The anticipation of the return of “The Lord” began with the accession of Marduk to supremacy and was further accentuated along the way by Pharaoh Moses
The countdown to the return of Nibiru, the planet of the Old Testament gods and hence its being repeatedly referred to as “The Lord” in the Bible, began as early as the 20th century BC. THE PIONEERING PROPAGATOR OF THE PLANET’S RETURN WAS NONE OTHER MARDUK, ENKI’S FIRSTBORN SON.
On becoming Earth’s Chief Executive effectively in 2024 BC but substantively in 1954 BC, Marduk declared Nibiru his celestial counterpart, not Earth itself as was the case with his predecessor Jehovah-Enlil. We have already dwelt on the reasons he did so. Not only did Marduk identify himself with the great planet: he decided, in due course, to make Nibiru the focus, exclusively, of a new religion he called the Star Religion. The “Star” was Nibiru: if you recall, Nibiru was also known as the Imperishable Star or the Star of Jacob for reasons we have already spelt out.
Why did Marduk choose to place Nibiru at the centre of mankind’s religious fervour? Well, he had calculated, and rightly so, that the return of Nibiru, which is seen only once in 3600 years, was going to occur on his watch – the astrological Age of Aries, which mathematically ran from 2220 to 60 BC. The last time Nibiru showed up was circa 4000 BC, which enabled Anu to visit Earth. This time around, Nibiru was expected in the 6th century BC, that is between 600 and 500 BC.
What that meant was that when King Anu appeared, Marduk would be the one ruling Earth and would therefore be the primary host of the Solar System’s greatest sovereign. Needless to say, that would be the greatest milestone of his life. Of course it was not every time Nibiru was in the ecliptic that Anu visited Earth. But he was always expected anyway: elaborate and meticulous preparations for his arrival had to be made whether he turned up or not.
HAMMURABI IS BABYLONIA’S LEAD APOSTLE OF NIBIRU-BASED RELIGION
In Babylonia, the key person Marduk chose to propagate his Star Religion was Hammurabi, the Babylonian King. Hammurabi went at his brief hammer and tongs. In Marduk’s Star Religion, the astronomer priests, known as the Mashmashu, worked practically day and night in the Esagil, Marduk’s temple-abode which was principally an astronomical observatory. The Esagil’s main function was to “constantly observe the heavens, track the movement of stars and planets, record special phenomena (such as a planetary conjunction or an eclipse), and consider whether the heavens bespoke omens; and if so, to interpret what they did portend.”
At the head of the Mashmashu was the Urigallu, the Great Priest, who was a holy man, a magician, and a physician rolled into one. The Urigallu conveyed the astronomer-priests’ interpretations of celestial phenomena to Hammurabi through a special priest known as the Zaqiqu. Marduk, however, had his mortal enemies to contend with – the Enlilites, who were not ready to cut him any slack whatsoever. THE ENLILITES JUST WOULD NOT COUNTENANCE THE IDEA OF KING ANU BEING RECEIVED BY AN ENKITE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
That scenario was simply inconceivable. It is small wonder, therefore, that they raised kings who were unstinting in waging war on Babylon, the nucleus of the Babylonian empire, so as to unseat Marduk. In the Enlilites’ pathologically jaundiced mindset, Marduk just could not do right: every peace feeler he sent, every concession he tabled forth in the interests of peaceful co-existence with the Enlilites, fell on stone deaf ears. This Earth, My Brother …
TUTHMOSIS IV INAUGURATE CULT OF NIBIRU
For some time in Egypt, the anticipation of the return of Nibiru was muted, which was strange for a country whose national god was Marduk, the very champion of the Star Religion. Then circa 1400 BC, Pharaoh Tuthmosis IV began to harp about the Cult of the Aten but not with proportionate action in that direction. When Nibiru was not seen by Earthlings, it was said to have gone to the “rear of the horizons, to the height of Heaven”. During this period, it was the “Unseen”.
