Connect with us
Advertisement

A Fiscus in the Desert

Benson C Saili
THIS EARTH, MY BROTHER

 Ishkur-Adad, the Jehovah of the Exodus, institutes first Jewish exchequer

Having ordained the Aaronic priesthood through the agency of Moses, Ishkur-Adad, the Anunnaki Jehovah of the Exodus, now proceeded to the next step. HE DECIDED TO INSTITUTE THE FIRST FORMAL WORSHIP SERVICE FOR  THE NATION OF ISRAEL. This was the beginning of Judaism proper.

Thus far, the Hebrews had never had  a dedicated, national  religion of their own.  They had no  temple or any other such own-nurtured place of religious gathering. That did not mean they were religiously indifferent.  In Egypt, for instance, they had worshipped non-Enlilite gods – called idols in the Bible. Indeed,  the prophet Ezekiel admonishes them for doing just that (EZEKIEL 20:4-12) and Joshua also lambasts them for indulging in the same reprehensible practice in their formative days in ancient India in  Abraham’s father Terah’s time (JOSHUA 24:2).

But this was simply a pull factor, a kind of sidetrack. It was a case of catching the lurge, of being influenced by the factor of propinquity. It is natural for any minority population to assume tendencies and predilections of the dominant people in the broader society. In fact, in the majority of cases, Israelites, particularly when they were in Egypt, hardly mingled with Egyptians religiously: they simply kept symbolic images of Egyptian gods for whom they had an affinity.  Their religion was for the most part private and domestic as opposed to being brash and institutional.

The closest Israelites had to a formal religion of their own was in the form of altars. All their patriarchs – Noah, Abraham, Isaac – erected an altar to their god. Altars, however,  were not  worship settings: they were impermanent platforms for   sacrifices (slaughtered animals) and offerings  (grain, wine, bread, etc) to a god. Certainly,   the Hebrew word translated altar connotes slaughter, as in sacrifice. Writes one savant on the subject: “The term altar comes from old English, possibly also related to a Latin word ADOLARE that means to burn up.

In the Hebrew tradition, the word is MIZBE’AKH – and its root is ZAVAKH, which means slaughter, as in a sacrifice.” Some altars were not places of sacrifice as such,  but were simply   monuments or memorials to commemorate a great act done,  or a promise rendered, by a  god. Jacob built one such altar at Shechem (GENESIS 33:19,20) and Moses had only recently done so right in the Arabian wilderness to toast to Adad following the Israelites’ “miraculous” repulsion of the provocative Amalekites after a three-day war (EXODUS 17:15,16).

Thus,  whereas in the past the Jews had revered their gods in an informal,  make-shift kind of way,  Adad now decided it was time they  did so permanently and as a matter of  routine in a formal assembly. This was to be known as the Tabernacle. There,  he would meet them in a symbolic sense and they  would worship him with all the religious protocol that entailed.  The Tabernacle would be “God’s” dwelling place so to speak, a place where he would interface with his chosen people. The Tabernacle foreshadowed the more permanent Temple that would be built when the Israelites were firmly ensconced in Canaan.  

COMPOSITION OF THE TABERNACLE

The Tabernacle went by several names. It was variously called a Sanctuary; a Tent of Meeting; a Tabernacle of the Testimony; or the Tabernacle of the Congregation.  According to EXODUS 25:9, Adad was so determined to get exactly what he wanted that HE PROVIDED MOSES WITH A SCALE MODEL OF THE TABERNACLE, AN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN. But the  actual construction of the Tabernacle was assigned to two crack artisans, Benzaleel  of the tribe of Judah and Aholiab of the tribe of Dan.

Although the specifications of the Tabernacle are elaborate and rigorous, it was not unique. It was a throwback to Egypt. Both the architecture of the Tabernacle and its surrounding courtyard more or less mirrored the battle tent of Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses II. There were three main sections of the structure. These were the Tabernacle proper; the courtyard; and the altar.   The Tabernacle proper was subdivided into two rooms: the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies.

