Connect with us
Advertisement

Holy Moses Becomes Holly Moses

Benson C Saili
THIS EARTH, MY BROTHER

The “Man of God” is initiated into witchcraft

The story of the Burning Bush (Moses’ encounter with “God” through a thicket engulfed in a non-consuming fire at Mount Horeb in the Sinai Peninsula) is at once misrepresented in the Bible and misunderstood by the broader readership. As I keep reiterating much of the time, the reason we do not understand the world in which we live is because we lack the requisite knowledge. We perish for lack of knowledge (HOSEA 4:6).

What really transpired at Mount Horeb? This was what transpired: MOSES WAS INITIATED INTO THE OCCULT BY HIS GODS! Moses, it turns out, never was Holy Moses: he was actually Holly Moses. (Hel-wood, Holly wood in modern spelling, or simply Holly, was the source of magic wands used by ancient occultists such as the Druids. Thus we have the famous Hollywood in California, the Illuminati’s mass propaganda and conditioning machine.)   At age 80, Moses became a sorcerer – somebody who could perform seemingly unnatural feats we typically call magic or wonders but which anybody can do for as long as they have been made privy to certain metaphysical secrets.

Wonders can be either positive or negative, destructive or constructive. When a wonder entails evil, such as witchcraft, it is typically called magic or sorcery. When it mesmerizes and astonishes because it has brought about a dramatically beneficial result, such as healing a naturally incurable disease, it is called a miracle.        

Genuine miracles, like those Jesus is said to have performed,   are not easy to come by. This is because to achieve them, you ought to have a pure heart.  In other words, you have to be very close to First Source, the real God, in terms of how you conduct yourself in your pilgrimage in life. A ubiquitous fact of life, however, is that people who for one reason or the other want to perform wonders are motivated by fundamentally selfish ends.

They want the wonder to accomplish their own wish first and foremost and not advantage a person in critical need. A self-centred wonder, or one intended to inflict harm on other people, is ungodly. As such, the ability to perform such a wonder can only be enabled by “mighty” forces who themselves are ungodly.  We call these demons or devils, who are actually interdimensional Reptilians.

However, Reptilians do not confer magical abilities (which includes transforming one’s life into a fabulously wealthy or geopolitically influential person) free of charge. You have to pay for them somehow. You do this by selling your soul to them, so that you are now owned by them both as a physical and spirit being.  In other words, they rule you and they can demand that you do anything for them without asking them questions.

And what they demand you do for them from time to time is always diabolical – killing people (mostly as a sacrifice to demonic powers), bewitching people, harming people, cursing people, violating people (such as having sexual relations with females of all ages against their will), committing acts of sexual perversion (such as sodomy or bestiality), cannibalising people, manipulating the minds of the masses, especially the youth, so that they engage in rebellious and unruly conduct   (e.g. through messages subtly embedded in musical lyrics or directly by way of what is called mind control),   etc.

In the case of Moses, he was initiated into sorcery by his Anunnaki god Ishkur-Adad. The Enlilites, as we have long underscored, worked (and continues to work)  in cahoots with Reptilian forces who overshadow them. It explains why most of them, more so Enlil-Jehovah, Ninurta,  Ishkur-Adad, and Inanna-Ishtar were so incomprehendably  harsh and cruel. Why did Moses agree to be initiated into sorcery? BECAUSE HE WANTED TO BE THE KING OF CANAAN. The Enlilites offered him that sort of glory for as long as he sold his soul to the Devil.

Very few people are aware that Moses was one of the greatest witches  who ever lived, only second to King Solomon. The Roman historian Pliny describes Moses as the founder of a 'sect of magic', in reference to Judaism. Today, Judaism is called a religion,  but that was not how it began: it started as an occultic secret society headed by Moses.   If you ask any seasoned Satanist, they will tell you that the standard witchcraft manual is THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH BOOK OF MOSES. And the broadest extant collection of Jewish magical recipes from the first millennium is titled THE SWORD OF MOSES. Both these works are said to have been authored by Moses.

The authors of the Pentateuch were very much aware that Moses was very adept at magic. They give several hints, such as his brother Aaron turning a staff into a snake that swallowed the snakes of Egyptian magicians at the scene of  Moses’ showdown  with Ramesses. Of course the incident in truth had nothing  magical about it as we showcased last week,  but their spinning it  as involving magic does underscore their recognition of the fact that Moses indeed was a sorcerer.   

