The establishment of Sumer & Akkad marked the genesis of a Semitic language called Akkadian, written in a wedgelike (cuneiform) script. It is from Akkadian the Hebrew and Arabic languages evolved. Sargon, however, was not to rule Uruk or Kish as per the original wishes of the Enlilite gods. A shrewd Inanna unilaterally decided he should establish a new throne city within the broader Sumer. The reason? Zechariah Sitchin: “The same thinking, of making adversaries part of the family, probably led to the decision to establish a new, neutral national capital, Agade, whose name meant 'Union City'. Its location marked the addition of territories called Akkad, north of olden Sumer, to create a new geopolitical entity called Sumer & Akkad.”
Initially, Sargon went by the honorific title “Commanding Overseer of Ishtar, King of Kish, Great Ensi of Enlil. ” There was yet another title he went by. This was “Anointed Priest of Anu”. All kings of the day were anointed with the fat of a reptilian, seaborne creature known as the Mus-Hus in Sumeria and as the Messeh in Egypt. Today, we call this creature the crocodile. The crocodile was a symbol of virility (because of its sexual prowess), vitality (it’s the largest reptile on the planet), and longevity (it is among the oldest creatures of Earth, having existed in its present form for more than 200 million years).
Since kings of antiquity were anointed with crocodile fat, they were also known as Messiah. When Jesus was called “The Christ”, which is Greek for “Messiah”, it simply meant he was the bloodline King of Judah: there was nothing spiritual about it. Symbolically of course, kings had godly anointing but who were these gods? It were the Anunnaki, with “Our Father Who Art In Heaven” being King Anu of Nibiru. It is as simple as that.
Although Sargon was manouvered to prominence by Inanna-Ishtar, it was Enlil, the Bible’s principal Jehovah, he credited for his accession to monarchy. “It was Enlil,” he writes, “who gave me kingship and lordship”. But it was in “The Era of Ishtar” that Sargon blazed and that he did expressly acknowledged in his memoirs. A text known as The Sargon Chronicle says, “Sharrukin, King of Agade, rose to power in the era of Ishtar”. In The Legend of Sargon, Sargon gushes thus: “While I was a gardener, Ishtar granted me her love.
And for four and fifty years I exercised Kingship. The Black-Headed People I ruled and governed.” The Black-Headed Ones, Sag-Ge-Ga in Sumerian, was the Anunnaki’s nickname for mankind in that pure Earthlings all had black hair: only those with significant proportions of blood from white-skinned Anunnaki had variations like blonde or reddish hair.
Meanwhile, Sargon, ingratiated himself to his Anunnaki father Nannar-Sin by appointing one of his daughters Enheduanna as high-priestess-cum-hierodule in Sin’s temple in Ur, a position his (Sargon) own mother had occupied. Sin had taken great pleasure in bedding Sargon’s mother; now he would take pleasure in bedding Sargon’s daughter. Anunnaki morals were turd, to say the least.
SARGON STEAMROLLS OVER THE MIDDLE EAST
In his wars of conquest, Sargon was ruthless, decisive, and comprehensive. Although he was raised by Akki the agrarian, he had a step-father known as Arbakad, who had four garrisons under his command in the army of Ur-Zababa. So he had learnt a great deal about prosecuting war. By 2371 BC, he had overrun the whole of Sumer and substantially extended its boundaries. His central protagonists, however, were the gods themselves.
Not only did he have sophisticated, “mass-killing weapons” provided him by Enlil: he had the militarily brilliant and untouchable Inanna fighting alongside him right at the battlefront, where she and him at once waged war and made love during the periodical lulls. Leading his troops through the mountain passes of today's Luristani in western Iran, “Ishtar made a light to shine for him when he pressed forward in the darkness”. It was Inanna who was the commanding general of his troops. “My conquests, “he writes, “were carefully carried out by the order of my mistress, the divine Ishtar.”
