Moses Vs Ramesses
Columns
Benson C Saili
THIS EARTH, MY BROTHER
Moses gets the nod as the two contend for the Egyptian throne but …
Moses had been King of Midian for 40 years when Ramesses I became Pharaoh of Egypt. By this time, he should have had several more children with his Queen Zipporah but the Bible mentions only two, Gershom and Eleazer. The name Gershom meant “sojourner”, to underline the fact that although Moses was a sovereign in the land of Midian, he was not meant to live there forever as his real home was Egypt. As for Eleazer, meaning “God has helped”, it was a tribute to Nibiru King Anu. Moses venerated Nibiru, which he called the Aten, because it was the abode of Anu, “Our Father Who Art In Heaven”.
Now, when Ramesses took over as Pharaoh, there were two key dynamics at play in Egypt. First, the persecution of the Hykso-Hebrews had reached a new high. It was not on the scale of the Holocaust of Hitler’s day but it was austere anyway. Second, the indigenous Egyptians were clamouring for the return of Armana rule. Their rallying cry was voiced through Aaron, who had stayed in Egypt after his 3-year stint as caretaker Pharaoh. Both Ramesses and his predecessor Horemheb were not royals but usurpers. In particular, Egyptians were rooting for the return of the “Royal Mosis”, as Moses was now nostalgically referred to – a term that informed his naming in the Bible when in his native Egypt he was known as Akhenaten.
When he became Pharaoh, or Pharaoh-designate in truth, Ramesses was very old, stopping just short of walking on a cane. And as we all know, people mellow with age. SO TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE RESURGENCE OF HIS POPULARITY IN HIS MOTHERLAND, MOSES SERVED NOTICE ON RAMESSES THAT HE INTENDED TO RETURN TO EGYPT TO RECLAIM THE THRONE IN HEED OF THE WISHES OF THE EGYPTIANS. Of course Ramesses would have given him the middle finger as he had the power that went with incumbency but he decided not to opt for that course of action and instead gave Moses the green light to come over. Why this openhanded gesture on his part?
Well, it was simple. The pitting of wits between Moses and Ramesses was to be witnessed by the Egyptian Council of Elders, also known as Wise Men, who at least in this state of affairs were vested with the right to vote for the bona fide pharaoh. And you know as much as I do that such people are typically in the pocket of the King as they enormously enjoy his patronage. So Ramesses was hundred percent certain that even if he wasn’t the genuine-article pharaoh, the vote would go his way anyway. And once that happened, he would be in a position now to demonstrate to the Egyptians that it was not he who kept Moses at bay: it was the collective wish of the Council of Elders. The Egyptians would resultantly resign themselves to the outcome and begin to rally to Ramesses especially that he had acted so fairly and justly in the matter.
Arriving in Egypt, Moses did not head straight for an audience with Ramesses. He first fetched his cousin Aaron, the only other surviving Amarna King, and the two, along with their entourage of course, set course for the pharaoh’s residence. The meeting was held not at the official palace at Thebes in southern Egypt but at the pharaoh’s private mansion at Zaru, the mansion built for him by the slaving Hykso-Hebrews when he was Horemheb’s No. 2. It seemed Moses had insisted that Zaru be the rendezvous because that was his birthplace and therefore it had an abiding sentimental and symbolic value.
MOSES CHALLENGES RAMESSES’ RIGHT OF SUCCESSION
The Wise Men, a kind of rubber stamp parliament, were gathered in the hall at the Ramesses mansion to witness and adjudicate the rhetorical showdown between the rightful Pharaoh in Moses and the aspiring Pharaoh in Ramesses. First, Ramesses proffered reasons as to why he was the right person to succeed Horemheb. He had been duly anointed by Horemheb as successor and so had the seal of approval of the departed king.
It was not that he had usurped the throne: Horemheb had no heir and this was the reason he had settled for Ramesses. If Horemheb had come to power by foul and crook, that wasn’t of Ramesses’ making: he could not be held accountable for a sin that was committed by his predecessor. In any case, Horemheb argued, none of the Armana Kings were genuine Egyptians: they were in truth Hykso-Hebrews either paternally or maternally. On the other hand, Horemheb and he were full-blooded sons of the soil and therefore were deserving rulers of their beloved country.
Once Ramesses was done with his manifesto, Moses took the floor to make the case for his restoration as Pharaoh. Moses asserted that he was the linear pharaoh since his father Amenhotep III, that his rule was interrupted when Horemheb and company, who included Ramesses himself, leaned on him to step down and go into exile. In short, Moses was extra-legally removed from power.