SCENE OF BURNING BUSH WAS A SATANIC RITUAL

The impression the Bible gives us is that Moses was taken unawares when he was summoned to the scene of the Burning Bush. That simply is not true. Moses was being initiated into the occult that day and he was thoroughly prepared for the ritual. How do we know that he was attending a satanic  initiation ritual?


At every satanic initiation ritual, there is fire or some form of light, a demonic manifestation, and at least one other person, usually called priest if he is a man or priestess if it is a woman,  who initiates the initiatee. In the case of Moses, his initiation  priest was his own father-in-law Jethro. The Bible says Jethro was the High Priest of his territory Midian but it does not specify as  to whether he was a religious priest or an occultic priest. Circumstantial evidence suggests that Jethro was an occultic High Priest and so he was the one who initiated Moses.

The burning thicket which was not being consumed by the fire is pure embroidery on the part of the Pentateuch writers. The thicket was actually literally burning. And the thicket was the BOSWELIA PLANT, which indeed thrives in the Sinai Peninsula. Boswelia, also known as the Frankincense Tree, is a plant or tree from which incense is made. Burning incense is a standard feature at every satanic initiation ceremony.  It seems at a metaphysical level, Boswelia has properties conducive to demonic inducement, which explains why one always encounters a continuous smell of incense in every witch doctor’s cubicle.  

In the Bible, the burning bush is described as a “thornbush”. That is code for  the nature of the Reptilian force in whose honour the proceedings at the scene were being conducted. Indeed, the term thorn in the Bible is a metaphor for the Devil and his demonic host. Paul, for example, says he was given a “thorn in my flesh“ to torment him. He describes this thorn as “a messenger of Satan” (2 CORINTHIANS 12:7-9).

At a Satanic initiation ceremony, there is always light of some kind. The light is symbolic of the Devil, also known as Lucifer. Lucifer, a very beautiful name, has sadly been appropriated by the Devil. Lucifer means “light bringer”, or “Illuminator”.  Thus the light at every initiation scene is in deference to the Master Reptilian, the Devil himself. The necessity of the burning bush in the case of Moses was in order to signal the shadowy presence of Lucifer at the scene. Again, in every witch doctor’s cubicle, you will always find a candle burning as a tribute to Lucifer, who as the apostle Paul said in his second letter to the church at Corinth in today’s Greece  masquerades as “an angel of light”, 2 CORINTHIANS 11:14.   

Often, especially  if you are being initiated at a very high level in the Satanic hierarchy, a demon manifests amid crackling flames of fire. (The Gnostics, the first century metaphysical philosophers, wrote that the archons – their name for Reptilians – were made from “luminous fire”.)  That indeed happened at the scene of the burning  bush although the demon has  been spun as an angel of God. This is what EXODUS 3:2 says in part:  “Then the messenger of Yahweh appeared to him in a blaze of fire from the midst of a thornbush.”

In  other words, a demon, a “messenger of Satan” courtesy of Paul,  leaped out of the fire. This demon  was to be Moses’ ruling demon. It was to reside in Moses’ body and endue him with all the magical powers he wished to wield. At the same time, the demon  was to punish him in one way or the other if he appeared to renege on his undertaking to the Devil.

Further evidence that the scene of the burning bush had demonic connotations is that Moses was asked to take off his sandals because the ground on which he stood was “holy” (EXODUS 3:5).  Again,  when you ask anybody who has participated in a satanic ritual, they will tell you  that everybody present  has to be barefoot. And if you ask anybody  who has been to a witch doctor’s cubicle, they will tell you they are required to take off their shoes before they make their entry.

ADAD INTRODUCES HIMSELF AS ANKI

Once the ceremony was complete, Moses acknowledged its meaning and implications and prepared to depart. He had hardly made the first step when he heard a most regal voice boom out of the still burning thicket. The voice was actually coming from a very tiny, sophisticated speaker embedded somewhere in the walls of the cave. THE VOICE BELONGED TO THE ANUNNAKI GOD ISHKUR-ADAD.  It said:  “I am the Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac and the Elohim of Jacob,” EXODUS 3:6.

