Connect with us
Advertisement

Of Laser Beam and Levitation

Benson C Saili
THIS EARTH, MY BROTHER

The Ark of the  Covenant embodied 21st century technology

The Nation of  Israel’s wilderness religion was presided over by Aaron and his four sons.  Aaron was the High Priest and his sons were the chief priests. All Anunnaki-sired institutions were peopled   not by pure merit but  on the basis of nepotism basically.  This trend has carried over to our day. In 2009, David Rothkorp, a former CEO of Henry Kissinger, one of the nastiest  Reptilians of our time, wrote a book titled SUPERCLASS: THE GLOBAL POWER ELITE AND THE WORLD THEY ARE MAKING.

In it, he disclosed that  our world of 7 billion people was controlled by only 30 families using  6000 highly paid operatives who robotically toed their agenda. At the enterprise level, these hyper-families ran the world through 147 corporations which had interlocking boards of directors. Aaron and his sons had specially made sacred, priestly garments to wear, much like the Pope dons in our day. The garments were made of linen, the finest cloth available. Aaron’s priestly attire consisted of six parts. They were a robe, a woven tunic, a turban, a sash, an ephod, and a breastplate.

The ROBE was blue in colour. Its hem was decorated with identical patterns  of pomegranate (a red fruit symbolic of the  blessing and prosperity and the fertility and fruitfulness Ishkur-Adad, the Jehovah of the Exodus, had, so he said, in store for the Israelites once they had conquered Canaan) woven out of blue, purple, and scarlet yarn. The pomegranate patterns were interspaced with small bells made of pure gold. The bells were meant to herald the movements of the High Priest around the Tabernacle.

In the event that he entered the Holy of Holies and the bells were not heard for some considerable length of time, that would be a signal that he had been struck dead by “God” because he entered the presence of the deity in a unholy state arising from neglecting to perform the necessary pre-entry rites to the letter. Everything about the Anunnaki gods was based on fear. The TUNIC (outer garment) was tied with a colourfully embroidered SASH (girdle). Both were weaved  from fine line cloth.

The TURBAN (head dress) had a gold medallion attached to it by a blue cord, worn on the forehead. Engraved on the gold medallion were the words, “Holy to Yahweh”.  It was the High Priest’s proclamation to Adad that he was sin-free at that particular point in time having performed all the prerequisite self-sanctification rites. According the JEWISH ENCYCLOPAEDIA, the EPHOD was “part of the official dress of the High Priest which   was held together by a girdle of similar workmanship sewed on to it.

It  had two shoulder-pieces, which, as the name implies, crossed the shoulders, and were apparently fastened or sewed to the ephod in front. In dressing, the shoulder-pieces were joined in the back to the two ends of the ephod … At the point where the shoulder-pieces were joined together in the front ‘above the girdle’, two golden rings were sewed on, to which the breast-plate was attached.”

The two shoulder-pieces were made  from finely woven linen embroidered with gold, blue, purple and scarlet thread. Each of the golden rings (clasps) that joined them  had one onyx stone fastened to it. On each onyx stone was engraved six names of the tribes of Israel, arranged in order of seniority based on the ages of Jacob’s sons.   This was to show that when the High Priest stood before God, he represented not he himself but Israel.    

Like the ephod, the ESSEN, translated as breastplate in the English versions of the Bible, was embroidered with gold and with  blue, purple and scarlet thread. According to the Biblical instructions and rabbinical traditions, the breastplate was  “a patterned brocade like the ephod. The threads of its fabric are gold, sky-blue, dark red and crimson wool, and twisted linen. The garment itself is set with four rows of small square stones, in settings of knitted or braided gold. Each row contained three stones-totaling twelve stones, one stone representing each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The name of the corresponding tribe was engraved on each stone.”

Note the recurrence of four colours in particular – gold, blue, purple, and scarlet. Each of these colours has something to say about the Anunnaki.  Gold represented sustenance in that the Anunnaki’s extraordinary longevity, or eternity in the eyes of mankind, was enabled by the ingestion directly or indirectly of Ormus, the monoatomic white powder of gold. It also stood for divinity and the extrinsic personal worth of the Anunnaki, as gold is the most cherished metal, one reason it was called the metal of the gods.

Blue represented the heavens (the firmament). Mankind believed the Anunnaki came from a place known as Heaven, which they associated with a place yonder in the skies.  Purple has always been the colour of royalty and the Anunnaki were the ultimate royalty. Scarlet (red) represented retribution,   being the colour of blood. When the Anunnaki were “sinned against”, their stock response was to kill, whether this be an  individual, a large proportion of a population, whole cities as in the nuking of Sodom and Gomorrah, or practically an entire race of mankind as was the case during the Great Flood of Noah’s day.

WHICH GEMSTONE REPRESENTED WHICH TRIBE?

The gemstones appearing on the breastplate  were ruby; jade; agate; carbuncle; lapis lazuli; quartz crystal; turquoise; amethyst; agate; aquamarine; onyx; and opal. The identity of the gemstones is not definitive. There are over 30 different opinions  on the matter. Also, there is no certainty as  to exactly which gemstone corresponds with which tribe.