Moses went on to denounce Ramesses as a commoner who therefore was not entitled to the institution of monarch. Both he and Horemheb did not have the merest drop of royal blood in them. As for the matter of his carrying Hykso-blood, Moses argued that pharaohs typically married daughters of foreign kings as minor wives and therefore it was common to find pharaohs in the annals of Egypt who had foreign blood in them as even Tuthmosis IV’s mother was a foreigner.
Above all, Moses produced incontrovertible evidence that he was indeed a pharaoh. Remember, when he went into exile 40 years before, he had taken with him his Pharaonic symbol of authority. This was a serpent rod made of bronze and shaped and engraved in the image of a scepter. The serpent was the symbol of Enki, the overall god of Africans and father to Egypt’s national god, Amen-Ra Marduk. To further buttress his case, Moses performed the ritual of the withered hand, whereby he placed his right hand limply across his chest, while supporting it with his left hand.
In the Bible, Moses’ actions (which it attributes to Aaron) before Ramesses are spun as magical feats. That is far from the truth: the “Word of God” lies folks. In Egypt, these rituals were part and parcel of a sitting pharaoh’s performance at the Sed festival, which was meant to validate the pharaoh’s capacity to continue ruling his people. The Sed festival was first held on the pharaoh’s 30th thronal anniversary and every three years thereafter. Typically, the rituals were performed by the Pharaoh’s aides on his behalf. The Koran documents the incident too and much more accurately in its case: Moses does not remotely come across as a magician but simply as someone who presents evidence of his authority.
In his highly insightful book, MOSES AND AKHENATEN: THE SECRET HISTORY OF EGYPT AT THE TIME OF THE EXODUS, the Egyptian historian Ahmed Osman puts the serpent rod and hand rituals in context thus: “In the tomb of Kheruef, one of Queen Tiye’s stewards, a throne scene shows the queen with her husband, Amenhotep III. Under the dais of the throne we see Kheruef and other officials, each holding something that he is about to hand to the king so that he can use it during the Sed festival celebrations of his Year 30.
In one scene, Kheruef is followed by eight palace officials, the first of whom is wearing an apron. He puts his right arm across his chest and his hand over his left shoulder while he holds his forearm with the left hand. The fourth of these officials holds a bundle of clothes in his right hand and a curved scepter with serpent’s head in his left.”
So when Moses performed the serpent rod and hand rituals before Ramesses, he was demonstrating two things. First, he was challenging Ramesses’ right of succession and making the case for his own. Second, he was reenacting the Sed festival, for had his rule not been interrupted, he would today be on the throne for more than 30 years and therefore would merit performing the Sed festival.
The authors of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) did not get it wrong: they simply deliberately misrepresented the facts. Why? BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T WANT TO MAKE IT TOO OBVIOUS TO THE JEWS THAT MOSES WAS ONCE PHARAOH OF EGYPT, A NATION THAT WAS THE JEWISH PET HATE (it would be something akin to saying Adolf Hitler was in fact a Jew). As such, they dramatised and doctored the incident and had Aaron perform the “magic” when it was Moses who did so.
MOSES GETS THE VOTE BUT RAMESSES REFUSES TO BUDGE
Both the two contenders for the Egyptian throne had made their case and it was now up to the Wise Men to pass a vote indicating whose deposition had convinced them. To Ramesses’ surprise, the Wise Men all voted for Moses. The vote was indicated by bowing their knees in front of Moses, thus confirming that he had a superior claim to the throne. Sadly, Ramesses was not having any of that.
He immediately put his army on the alert and when word seeped through that Moses was to be the new Pharaoh, Zaru erupted into jubilation on the streets. It was all in vain really, for when the pro-Moses elements in the Egyptian establishment tried to press their case for the enthronement of Moses, they were ruthlessly crashed by the highly partisan army. Furthermore, all the members of the Council of the Elders were put to the sword.
Moses himself was untouched, being a King already of the territory of Midian. Ramesses in fact tried to convince Moses to reintegrate Midian into Egypt once again but Moses stoutly refused. INSTEAD, AN ANGRY MOSES RENOUNCED HIS EGYPTIAN NATIONALITY AND DECLARED HIMSELF A HYKSO-HEBREW. He then demanded that all the Hykso-Hebrews leave Egypt with him not for good but for only three days to hold a special festival to his god, the Aten, in the Sinai Wilderness.