But regarding the scope of the victories and the extent of the territories, Sargon effusively acknowledged Enlil. Says The Sargon Chronicle: “Sharrukin, King of Aggade, left neither rival nor opponent. He spread his terror-inspiring awe in all the lands. He crossed the sea in the east, he conquered the country of the west in its full extent … By Enlil was Sharrukin empowered; Inanna with her weapons of brilliance his warriors accompanied. Enlil did not let anybody oppose Sargon, the king of the land; from the Upper Sea (Mediterranean Sea) to the Lower Sea (Persian Gulf) Enlil gave unto him.”
And in all these military exploits, Sargon was so cruel that his own kids chided him for his blood lust. One of his daughters told him, “You will be remembered by the destruction of the rebel land, massacring its people, making its rivers run with blood.” But the gods, the Enlilites, gloated at this savagery. “It was to the gate of the House of Enlil that Sargon brought the captive kings, ropes tied to the dog collars around their necks,” says The Legend of Sargon.
The operative word put out of course was to “neutralise Marduk,” to forestall his seizure of Sumer. The truth of the matter, however, was that these grizzly wars constituted the Enlilites mass sacrifice of mankind to their Reptilian gods. Then and now, that is the fundamental aim of war. In the Vietnam War, the US’s Reptilian-controlled government sacrificed 1.3 million people. In the Gulf War, the Reptilian George W Bush sacrificed half a million Iraqis to his father the Devil (JOHN 8:44). This Earth, My Brother …
THE GRANDEUR OF AGADE
Sargon built the new capital of Sumer, Agade, not very far from Kish. It was rich, magnificent, and ostentatious. "In those days," a Sumerian historiography text relates, "the dwellings of Agade were filled with gold; its bright shining houses were filled with silver. Into its storehouses were brought copper, lead and slabs of lapis-lazuli. Its granaries bulged at the sides. Its old men were endowed with wisdom, its old women were endowed with eloquence. Its young men were endowed with the strength of weapons, its little children were endowed with joyous hearts … The city was full of music."
But Agade’s signature landmark structure was the Ulmash. This was a temple dedicated to Inanna, so named because it glittered with luxurious trappings which outdid even her Eanna in Uruk. "In Agade did holy Inanna erect a temple as her abode,” says an Akkadian text. “In the Glittering Temple she set up a throne." Besotted with a sense of grandeur, Inanna now had a temple in every major Sumerian city. “Is there a god who can vie with me?” she boasted.
It was in these times, the era of Agade, that the Enlilite gods were given new, Akkadian names being the more prominent in Sumer compared to the Enkites. Hitherto, they had been known by their Sumerian names only. Thus Inanna became Ishtar (Esther in English); Utu became Shamash; and Nannar became Sin (Suen when fully rendered); and Ishkur became Adad.
“MY TIME TO RULE HAS COME” – MARDUK
Meanwhile, Marduk in Egypt was priming himself as Earth’s new Enlil. Remember, Enlil was simply the title for Earth’s Chief Executive Officer. Marduk, who was legally entitled to take over as the Enlil in the astrological Age of the Ram, which was to follow after the present Age of Taurus, had begun to lick his chops after the Gudanna, the incumbent Enlil’s fighter craft, had been downed and vandalised by Gilgamesh’s men, who were spearheaded by Enkidu.
Marduk had taken the destruction of the Gudanna as a timely and fitting pointer to Enlil’s downfall in the very imminent Age of Aries. Soon after this stigmatic event, Marduk launched a propaganda drive meant to psychologically prepare the global citizenry for his ascendancy to supremacy. Already, Egyptian priests were hailing him as “The Eldest of Heaven, Firstborn Who is on Earth!” In hymnals composed to anticipate his rise to Enlilship, the verses now deified him as, “Lord of eternity, he who everlastingness has made, over all the gods presiding, the One who is without equal, the great solitary and sole one!”