The courtyard was the preserve only of the Jews and proselytes, the latter being non-Jews who had converted to the Jewish faith by undergoing circumcision.  In the courtyard was found the bronze water basin, where the High Priest (Aaron) and the chief priests (his four sons) would thoroughly wash their hands and feet before they entered the Tabernacle or approached the altar with a food offering, and the altar itself.

It is ironic that the Tabernacle is called a Tent when it was actually a covered timber building. Clearly, it was not as easily portable as it is billed in Exodus. It is said when the Israelites wanted to shift camp,  they took the  Tabernacle down and carried all its constituent parts  to the new locale. It must have taken them weeks to have the Tabernacle systematically dismantled. 

The material inputs that went into the construction of the Tabernacle were gold, silver, bronze, shittim wood, goat hair, the skins of hides, rams, and sea cows, and yarn that had been dyed blue, purple, and scarlet. Exodus says both the metals and hides/skins were supplied by the Nation of Israel themselves, the metals from the hoarded “loot” which they had tactfully swindled  the Egyptians out of before they embarked on the great trek into the Arabian wilds. This was basically stolen treasures used as raw materials in the construction of “God’s House”!

The altar, where animals were sacrificed, is prescribed in EXODUS 20:21, which says,  “An altar of earth you shall make to me, and shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings, and your peace offerings, your sheep, and your oxen …” Altars in the Hebrew Scriptures were constructed of earth, stone, wood and/or metal.

The altar had a particularly intriguing characteristic. Its most sacred parts were the “horns” protruding from its four corners. It was to these four horns that the blood of the sin offering was applied.  What do horns stand for in Illuminati imagery? The Devil, as evinced by the ubiquitous El Diablo (Devil’s horns) hand signal flashed by famous personages in practically every picture our eyes happen to light upon. This particular altar was made of pure gold and acacia wood, which was extravagant: why make a platform whose only purpose was to roast animals out of  gold, the priciest commodity?  But since the altar represented Lucifer, the real god of the Enlilites,  this is not surprising at all. His meal table had to be adorned with gold to fit his stature and standing.

Whilst the Tabernacle was being built,  Moses meanwhile met with Adad in the Tent of Meeting, a provisional arrangement.  “As Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, while the Lord spoke with Moses,” says EXODUS 33:7,9. Once the Tabernacle was up and running, the Tent became redundant though the Tabernacle too continued to be loosely referred to as the Tent of Meeting. 

DEVIL HONOURED IN SANCTUARY’S HOLY OF HOLIES

The various sections of the Tabernacle were to be furnished with accoutrements particular to them. For the Holy of Holies, these were the Ark of the Covenant, the Table of the Presence, and the Golden Lampstand.  Since we will dwell on the first two in detail next time around,  we will at this juncture devote to unpacking the Golden Lampstand, also known as the Menorah.

The Golden Lampstand comprised of seven branches, each supporting an olive oil lamp. Its ostensible purpose was to illuminate the Holy of Holies so that it had clear visibility on the occasion the High Priest stepped in there. But you will be aware by now that Illuminati trappings invariably have several layers of meaning. The surface layer, which is intended for the wider public, is the least important. It is the underlying layers, meant for fellow Illuminati elements, which carry the fundamental message.

The Golden Lampstand represented occultic illumination, not necessarily the needed environmental lighting. At every Satanic gathering, there’s always a form of light. Even in musical videos shot by mega stars of the American entertainment industry, there’s always a bit of light lingering in the background. To the Illuminati, light is the primordial symbol of Lucifer for Lucifer is the light bringer, the term light here employed in the sense of privileged occultic and metaphysical knowledge and not general knowledge.

The number 7 is also numerologically significant. Primarily, it was at once the number of Earth (being the seventh planet counting from Pluto) and Jehovah-Enlil in his capacity as Earth’s Chief Executive pre- the astrological Age of Aries.  BUT THE ILLUMINATI ARE VERY CLEVER OPERATORS. MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, THEY USE REVERSE SYMBOLISM SO THAT WHAT THE MAINSTREAM ASSUME IS THE PRIMARY MEANING OF A CERTAIN EMBLEM IS ACTUALLY NULLIFIED (for instance, they use an inverted cross to desecrate Jesus and therefore mock Christendom). That way, they are less liable to give the game away.