Ramesses not only rejected the appeal but revved up on affliction visited on the Hykso-Hebrews. “And Pharaoh commanded the same day the taskmasters of the people, and their officers, saying, Ye shall no more give the people straw to make bricks, as heretofore: let them go and gather straw for themselves. And the tale [number] of bricks, which they did make heretofore, ye shall lay upon them; ye shall not diminish ought thereof: for they be idle; therefore they cry, saying, Let us go and sacrifice to our God" (EXODUS 5:6-8).
Since he could not have his bidding, Moses departed Egypt for Midian. In the event, Ramesses was officially crowned as Egypt’s new pharaoh. But as he was so advanced in age, he was no more than a shadow of his old self: the person who wielded real power was his firstborn son Seti, who was also in charge of the army.
MOSES CHOSEN TO SPEARHEAD JEWISH EMANCIPATION
Meanwhile, the Enlilites, the Anunnaki faction headed by Jehovah, were pressed for time. The planet Nibiru was scheduled to return in about 700 years' time. By that time, three imperatives needed to have been accomplished fundamentally. First, the two space-related sites, Jerusalem and Baalbek in Lebanon, should have been under Enlilite control. King Anu was expected to touch down on Earth by way of either Baalbek or Jerusalem. Thus either places had to be operational once again as the aeronautical Landing Place and Mission Control Centre respectively.
Second, Canaan, more so Jerusalem, should have been dominated populationwise by the Jews, Enlil’s chosen people, who he called his sheep. Presently, the whole of Canaan was occupied by non-Hebrew peoples who were largely pro-Marduk. They were Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Hivites, and Jebusites. This was against the strategic designs of the Enlilites. All the non-Hebrew peoples should have been flushed out by the time Anu returned and the Jews ensconced in their place.
Third, Marduk, who was legally Chief Executive of Earth (although the Enlilites scarcely recognized him) should have been deposed and an Enlilite installed in his place. The Enlilites were averse to an Enkite receiving such an august figure as Anu. They wanted that privillege to fall to them. The overriding priority presently, however, was to populate Jerusalem with Jews. The Jews at the time were concentrated in two places – Harran in today’s Turkey and Zaru in Egypt. Whereas the Jews of Harran were free people, the Jews of Zaru were in bondage. It was the latter the Enlilite decided to free and then remove to Jerusalem. And the person they chose to spearhead the sequence of activities in this regard was none other than Moses.
Moses had a number of qualifying attributes for this purpose. First, he was a military general of masses of experience. Second, he had been King of Egypt and King of Midian for a combined total of just under 60 years. Third, he was of Hykso-Hebrew descent on his mother’s side and so would find resonance amongst the Hykso-Hebrews.
The express commissioning of Moses to the task was assigned to Ishkur-Adad, Enlil-Jehovah’s second-born son. The Enlilites had decided that they would no longer show or intimate themselves to mankind as individual gods but would do so using only one representative on a rotational basis. This representative Anunnaki deity would go under the name ANKI, meaning, in paraphrase, “Lord of Heaven and Earth”.
IN OTHER WORDS, ANKI WOULD POSE AS BOTH ANU, THE GOD OF HEAVEN (NIBIRU), AND ENLIL, THE GOD (PUTATIVELY AND UNLAWFULLY) OF EARTH. The first person they chose to play this role was Adad. Unlike in the past when humans could physically see a god, that was no longer the case. This time around, humans would hear the voice of a god alright but may not see him. The idea was to instill a sense of awe, a sort of mystique, in the minds of Earthlings.
Thus it was that not long after Moses had returned from his rhetorical clash with Ramesses, Adad sent an “angel”, that is, a low-ranking Anunnaki, to summon him to his presence. Since this was Moses’ first encounter with an Anunnaki, he was overwhelmed and therefore acquiesced without much ado.
MOSES COMES BEFORE ISHKUR-ADAD
At the time of Moses, in the 14th century BC, the Anunnaki had all but withdrawn from direct interaction with and interference into the affairs of mankind. That did not mean they had retired or that they had left Earthlings wholly to their own devices. They were very much around and exerting subtle influence from behind the scenes. But the so-called senior gods – the likes of Enlil, Enki, Ninmah, Ninurta, and Nannar-Sin – were in semi-retirement. Only Marduk, being the executive ruler of Earth, was still active in answer to the call of duty but at a slightly diminished rate in his case too.
