Hyksos usurp power under General Abraham and in heed of Jehovah’s grand scheme of things
The captured Marduk saw out the entire 24 years in forced exile, adamant that there was simply no way he was going to sign up to the Enlilite skullduggery of a fake monotheism – getting mankind to believe they were dealing with only one God called Anki when in truth that god was no more than a mere spokesman for the larger Anunnaki agenda for mankind and of which the Anunnaki top brass themselves were not entirely in one accord.
Meanwhile, the Babylonians could not desist from wondering what was it that had befallen their beloved god. Why should the planet’s seniormost god fall victim to such a fate? When Jehovah-Enlil was Earth’s Commander-in-Chief, he was never violated in like manner once. Why Marduk? Was Enlil still wielding executive power behind the scenes? Whatever the case, the Babylonian populace never gave up on their god.
They were aware he was safe wherever he was being held and they continued to pay homage to him by way of pilgrimages to his sacred precinct, the Esagil, and render prayers. These prayers were answered in 1571 BC, for in that very year, which marked Marduk’s 24 years of captivity, a warrior tribe known as the Kassites descended on the district of Terka along the Euphrates river, laid siege to Hana, the city Marduk was held captive in, freed him, and returned him to Babylon, where he was welcomed like a conquering hero by a sea surge of singing and dancing subjects.
At the time, the Hittites, who had seized Marduk in 1595 BC at the orders of their national god Ishkur-Adad for his refusal to pander to the sham monotheistic agenda, were a mighty fighting force. They had attained imperial status, with their domains reaching as far afield southwards as the biblical Canaan and therefore incorporating the two space-related sites of the Landing Place at Baalbek and the post-Diluvial Mission Control Center at Jerusalem. Their control of Canaan made it a bulwark against possible seizure by Enkite-dominated Egypt.
But the Kassites albeit managed to tame the Hittites. It’s not clear from whence the Kassites sprang: they did however express a great affinity for Babylonians. In the famous El Armana letters, their king referred to the Egyptian pharaohs as “my brother”, in all probability to underscore the fact that both kings and their peoples shared the same god in Marduk.
Unlike the Hittites, who seized Marduk and left Babylon to its own devices, the Kassites did not simply restore Marduk to power: they took over the rulership of Babylon, thus putting an end to the First Dynasty of Babylon which had reached the height of its power under the legendary Hammurabi. They were to dominate Babylon for the next 400 years. That this time period coincided with direct Hykso rule of northern Egypt was no mere coincidence. JEHOVAH COUNTRIVES EGYPT COUNTER-PENETRATION
It’s perhaps imperative that we at this juncture recap on Hykso rule in Egypt and how it came to be, a theme we have dwelt upon in reasonable detail in an earlier piece but which we will here briefly set down once again for the sake both of newcomers to this column and dot-connection. When Abraham, who was born in Nippur in 2123 BC, was 12 years old (in 2111 BC), his father Terah sent him to India, his (Terah) birthplace, to assume the role of the region’s spiritual father. Abraham was to pick up from where Terah, known in India as Hara-Krishna, had left off in evangelistic and ecclesiastical crusading circa 2140 BC.
Abraham was in India for 12 years. During this period, Enlil-Jehovah devised a strategy to counter-penetrate Egypt given the population explosion of the Canaanites (who were Enkites) in Canaan, which was legal Enlilite territory, just as Egypt was legal Enkite territory. To attain this end, he used the Hebrews who lived in a part of India known as Maturea as the instrument of infiltration. These Hebrews were to leave India and set course for Egypt under the concocted pretext that they were fleeing oppression from the powers that be or that they had been expelled for one reason or the other.
The Egyptians, who were overwhelmingly Bantu, took the bait hook, line and sinker. They gladly received the Matureans with typical Enkite hospitality and in order to help them preserve their cultural identity, they allotted to them an own settlement in northern Egypt known as Goshen. The Matureans took the liberty of renaming it Maturea as a constant reminder of their place of origin.