Virtually every power and attribute of fellow gods he now ascribed to himself albeit prematurely. “As Enlil I am for lordship and decrees,” he boasted. “As Ninurta, for the hoe and combat; as Adad, for lightning and thunder; as Nannar for illuminating the night; as Utu, I am Shamash; as Nergal, over the Lower World I reign; as Gibil, the golden depths I know, whence copper and silver come I have found; as Ningishzidda numbers and their count I command.
The heavens my glory bespeak!” The latter statement features in PSALM 19:1, where it is rendered, “The heavens declare the glory of God”. What Marduk meant when he made this statement was that indications in the stellar backdrop (star pattern) of the night sky were that Taurus was given way to Aries and therefore was announcing his ascendancy to greatness.
Now Marduk was neither wrong nor right when he made this assertion. True, mathematically speaking, he was right. By mathematical reckoning, a zodiacal age (e.g. Taurus) lasted 2160 years, after which another (Aries according to the sequence) commenced. But theory and reality scarcely coincide. Some zodiacal ages, or constellations, are bigger than other in terms of the expanse of the heavenly space they occupy.
Since there are 12 constellations and the celestial arc in which they move is 360 degrees in total, each constellation ideally ought to occupy 30 degrees. However, some constellations occupy more than 30 degrees. A case in point is Taurus. As such, even if the mathematical 2160 years in which it is supposed to “rule” will have passed, it will still physically linger in the night sky for about 200 more years before a new sky pattern (of Aries) emerges. So in one sense, Marduk was correct in that chronologically, Taurus was on the wane: in another sense, he was wrong because celestially, the Taurian stellar backdrop still had pride of place in the night sky.
ENKI AND OTHERS GAINSAY MARDUK’S CLAIMS
Given the above contrarieties, when the other gods heard of Marduk’s claims, they were perturbed. “By these proclamations, the Anunnaki leaders were greatly alarmed,” say the Sumerian records. “To their father Enki the brothers of Marduk spoke; Nergal to Ninurta their concerns conveyed. What has you overpowered? Enki to his son Marduk said. Unheard of are your pretensions! The heavens (night time star pattern) my supremacy bespeak! Marduk his father Enki answered. The Bull of Heaven (the Gudanna), Enlil's constellation sign, by his own offspring was slain. In the heavens, the Age of the Ram, my age, is coming, unmistakable the omens are!”
Since the ramifications of Marduk’s claim would be far reaching, a selected team of the Anunnaki, amongst whom was their most versatile scientist Enki himself, took to a meticulous monitoring of the night sky once every year on the first day of the season of spring (March 20 in the northern hemisphere and September 22 in the southern hemisphere). “In his abode, in Eridu, the circle of the twelve constellations Enki examined: on the first day of spring, the beginning of a year, sunrise was carefully observed.”
The reports were unanimous in their findings. “In the constellation stars of the Bull was the sun that day rising. In Nibruki (Nippur) and Urim (Ur), Enlil and Nannar the observations made. In the Lower World (Southern Africa), where the Instruments Station was (at Cape Aghulhus in South Africa), Nergal the results attested: still remote was the time of the Ram, the Age of the Bull of Enlil it still was!”
But Marduk was by no means deterred by the concerted findings of his fellow gods: as far as he was concerned, it was the mathematical zodiacal time that counted, not the rather subjective celestial time. “In his domains, Marduk in his assertions did not relent. By Nabu (his heir) he was assisted. To domains not his, emissaries he sent, to announce to the people that his time (to rule Earth) has come.”
LORD OF THE THREE REGIONS
As Sargon aged, he became more and more foolhardy and therefore daring. His greatest undoing of course was his goddess and mistress Inanna-Ishtar. Inanna bedded King Anu, “Our Father Who Art In Heaven” every time he visited Earth and that made her think she was untouchable as far as the Earth-based gods were concerned. So whatever Inanna dinned into his thick mind, Sargon heeded it without giving it a second thought.
Thus far in his conquests, Sargon had steered clear of the domains of the Enlilites’ most fearsome gods. These were Lagash, Ninurta’s cult city, and Lebanon, Ishkur-Adad’s jurisdiction. But egged on by Inanna, he overran these too, so that he now had latitude over the aviational Landing Place at Baalbek, which not only was within Adad’s territory but was directly overseen by Utu-Shamash.