The number 7 is in some contexts (such as in the Golden Lampstand case) a bow to the planet Saturn and therefore to Satan himself as Saturn is the Devil’s Solar System bastion. Saturn is the 7th major celestial body in the Solar System counting from and including the Sun.     It is a pity that in the Book of Revelation, the Golden Lampstand is presented as an image of the Church. UNBEKNOWNST TO MOST CHRISTIANS, WHAT THAT SUGGESTS IS THAT THE CHURCH IS ACTUALLY PRESIDED OVER NOT BY   JESUS OR FIRST SOURCE BUT BY THE DEVIL. It is the Devil who struts the pulpit folks.

It explains why the Golden Lampstand imagery is a constant feature in every Catholic parish, and we know the nature of  interdimensional forces the Vatican represents. It also explains why these days, all sorts of outrageous  deeds are being perpetrated by  pastors of the so-called Fire churches in the name of “God” without shame or scruple.

This litany of iniquities include flagrant adultery and sexual snacking; false prophesying; bogus healings which do not endure; theatrical laying of hands; felling desperate members of the audience  under the pretext of the “power of the Holy Spirit” (when all what that does is introduce demonic spirits in the hapless victim); getting people to eat grass and consume the deadly Doom spray;  sacrificing of prominent members of the church or a critical mass of congregants by way of  road “accidents” (read: “spell-casting”) and collapsed buildings; outright paedophilia, which has now become a staple of the Catholic church;  pimping teenage girls to the pastor and other senior members in the church hierarchy; using church members slavishly and imbecilically  moving on all fours as a stage prop;  and  the flaunting of blood-stained,  ill-gotten, Lucifer-enabled riches.  This Earth, My Brother …

ADAD’S SAFETY AND SECURITY TAX

If you thought religion was essentially spiritual and innocuous, then I’m afraid you are living in Cloudy Cuckoo Land. Religion’s main  purpose is to stunt mankind’s progress as a spirit-soul, to distract us from focusing on our inner, higher self as only that can bring about true real salvation. The Kingdom of God is within you, not outside of you, as Jesus truthfully put it.

But there is more: religion is a subtle, sleight-of-hand means to economic ends. It is about self-aggrandisement at the expense of the hopelessly naïve and gullible “flock”.  The famous – or is it infamous – Black   American tele-evangelist TD Jakes is on record as gleefully admitting that “religion makes for  good business”. And he can prove it: according to the Forbes magazine list of wealthiest pastors on the globe, TD Jakes has – Praise the Lord! – a net worth of $147 million as of the “year of our Lord” 2018, making him the richest propagator of the gospel on Earth.

Of course TD Jakes has a broad-based portfolio of investments,  but what set him up was the financial windfall accruing from the tithes and offerings of the stupidly unsuspecting people who  cram the pews when he’s belting out his “calling”. Yet he’s far from the odd one out: members of the Levitical priesthood were just as wealthy. The High Priest was filthy rich folks.  The priesthood was just as corrupt those days as the clergy of our day are (when in AD 66 the Zealots ejected the Romans, the first person to be put to the sword was the High Priest, who they regarded as the paradigm of a looting collaborator). 

Remember, the Temple was the very heartbeat and lifeblood of the Jewish economy. All economic life was centred around the Temple. One of the sources of the priesthood’s wealth was Temple Tax. Temple Tax was introduced by Moses, at the say-so of Ishkur-Adad right at Mount Sinai.  It served two principal purposes. First, it was meant for the upkeep of the Temple and the subsistence of the priesthood. This is the role you hear the pastor eagerly preach about  because it sounds very godly and bolsters his own economic cause.

What the pastor will not tell you is that Temple Tax was also A RANSOM FOR THE PAYER, A MEANS BY WHICH HE OR SHE PAID FOR HIS WELLBEING AS A PROTÉGÉ OF HIS GOD. This was most obvious in its other form, which we can call Census Tax but which was actually Safety and Security Tax. Census Tax applied to men who were 20 years and above, who were under obligation to serve in the army.  For “God” to guarantee the general wellbeing of service men, he had to be bribed. Otherwise, he would visit a plague on the whole nation even if only a few people were in default.