Says the Temple Institute of Jerusalem: “The exact, conclusive identification of these stones is actually one of the most difficult and elusive of all Temple-related studies. This is because the original Hebrew names of these stones as they appear here in the Bible are extremely obscure. They are not commonly used, and no description of the stones appears anywhere in the verses themselves. In the course of many years, as nations flourished and fell, and civilizations migrated to new lands, languages evolved and the meanings of words changed.

Thus in one location, a word may have one meaning and connote a particular concept, while in another land, the same word may carry the exact opposite meaning. “The names of these stones are particularly enigmatic: there are over 30 varying opinions as to the final identification of the 12 stones. These opinions include scholars and commentators from the entire historical spectrum of rabbinical literature and tradition, beginning with the most ancient – and therefore, in this case the most reliable opinions – those of the Aramaic translations of the Bible.”

However, although the gemstones cannot be identified with clear-cut finality, their colours can. For according to the Midrash, ancient  commentaries on the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) by the Jewish authorities, the gemstone colours corresponded with the colours of the ensigns (flags) of the tribe. On that basis then, the gemstones are associated with a particular tribe as follows: Ruby, Reuben;  Jade, Shimon; Agate, Levi;  Carbuncle,  Judah; Lapis-Lazuli, Issachar; Quartz Crystal, Zebulun; Turquoise,  Dan; Amethyst, Naftali; Agate, Gad; Aquamarine, Asher; Onyx,  Joseph; and Opal Benjamin.

WHAT WERE THE URIM AND THUMMIM?

There are two items in the High Priest’s regalia which are only casually mentioned when of necessity they required a detailed exposition. These are the URIM and the THUMMIM.   It seemed the Jewish writers of the Old Testament corpus did not really understand them, as a result of which they deliberately omitted to elucidate upon them. 

The Urim and Thummim are first mentioned in EXODUS 28:30. Moses is instructed, by Ishkur-Adad, the Anunnaki Jehovah of the Exodus, to place them in a pouch in Aaron’s breastplate. Aaron was obliged to enter the Holy of Holies, which housed the Ark of the Covenant, only once a year – on the Day of Atonement. And every time he did and stood before the Ark, he was to bear the Urim and Thummim without fail. 

Of the two, it is the Urim which receives a fair amount of repeated mention in a direct sense. In the two other places where it is directly mentioned, it is associated with attestation (that is, a truth-upholding oath) and decision-making (by the Anunnaki god). In NUMBERS 27:18-21, General Joshua was made to swear before the High Priest Eleazer (Aaron’s successor) by the Urim when Moses passed the baton to him as the Nation of Israel’s new leader.

In 1 SAMUEL 28:5-6, Saul, the first King of Israel, had to seek the voice of his god, albeit vainly so, using the Urim when the Philistine army hemmed in around him. However, these are not the only places the Urim and Thummim are implied. In other passages, they are referred to as “testimonies” as indeed they corresponded with the two Tablets of Testimony that were kept in the Ark.

It seems the two Tablets of Testimonies that were housed in the Ark had specific purposes. One was a digital record of Adad’s covenant with the Jews that they were his people and he was their god. But it was a record not only of this but also of “the testament of a lost civilisation and all that man has ever known and all man would ever know” according to the Jewish Qabalistic tradition.

This very much sounds like the Sumerian MEs, which have been described as “something like our present-day computer chips, on which data, programs, and operational orders were minutely recorded … and in which the essentials of civilisation were encoded”. The other tablet was a decoder of electromagnetic sound waves. In other words, it made the distant voice of Adad audible wherever he happened to be, just like the decoder built into a TV or radio makes the distant voice of announcers at the broadcasting station audible from any distance.   

We may refer to the two Tablets of Testimonies contained in the Ark as the Enclosed Testimonies and the Urim and Thummim as the Borne Testimonies as they were placed in a pocket sewn to the High Priest’s breastplate. The Urim, a crystal gem, was also known as the SCHAMIR or LIGHTNING LIGHT. This was because it gave off a light that illuminated the Holy of Holies when the High Priest stepped in there.  Remember, God is Light and he had to be approached in light (In the 2nd degree [Fellowcraft] Freemasonry ceremony, God is called the “Great Luminary”). 

The arc light of the Ark of the Covenant represented God’s presence whereas the Urim light represented the spiritual light of the High Priest. (At the spirit level, we are shimmering beings of light). Under certain conditions, the Urim emitted a laser-like, spear of light that could cut through stone with absolute precision. Noticing the magnificent properties of the Urim, King Solomon asked his artisans to improvise his own in the form of a Tablet Ring of the Testimony worn on a finger. It was this ring he used to cut the stones for his temple.

From that time on, it became a bequest to all the succeeding kings all the way to his seventh generation successor, King Joash. Relating the coronation of King Joash, 2 KINGS 11:12 has this to say: “Then he brought forth the king's son; he put the insignia on him and gave him the testimony. They proclaimed him king and anointed him. They smote the palm and said, Long live the king!” The “testimony” was the Urim ring.