Nannar-Sin, Enlil’s second-born son, who would later be known as Zeus to the Greeks and Adonis to the Romans, was the principal Canaanite god of the day. In Canaan, Sin was simply referred to as El, meaning “God”. Sin and his wife Ningal, or Asherah to the Canaanites, had decided to settle in the southern parts of the Sinai Peninsula, in an area the Bible calls Horeb, near two twin mountain peaks known as the Mountains of the Elohim.
The Elohim, as you already know, was how the Sumerians referred to the ruling pantheon of the Anunnaki. In the Bible, the term Elohim is misleadingly translated as “God” when the right translation should be the plural “gods”, as the Anunnaki were called as a collective. Sin in particular was fond of setting up home atop or near mountain peaks, the reason his other name was El Shaddai, meaning “Lord of the Mountains”.
It was to Horeb, not very far from Serabit El-Khadim, Moses’ residential precincts, that Moses, so we’re given to understand by the authors of the Pentateuch, was taken by an “Angel of the Lord” – a Anunnaki messenger of Ishkur-Adad. According to the Bible, this happened when Moses, “a shepherd of the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian”, was “leading the flock behind the wilderness” (EXODUS 3:1).
This is all coded language as we have reiterated time and again. Being shepherd of Jethro’s flock simply meant Moses was the King of the Midianites. In the Bible, when the term shepherd is applied to a patriarchal figure, it means that figure was King. In the language of Enlilite gods, a shepherd was a member of the human race who ruled a people, the sheep, on their (Enlilites’) behalf.
Arriving at the scene of his summons, at about sunset, Moses, the biblical story continues, was treated to a wondrous and stupefying spectacle. A THICKET THAT GREW AGAINST A MOUNTAIN SIDE WAS BURNING RATHER BRIGHTLY BUT WAS NOT BEING CONSUMED BY THE FIRE (EXODUS 3:1-22/4:1-19). Naturally, Moses was overcome with fear. But did things proceed exactly as Exodus relates them? And was the bright but seemingly cold flame a miracle?
NEXT WEEK: MOSES SIGNS PACT WITH THE DEVIL!
Columns
THE KEY TO HAPPINESS
Speaking at a mental health breakfast seminar last week I emphasised to the HR managerial audience that you cannot yoga your way out of a toxic work culture. What I meant by that was that as HR practitioners we must avoid tending to look at the soft options to address mental health issues, distractions such as yoga and meditation. That’s like looking for your lost bunch of keys, then opening the front door with the spare under the mat. You’ve solved the immediate problem, but all the other keys are still missing. Don’t get me wrong; mindfulness practices, yoga exercise and taking time to smell the roses all have their place in mental wellness but it’s a bit like hacking away at the blight-ridden leaves of the tree instead of getting to the root cause of the problem.
Another point I stressed was that mental health at work shouldn’t be looked at from the individual lens – yet that’s what we do. We have counselling of employees, wellness webinars or talks but if you really want to sort out the mental health crisis that we face in our organisations you HAVE to view this more systemically and that means looking at the system and that starts with the leaders and managers.
Now. shining a light on management may not be welcomed by many. But leaders control the flow of work and set the goals and expectations that others need to live up to. Unrealistic expectations, excessive workloads and tight deadlines increase stress and force people to work longer hours … some of the things which contribute to poor mental health. Actually, we know from research exactly what contributes to a poor working environment – discrimination and inequality, excessive workloads, low job control and job insecurity – all of which pose a risk to mental health. The list goes on and is pretty exhaustive but here are the major ones: under-use of skills or being under-skilled for work; excessive workloads or work pace, understaffing; long, unsocial or inflexible hours; lack of control over job design or workload; organizational culture that enables negative behaviours; limited support from colleagues or authoritarian supervision; discrimination and exclusion; unclear job role; under- or over-promotion; job insecurity.
And to my point no amount of yoga is going to change that.
We can use the word ‘toxic’ to describe dysfunctional work environments and if our workplaces are toxic we have to look at the people who set the tone. Harder et al. (2014) define a toxic work environment as an environment that negatively impacts the viability of an organization. They specify: “It is reasonable to conclude that an organization can be considered toxic if it is ineffective as well as destructive to its employees”.