As far as Tilmun, the interplanetary spaceport in the Sinai Peninsula, was concerned, Sargon did not seize it: all he did was station his troops at its gazetted entry points under the pretext that he was trying to ward off Marduk’s designs to bring it into his sphere of influence, which of course was false. Sargon in fact showboatingly called himself “Lord of the Three Regions”, namely Sumer-Akkad, Egypt, and the Indus Valley. The only region he excluded was the fourth – the “neutral” Sinai Peninsula.
Sargon’s aversion to Marduk of course was not innately his: it was implanted in him by Inanna. Inanna never ever forgave Marduk for his role, so she believed, in the death of her husband Dumuzi, who was the greatest love of her life. As such, Inanna had vowed that Marduk could only become the new Enlil over her dead body. The new Enlil had to be none other than she herself: in the soon-to-dawn Age of Aries, she would rule Earth from the new city Sargon had built for her, Agade.
SARGON IRKS THE GODS
Now, every city that was the seat of kingship had what was known as the “Pavilion of Heaven”. This was a kind of public square where the Shuhadaku was emplaced. The Shuhadaku, defined as "Supreme Strong Bright Weapon," was first commissioned in Kish, the first city-state to be overseen by an Earthling King, by Anu and Enlil. It was made of alloyed metal. Every time kingship moved from one city to the other, the Shuhadaku followed too. But it was not instituted in the ordinary way: it was embedded in special, sacred soil. This was the soil of Babylon, Marduk’s cult city but which he had been made to vacate as punishment for erecting the infamous space-launch platform known as the Tower of Babel.
Why Babylon of all cities in Sumer? Well, Babylon had initially been set aside as a place where King Anu’s host city was to be built. It had therefore been consecrated and sanctified for the purpose. Then when King Anu came to Earth in 4000 BC, he transferred his rights to Babylon land to Marduk. Marduk therefore inherited the holiest place, theoretically, in Sumer, which explains why every throne city had to be commissioned with Babylonian soil.
Although Marduk now was based in Egypt, he was still recognised as the de facto god of Babylon. Thus if Babylonian soil was to be extracted for purposes of laying the Shuhadaku in a new city of kingship, express permission had to be sought from him. Presently, kingship had been commandeered to Agade by Inanna unilaterally. Agade, however, lacked legitimacy in that the Shuhadaku had been installed without the pre-conditional Babylonian soil.
Inanna was aware that his arch-enemy Marduk would never accede to her request for Babylonian soil. So what does she do? She gets Sargon to bulldoze his way into Babylon and appropriate the hallowed soil. When Marduk heard of this thievery, he filed a protest before the Pantheon of the Anunnaki gods and threatened that if the soil was not returned, he would make a forceful comeback to Babylon and from there wage war on Sargon.
But Inanna was not done yet as far as her supremacist histrionics were concerned. She announced that she was going to build her own spaceport in Agade so she could be in command of her own interplanetary missions. If you recall, Marduk had attempted just such a unilateral project in the form of the Tower of Babel in Babylon, which was bombed to rabble by Ninurta with the assistance of Inanna herself. Once again, Marduk took up the matter with the pantheon, arguing that he had been ejected from Babylon for exactly the same sin Inanna was contemplating.
By this time, even the Enlilites had had enough of Sargon’s belligerence and the antics of Inanna. Long story short, the Enlilites tacitly encouraged Marduk to trace his way back to Babylon and help tame the wayward Inanna and her equally intransigent bedfellow in Sargon. That, folks, was a hallmark of the Enlilites: from time to time, they used an enemy to punish a person or a people who fell out with them. The fate of the nation of Israel is a case in point: they endured all sorts of hardships and violations at the hands of foreign armies every time they rubbed Enlil or Ishkur-Adad the wrong way. Could Marduk tame the monster?
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’!