In the English version of the Bible, the term “God” is used instead of Elohim. That is grossly  misleading. Elohim is a plural term. It was the term by which the Anunnaki ruling pantheon were addressed as a collective. Even Mount Horeb itself is alternatively referred to as “the Mountain of the Elohim” in the Hebrew version of the Old Testament which is very apt: for it was in the vicinities of that mountain that  Nannar-Sin (who would become the Allah of Islam) and Ninmah were housed.

So what Adad was saying to Moses was that he was addressing him as a representative of the Enlilite gods, the same gods his leading ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had venerated. Remember, the Enlilites had decided on a sham monotheism, whereby they appeared to mankind as a single god when in actual fact there were several of them behind the scenes. The idea was to minimise the rivalry among themselves as they had always competed for a human following despite being members of the same clan.

Now, as an Egyptian royal and a learned one for that matter, Moses knew who the Elohim were. But  he was familiar with the Enkites only, notably Marduk, who was the national god of Egypt. He had never had a single personal encounter with the Enlilites before, who were  reputed as inimical to the Enkites. If you were to go by the English version of the Old Testament, you would get away with the impression that Adad did not directly state his name, or rather, the name by which he chose to present himself to Moses. 

That is unfortunate. It is a pity that even scholars with chains of  theology degrees to their necks have bought into this bunkum. ADAD DID ACTUALLY INTRODUCE HIMSELF TO MOSES. IN EXODUS 3:6, THE SCRIPTURE QUOTED ABOVE, THE HEBREW TERM TRANSLATED “I”  IS “ANKI”. The term Anki stemmed from the Sumerian term which meant “Heaven-Earth”, or to paraphrase, “God of Heaven and Earth”. This was the name by which the Enlilites had decided to go by.

When a lie has been repeated time and again, it assumes the status of a fact.  We have all along been of the belief that the god of Moses gave him a silly, dodgy name which effectively meant “mind your own business” when  he actually did pronounce forth his composite titular name. This Earth, My Brother …

MOSES COMMISSIONED TO WRENCH HIS PEOPLE FROM THE EGYPTIAN YOKE

The Burning Bush incident doubled as an initiation on the one hand and a commissioning on the other. The Enlilites had decided to designate Moses as the new King of the Hykso-Hebrews and to appoint him to the rather daunting task of prying them loose from Egyptian bondage, whereupon he would lead them to Canaan. That was the message Adad conveyed to Moses.

In order for the idea of liberation to appeal to the Hykso-Hebrews, Canaan was to be touted to them as a kind of Utopia, “the land of milk and honey”. Presently, Canaan was dominated by peoples who did not have the legal right to inhabit the territory. These were the Canaanites (the descendants of Canaan, Noah’s grandson through Ham, originally from Egypt), the Hittites (originally from Turkey and the northern parts of Syria); the Amorites (descendants of the fourth son of Canaan and therefore originally from Egypt, though at the time they also abounded in Mediterranean Europe); the Perizzites (a rural-dwelling people whose specific nationality  is not known),  the Girgashites (descendants of the fifth son of Canaan and therefore originally Egyptians), the Hivites (descendants of Canaan and therefore originally Egyptians),  and the Jebusites  (descendants of Jebus, a descendant of Canaan and therefore originally Egyptians). Adad described these seven nations as “greater and mightier” than the Israelites.  

During the partition of the known world not long after the Great Flood of Noah’s day, the land that would in future be known as Canaan was allotted to the tribe of Shem, the progenitor of the Semites, a bracket that is predominantly Hebrew. But circa 8970 BC, Set, one of Marduk’s sons, seized Canaan after tactfully populating it with his followers, the offspring of Canaan, and the Shemites/Hebrews scattered to other lands beyond Canaan, including Egypt itself, where they ended up as slaves.

The Enlilites had decided that the Hebrews who were in bondage in Egypt should return to Canaan, their rightful land. What that entailed was that all the Canaanite nations who presently inhabited Canaan had to return to Egypt, their legally allotted land. Of course the Canaanites, having lived in Canaan for more than 7000 years, would not simply pack up and go: they would put up a real fight.

