How King David and his controversial heir Solomon made Israel great amid glaring personal flaws
As far as the Anunnaki timetable was concerned, the 10th century BC was a crossroads, both literally and figuratively. It was in that century that Nibiru, their planet, and its King Anu, “Our Father Who Art In Heaven”, became all the rage. The sign of the cross, the symbol of a near-at-hand Nibiru, was practically everywhere, more so in Babylon and Assyria, regions which constituted the old Sumer and the erstwhile Anunnaki hub.
When David set up base in Palestine after being ejected from the Egyptian throne as Pharaoh Psusennes II by General Shosheng, he had a specific brief from the Anunnaki god Ishkur-Adad geared to the reappearance of Nibiru, which circa 1000 BC was now roughly 400 years away. First, he was to capture all the Palestinian domains General Joshua could not conquer way back in 1315 BC. In particular, he was to take Jerusalem once and for all.
The native Jebusites had tenaciously held on to the city and although it was counted as part of Benjamite territory, the Benjamites did not have total jurisdiction over it. Why was Jerusalem central in the geopolitical blueprint of the Anunnaki? IT WAS SO BECAUSE ISHKUR-ADAD, THE FACE OF THE ENLILITE GODHEAD AT THE TIME OF THE EXODUS, HAD TOLD MOSES THAT IT WAS IN JERUSALEM THAT HE WISHED TO SET UP HIS EARTHLY ABODE IN ANTICIPATION OF THE ARRIVAL OF KING ANU. This was a symbolic home, not a literal home: his presence would be in the form of the Ark of Covenant, which would reside in a compartment of the Temple forever.
Second, David was to lay the groundwork for the establishment of Jerusalem as Mission Control Centre – the equivalent of Nasa’s Kennedy Space Centre of Merrit Island in Florida. This was crucial given that when King Anu touched down on Earth, his ultimate destination would be Jerusalem. This would practically make Jerusalem the capital of the world, hence its characterisation as the “Navel of the Earth”, meaning the place through which “God” – the Enlilite godhead – would sustain the planet in one way or the other.
Third, David was to ensure that Baalbek, the Landing Place in today’s Lebanon, was under Israelite control, so that both space-related sites within the Canaanite precincts were completely off limits to the rival Enkites. Baalbek was the airport that catered to Earth-based aviation and shuttlecraft operations. With David toppled from his Egyptian pedestal, the Enlilites had lost one other space-related site, the Giza Pyramid, but Baalbek, Jerusalem, and Nazca in South America would suffice anyway.
Fourth and of fundamental importance, David was to build Israel’s first formal Temple to replace the portable and stop-gap Tabernacle. In the past, a temple was primarily the home of a god. All residences of gods were known as temples. The Jerusalem Temple would not physically house a god but would be a place where the Jews gathered to worship their god and observe and perform a whole host of religious rites in the name of the god. IT WAS IN THE TEMPLE BASEMENT THAT MISSION CONTROL CENTRE WOULD OPERATE, with a tiny helipad set aside for the god Ishkur-Adad. In there, Adad would land, park, and lift-off his sky-ship, called a shem in Sumerian.
DAVID CONTENDS WITH SOUL
Yet in making a reality of the above imperatives, David had his work cut out. The major stumbling block was the dude known as Saul. Saul had been mandated to rule Palestine whilst the hereditary King David concentrated on the affairs of Egypt as Pharaoh Psusennes II. Since Jerusalem was still a bone of contention, Saul had set up his capital of what was called the United Kingdom (of Israel in the north and Judah in the south) in Gibeah in his tribal territory, Benjamin. He was the first King of the Jews after 300 years of being led by the so-called judges.
But when David returned to Palestine to take the reins there now that he had lost Egypt, Saul refused to budge, telling David to go get stuffed. Power is sweet and absolute power corrupts absolutely. THE SAGA OF DAVID VERSUS SAUL AS RELATED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT IS FANTASY FOR THE MOST PART: it is an amalgamation of various strands of traditions woven together and in so clumsy and crude a fashion. It’s almost wholly pure legend.
David arrived in Palestine as an ex-Pharaoh and as the linear King of Israel. He didn’t grow up in Palestine as a poor shepherd boy and as the youngest son in a family of eight. He was Jesse’s firstborn, himself an ex-Pharaoh of Egypt going by the throne name Siamun. There was no David vs Goliath clash: it’s all a figment of some scribal spin-doctor’s imagination.
Being the clever operator he was, David refrained from a confrontational approach when Saul declined to defer to him. As the linear King, he had the support of the Jewish priesthood as well as the Jewish prophets. So he opted to use tact and diplomacy as a ruse, with a view to eventually repossessing the throne instead of mobilising outright for a civil war. Soon he and Soul had met and it was decided that in order to foster peace between the two, David should take the hand of one of Saul’s daughters in marriage. It was likely vice versa but having falsely portrayed David as a relative youngster, the biblical scribes desisted from highlighting this state of affairs.