At the same time, the Matureans began to call themselves Hyksos (Hyk-Ku), which literally meant “Princely Sheep” but which was typically interpreted as “Shepherd Kings”. Like the rest of the Hebrew race, the Matureans had been designated “God’s Sheep” by Enlil. Since Enlil at the time was the foremost Anunnaki god on Earth, it meant the Hebrews were Earth’s “Elite Sheep” or “Elite Ewes”. The term ewes (“Jews” in modern-day parlance) as we have already explained was the ancient term for sheep. Thus Hebrews, Hyksos, Jews, and Israelites were simply alternative designations for the same people.
Meanwhile, circa 2099 BC, Abraham’s brother Harran died in Ur. Abraham, Harran, and Nahor were born in the same year to the same father Terah but to three different mothers. Their basically simultaneous conception was the result of a long-term strategy by Jehovah-Enlil to produce the Shepherd-King (that is, the Chief Sheep, or human leader of Enlil’s human flock) of the forthcoming Age of Aries with a view to contend with Marduk, who was the legally designated ruler of that Age. That way, the odds that at least one of the three offspring would be a boy were enhanced. Enlil got more than he bargained for as all three turned out to be boys. However, it was Haran who arrived first, followed by Abraham. Accordingly, Haran was tipped as the future Shepherd-King of the forthcoming Age of the Ram.
COMMENCEMENT OF HYKSO RULE IN EGYPT
Now that Haran was no more, Enlil chose Abraham to replace him as the future Shepherd-King, at the expense of Haran’s heir Lot, an injustice that was to remain a sore point with the descendants of Lot, who now and again waged war against Abraham’s descendants for the control of the bequest known as Canaan. According to Enlil’s well-laid down plans, Abraham was to join his fellow Hyksos in Egypt at an appropriate time and use Goshen as the springboard from which to seize power from the reigning pharaoh.
Why? Because in line with Enlil’s wishes, Abraham and his progeny were to take possession of all the lands “east of the Nile River all the way to the River Euphrates”. In terms of the modern-day setup, that would include half of Egypt and the whole of Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. To amply prepare him as a future conqueror, Abraham was trained as an elite warrior by Ninurta, the Anunnaki’s god of war. He would become the greatest military general of his day.
Thus it was that in 2047 BC, General Abraham thrust into northern Egypt, rallied the Hykso population at Goshen, and matched on Memphis, the most powerful city in northern Egypt, resulting in his becoming northern Egypt’s first Hykso Pharaoh. Northern Egypt was all the more prestigious because the Giza pyramids, a space-related landmark, were located there. Abraham ruled under the title Pharaoh Mehibre Kheti, the latter name meaning “Chosen One” to underline the fact that he was his god’s chosen Shepherd-King of the Age of Aries. His seizure of northern Egypt happened at a most opportune time, when Marduk, the god of Egypt, had cleverly being lured out of Egypt by Ishkur-Adad and was now based in Harran in the Middle East.
NORTHERN EGYPT’S NEW BUT UNOFFICIAL NAME BECAME I-SIRA-EL, MEANING, “EL’S SHIELD”. El was how Nannar-Sin, Jehovah’s second-born son, was called in Canaan, his Enlilite sphere of influence. Northern Egypt was El’s shield because it was a sort of Iron Curtain meant to ward off Egyptian forays into Canaan and therefore deny them direct access to the all-important shems, the rockets, at the Tilmun spaceport in the Sinai Peninsula.
Early in 2046 BC, Abraham contrived an official visit to Mentuhotep I, the black Pharaoh who ruled southern Egypt and was based in Thebes, that region’s capital. During the visit, he posed as a priest and merchant as Mentuhotep had never met him in person. To get Mentuhotep to be favourably disposed toward him, he introduced his dazzlingly beautiful wife Sarah as his sister and soon a smitten Mentuhotep had made her his concubine wife. Meanwhile, Abraham was gathering vital intelligence with the help of Sarah and before long he had struck: Mentuhotep was overthrown and Abraham had become the undisputed King of Egypt. It was at this juncture that the term Hyksos was adulterated to Heqa Khasut by the indigenous Egyptians, meaning “Foreign Occupiers”.
