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.
The Central Bank has by way of its Monetary Policy Statement informed us that the Botswana economy is likely to contract by 8.9 percent over the course of the year 2020.
The IMF paints an even gloomier picture – a shrinkage of the order of 9.6 percent. That translates to just under $2 billion hived off from the overall economic yield given our average GDP of roughly $18 billion a year. In Pula terms, this is about P23 billion less goods and services produced in the country and you and I have a good guess as to what such a sum can do in terms of job creation and sustainability, boosting tax revenue, succouring both recurrent and development expenditure, and on the whole keeping our teeny-weeny economy in relatively good nick.
Joseph’s and Judah’s family lines conjoin to produce lineal seed
Just to recap, General Atiku, the Israelites were not headed for uncharted territory. The Promised Land teemed with Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These nations were not simply going to cut and run when they saw columns of battle-ready Israelites approach: they were going to fight to the death.
Parliament has begun debates on three related Private Members Bills on the conditions of service of members of the Security Sector.
The Bills are Prisons (Amendment) Bill, 2019, Police (Amendment) Bill, 2019 and Botswana Defence Force (Amendment) Bill, 2019. The Bills seek to amend the three statutes so that officers are placed on full salaries when on interdictions or suspensions whilst facing disciplinary boards or courts of law.
In terms of the Public Service Act, 2008 which took effect in 2010, civil servants who are indicted are paid full salary and not a portion of their emolument. Section 35(3) of the Act specifically provides that “An employee’s salary shall not be withheld during the period of his or her suspension”.
However, when parliament reformed the public service law to allow civil servants to unionize, among other things, and extended the said protection of their salaries, the process was not completed. When the House conferred the benefit on civil servants, members of the disciplined forces were left out by not accordingly amending the laws regulating their employment.
The Bills stated above seeks to ask Parliament to also include members of the forces on the said benefit. It is unfair not to include soldiers or military officers, police officers and prison waders in the benefit. Paying an officer who is facing either external or internal charges full pay is in line with the notion of ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat or the presumption of innocence; that the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies.
The officers facing charges, either internal disciplinary or criminal charges before the courts, must be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Paying them a portion of their salary is penalty and therefore arbitrary. Punishment by way of loss of income or anything should come as a result of a finding on the guilt by a competent court of law, tribunal or disciplinary board.
What was the rationale behind this reform in 2008 when the Public Service Act was adopted? First it was the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.
The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered “innocent until proven guilty”. In terms of the constitution and other laws of Botswana, the presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.
Withholding a civil servant’s salary because they are accused of an internal disciplinary offense or a criminal offense in the courts of law, was seen as punishment before a decision by a tribunal, disciplinary board or a court of law actually finds someone culpable. Parliament in its wisdom decided that no one deserves this premature punishment.
Secondly, it was considered that people’s lives got destroyed by withholding of financial benefits during internal or judicial trials. Protection of wages is very important for any worker. Workers commit their salaries, they pay mortgages, car loans, insurances, schools fees for children and other things. When public servants were experiencing salary cuts because of interdictions, they lost their homes, cars and their children’s future.
They plummeted into instant destitution. People lost their livelihoods. Families crumbled. What was disheartening was that in many cases, these workers are ultimately exonerated by the courts or disciplinary tribunals. When they are cleared, the harm suffered is usually irreparable. Even if one is reimbursed all their dues, it is difficult to almost impossible to get one’s life back to normal.
There is a reasoning that members of the security sector should be held to very high standards of discipline and moral compass. This is true. However, other more senior public servants such as judges, permanent secretary to the President and ministers have faced suspensions, interdictions and or criminal charges in the courts but were placed on full salaries.
The yardstick against which security sector officers are held cannot be higher than the aforementioned public officials. It just wouldn’t make sense. They are in charge of the security and operate in a very sensitive area, but cannot in anyway be held to higher standards that prosecutors, magistrates, judges, ministers and even senior officials such as permanent secretaries.
Moreover, jail guards, police officers and soldiers, have unique harsh punishments which deter many of them from committing misdemeanors and serious crimes. So, the argument that if the suspension or interdiction with full pay is introduced it would open floodgates of lawlessness is illogical.
Security Sector members work in very difficult conditions. Sometimes this drives them into depression and other emotional conditions. The truth is that many seldom receive proper and adequate counseling or such related therapies. They see horrifying scenes whilst on duty. Jail guards double as hangmen/women.
Detectives attend to autopsies on cases they are dealing with. Traffic police officers are usually the first at accident scenes. Soldiers fight and kill poachers. In all these cases, their minds are troubled. They are human. These conditions also play a part in their behaviors. They are actually more deserving to be paid full salaries when they’re facing allegations of misconduct.
To withhold up to 50 percent of the police, prison workers and the military officers’ salaries during their interdiction or suspensions from work is punitive, insensitive and prejudicial as we do not do the same for other employees employed by the government.
The rest enjoy their full salaries when they are at home and it is for a good reason as no one should be made to suffer before being found blameworthy. The ruling party seems to have taken a position to negate the Bills and the collective opposition argue in the affirmative. The debate have just began and will continue next week Thursday, a day designated for Private Bills.