The Anunnaki, alias the gods, officially depart planet Earth
From about 610 BC to 560 BC, roughly 50 to 60 years before the reappearance of Nibiru, the Anunnaki were departing Earth. Writes Zechariah Sitchin in his book The End of Days: “The Departure is neither surmised nor speculative; it is amply documented.
The evidence comes to us from the Near East as well as from the Americas … The testimony is not hearsay; it consists of eyewitness reports … The reports are included in the Bible, and they were inscribed on stone columns — texts dealing with miraculous events leading to the accession to the throne of Babylon’s last king.”
A high priestess of Harran going by the name Adda-Guppi (the mother to Nabunaid, the last king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire), wrote on a stela that, “It was in the sixteenth year of Nabupolassar, King of Babylon, when Sin, Lord of the gods, became angry with his city and his temple and went up to heaven; and the city and the people in it went to ruin.” The 16th year of Nabupolassar’s reign was 610 BC. This was the year, if you recall, when Babylonian forces seized Harran from the remnants of the Assyrian royal family who had decided to make the city as their last stand. Clearly, had Sin still been in the city, Harran wouldn’t have so easily fallen to the Babylonians.
The ancient texts say the gods, as mankind received the Anunnaki by virtue of their extraordinary longevity and their technological feats – miracles in our eyes – “flew away like birds”. This was a figurative expression meaning they got aboard their celestial crafts, also called sky vehicles, and jetted off into the void. From mankind’s perspective, the gods left Earth because they were displeased with our relentlessly recalcitrant behavior.
The departure of the Anunnaki was also attributed to the need to escape a raging flood that seemingly was caused by Nibiru’s proximity. “A fierce surge of water, a violent flood like the Deluge, swept away the city,” notes a Neo-Assyrian text. “Its houses and sanctuaries, turning them to ruins. The gods and goddesses became afraid, abandoned their shrines, flew off like birds and ascended to Heaven.”
Of course both perceptions are dead wrong. Firstly, Nibiru caused a by far great flood during the Deluge of Noah’s day, but the Anunnaki did not abandon Earth forever like they did in the 6th century BC. Secondly, mankind had always tended to rebelliousness from the day he was created (genetically engineered from the genes of mankind and a dark-skinned Anunnaki) by Enki. THE ANUNNAKI BEGAN TO DEPART EARTH AT THE TIME THEY DID BECAUSE KING ANU, “OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN”, HAD DEMANDED THAT THEY DO SO.
Why did the Anunnaki come to Earth in the first place? They came in search of gold, which was desperately needed for survival on their solar system planet known as Nibiru. On their planet, they had a serious ozone hole crisis and the solution to the problem, so the planet’s scientists rightfully reckoned, was to loft gold particles into the planet’s stratosphere. Nibiru’s atmosphere was now on the mend and as such there was no need for the Anunnaki to linger on Earth.
In any case, the god façade about them was being seen through by the ranks of discerning mankind. For instance, PSALM 182, written by a certain Asaph, is arguably the most daring dig at Anunnaki hypocrisy and vainglory. It exposes and lambasts them as creatures as opposed to deities. “The gods know nothing, they understand nothing,” Asaph charged. “They walk about in darkness.” Asaph proceeded to warn the Anunnaki that despite pretences to the contrary, their ultimate fate too was six feet under. “You are ‘gods’; you are all sons of the Most High. But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.”
Asaph appealed to the real God, First Source, “who renders judgement among the gods”, to “rise up” and “judge the Earth”. If Asaph knew the Anunnaki for what they exactly were – fake gods – then many other people of his day must have known that too. Sadly, the prevailing scenario in the Old Testament is that of mankind bowing and scraping to the Anunnaki and not to First Source.
PROPHET EZEKIEL SEES “GOD”
One of the authoritative eyewitnesses to the departure of the Anunnaki was the prophet Ezekiel. This happened in Harran in today’s eastern Anunnaki and only a few miles from the Syrian border. Harran is today no more than a “sleepy town” but in the 6th century BC, it was a flourishing commercial, cultural, religious, and political centre. It was in Harran, the “Ur away from Ur” in Sumerian times, that the god Nannar-Sin, Enlil-Jehovah’s second-born son and the first to be born on Earth, settled after an evil wind (nuclear radiation) ravaged Ur courtesy of several nuclear bombs that were unleashed on Sodom and Gomorrah by Nergal, Enki’s second-born son, and Ninurta, Enlil-Jehovah’s firstborn son.
