads as follows, with my own comments in brackets:
“O, how fallen from heaven (kingly glory in a mocking way) art thou, a Morning Star, son of Dawn! (literally ‘Shining One’, how the Anunnaki were characterised because of their light-skinned complexion and their surpassing knowledge. This is spoken in jest by the prophet as being an Anunnaki was what Nebuchadnezzar prospectively fancied himself as). Felled to the ground is he who the nations enfeebled.
Thou didst say in thine heart, ‘I will ascend unto the heavens (the cosmos on way to Nibiru), above the planets (the solar system) of El (Enlil) I shall raise my throne. (This is a false accusation: Nebuchadnezzar worshipped Marduk and so there was no way he would have wanted to exalt himself above any of the Anunnaki gods.) On the Mount of Assembly (Baalbek) I shall sit, on the Crest of Zaphon (Baalbek). Upon the Raised Platform (BaaIbek rocket-launch tower) I shall go up (ride in a shem), a Lofty One (an Anunnaki) I shall be!’ But nay, to the Nether World (where evil people go at death) you shalt go, down to the depths of a pit (Hell).”
Tragically, this very earthly incident has been over-spiritualised by the hopelessly ignorant Christian clergy. It has been span as talking about the fall of Satan in Heaven! What hogwash. Why? Because in the Vulgate, a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew to Latin by Jerome, one of the church fathers, “Morning Star Son of Dawn” is rendered as “Lucifer”, now a byword for Satan or Devil. But what these same Christian preachers will not admit to you is that Jesus is also referred to as Lucifer in REVELATION 22:16! The term Lucifer thus has no evil connotations whatsoever as it even applies to the planet Venus, the brightest object in the dawn and evening sky. It is the Illuminati who corrupted the term Lucifer to represent prime evil.
FATE OF THE KING OF TYRE
Tyre (today part of Lebanon) was a wealthy Phoenician city on the eastern Mediterranean coast as well as a strategic centre. In the 6th century BC, Ishkur-Adad instructed the prophet Ezekiel to pronounce doom on the King of Tyre. This diatribe against the king is recorded in EZEKIEL 28:12-19. Once again, the Christian clergy have falsely interpreted the above passage as referring to the fall of Satan in Heaven.
According to the legendary Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, the object of Adad’s wrath was King Ithobalus III of the city-state of Tyre, who reigned from 591-573 BC. This was in the waning days of the Anunnaki’s direct rulership of Earth. As his name implies, Ithobalus (meaning, “With Baal”) was a protégé of Utu-Shamash, who the Canaanites called Baal. Just as he had done with Gilgamesh, Shamash facilitated Ithobalus’s visit to the Baalbek aero-facility but went further: he got him to ride in a shem – a shuttlecraft, not an interplanetary rocket. This time around, Shamash managed to obtain the express blessings of Adad, who was the overall god of Lebanon. So it was under the aegis, ultimately, of Adad, that Ithobalus was allowed to set foot in the Landing Place and board a shem.
But Ithobalus in due course rubbed Adad the wrong way. Having been to Baalbek and having ridden in a shem (but only as far as Earth’s lower orbit, not all the way to Nibiru), Ithobalus became swell-headed: he literally grew wings. He began to boast to mankind that he had now become a god, that is, an Anunnaki. Like the Anunnaki, he bragged, he too had become immortal. This of course was false in that one only became like the Anunnaki (that is, was able to live nearly as long as they did) if he had travelled to Nibiru or partook of either the Rejuvenation Herb (the one that eluded Gilgamesh) or Ormus, the monoatomic white powder of Gold. Ithobalus did none of these.
“Thou hast been to a sacred mount (Baalbek),” Ezekiel said to Ithobalus on behalf of Adad. “As a god (Anunnaki) werest thou, moving within the fiery stones (the shems) … And you became haughty, saying, a god am I, at the place (Baalbek) of the Elohim (the Anunnaki ruling pantheon) I was. But you are just man, not god.”
Because of being so full of himself and for propagating falsehoods, Ithobalus was to die at the hands of strangers. “I will cast you to the ground (be dethroned),” Adad said of Ithobalus through Ezekiel. “I will lay you before kings, that they may behold (mockingly) you … I will bring forth a fire (symbol/metaphor of judgement) from the middle of you (that is, from among his own reign). It shall devour you, and I will bring you to ashes on the earth in the sight of all them that behold you.” Adad was the cruellest and most irascible of the Anunnaki royalty: once you offended him, you were a goner.
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’!