In Egypt’s Star Religion, when Nibiru returned, it would do so as the Aten. In Sumer or Babylon, it would do so as the “Planet of the Crossing” (that is, a planet coursing down the crossroads between Jupiter and Mars), which was precisely what the term Nibiru meant. Nibiru represented an idyllic place, hence its other name, the Aten, which in this context meant “Eden” or “Paradise”.
We know, from Egyptian records, that the Cult of the Aten gained prominence during the reign of Tuthmosis IV at Zaru, a city that overlooked Goshen, the Hebrew bastion in Egypt. The very first shrine to Aten was erected at Zaru. Indeed, the title of the mayor of Zaru at the time was "Overseer of the Foremost Water in the Lake Area of the Temple of Aten”. And the royal barge in which Moses’ father Amenhotep III and his mother Tiye sailed the pleasure lake at Zaru was called the Gleams Aten. But it was Moses, Tuthmosis IV’s grandson, who took the Cult of the Aten to another level, a focus predominantly on Nibiru, and to yet another radical, drastic level. What was this?
MOSES RAISES FIRST OBELISK TO NIBIRU’S HONOUR
Moses became Pharaoh of Egypt circa 1367 BC, but prior to that he had been co-Pharaoh with his ailing father Amenhotep III for about 12 years. Moses became joint Pharaoh in the 27th year of his father’s reign, whereupon he took the throne name Pharaoh Amenhotep IV. Pharaoh Amenhotep III was renowned as a temple builder. He had a temple at Hermopolis in northern Egypt; two temples at Karnak in southern Egypt; the great Luxor temple as well as a mortuary temple at Thebes; three temples in Nubia, today’s Sudan; and at least a temple each in nearly every Canaanite city that was an Egyptian garrison town. These temples, whose construction he embarked upon from the second year of his reign, were dedicated to various Anunnaki (Enkite) gods.
In propagating the Cult of the Aten, Moses followed after his father: he operationalised a programme to erect temples dedicated to Aten only months after he became co-regent. Two temples were built in close succession, one within the very precincts of the Amen-Ra temple at Thebes and another within the very courts of the Amen-Ra temple at Luxor. In so doing, the message he was ending across was that AMEN-RA (MARDUK) AND ATEN (PLANET NIBIRU) WERE ONE AND THE SAME – call it a merger.
In a way, he was correct: since becoming the new Enlil, Marduk had named Nibiru after himself, so that “Ra was Marduk and the celestial Marduk was Nibiru”. But there was a subtle difference in the way the Amen-Ra and Aten temples were architecturally oriented: whereas the Amen-Ra temples were oriented toward the sun (“Ra” meant “Sun”), that is, on a southeast-northwest axis, the Aten temples were oriented away from the Sun, that is, on an east-west axis. MOSES SO ORIENTED THE ATEN TEMPLES BECAUSE WHEN NIBIRU APPROACHED, IT DID SO FROM A DIRECTION OPPOSITE TO THAT FROM WHICH THE SUN EMERGED AT SUNRISE.
Every time he presided over a major festival, Moses made it clear to the Theban priests (that is, the priests of Amen-Ra Marduk) that they were disinvited. In the fourth year of the co-regency, Amenhotep III attained 30 years on the throne. The tradition was for a festival known as the Sed or Rejuvenation Festival to be held on every 30th anniversary of the incumbent pharaoh. On the occasion, the pharaoh had to perform a series of fitness tests to make the case that he indeed was healthy enough to continue ruling.
Thereafter, the Sed Festival was celebrated every three years till the king’s death. Under Amenhotep III, there were three Sed festivals. On every such occasion, Moses decreed that no god other than Aten would be invoked, which meant that the Theban priests, who for one reason or the other did not recognise Aten, would be virtual spectators.
In order to reinforce the fact that he was Nibiru-oriented, Moses erected a special monument at his Karnak temple to honour the Ben-Ben – the first obelisk (four-sided, tapering stone pillar which ends in a pyramid-like shape at the top). The Ben-Ben was the space vehicle which Marduk was said to have used when he first came to Earth from planet Nibiru. In the 5th year of the co-regency, Moses changed his pharaonic title, from Amenhotep IV to Akhenaten, meaning “Servant or Worshipper of Aten”. The Cult of the Aten had begun in earnest.