Being from the tribe of Judah, David based himself in Hebron, the then capital of the province of Judah. For a time, the blindfold worked as the linear King and the pretender got along well. Then when time was ripe, David pounced. He opportunistically allied with the Philistines, Israel’s arch-enemy, and took on Saul. In the process, Saul was killed in a battle, or rather he fell on his own sword so determined was he to avoid the ignominy of being put to death by his foes. His three older sons were also killed.
That, however, did not put paid to David’s troubles as Soul’s fourth-born son Ishbaal declared himself King with the support of a sizeable constituency in the north. As such, for the next two years or so, the United Kingdom was split between Israel and Judah, a scenario which was anathema to David. In the event, war broke out between the two kingdoms but it was not at the hands of David’s forces that Ishbaal met his fate as he was slain by two of his lieutenants. David was at long last the undisputed King of the re-united Kingdom. The year was circa 988 BC.
DAVID TURNS ISRAEL INTO A MIGHTY MILITARY AND ECONOMIC POWER
As Israel’s uncontested King, David went to work straightaway. He descended on Jerusalem and decisively trounced the native Jebusites, a feat General Joshua could not accomplish 300 years before. Although he is generally regarded as a warrior King, David was seldom a provocative belligerent: he typically reacted to offensive action by his enemies. In the process, he defeated the mighty Philistines, the Moabites, the Edomites, the Ammonites, and the Arameans.
With this haul of victories, Israel now controlled the two space-related sites, Jerusalem and Baalbek, exactly as per David’s brief by Ishkur-Adad. Ultimately, the Davidic empire extended over both sides of the Jordan River, as far as the Mediterranean Sea. King David not only made Israel a great power militarily but also turned it into an economic power through gaining control over international trade routes. He himself became filthy rich from the spoils and tributes brought to Israel.
Next, David embarked on the preliminaries to the Temple project. Jerusalem had two major landmarks. They were Mount Moriah and Mount Zion, separated by a small valley. On the latter, David established his seat of power. Then he set about the construction of a “filling” to bridge the two mounts. The Temple was to arise on a pre-existing platform on Mount Moriah that had been built by the Anunnaki.
Sadly, all David was allowed to erect on Mount Moriah was an altar. The honour to construct the Temple was reserved for his heir because David, according to the prophet Nathan, had shed too much blood in his military exploits. Albeit, David pleaded with Adad to at least give him a visual idea of what the great Temple would look like. Adad obliged him and presented him with a Tavnit – a scale model of the Temple (Archaeological finds throughout the near East have indeed unearthed scale models of chariots, wagons, ships, workshops, and even multi-level shrines.)
KING SOLOMON BUILDS FIRST JEWISH TEMPLE
The Jewish Temple is variously known as the First Temple or Solomon’s Temple. The latter designation derives from the fact that it was built by King Solomon, David’s son and heir as per Adad’s pronouncement. Construction began in the second month of the fourth year of Solomon’s reign. This was exactly 480 years after the Nation of Israel’s exodus from Egypt commenced.
The Temple was as expensive as it was a magnificent and imposing edifice. It used vast quantities of gold, silver, and bronze, with its entire interior inlaid with gold only. All utensils were made of copper or bronze. One estimate puts the value of the gold and silver used at over $200 billion in today’s money, which puts Saudi Arabia’s 120-storey,$15 billion Abraj Al Bait Hotel, the world’s most expensive building, well in the shade.
Some 153,000 forced labourers and 3,300 officials were enlisted in the construction effort. Much of the gold that went into the project was imported from Ophir, today’s Zimbabwe. The Temple was built over seven and a half years. At its conclusion, Solomon was so deep in debt he was forced to pay off King Hiram of Tyre, who supplied vast quantities of the cedar wood needed of the structure, by handing over 20 towns in Galilee.
As expected, the Temple was commissioned with a great deal of fanfare. Ishkur-Adad did not put in a personal showing, but it sufficed that he was represented by the so-called “Cloud”, his alter ego who was actually a sentient ET with smoke-like quantum building blocks. This Cloud had always accompanied the Israelites since the onset of the exodus, hovering over the Tabernacle as a stand-in for Adad. In a vote of thanks and veneration, King Solomon referred to Adad as “the Lord who has chosen to dwell in the Cloud”. As many as 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep were sacrificed, which was then followed by a great public feast.
RICHEST, WISEST, AND ABLEST MAN OF HIS DAY
King Solomon reigned for about 39 years, in what has been described as the Golden Age of Israel, himself becoming the wealthiest man of his day across the globe and still remains one of the richest figures of history. He was also staggering wise and was in fact regarded as the wisest being who ever lived, courtesy of Ormus, the monoatomic white powder of gold which he manufactured right within the Temple precincts.