Micromanagement and/or failure to reward or recognize performance are the most obvious signs of toxic managers. These managers can be controlling, inflexible, rigid, close-minded, and lacking in self-awareness. And let’s face it managers like those I have just described are plentiful. Generally, however there is often a failure by higher management to address toxic leaders when they are considered to be high performing. This kind of situation can be one of the leading causes of unhappiness in teams. I have coached countless employees who talk about managers with bullying ways which everyone knows about, yet action is never taken. It’s problematic when we overlook unhealthy dynamics and behaviours because of high productivity or talent as it sends a clear message that the behaviour is acceptable and that others on the team will not be supported by leadership.
And how is the HR Manager viewed when they raise the unacceptable behaviour with the CEO – they are accused of not being a team player, looking for problems or failing to understand business dynamics and the need to get things done. Toxic management is a systemic problem caused when companies create cultures around high-performance and metrics vs. long-term, sustainable, healthy growth. In such instances the day-to-day dysfunction is often ignored for the sake of speed and output. While short-term gains are rewarded, executives fail to see the long-term impact of protecting a toxic, but high-performing, team or employee. Beyond this, managers promote unhealthy workplace behaviour when they recognize and reward high performers for going above and beyond, even when that means rewarding the road to burnout by praising a lack of professional boundaries (like working during their vacation and after hours).
The challenge for HR Managers is getting managers to be honest with themselves and their teams about the current work environment. Honesty is difficult, I’m afraid, especially with leaders who are overly sensitive, emotional, or cannot set healthy boundaries. But here’s the rub – no growth or change can occur if denial and defensiveness are used to protect egos. Being honest about these issues helps garner trust among employees, who already know the truth about what day-to-day dynamics are like at work. They will likely be grateful that cultural issues will finally be addressed. Conversely, if they aren’t addressed, retention failure is the cost of protecting egos of those in management.
Toxic workplace culture comes at a huge price: even before the Great Resignation, turnover related to toxic workplaces cost US employers almost $50 billion yearly! I wonder what it’s costing us here.
QUOTE
We can use the word ‘toxic’ to describe dysfunctional work environments and if our workplaces are toxic we have to look at the people who set the tone. Harder et al. (2014) define a toxic work environment as an environment that negatively impacts the viability of an organization. They specify: “It is reasonable to conclude that an organization can be considered toxic if it is ineffective as well as destructive to its employees”.
Columns
Heartache for Kelly Fisher
| T |
o date, Princess Diana, General Atiku, had destroyed one marriage, come close to ruining another one in the offing, and now was poised to wreck yet another marriage that was already in the making. This was between Dodi Fayed and the American model Kelly Fisher.
If there was one common denominator about Diana and Dodi besides their having been born with a silver spoon in their mouths, General, it was that both were divorcees. Dodi’s matrimonial saga, however, was less problematic and acrimonious and lasted an infinitesimal 8 months. This was with yet another American model and film actress going by the name Susanne Gregard.
Dodi met Susanne in 1986, when she was only 26 years old. Like most glamourous women, she proved not to be that easy a catch and to readily incline her towards positively and expeditiously responding to his rather gallant advances, Dodi booked her as a model for the Fayed’s London mega store Harrods, where he had her travel every weekend by Concorde. They married at a rather private ceremony at Dodi’s Colorado residence in 1987 on New Year’s Day, without the blessings, bizarrely, of his all-powerful father. By September the same year, the marriage was, for reasons that were not publicised but likely due to the fact that his father had not sanctioned it, kaput.
It would take ten more years for Dodi to propose marriage to another woman, who happened to be Kelly Fisher this time around.
DODI HITCHES KELLY FISHER
Kelly and Dodi, General, met in Paris in July 1996, when Kelly was only 29 years old. In a sort of whirlwind romance, the duo fell in love, becoming a concretised item in December and formally getting engaged in February 1997.
Of course the relationship was not only about mutual love: the material element was a significant, if not vital, factor. Kelly was to give up her modelling job just so she could spend a lot more time with the new man in her life and for that she was to be handed out a compensatory reward amounting to $500,000. The engagement ring for one, which was a diamond and sapphire affair, set back Dodi in the order of $230,000. Once they had wedded, on August 9 that very year as per plan, they were to live in a $7 million 5-acre Malibu Beach mansion in California, which Dodi’s father had bought him for that and an entrepreneurial purpose. They were already even talking about embarking on making a family from the get-go: according to Kelly, Dodi wanted two boys at the very least.