But in 2041 BC, Enlil recalled Abraham from Egypt as he was needed to safeguard the spaceport in the Sinai Peninsula, whose seizure was being plotted by the irrepressible Inanna-Ishtar using a Mesopotamian alliance of four kings. Abraham was not sure how long his mission would take to accomplish so he handed over the rulership of Egypt to Sarah, who was to reign indefinitely as Pharaoh Serahetawy Intef. Arriving in Canaan, Abraham did manage to heroically repel the enemy on behalf of Enlil and therefore prevent the spaceport from being overrun by Inanna.
Whilst Abraham lingered in Canaan, Sarah was overthrown in 2040 BC and the black indigenous Egyptians were back in power. Abraham quickly rushed back to mount a counter revolution. He managed to regain only northern Egypt, the bastion of the Hykso people. From that point on, he and Sarah jointly ruled northern Egypt till the year 2024 BC, when Abraham was again recalled by Enlil to base himself in Canaan to see to it that a charging Marduk and his son Nabu did not come anywhere near the Sinai spaceport.
ISAAC AN ADOPTED SON OF ABE
Who ruled northern Egypt whilst Abraham was in Canaan? The answer is not straightforward. What we can be sure of is that it wasn’t Sarah again given what had transpired last time around. It was most likely a care-taker ruler with proven military credentials. What we know for certain thanks to Egyptian records is that Abraham was in due course succeeded by his son Isaac, Shesi in Egyptian, who took the throne name of Pharaoh Mehibre II.
The saga of Isaac as related in the Bible is far from factual: it smacks of a deliberately contrived red-herring. According to Genesis, Isaac was born in Canaan. That is simply not true. Isaac was born in southern Egypt. Moreover, contrary to what Genesis would have you believe, Isaac was not Abraham’s biological son: he was conceived when Sarah was Pharaoh Mentuhotep II’s concubine. It is the real reason he is called Isaac, Itzhak in Hebrew, meaning “a laughing stock” in that he was technically a bastard child.
But since Sarah had Isaac in the context of a high-stakes Abrahamic scheme to grab the Egyptian throne, and not by way of sheer adultery, Abraham was under obligation to accept Isaac as his own son. In any case, Isaac was born to Sarah, Abraham’s half-sister wife, and succession to the throne was traced through the half-sister-wife and not any other.
It is crystal-clear, however, that Abraham was not as emotionally invested in Isaac as he was in Ishmael, his flesh-and-blood child. The Bible says Ishmael was 13 years older than Isaac, but that is a stretch: he was at most 2 years older. For if Abraham became Pharaoh of northern Egypt in 2047 BC and hitched Hagar either in that year or early the following year, and Sarah conceived Isaac from Mentuhotep in 2046 itself, the year he was overthrown by Abraham, then Isaac was most likely born in 2045 BC.
Again contrary to what Genesis would have you believe, Ishmael was not born to Sarah’s slave: according to The Book of Adam, his mother, Hagar, was a member of the Egyptian nobility who had Pharaonic blood in them. It was of critical importance that Abraham marries an Egyptian woman if he was to win both the moral and political support of indigenous Egyptians.
The fact that Hagar was named (by Abraham) after the Hakar River, a notable river of India, the birthplace of Abraham’s father Terah, demonstrates quite clearly that Hagar was not of ordinary genetic pedigree. It made her nearly as important as Sarah, after whom a prominent India river, the Saraisvati, was named and of which the Hakar was a tributary. The long and short of the argument is that it was Ishmael who was Abraham’s biological son and naturally it was Ishmael he cherished more.