MOSES ESTABLISHES CITY DEDICATED TO NIBIRU-WORSHIP
It goes without saying that the Theban priests were madly incensed by the disparaging way Moses was treating them and his attempt at practically replacing their age-old religion with a new one. It was not necessarily about the acceptability of Aten worship: Marduk, their principal god, was also known as the Aten. IT WAS ABOUT UPSTAGING THEM AS THE CUSTODIANS AND EXPONENTS OF EGYPTIAN SPIRITUALITY.
What they preached to the people was that a god had to be familiar and sentient – a flesh-and-blood god who could be seen, as all the Anunnaki gods were. The deceased god Osiris was the only exception but he had a living representative – his son Horus, so that Osiris was worshipped through Horus: the father was worshipped through the son, very much an echo of the gospel message.
The Aten, on the other hand, was nothing more than a celestial body – a planet. It was absurd to worship a planet. Even if the Aten represented King Anu, “Our Father Who Art In Heaven”, Anu was not exactly a friend of the Egyptian priests anyway: HE WAS BELIEVED TO FAVOUR THE ENLILITES AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ENKITES. Anu and the Enlilites were of Sirian heritage, whereas Enkites were of Orion heritage. It explained why in Egypt, the Queen of Orion, Anu’s ceremonial wife, took precedence over Anu. Both Isis and Nut, the female Egyptian goddesses, bore names that constituted some of the many titles of the Orion Queen.
With mounting priestly antipathy toward Moses, his mother Tiye persuaded him to leave Thebes and settle in a completely new city of his own, a rival, so to speak, to Thebes, a place that had never been dedicated to any god. There, his followers would be free to worship Aten. Moses took heed and in the fourth year of the co-regency, he set about establishing a new political and religious centre on the east bank of the Nile right within southern Egypt. This was about halfway between Thebes and modern Cairo. He called the city Akhet-Aten, meaning, “Aten of the Horizon”, clear-cut homage to planet Nibiru. This is modern Tell El Armana. It took four years for Armana to be complete.
At Armana, Moses also built a new temple, which he called the Gempaaten, meaning “The Aten is found in the Gleaming Estate of the Aten”. A huge building filled with tables for offerings to Aten, it consisted of six rectangular courts. Moses relocated to Armana in the 8th year of the co-regency and decreed that NO GOD OTHER THAN ATEN WOULD BE WORSHIPPED OR VENERATED IN HIS CITY. Just uttering the name Amen-Ra was forbidden: it didn’t matter that the two names were interchangeable though Amen-Ra projected Marduk as a Sun God whereas Aten projected him as the personification of the planet Nibiru.
â€¨NIBIRU CULT TAKES SHAPE â€¨
The way Moses proceeded about embedding the Cult of the Aten in the psyche of his people was gradual rather than precipitate. He went about this in stages. Writes Ahmed Osman in his book Christianity: Ancient Egyptian Religion: “Early representations of Aten showed the deity as of human shape with the head of a falcon, surmounted by a solar disc, in keeping with the conventional way gods were depicted in Egyptian art.
At the end of the second year, or early in the third, of the co-regency, an important development took place in this representation. The human figure vanished. Only a golden disc appeared, whose rays descended over the king and queen as well as over the temple, altar and palace. This golden disc did not represent the Sun but was the symbol of Aten, who had no physical image. The rays, in their turn, were not the endless rays of the Sun.
They ended in hands, and the hands held the Ankh—the Egyptian cross, a symbol of life, not death—before the nostrils of the king and queen. To indicate the kingly statues of Aten, a uraeus (cobra) hung from the disc in the same way as a uraeus adorned the brow of the king. At the same time the name and epithet of the God was placed inside two cartouches, matching the manner in which the ruling king's name was written.