Kelly naturally had the unambiguous blessings of her father-in-law as there was utterly nothing Dodi could do without the green light from the old man. When Mohamed Al Fayed was contemplating buying the Jonikal, the luxurious yacht, he invited Dodi and Kelly to inspect it too and hear their take on it.
If there was a tell-tale red flag about Dodi ab initio, General, it had to do with a $200,000 cheque he issued to Kelly as part payment of the pledged $500,000 and which was dishonoured by the bank. Throughout their 13-month-long romance, Dodi made good on only $60,000 of the promised sum. But love, as they say, General, is blind and Kelly did not care a jot about her beau’s financial indiscretions. It was enough that he was potentially a very wealthy man anyway being heir to his father’s humongous fortune.
KELLY CONSIGNED TO “BOAT CAGE”
In that summer of the year 1997, General, Dodi and Kelly were to while away quality time on the French Rivierra as well as the Jonikal after Paris. Then Dodi’s dad weighed in and put a damper on this prospect in a telephone call to Dodi on July 14. “Dodi said he was going to London and he’d be back and then we were going to San Tropez,” Kelly told the interviewer in a later TV programme. “That evening he didn’t call me and I finally got him on his portable phone. I said, ‘Dodi where are you?’ and he said he was in London. I said, ‘Ok, I’ll call you right back at your apartment’. He said, ‘No, no, don’t call me back’. So I said, ‘Dodi where are you?’ and he admitted he was in the south of France. His father had asked him to come down and not bring me, I know now.”
Since Dodi could no longer hide from Kelly and she on her part just could not desist from badgering him, he had no option but to dispatch a private Fayed jet to pick her up so that she join him forthwith in St. Tropez. This was on July 16.
Arriving in St. Tropez, Kelly, General, did not lodge at the Fayed’s seaside villa as was her expectation but was somewhat stashed in the Fayed’s maritime fleet, first in the Sakara, and later in the Cujo, which was moored only yards from the Fayed villa. It was in the Cujo Kelly spent the next two nights with Dodi. “She (Kelly) felt there was something strange going on as Dodi spent large parts of the day at the family’s villa, Castel St. Helene, but asked her to stay on the boat,” writes Martyn Gregory in The Diana Conspiracy Exposed. “Dodi was sleeping with Kelly at night and was courting Diana by day. His deception was assisted by Kelly Fisher’s modelling assignment on 18-20 July in Nice. The Fayed’s were happy to lend her the Cujo and its crew for three days to take her there.”
Dodi’s behaviour clearly was curious, General. “Dodi would say, ‘I’m going to the house and I’ll be back in half an hour’,” Kelly told Gregory. “And he’d come back three or four hours later. I was furious. I’m sitting on the boat, stuck. And he was having lunch with everyone. So he had me in my little boat cage, and I now know he was seducing Diana. So he had me, and then he would go and try and seduce her, and then he’d come back the next day and it would happen again. I was livid by this point, and I just didn’t understand what was going on. When he was with me, he was so wonderful. He said he loved me, and we talked to my mother, and we were talking about moving into the house in California.”
But as is typical of the rather romantically gullible tenderer sex, General, Kelly rationalised her man’s stratagems. “I just thought they maybe didn’t want a commoner around the Princess … Dodi kept leaving me behind with the excuse that the Princess didn’t like to meet new people.” During one of those nights, General, Dodi even had unprotected sexual relations with Kelly whilst cooing in her ear that, “I love you so much and I want you to have my baby.”
KELLY USHERED ONTO THE JONIKAL AT LONG LAST
On July 20, General, Diana returned to England and it was only then that Dodi allowed Kelly to come aboard the Jonikal. According to Debbie Gribble, who was the Jonikal’s chief stewardess, Kelly was kind of grumpy. “I had no idea at the time who she was, but I felt she acted very spoiled,” she says in Trevor Rees-Jones’ The Bodyguard’s Story. “I remember vividly that she snapped, ‘I want to eat right now. I don’t want a drink, I just want to eat now’. It was quite obvious that she was upset, angry or annoyed about something.”
Kelly’s irascible manner of course was understandable, General, given the games Dodi had been playing with her since she pitched up in St. Tropez. Granted, what happened to Kelly was very much antithetical to Dodi’s typically well-mannered nature, but the fact of the matter was that she simply was peripheral to the larger agenda, of which Dodi’s father was the one calling the shots.