The only way the Hebrew/Hyksos would get them to budge was by means of war. It was because of the certainty of warfare that the Enlilites chose Moses, a decorated military general, to lead the Hykso-Hebrews out of Egypt and into Canaan.  The  promise to hand over Canaan to the Hebrews was first made to Abraham about 700 years prior, the reason Canaan was also known as the Promised Land.

Moses accepted his commissioning but only reluctantly so, perhaps because at 80 he was too old to stand up to the rigours of a long and protracted armed conflict. In any case, he had been to Egypt the previous year and Pharaoh Ramesses had stoutly refused to release the Hebrews. So how was he going to succeed to force the hand of Ramesses this time around?   

TELL THEM, “EHYEH ASHER EHYEH HAS SENT ME”

According to the biblical book of Exodus, Moses fumbled for every excuse in the book to avoid returning to Egypt. The main excuse he proffered was that he was  not an eloquent speaker, probably because he was a stammerer or stutterer.  That, however, does not square with Stephen’s description of him in the book of Acts. In ACTS 7:22, this is what Stephen, a deacon of the early church, says: “Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds." In other words, Moses was a rousing speaker, which fits with his characterisation of him by the legendary Jewish historian Flavius Josephus as a man who oozed surpassing intelligence, which is best articulated through the gift of the gab.

If Moses was a mesmerising orator, why do the authors of Exodus portray him as a bumbling speaker? The reason is very simple: THEY WANTED TO FIND AN EXCUSE TO BRING AARON INTO THE MIX. Remember, the person who performed the “miracles” of the snake and the hand before Ramesses was Aaron according to Exodus but we know that is not true: it was Moses because that was what he had to do challenge Ramesses for the pharaonic throne.  The authors of Exodus, however, didn’t want Moses to be the one to perform these acts because then it would have been obvious to informed readers that he was an ex-pharaoh. So to keep this hint from the readers, Moses was cleverly substituted for Aaron.

In a nutshell therefore, Adad never instructed that Moses go with Aaron to Egypt (though he went with him anyway): those words were put in Adad’s mouth by the writers of Exodus. And there was nothing amiss with  Moses’ way of speaking. Maybe his pronunciation of words was not that crisp since he was 80 years of age but Aaron was older than him by three years; so he could not have been a more audible speaker than Moses.

Moses, who was naturally a very argumentative person like most intelligent people are, asked Adad as to how he would convince his people, the Hebrew-Hyksos, that he had indeed been sent by their true god.   Adad said that was not a problem: Moses had already been initiated into the dark arts and so he would be capable of performing certain wonders.

Then came perhaps the most pertinent question. If his people asked him what the name of their god was, what would he tell them? Moses had already been told that he was talking to the god Anki. But the Hebrews did not refer to their god by his real  name: that was sacrilege. SO WHAT MOSES WAS ASKING FOR WAS A SECONDARY FRAME OF REFERENCE TO SUBSTITUTE FOR ANKI, WHICH HIS PEOPLE WOULD USE IN THEIR DAILY PARLANCE.

Responding to Moses’ question, Adad said, “Tell them EHYEH ASHER EHYEH has sent me”. What did Adad mean by this most enigmatic statement that has baffled many a scholar and whose common interpretation is actually flawed? 
Don’t you worry: we  will unpack it for you.  
 

NEXT WEEK:   MOSES BACK TO THE LION’S DEN

Continue Reading

Columns

STRESS TEST

14th December 2022

We have come a long way from the 19th century, when mental un-healthiness was not recognised as treatable. In those days mental health problems were viewed as a sign of madness, warranting imprisonment in often merciless and unhygienic conditions; and with that backdrop you would think twice before calling in sick because of stress or admit feelings of hopelessness or depression but that’s changing. That may sound like good news but it’s not.

Reasons why employees don’t show up for work can vary, but one thing is for certain; an organisation relies on its staff to get things done and when employees don’t show up for work it disrupts organisational plans, takes up the valuable time from management and lowers the company’s productivity. It’s always been that people miss work for several reasons, some understandable and legitimate and others less so but it’s important that we know the reasons so that such situations can be better managed.

Today stress is one of the most common causes of long-term absence and is especially prevalent amongst office-based staff. This is also related to absence due to depression or anxiety. Is this indicative of where we are as a society, a sign of the times which is that people are constantly pressurised and have less work-life balance?