“Toward the end of Year 9 of Akhenaten (Moses) the name of Aten received a new form to rid it of any therio-anthropomorphic (worshipping a god presented in a form combining animal and human elements) or pantheistic (heathen worship of all gods) aspect that may have clung to it as a result of the hieroglyphic (symbolic) use of images. The falcon symbol used to spell the name Ra-Harakhti, which in this form would represent the Sun-God, was changed to abstract signs. Thus the word ‘Ra’ no longer represented the god of Heliopolis (Marduk) but achieved a new abstract meaning, ‘The Lord’… The new form of the God's name read: "Ra (The Lord), the Living Ruler of the Horizon, in His Name the Light which is in Aten."
Note Osman’s characterisation of the term “The Lord” as “abstract”. Clearly, Osman hadn’t done his homework thoroughly here, for had he consulted the Sumerian records, he would have come to know that “THE LORD” WAS ANOTHER NAME FOR PLANET NIBIRU. Moses' focus was no longer on Marduk per se but on the planet he represented – Nibiru.
â€¨MOSES DECLARES NIBIRU AS EGYPT’S ONLY GOD
â€¨Amenhotep III ruled Egypt together with Moses during the last 12 years of his life, though it was Moses who was the real ruler in light of the fact that Amenhotep III was sickly through and through. After being Pharaoh for a total of just under 40 years, Amenhotep III passed away and Moses was installed as the sole pharaoh. By this time, Moses already had four daughters. He would eventually have six daughters with his seniormost wife Nefertiti. Their names were all suffixed with “Aten”, once again underscoring his affinity for planet Nibiru.
Now that he was the sole ruler of Egypt, Moses upped the ante in the enforcement of the Cult of the Aten. That he was an Atenist to the core can easily be gleaned from his 5-Fold Titulary – the mandatory minimum of 5 titles a pharaoh was supposed to bear. All except one had the term Aten in them. They were Beloved of Aten; Great of Kingship in Akhet-Aten; Exalter of the Name of Aten; and Akhenaten itself. The only title that was a direct tribute to Marduk was Neferkheperure-Waen-Re, meaning “the Unique One of Ra”.
Moses moved fast to accentuate the Cult of the Aten. First, HE DECLARED ATEN AS THE ONLY GOD OF EGYPT AND THE ONLY GOD OF PLANET EARTH AND ABOLISHED THE WORSHIP OF ANY OTHER GOD. Second, HE DECLARED HIMSELF ATEN’S ONLY PROPHET. Moses increasingly referred to himself as “the god’s prophet-son”, one “who came forth from the god’s body,” and to whom alone the deity’s plans were revealed. “There is no other that knoweth thee except thy son Akhenaten,” he bragged in song. “Thou hast made him wise in thy plan.”
But there was more. Ahmed Osman: “He closed all the temples, except those of Aten, dispersed the priests and gave orders that the names of other deities should be expunged from monuments and temple inscriptions throughout the country. Units were dispatched to excise the names of the ancient gods, particularly Amun (Marduk), wherever they were found written or engraved. Even the plural word Netaru for gods was proscribed.”
All in all, given that Nibiru wasn’t very far from making its reappearance, Moses decided to SHIFT THE ISSUE FROM CELESTIAL TIME (reckoning in terms of zodiacal constellation periods of 2160 years) TO DIVINE TIME (Nibiru’s orbital time of 3600-year cycles). He thus changed the question from, “When will the Age of Aries come to an end” to “When will the Unseen celestial god (Nibiru) reappear and become visible in the skies?”
Intelligence and Security Service Act, which is a law that establishes the Directorate of Intelligence and Security Service (DIS), provides for establishment of a Parliamentary Committee. Recently, the President announced nine names of Members of Parliament he had appointed to the Committee.
This announcement was preceded by a meeting the President held with the Speaker and the Leader of Opposition. Following the announcement of Committee MPs by the President, the opposition, through its leader, made it clear that it will not participate in the Committee unless certain conditions that would ensure effective oversight are met. The opposition acted on the non-participation threat through resignation of its three MPs from the Committee.
The Act at Section 38 provides for the establishment of the Committee to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Directorate. The law provides that the Parliamentary Committee shall have the same powers and privileges set out under the National Assembly (Powers and Privileges) Act.
On composition, the Committee shall consist of nine members who shall not be members of Cabinet and its quorum shall be five members. The MPs in the Committee elect a chairperson from among their number at their first meeting.