On July 23, Dodi and Kelly flew to Paris, where they parted as Kelly had some engagements lined up in Los Angeles. Dodi promised to join her there on August 4 to celebrate with her her parents’ marriage anniversary. Dodi, however, General, did not make good on his promise: though he did candidly own up to the fact that he was at that point in time again with Diana, he also fibbed that he was not alone with her but was partying with her along with Elton John and George Michael. But in a August 6 phone call, he did undertake to Kelly that he would be joining her in LA in a few days’ time. In the event, anyway, General, Kelly continued to ready herself for her big day, which was slated for August 9 – until she saw “The Kiss”.
THE KISS THAT NEVER WAS
“The Kiss”, General, first featured in London’s Sunday Mirror on August 10 under that very headline. In truth, General, it was not a definitive, point-blank kiss: it was a fuzzy image of Diana and Dodi embracing on the Jonikal. A friend of Kelly faxed her the newspaper pictures in the middle of the night and Kelly was at once stunned and convulsed with rage.
But although Kelly was shocked, General, she was not exactly surprised as two or three days prior, British tabloids had already begun rhapsodising on a brewing love affair between Dodi and Diana. That day, Kelly had picked up a phone to demand an immediate explanation from her fiancé. “I started calling him in London because at this time I was expecting his arrival in a day. I called his private line, but there was no answer. So then I called the secretary and asked to speak to him she wouldn’t put me on. So Mohamed got on and in so many horrible words told me to never call back again. I said, ‘He’s my fiancé, what are you talking about?’ He hung up on me and I called back and the secretary said don’t ever call here again, your calls are no longer to be put through. It was so horrible.”
Kelly did at long last manage to reach Dodi but he was quick to protest that, “I can’t talk to you on the phone. I will talk to you in LA.” Perhaps Dodi, General, just at that stage was unable to muster sufficient Dutch courage to thrash out the matter with Kelly but a more credible reason he would not talk had to do with his father’s obsessive bugging of every communication device Dodi used and every inch of every property he owned. The following is what David Icke has to say on the subject in his iconic book The Biggest Secret:
“Ironically, Diana used to have Kensington Palace swept for listening devices and now she was in the clutches of a man for whom bugging was an obsession. The Al Fayed villa in San Tropez was bugged, as were all Fayed properties. Everything Diana said could be heard. Bob Loftus, the former Head of Security at Harrods, said that the bugging there was ‘a very extensive operation’ and was also always under the direction of Al Fayed. Henry Porter, the London Editor of the magazine Vanity Fair, had spent two years investigating Al Fayed and he said they came across his almost obsessive use of eavesdropping devices to tape telephone calls, bug rooms, and film people.”
Through mutual friends, General, Porter warned Diana about Al Fayed’s background and activities ‘because we thought this was quite dangerous for her for obvious reasons’ but Diana apparently felt she could handle it and although she knew Al Fayed could ‘sometimes be a rogue’, he was no threat to her, she thought. “He is rather more than a rogue and rather more often than ‘sometimes,” she apparently told friends. “I know he’s naughty, but that’s all.” The TV programme Dispatches said they had written evidence that Al Fayed bugged the Ritz Hotel and given his background and the deals that are hatched at the Ritz, it would be uncharacteristic if he did not. Kelly Fisher said that the whole time she was on Fayed property, she just assumed everything was bugged. It was known, she said, and Dodi had told her the bugging was so pervasive.
KELLY SUES, ALBEIT VAINLY SO
To his credit, General, Dodi was sufficiently concerned about what had transpired in St. Tropez to fly to LA and do his utmost to appease Kelly but Kelly simply was not interested as to her it was obvious enough that Diana was the new woman in his life.
On August 14, Kelly held a press conference in LA, where she announced that she was taking legal action against Dodi for breach of matrimonial contract. Her asking compensation price was £340,000. Of course the suit, General, lapsed automatically with the demise of Dodi in that Paris underpass on August 31, 1997.
Although Kelly did produce evidence of her engagement to Dodi in the form of a pricey and spectacular engagement ring, General, Mohamed Al Fayed was adamant that she never was engaged to his son and that she was no more than a gold digger.
But it is all water under the bridge now, General: Kelly is happily married to a pilot and the couple has a daughter. Her hubby may not be half as rich as Dodi potentially was but she is fully fulfilled anyway. Happiness, General, comes in all shades and does not necessarily stem from a colossal bank balance or other such trappings of affluence.