The British Museum houses a tablet which provides a peek into work-life balance in ancient Egypt. It documents how many sick days and why 40 workers took time off from their workplace in 1250 BC. All sorts of fascinating reasons have been given for why people were away from their work, including a note about someone named Buqentuf, who needed time off for embalming and wrapping the corpse of his dead mother.

There were other reasons like some workers, such as a man named Pennub, missed work because their mothers were ill.  Others had causes that we wouldn’t expect to hear as often today, such as men who stayed home to help around the house due to a “wife or daughter bleeding” – a reference to menstruation. But no mention of mental health, not because it didn’t exist, but it wasn’t labelled thus not reported.

What was reported was a person such as Aapehti who was said to have been ill on a regular basis and also took time off when he was “making offerings to god”.  Workers also took days off when they had to perform tasks for their superiors – which was apparently permitted in moderate amounts. For example, Amenmose was allowed time away from work when he was “fetching stones for the scribe:  And what about other employees who had to excuse themselves from work to brew beer, an activity which was associated with some of their gods and rituals.

All fascinating stuff which provides insight into life at that time. But what insights can we gather from today’s sick leave records? One study recently undertaken gives us insight into the UK police force’s absenteeism. Figures obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from police forces in the UK showed that the number of days absent due to mental health problems increased by 9% in one year, from 457,154 in 2020 to 497,154 in 2021.

And here is the shocker. Police have taken a record 500,000 days off due to mental health issues. Zoe Billingham, a former police inspector, suggested there was a greater prevalence of mental health issues among emergency services, due to what they faced during the pandemic of coronavirus. “Police and other frontline services have protected us during the pandemic,” she said. “The pandemic was a great unknown. People were really scared of dying and coming into contact with the virus, and a lot of people did.”

It is a ‘mental health epidemic’ among police. Alistair Carmichael, Home Affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said: “Frontline police officers do an incredible job serving their communities. But we know that the stress of policing can take a heavy toll on the mental health of officers, in some cases leading to burnout.

Let’s look at another group. A poll by Gallup reported that in the last three years, 75% of young adults aged 18–22 have left their jobs because of stated mental health reasons. This study showed that employees (millennials and Gen Z) want employers who care about their wellbeing. Contributing factors to mental health stress centre around increases in uncertainty and include: Hybrid work environments and the side-effects: no socialization, no end time, no feedback, caring for others; changing rules around work often with poor communications & clarity;  inconsistency & incompleteness of rule implementation:  Uncertainty from these and other factors leads to anxiety and depression.

 

The real story here is not that burnout, stress, depression and anxiety are becoming the number one reasons for absenteeism but that for a large part they are preventable. We have the data telling us it’s the problem but still organisations are doing very little to proactively manage it. Sure, we have counselling services for staff who are struggling and wellness days to reinforce feelings of wellbeing, but this is not enough.

If we start caring and developing work cultures that do not create unintentional stress through how work gets done, that will go a long way to change the status quo. Simple things like ensuring your culture doesn’t thrive on fire drills and heroics to get things done and that emails do not come with expected responses after hours or over the weekend. If we can stop managers bullying, yelling or losing their cool when there is a performance or customer issue and begin giving people more control over their work – all of these are the kinds of stuff that contribute to weakened mental health and absenteeism.

To sum up, your staff’s stress levels are directly proportional to your business’s absentee levels.  Ergo, lowering the former, will also reduce the latter.  Stress down, productivity up and everybody wins out.

QUOTE

Contributing factors to mental health stress centre around increases in uncertainty and include: Hybrid work environments and the side-effects: no socialization, no end time, no feedback, caring for others; changing rules around work often with poor communications & clarity;  inconsistency & incompleteness of rule implementation:  Uncertainty from these and other factors leads to anxiety and depression.

 

Continue Reading

Columns

Diana Irks Queen

14th December 2022
I

In September 1978, General Atiku, Princess Diana had enrolled for a cookery course. That same month whilst she was staying at her parents’ home in Norfolk, her friends innocently asked about the health of her father  John Spencer, the 8th Earl. Hitherto, the Earl’s health had never been a matter of concern but Diana somewhat inscrutably voiced a somewhat portendous outlook. “He’s going to drop down in some way,” she said.  “If he dies, he will die immediately;  otherwise he’ll survive.”  