The Thummim went by several other names such as  SCHETIYA, ANNA (meaning “firestone”), FOUNDATION STONE, the STONE OF PERFECTION, or SAPIR.    These names applied at different stages of history. The Thummim is said to have been made from a “divine sapphire”, that is, a sapphire stone provided by the Anunnaki gods. It was basically a levitational device, which according to Qabalistic tradition kept the Ark perfectly poised at about three fingers above the ground when the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies.

All in all, the Urim-Thummim had an essential role to play in summoning the power of the Ark. WHAT YOU SHOULD NOT LOSE SIGHT OF, HOWEVER, IS THAT THE LIGHT SYMBOLISM IN ALL THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REAL GOD, FIRST SOURCE. IT ALL HAD TO DO WITH THE GOD OF ILLUMINATI ELEMENTS – LUCIFER. Lucifer means “Illuminator” or “Light Bringer” and that’s what those who align with forces of darkness call the Devil. The Old Testament  religious system was based on Devil-worship, period.

A KILLING MACHINE

The Ark of the Covenant was always carried into battle. Apparently, the Israelite army general used it to get battlefield tips from Adad and to report on the fate of a battle. Once, when the Israelites were trounced in a battle at Ai, General Joshua both lamented before the Ark and besought counsel from Adad through it (JOSHUA 7:6-9). At another time, when  the main body of the Israelite nation lost a battle to the tribe of Benjamin at Gibeah, they consulted Adad through  the Ark, who  promised that, “tomorrow I’ll hand them over to you” (JUDGES 20:19-27), which he indeed did as “Yahweh helped Israel defeat Benjamin and that day the Israelites killed 25,100 of Benjamin’s warriors” (JUDGES 20:35).

Besides being a communication device and a manufacturer and repository of Ormus, the Ark of the Covenant was capable of performing certain wonders. What immediately comes to mind is what happened when General Joshua led the Israelites across the river Jericho. Its powers were drawn upon to part the river, something akin to Moses’ parting of the Red Sea, so that the Israelites  would cross it on dry land (JOSHUA 3:15-16; 4:7-18). In other words, the Ark was inbuilt with HAARP technology, which is theoretically capable of such a feat.

It is doubtful though that the Ark could serve so many purposes at once. What likely was the case was that it was operationalised by  remote control from some base inside one of the high-tech mountain bunkers of the Anunnaki. It is from here it was monitored either by satellite or surveillance microchips which relayed the happenings around it. Hence whereas some of the things attributed to it it did engender locally, some of them, such as the parting of the River Jordan, were effected using the HAARP technology at the Anunnaki base. One of the Tablets of Testimony must have been capacitated with GPS  tracking.

If the Ark was dreaded by the Nation of Israel, it  was because it was a killing machine both in a direct and vicarious sense. Under certain circumstances, it did emit a deadly radiation which was calibrated according to whether the killing was to be effected instantaneously or over time as a sort of slow puncture. In less severe cases, it simply caused non-life-threatening illnesses. People were also executed for infringing the rules governing its handling.

That the Ark was a perilously affair indeed is evident in Adad’s instruction to the Kohathites, who were charged with handling it when the Israelites were on the move. They were not to touch it or look at it  “lest they die” (NUMBERS 4:1-16): they were to carry it strictly using poles. To guard against this temptation or transgression, the Kohathites were instructed to wrap the Ark first in the curtain that separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies; then in what were called badger skins; and finally in a clothe of solid blue.

This was three layers of clothing altogether. When the Israelites were in procession, the men who carried the wrapped-up Ark were separated from the rest by a distance of about 900 metres. They were clad in very special attire to protect them in the case of an accidental radiation emission. A number of incidences are encountered whereby people died in circumstances associated with the Ark. There was  this case of Uzzah, who was one of the men transporting the Ark on an ox-driven cart downhill.

Somehow, the oxen faltered and the cart was in the process of tipping over and therefore touching the ground (it was not supposed to ever do so as the ground was cursed by “God” following the fall of Adam) when  Uzzah reached out his hands to steady it.    He was struck dead “by the Lord” immediately (2 SAMUEL 6:1-11; 1 CHRONICLES 13:1-13). Most likely, the Ark  must have fallen on his chest or crushed his head: it was 2 feet wide and 4 feet high and  estimates of its weight range from 150-2000 kg.

Once, the Bethshemites were entrusted custody of the Ark and curious to know what it was and what it contained tried to pry it open. About 50,000 of them ended up dying, in all probability from its radiation effects. The Bethshemites should have learnt a salutary lesson from the Philistines, who had captured it in war from the Israelites and had just returned it after being with it for seven months. The Philistines decided to part with it after been wracked by an endemic of boils and a plague of mice, both of which ceased after they returned the Ark (1 SAMUEL 6:19). Of course their sufferings were not directly engendered by the Ark but by Adad’s high-tech cunning. 

NEXT WEEK:   COUP ATTEMPT ON KING MOSES!

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