It is said Solomon made silver and gold “as common in Jerusalem as stones”. During his rule, he is said to have received 25 tons of gold per annum. One estimate puts his net worth at $2 trillion dollars in today’s money, making Jeff Bizos’ approximately $120 billion a drop in the ocean. Thanks to Ormus, Solomon had such staggering metaphysical insights and capacities that he was able to command Reptilians (demons in the Bible) of the Lower Fourth Dimension to manifest in this physical realm and do his every bidding. As such, in ancient occultic literature, he is hailed as the greatest witch who ever lived.
Unlike his war-prone father, Solomon was a consistently peaceful king. He forged abiding international relationships, forming alliances with surrounding powerful nations such as Egypt, Moab, Tyre, Arabia, etc. Many of these partnerships were cemented through royal marriages and the giving of concubines to Solomon, eventually gaining him 700 wives and 300 concubines (again thanks to the wonder of Ormus, he was easily able to satisfactorily “’serve” each one of this vast harem). One instance of his great wisdom is related in 1 KINGS 3:16-28 as follows:
“One day two women came to King Solomon, and one of them said: ‘Your Majesty, this woman and I live in the same house. Not long ago my baby was born at home, and three days later her baby was born. Nobody else was there with us. One night while we were all asleep, she rolled over on her baby, and he died. Then while I was still asleep, she got up and took my son out of my bed. She put him in her bed, then she put her dead baby next to me. In the morning when I got up to feed my son, I saw that he was dead. But when I looked at him in the light, I knew he wasn’t my son.
“’No!’ the other woman shouted. ‘He was your son. My baby is alive! The dead baby is yours.’ the first woman yelled. ‘Mine is alive!’ “They argued back and forth in front of Solomon, until finally he said, ‘Both of you say this live baby is yours. Someone bring me a sword.’ A sword was brought, and Solomon ordered, ‘Cut the baby in half! That way each of you can have part of him.’ “’Please don’t kill my son,’ the baby’s mother screamed. ‘Your Majesty, I love him very much, but give him to her. Just don’t kill him.’ “The other woman shouted, ‘Go ahead and cut him in half. Then neither of us will have the baby.’ "Solomon said, ‘Don’t kill the baby.’ Then he pointed to the first woman, ‘She is his real mother. Give the baby to her.’ “Everyone in Israel was amazed when they heard how Solomon had made his decision. They realised that God had given him wisdom to judge fairly.”
PLOTTING AND COUNTER-PLOTTING LEAD TO KINGDOM SPLIT
King Solomon was about 80 years old when he died. His death simultaneously marked the demise of a unitary Israel, making him the third and last king to preside over the United Kingdom. Solomon’s reign did not enjoy total tranquility. The relative instability actually began in the waning days of his father David. It stemmed from David’s habit of hitching too many wives and siring too many children, a lesson that rather strangely was lost on the otherwise wise Solomon.
David had at least ten sons from different wives. The eldest was Amnon, who he sired by his third wife. As the King’s firstborn son, Amnon naturally considered himself heir. In order to make a reality of this prospect, he began to hit on his half-sister Tamar. Tamar was David’s daughter with his own daughter-cum-wife Bathsheba. David had designated Bathsheba as his queen, making her leapfrog other senior wives – a precondition she had given him for keeping under wraps his tactical elimination of her erstwhile husband Uriah.
What that meant was that whomever of Tamar’s half-brothers took her to the altar stood the best chance of inheriting after David. It was with this in mind that Amnon began to make overtures at a blushing Tamar (the Bible says Amnon raped her but that is a smear: the two were love birds with a promising relationship).
Tamar’s full brother Absalom, who was David’s third son (his second son Daniel seemed to have died young), also had designs on the throne and he feared that if Amnon and Tamar tied the knot, that would bring his monarchical ambitions to a dead-end. Consequently, he had Amnon murdered to forestall just such an eventuality.
For some time, Absalom was on the run from the wrath of his kindly father, but he was forgiven after three years. He repaid his father by declaring himself King four years later, by which time David had lost much of his effectiveness as monarch, and bedding his father’s concubines at will. Absalom based himself in Hebron, where he raised an army to resist his father. David, however, had very determined generals and Absalom was killed at the Battle of Ephraim’s Wood.
Following the death of his two older brothers, Adonijah, David’s third son, entered the lists. He declared himself King and had the support and blessings of army general Joab and the influential priest Abiathar. But an even more influential trio of Zadok the priest; the KIng’s chief bodyguard Benanaiah; and Nathan the court prophet threw in their lot with Solomon and had David officially announce him as his heir.
That’s how Solomon, who was David’s 10th son, supplanted everybody else to become Israel’s next King and ruled illustriously for the next 40 years. Sadly, the Kingdom came apart at the seams in the aftermath of his death. Exactly how that ensued we demonstrate in the forthcoming piece.
NEXT WEEK: JEWISH PROPHETS SOUND OFF ON NEARING NIBIRU
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’!