It came to pass,  General. The following day, the telephone bell rang to the news that her father had collapsed in the courtyard of his Althorp Estate residence and that he had been rushed to a nearby hospital after suffering a massive cerebral haemorrhage. The medical prognosis was bleak:  Earl Spencer was not expected to survive the night. Writes Andrew Morton in Diana Her True Story: “For two days the children camped out in the hospital waiting-room as their father clung on to life. When doctors announced that there was a glimmer of hope, Raine [second wife] organised a private ambulance to take him to the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases in Queen Square, Central London, where for several months he lay in a coma.”

Raine was so fiercely protective of her beloved husband that she had the nurses see to it that his own children did not come near him in this critical condition in his elitist private room.  ‘I’m a survivor and people forget that at their peril,” she would later tell a journalist. “There’s pure steel up my backbone. Nobody destroys me, and nobody was going to destroy Johnnie so long as I could sit by his bed – some of his family tried to stop me – and will my life force into him.” But if Raine had steel in her, General, so did the implacable Spencer children, more so the eldest of them all.  “During this critical time,” Morton goes on, “the ill feeling between Raine and the children boiled over into a series of vicious exchanges. There was iron too in the Spencer soul and numerous hospital corridors rang to the sound of the redoubtable Countess and the fiery Lady Sarah Spencer [the Earl’s firstborn child] hissing at each other like a pair of angry geese.”

As Diana had correctly predicted, her father was not destined to die at that juncture but healthwise he was never the same henceforth. First, he suffered a relapse in November that same year and was moved to another hospital. Once again, he teetered on the brink. He was drifting in and out of consciousness and as such he was not able to properly process  people who were visiting him, including his own daughters when nurses relented and allowed them in. Even when he was awake a feeding tube in his throat meant that he was unable to speak. Understandably, Diana found it hard to concentrate on the cookery course she had enrolled in a few days before her father suffered his stroke.

But Raine, General,  was determined that her husband survive come rain or shine. Morton: “When his doctors were at their most pessimistic, Raine’s will-power won through. She had heard of a German drug called Aslocillin which she thought could help and so she pulled every string to find a supply. It was unlicensed in Britain but that didn’t stop her. The wonder drug was duly acquired and miraculously did the trick. One afternoon she was maintaining her usual bedside vigil when, with the strains of Madam Butterfly playing in the background, he opened his eyes ‘and was back’. In January 1979, when he was finally released from hospital, he and Raine booked into the Dorchester Hotel in Park Lane for an expensive month-long convalescence. Throughout this episode the strain on the family was intense.”

Altogether, Earl Spencer had been in hospital for 8 straight months. The lingering effects of the stroke left him somewhat unsteady on his feet when he escorted his daughter down the aisle at St. Paul’s Cathedral in 1981 for her marriage to the Prince of Wales.

 

R.I.P. EARL SPENCER

 

It was not until March 29, 1992, General, that Earl Spencer finally gave up the ghost. He was admitted in hospital for pneumonia but what killed him days later was a heart attack. Rumours of his death actually began to make the rounds the day before he passed on. At the time, Diana was on a skiing holiday in the  Austrian Alps along with  her estranged hubby Prince Charles and their two kids William and Harry.

When Diana was told of her dad’s death, she insisted that under no circumstances would she return to England on the same flight as Charles, with whom she was barely on talking terms. “I mean it, Ken,” she told her body minder Ken Wharfe. “I don’t want him with me. He doesn’t love me – he loves that woman [Camilla]. Why should I help save his face? Why the bloody hell should I? It’s my father who has gone. It’s a bit bloody late for Charles to start playing the caring husband, don’t you think so?”

Naturally, General, Charles was alarmed, particularly that his efforts to use one of his right-hand-men to reason with the Princess had been rebuffed. He therefore  prevailed over Wharfe to try and ram sense into his wife. “Lord Spencer’s death was a major news story,” writes Ken Wharfe,  “and if the Prince and Princess did not return to Britain together then nothing, not even compassion for the grief-stricken Diana, would stop the journalists from going for the jugular. The truth about the Waleses would be immediately and blindingly obvious to the most naive journalist … Returning to the Princess’s room, I told her bluntly that this was not a matter for debate. ‘Ma’am, you have to go back with the Prince. This one is not open for discussion. You just have to go with it’.’’