ADAD REJECTS THE ISAAC OFFERING
A story is told in Genesis whereby Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son Isaac to “God” as a test of unquestionable faith. Once again, the story is over-embellished and over-spiritualised. Firstly, the term used in the original Hebrew is not “God”: it is “Elohim”, which was a blanket term for the Anunnaki’s ruling pantheon. In this case though, it was only the Enlilite pantheon, represented by Ishkur-Adad, as since Marduk came to power, the original pantheon, which comprised of Enkites and Enlilites, had disbanded.
Secondly, Genesis skirts the real reason Abraham was under obligation to sacrifice his firstborn son to Enlil. The underlying reason is found in EXODUS 13:2 (“Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me.”); EXODUS 22:29 (“You shall not delay the offering from your harvest and your vintage. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me.”); and NUMBERS 8:7 (“For every firstborn among the sons of Israel is Mine, among the men and among the animals …”).
Few Christians bother to read much of the Bible. As such, they are not aware that the very gods they worship, THE OLD TESTAMENT GODS, DEMANDED HUMAN SACRIFICE AS PLAINLY INDICATED ABOVE. The firstborn child in particular, more so a son, was to be presented to them as a sacrifice being the “first fruit” of one’s “produce”. This is pure vampirism and therefore outright Satanism. These are the Enlilites, the clan of Jehovah, we’re talking about folks, not the Enkites, who Enlilites had unjustly and calumniously dubbed “Devils’. They demanded the firstborn as he was typically the most precious child and one was supposed to give to the gods something they treasured the most.
But Abraham, who was one of only a few Earthlings who did not balk at arguing with and even pitting wits with his gods, was shrewd. Since he valued Ishmael, his firstborn and real son, greatly, he waited until Isaac, who was not his real child, was born before he rendered his sacrifice. According to the Bible, Adad commended Abraham for this gesture but that is the varnish that was put on the story. THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER WAS THAT ADAD REJECTED ISAAC AS A SACRIFICE BECAUSE ISAAC WAS NOT ABRAHAM’S FIRSTBORN SON, LEAST OF ALL HIS REAL SON: IT WAS ISHMAEL WHO WAS.
Accordingly, for failing Adad (read: for defying Adad), Abraham was to atone for that, to pay for the sin of both omission (not sacrificing the right child) and commission (bracing to sacrifice the wrong child). That’s how a ram came into the picture. The ram was not provided by Adad as the Bible suggests: gods did not provide sacrificial animals to their own subjects. A sacrifice was something one had to avail from his or her own personal resources.
One had to fend for themselves in this regard: otherwise, it would defeat the purpose of a sacrifice – something that made one feel the pinch of deprivation. Thus Abraham sacrificed his own ram to atone for his own sin against Adad. Remember, sacrificial animals saved two purposes. First, they were meant to cover for the sins one had committed against the gods. Second, they were meant as food for the gods as well as the priesthood.
The Anunnaki, however, had a clause that could exempt one from sacrificing their firstborn child. This was called a redemption clause. To redeem is to buy back: thus one could buy back their firstborn child (that is, have him/her spared from sacrificing to the gods) if they offered recompense to the gods to that effect. This was in the form of a sum of money. We find this in NUMBERS 18:14-17, which partly reads thus: “Nevertheless the firstborn of man you shall surely redeem … As to their redemption price, from a month old you shall redeem them, by your valuation, five shekels in silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, which is twenty gerahs.”
The above law, however, came into effect during the time of Moses, which was six hundred years or so later. Abraham therefore had no option but to surrender the soul of his son to the gods. Luckily, the son was spared and would live to a ripe old age. It seems, nonetheless, that Adad still begrudged Abraham for withholding Ishmael. FOR IT WAS WITH ISAAC THAT HE RENEWED THE COVENANT ABRAHAM HAD MADE WITH ENLIL – OF INHERITING LANDS FROM EGYPT TO THE EUPHRATES – AND NOT WITH ISHMAEL THE FAVOURITE SON. It did not matter that Isaac was neither Abraham’s firstborn son nor his biological son: what mattered was the inalienable fact that he was mothered by the half-sister-wife and it was the half-sister-wife who produced the heir to the throne.
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’!