Pic Cap
THE SHORT-LIVED TRIANGLE: For about a month or so, Dodi Al Fayed juggled Princess Diana and American model Kelly Fisher, who sported Dodi’s engagement ring. Of course one of the two had to give and naturally it could not be Diana, who entered the lists in the eleventh hour but was the more precious by virtue of her royal pedigree and surpassing international stature.
NEXT WEEK: FURTHER BONDING BETWEEN DIANA AND DODI
Columns
EXTRAVAGANCE One of The Scourges in Society.
Extravagance in recent times has moved from being the practice of some rich and wealthy people of society in general and has regrettably, filtered to all levels of the society. Some of those who have the means are reckless and flaunt their wealth, and consequently, those of us who do not, borrow money to squander it in order to meet their families’ wants of luxuries and unnecessary items. Unfortunately this is a characteristic of human nature.
Adding to those feelings of inadequacy we have countless commercials to whet the consumer’s appetite/desire to buy whatever is advertised, and make him believe that if he does not have those products he will be unhappy, ineffective, worthless and out of tune with the fashion and trend of the times. This practice has reached a stage where many a bread winner resorts to taking loans (from cash loans or banks) with high rates of interest, putting himself in unnecessary debt to buy among other things, furniture, means of transport, dress, food and fancy accommodation, – just to win peoples’ admiration.
Islam and most religions discourage their followers towards wanton consumption. They encourage them to live a life of moderation and to dispense with luxury items so they will not be enslaved by them. Many people today blindly and irresponsibly abandon themselves to excesses and the squandering of wealth in order to ‘keep up with the Joneses’.
The Qur’aan makes it clear that allowing free rein to extravagance and exceeding the limits of moderation is an inherent characteristic in man. Allah says, “If Allah were to enlarge the provision for his servants, they would indeed transgress beyond all bounds.” [Holy Qur’aan 42: 27]
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said, “Observe the middle course whereby you will attain your objective (that is paradise).” – Moderation is the opposite of extravagance.
Every individual is meant to earn in a dignified manner and then spend in a very wise and careful manner. One should never try to impress upon others by living beyond one’s means. Extravagance is forbidden in Islam, Allah says, “Do not be extravagant; surely He does not love those who are extravagant!” [Holy Qur’aan 7: 31]
The Qur’aan regards wasteful buying of food, extravagant eating that sometimes leads to throwing away of leftovers as absolutely forbidden. Allah says, “Eat of the fruits in their season, but render the dues that are proper on the day that the harvest is gathered. And waste not by excess, for Allah loves not the wasters.” [Holy Qur’aan 6: 141]
Demonstrating wastefulness in dress, means of transport, furniture and any other thing is also forbidden. Allah says, “O children of Adam! Wear your apparel of adornment at every time and place of worship, and eat and drink but do not be extravagant; surely He does not love those who are extravagant!” [Holy Qur’aan 7: 31]
Yet extravagance and the squandering of wealth continue to grow in society, while there are many helpless and deprived peoples who have no food or shelter. Just look around you here in Botswana.
Have you noticed how people squander their wealth on ‘must have’ things like designer label clothes, fancy brand whiskey, fancy top of the range cars, fancy society parties or even costly weddings, just to make a statement? How can we prevent the squandering of such wealth?
How can one go on spending in a reckless manner possibly even on things that have been made forbidden while witnessing the suffering of fellow humans whereby thousands of people starve to death each year. Islam has not forbidden a person to acquire wealth, make it grow and make use of it. In fact Islam encourages one to do so. It is resorting to forbidden ways to acquiring and of squandering that wealth that Islam has clearly declared forbidden. On the Day of Judgment every individual will be asked about his wealth, where he obtained it and how he spent it.
In fact, those who do not have any conscience about their wasteful habits may one day be subjected to Allah’s punishment that may deprive them of such wealth overnight and impoverish them. Many a family has been brought to the brink of poverty after leading a life of affluence. Similarly, many nations have lived a life of extravagance and their people indulged in such excesses only to be later inflicted by trials and tribulations to such a point that they wished they would only have a little of what they used to possess!
With the festive season and the new year holidays having passed us, for many of us meant ‘one’ thing – spend, spend, spend. With the festivities and the celebrations over only then will the reality set in for many of us that we have overspent, deep in debt with nothing to show for it and that the following months are going to be challenging ones.
Therefore, we should not exceed the bounds when Almighty bestows His bounties upon us. Rather we should show gratefulness to Him by using His bestowments and favours in ways that prove our total obedience to Him and by observing moderation in spending. For this will be better for us in this life and the hereafter.