At long last persuaded, General, Diana said, “Okay Ken, I’ll do it. Tell him I’ll do it, but it is for my father, not for him – it is out of loyalty to my father.” But what in truth got Diana to change tack was the intervention of the Queen, who personally called her at Charles’ own request. That, however, General, was only as far as Diana was prepared to play ball: as far as engaging with Charles in conversation was concerned, that was simply inconceivable. “There was an icy silence for the rest of the two-hour journey,” writes Wharfe. “Nothing was said during the entire flight. The Princess did not want to speak to her husband and he, fearing a furious or even hysterical outburst, did not dare even to try to start a conversation. Whatever the discomforts of the journey, however, it was soon clear that the PR spin had worked. The next day it was reported that Prince Charles was at Diana’s side in her hour of need. Yet as soon as the Prince and Princess arrived at Kensington Palace they went their separate ways – he to Highgrove, and she to pay her last respects to her father.”

Lord Spencer was 68 when he died. He was a remote descendant of King Henry VIII.

 

PRINCE CHARLES FINALLY OWNS UP TO ADULTERY WITH CAMILLA

 

In June 1994, when Diana and Charles had been separated for exactly one-and-half years, Prince Charles was interviewed in a BBC documentary by Jonathan Dimbleby. The interview was billed as intended to mark Charles’ 25 anniversary as Prince of Wales but it was in truth a not-to-cleverly-disguised riposte to Diana Her True Story, the highly controversial 1992 collaboration between Diana and Andrew Morton.

In the interview, which was watched by 13 million people, Charles, General, openly admitted for the first time that he had committed adultery with Camilla Parker-Bowles, who he hailed as, “a great friend of mine who has been a friend for a very long time and will continue to be a friend for a very long time”. Diana had been requested to feature in the interview alongside her husband but she parried the overture on the advice of her aides, which was spot-on as she would have been greatly embarrassed by her hubby’s unsavoury confession in her own face and on national television.

The Prince’s candid confessional was followed weeks later by a book titled The  Prince of Wales: A Biography, which was written by the same Jonathan Dimbleby. The book was even frankier than the interview. In it, Charles put it bluntly that she had never once loved Diana and that he married her only because he was coerced into doing so by his  notoriously overbearing father. Charles also made it known that as a child, he had been bullied by his abusive father, virtually ignored by his mother, and persecuted by a wife he portrayed as both spoiled and mentally unstable.   Both Diana and his parents were revolted by the bare-knuckle  contents of the book though Dana need not have been irked considering that it was she herself who had fired the first salvo in the Morton book.

 

BASHIR INTERVIEW BODES ILL FOR DIANA

 

If Diana’s collaboration with Morton was a miscalculation, General, Prince Charles’ Dimbleby interview was equally so. For in November 1995, the wayward Princess hit back with her own tell-all interview on BBC’s  current affairs programme called Panorama. “She wanted to get even with Prince Charles over his adulterous confession with the Dimbleby documentary,” writes Paul Burrell, her final butler, in A Royal Duty.

The interview was conducted by journalist Martin Bashir who was attached to BBC, and was watched by 23 million people,  conferring it the distinction of having attracted the largest audience for any television documentary in broadcasting history. In the interview, Diana voiced concern about there having been “three of us in this marriage and so it was  a bit crowded”, the intruder obviously being Camilla. Diana also gave Charles a dose of his own medicine by confessing to her own adulterous relationship with James Hewitt, of whom she said, “Yes, I adored him, yes, I was in love with him”. Hewitt had at the time documented his affair with Diana in lurid detail in a best-selling book and Diana thought he had ill-conceivedly stabbed her in the back.

And as if to rub salt into the wound, General, Diana cast serious  doubts on her husband’s fitness to rule as future King and therefore his eventual accession to the British throne.   Unfortunately for her, the interview sealed her fate  in so far as her marriage was concerned. “In her headstrong decision to co-operate with Bashir,” says Burrell, “she had never considered, perhaps naively, the implications that Panorama had for her marriage.” Indeed, just four weeks after the interview, the Queen, after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote personally to both the Prince and Princess of Wales requesting that they divorce sooner rather than later.

It was a dream-come-true for at least two parties to the triangle, namely Charles and Camilla. But did it also constitute music to the ears of Princess Diana too, General?