The Members of the Committee are appointed by the President after consultation with the Speaker of the National Assembly and Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly. It is the provision of the law that the Committee, relative to its size, reflect the numerical strengths of the political parties represented in the National Assembly.
The Act provides that that a member of the Committee holds office for the duration of the Parliament in which he or she is appointed. The Committee is mandated to make an annual report on the discharge of their functions to the President and may at any time report to him or her on any matter relating to the discharge of those functions.
The Minister responsible for intelligence and security is obliged to lay before the National Assembly a copy of each annual report made by the Committee together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of the provision of the Act.
If it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Parliamentary Committee, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Directorate, the Minister may exclude that matter from the copy of the report as laid before the National Assembly.
So, what are the specific demands of the Opposition and why are they not participating in the Committee? What should happen as a way forward? The Opposition demanded that there be a forensic audit of the Directorate. The DIS has never been audited since it was set up in 2008, more than a decade ago.
The institution has been a law unto itself for a longtime, feared by all oversight bodies. The Auditor General, who had no security of tenure, could not audit the DIS. The Directorate’s personnel, especially at a high level, have been implicated in corruption. Some of its operatives are in courts of law defending corruption charges preferred against them. Some of the corruption cases which appeared in the media have not made it to the courts.
The DIS has been accused of non-accountability and unethical practices as well as of being a burden on the fiscus. So, the Opposition demanded, from the President, a forensic audit for the purpose of cleaning up the DIS. They demand a start from a clean slate.
The second demand by the Opposition is that the law be reviewed to ensure greater accountability of the DIS to Parliament. What are some of the issues that the opposition think should be reviewed? The contention is that the executive cannot appoint a Committee of Parliament to scrutinize an executive institution.
Already, it is argued, Parliament is less independent and it is dominated by the executive. It is contended that the Committee should be established by the Standing Orders and be appointed by a Select Committee of Parliament. There is also an argument that the Committee should report to Parliament and not to the President and that the Minister should not have any role in the Committee.
Democratic and Parliamentary oversight of the intelligence is relatively a new phenomenon across the World. Even developed democracies are still grappling with some of these issues. However, there are acceptable standards or what might be called international best practices which have evolved over the past two or so decades.
In the UK for instance, MPs of the Intelligence and Security Committee are appointed by the Houses of Parliament, having been nominated by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. This is a good balancing exercise of involvement of both the executive and the legislature. Consultation is taken for granted in Botswana context in the sense that it has been reduced to just informing the Leader of Opposition without much regard to his or her ideas; they are never taken seriously.
Furthermore, the current Committee in the UK has four Members of the ruling party and five MPs from the opposition. It is a fairly balanced Committee in terms of Parliamentary representation. However, as said above, the President of Botswana appointed six ruling party MPs and three from the opposition.
The imbalance is preposterous and more pronounced with clear intentions of getting the executive way through the ruling party representatives in the Committee. The intention to avoid scrutiny is clear from the numbers of the ruling party MPs in the Committee.
There is also an international standard of removing sensitive parts which may harm national security from the report before it is tabled in the legislature. The previous and current reluctance of the executive arms to open up on Defence and Security matters emanate from this very reason of preserving and protecting national security.
But national security should be balanced with public interest and other democratic principles. The decision to expunge certain information which may be prejudicial to national security should not be an arbitrary and exclusive decision of the executive but a collective decision of a well fairly balanced Committee in consultation with the Speaker and the minister responsible.
There is no doubt that the DIS has been a rogue institution. The reluctance by the President to commit to democratic-parliamentary oversight reforms presupposes a lack of commitment to democratization. The President has no interest in seeing a reformed DIS with effective oversight of the agency.
He is insincere. This is because the President loathes the idea losing an iota of power and sharing it with any other democratic institution. He sees the agency as his power lever to sustain his stay in the high office. He thought he could sanitize himself with an ineffective DIS Committee that would dance to his tune.
The non-participation of the opposition MPs renders the Committee dysfunctional; it cannot function as this would be unlawful. Participation of the opposition is a legal requirement. Even if it can meet, it would lack legitimacy; it cannot be taken seriously. The President should therefore act on the oversight demands and reform the DIS if he is to be taken seriously.