The ordinary Jew paid Temple Tax once every year. For service men, they paid it every time a census was conducted as censuses those days were done to establish how many people were eligible for enlistment into the war effort. This is what Adad says in EXODUS 30:11-16 (the emphasis is ours):  “When you take the census of the people of Israel, THEN EACH SHALL GIVE A RANSOM FOR HIS LIFE TO THE LORD when you number them, that THERE BE NO PLAGUE AMONG THEM when you number them.

Each one who is numbered in the census shall give this: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary, half a shekel as an offering to the Lord. Everyone who is numbered in the census, from twenty years old and upward, SHALL GIVE THE LORD’S OFFERING. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when you give the Lord’s offering TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR YOUR LIVES …”

In the above statement, Adad accentuates the fact that Temple Tax was an atonement – a payment made by the Nation of Israel so as to forestall a calamity of sorts and therefore insure their lives.  The Anunnaki gods never ever rendered a favour or blessing for free. The other thing Adad stresses is that every time a census was held, ransom money had to be collected from everybody counted. To neglect collecting the ransom was a very serious offense against the god and invited very serious repercussions as was the experience of King David (1 CHRONICLES 21 and   2 SAMUEL 24).

Adad instructed David to take a census of all the tribes of Israel. David did likewise but for reasons that are not spelt out, he omitted to collect the Census Tax. Adad was livid as a great economic opportunity was passed up. He had Gad, a prophet, confront David for this transgression and read the riot act to the King. The King was asked to choose one of three reprisals.

They were three years of famine, three months of a tempestuous military onslaught by enemy nations, or three days of a holocaust-like plague. David chose the latter. The short-lived plague, which is not specified, laid waste to 70,000 Israelites. For having his money-centred god incur an incalculable economic loss, David had to lose 70,000 of his people. Human life was so cheap to these barbarous Anunnaki gods.

MORE  ANIMAL SACRIFICE, MORE BLOOD-LETTING

At long last, Aaron and his four sons Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar were consecrated for “God’s” service by Moses on the instructions of Adad. This commissioning into elemental priestly service was a bloody affair. Besides having  Aaron and his four sons wash in water (to publicly demonstrate that they were not physically tainted in any way, shape or form) and anointing Aaron as High Priest, it involved animal sacrifice and literally  dousing  the five priests in animal blood.  

The animals involved were one bull and two rams in a three-phase, week-long ceremony. The one involving the bull was a sacrifice of purification – to cleanse the priests of any lingering sin that might render them unfit to represent the people before “God”.  The bull was consumed by fire, first on the altar within the Tabernacle yard and finally outside it. The second sacrifice involved having a ram burnt to a cinder right on the altar. 

The third sacrifice was of the ram of ordination. Aaron and his sons first laid their hands on the ram. Then once it was slaughtered, its blood was first smeared on three areas of the body. These were the ears (to signal unquestioned obedience to Adad); the right hand (to signal devoted service to Adad in the manner of a right-hand man); and the right foot (to signal an abiding, lockstep philosophical  walk with Adad). The rest of the blood was then sprinkled on the altar as well as over the priestly garments of the quintet. 

The ram of ordination was not totally consumed by fire: only a part of it as the rest was spared as a meal for Aaron and his sons  – to herald the fact that the priesthood were to be fed on the offerings from the rest of the population as recompense for their  dedicated service to God. Note the symbolism of the animals chosen for sacrifice. Both the ram (signifying the astrological Age of Aries) and the bull (representative of the Egyptians’ Apis Bull)   were emblematic of Marduk, the Enlilites’ arch-enemy who was Earth’s sitting Chief Executive. 

It was all occultism folks: what you kill (through shedding of blood) and eat you assimilate and consequently enhance  your own occultic powers with its life force,  which is eternal. Also note the occultic hallmarks of blood and death in the whole process. This is very much an echo of a Satanic setting. And you say the Old Testaments gods were “holy”? C’mmon, give me a break dude.

 
NEXT WEEK:   THE ARK TAKES SHAPE

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