 

Pic Cap

SOWING THE WIND ONLY TO REAP THE WHIRLWIND: Martin Bashir interviews Princess Diana in a BBC documentary which aired on Monday 29 November 1995. The interview incensed the Windsors: the following month, Queen Elizabeth ordered Charles and Diana to sever matrimonial ties. In her vengeful resolve to hit back at her husband following his own interview the previous year, Diana had foolishly sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind.

NEXT WEEK: DIANA REVERTS TO SINGLENESS

Continue Reading

Columns

Rights of an Individual in Islam

14th December 2022

Islam is a way of life completed and perfected by the last and final Messenger of Allah, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The Holy Quran along with the practical teachings of the Prophet (pbuh) forms the basis of Islamic law, social, economic and political systems of Islam – in short the basis of a complete code of conduct for the entire life of a Muslim

Regrettably in this day and age there are certain views in non-Muslims that have a very negative ‘view’ of Islam. The bottom line is that if a Muslim says that two plus two is four, others can ‘argue’ to say three plus one is four, or two times two is four or the square root of 16 is four. The bottom line is no matter what we may think we all are ‘correct’. The fact is that we are all on this earth for a ‘limited’ time. Regardless of beliefs, tribe, race, colour or our social standing in life, we will all die one day or the other and we will “all” be called up thereafter to answer for our behaviour, beliefs, and our life on this earth.

To a Muslim the Holy Quran is the Divine Revelation which is all encompassing and lays down in clear terms, how we should live our daily lives including the need for humans to allow fellow humans certain basic rights at all times. Due to the limited space available I can only reflect on some of the major fundamental rights laid down by Islam:

Right to life

The first and foremost of fundamental basic human-rights is the right to life. “Whosoever kills any human being (without any valid reason) like manslaughter or any disruption and chaos on earth, it is though he had killed all the mankind. And whoever saves a life it is though as he had saved the lives of all mankind” (Quran Ch5: v 32). It further declares: “Do not kill a soul which Allah has made sacred except through the due process of law” (Quran Ch6: v 151). Islam further explains that this sacrosanct right to life is not granted only to its adherents (believers), but it has been granted to all human beings without consideration of their religion, race, colour or sex

Right to Equality 

The Holy Quran recognises equality between humans irrespective of any distinction of nationality, race, colour or gender. “O Mankind We have created you from a male and female, and We made you as nations and tribes so that you may be able to recognise each other (not that you may despise each other). Indeed the most honourable among you before God is the most God-conscious”. (Quran Ch49: v 13). The Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) further explained this: “No Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab…… You are all the children of Adam and Adam was created from soil”. If there is any superiority for a man it is based on his piety, righteousness, sense of responsibility and character. Even such a person with these noble qualities would not have any privileged rights over others.

Right to justice

Allah Almighty has bestowed on all human beings, believer or non-believer, friend or foe the right to justice.  The Holy Quran states: “We sent our messengers with clear teachings and sent down along with them the Book and the Balance so that society may be established on the basis of justice” (Quran Ch 57 : v 25). It further says “O Believers stand for the cause of God and as witness to justice and remember that enmity of some people should not lead you to injustice. Be just as it is nearest to God consciousness” (Quran Ch 5:v  8 ). This makes it obligatory that a believer must uphold justice in all circumstances, including to his enemies.

Right to freedom of conscience and religion

The Holy Quran clearly mentions that there is no compulsion in accepting or rejecting a religion. “There is no compulsion in (submitting to) the religion” (Quran Ch 2 : v 256). Every individual has been granted basic freedom to accept a religion of his or her choice. Therefore no religion should be imposed on a person.

Right to personal freedom

No person can be deprived of his or her personal freedom except in pursuance of justice. Therefore there cannot be any arbitrary or preventive arrest without the permission of duly appointed judge and in the light of a solid proof.

Right to Protection of Honour

Every person has been ensured basic human dignity which should not be violated. If someone falsely attacks the honour of a person the culprit will be punished according to the Islamic Law. The Holy Quran says: “Do not let one group of people make fun of another group”. It further states: “Do not defame one another”, the Quran goes on to say: And do not backbite or speak ill of one another” (Quran Ch 49  : v 11-12).

Continue Reading