For years I have trained people about paradigm shifts – those light-bulb-switch-on moments – where there is a seismic change from the usual way of thinking about something to a newer, better way.
I like to refer to them as ‘aha’ moments because of the sudden understanding of something which was previously incomprehensible. However, the topic of today’s article is the complete antithesis of ‘aha’. Though I’d love to tell you I’d had a ‘eureka ‘, ‘problem solved’ moment, I am faced with the complete opposite – an ‘oh-no’ moment or Lost Leader Syndrome.
No matter how well prepared or capable a leader is. they often find themselves facing perplexing events, confounding information, or puzzling situations. Confused by developments of which they can’t make sense and by challenges that they don’t know how to solve they become confused, sometimes lost and completely clueless about what to do.
I am told by Jentz and Murphy (JM) in ‘What leaders do when they don’t know what to do’ that this is normal, and that rapid change is making confusion a defining feature of management in the 21st century. Now doesn’t that sound like the story of 2020 summed up in a single sentence?
The basic premise of their writing is that “confusion is not a weakness to be ashamed of but a regular and inevitable condition of leadership. By learning to embrace their confusion, managers are able to set in motion a constructive process for addressing baffling issues.
In fact, confusion turns out to be a fruitful environment in which the best managers thrive by using the instability around them to open up better lines of communication, test their old assumptions and values against changing realities, and develop more creative approaches to problem solving.”
The problem with this ideology however is that it doesn’t help my overwhelming feelings of fear and panic which is exacerbated by a tape playing on a loop in my head saying ‘you’re supposed to know what to do, do something’. My angst is compounded by annoying motivational phrases also unhelpfully playing in my head like.
Nothing happens until something moves
The secret of getting ahead is getting started
Act or be acted upon
All these platitudes are urging me to pull something out of the bag, but I know that this is a trap. This need to forge ahead is nothing but a coping mechanism and disguise. Instead of owning the fact that I haven’t got a foggy about what to do, part of me worries that I’ll lose authority if I acknowledge that I can’t provide direction – I’m supposed to know the answers, I’m the MD! This feeling of not being in control is common for managers in ‘oh no’ situations and as a result they often start reflexively and unilaterally attempting to impose quick fixes to restore equilibrium because, lets be honest, sometimes we find it hard to resist hiding our confusion.
To admit that I am lost in an “Oh, No!” moment opens the door not only to the fear of losing authority but also to a plethora of other troubling emotions and thoughts: *Shame and loss of face: “You’ll look like a fool!” * Panic and loss of control: “You’ve let this get out of hand!” * Incompetence and incapacitation: “You don’t know what you’re doing!”
As if by saying “I’m at a loss here” is tantamount to declaring “I am not fit to lead.” Of course the real problem for me and any other leader is if they don’t admit when they are disoriented, it sends a signal to others in the organisation stating it’s not cool to be lost and that, by its very nature encourages them to hide. What’s the saying about ‘a real man never asks for direction. ..so they end up driving around in circles’.
As managers we need to embrace the confusion, show vulnerability (remember that’s not a bad word) and accept that leadership is not about pretending to have all the answers but about having the courage to search with others to discover a solution.
JM point out that “being confused, however, does not mean being incapacitated. Indeed, one of the most liberating truths of leadership is that confusion is not quicksand from which to escape but rather the potter’s clay of leadership – the very stuff with which managers can work.”
2020 has certainly been a year to remember and all indications are that the confusion which has characterised this year will still follow us into the New Year, thereby making confusion a defining characteristic of the new normal and how managers need to manage. Our competence as leaders will then surely be measured not only by ‘what I know’ but increasingly by ‘how I behave when I accept, I don’t know, lose my sense of direction and become confused.
.I guess the message for all organizational cultures going forward is that sticking with the belief that we need all-knowing, omni-competent executives will cost them dearly and send a message to managers that it is better to hide their confusion than to address it openly and constructively.
Take comfort in these wise words ‘Confusion is a word we have invented for an order not yet understood’!