Harran was to Sin and his cult following what Babylon was to Marduk and his cult following. Sin and Marduk were in fact the two most eminent gods in the Middle East in the countdown to the Anunnaki departure as with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and the deportation of the Israelites to Babylon, Ishkur-Adad had become practically irrelevant.
Ezekiel, a trained priest, was among the first deportees, who included Jewish King Jeconiah, who were led away to Babylonia in 598 BC. His group was settled on the banks of the Khabur River, only a heartbeat from Harran. Then on the fifth day of the fourth month in the 30th year of the exile (568 BC), Ezekiel encountered an Anunnaki flying chariot. THE GOD SIN WAS LEAVING AND HE HAD DECIDED TO COMMISSION EZEKIEL AS A PROPHET.
What Ezekiel experienced is recorded in EZEKIEL 1:1–3:15. Ezekiel’s account can be summarized as follows:
He saw a “kabod” or “cherub” which had sets of wheels. In past articles, we have explained what these terms mean – a flying craft. In the kabod was a pedestal or throne on which a being who looked like a “son of man” and had an aura about him sat. This was the pilot’s cabin. “Son of Man”, or “Black-headed People”, was how the Anunnaki referred to mankind. It meant “mortal”, to distinguish themselves from us as they fancied themselves as “immortal”. Put differently, Ezekiel saw that “God” had the form and likeness of a human being.
When it dawned on him that he had seen “God” (Nannar-Sin), Ezekiel was filled with a sense of overwhelming awe. “That was the appearance of the semblance of the Glory of Yahweh. When I beheld it, I flung myself down on my face” – EZEKIEL 1:28. Sin addressed Ezekiel before he departed, commissioning him as his prophet. He called him “Son of Man”. About a year later, Sin returned and had Ezekiel board the flying craft, whereupon he flew with him to Jerusalem to show him what a cesspit of iniquity Jerusalem had become in the absence of the Temple, which Nebuchadnezzar had razed to the ground in 588 BC. Ezekiel was at long last taken to Babylon, where he related to the Jewish exiles his experiences with “Yahweh”.
The inhabitants of Jerusalem were very much aware that the Anunnaki were gone. “Yahweh sees us no more, Yahweh has left the Earth!” they bemoaned as per Ezekiel’s report. Zechariah Sitchin best sums up the sense of bereavement and nostalgia that gripped mankind in general in the wake of the Anunnaki’s departure from the Earthly scene in the following words in his book The End of Days:
“And so it was, by the middle of the first millennium BC, in one part of the world after another, that mankind found itself without its long-worshipped gods; and before long, the question began to preoccupy mankind: Will they return? Like a family suddenly abandoned by its father, mankind grasped for the hope of a Return; then, like an orphan needing help, mankind cast about for a Savior. The Prophets promised it will surely happen—at the End of Days.
The awesome times when the gods resided in sacred precincts in the people’s cities, when a Pharaoh claimed that a god was riding along in his chariot, when an Assyrian king boasted of help from the skies, were over and gone. Already in the days of the Prophet Jeremiah (626–586 BC), the nations surrounding Judea were mocked for worshipping not a ‘living god’ but idols made by craftsmen of stone, wood, and metal—gods who needed to be carried, for they could not walk.”
SIN AND MARDUK RUN SHOW
Having officially departed Earth, where did the Anunnaki head for? IT TURNED OUT THEY DID RETURN TO NIBIRU STRAIGHTAWAY. Some still stayed on Earth, but kept out of public view, preferring a shadowy, mystical presence. Even those who left Earth did not do so immediately: they lingered around for a while behind the scenes before they left for good. Some of those who left made periodical returns to Earth before they ceased to do so altogether.
It seemed they made the planet Mars their provisional base and it was there they from time to time came to check on happenings on Earth before they eventually proceeded to Nibiru. Nannar-Sin for one set up base in South America, where he lived for about 50 to 60 years. Of the Anunnaki pantheon, those who left there and then were Enlil, Enki, Ninurta, Ishkur-Adad, Inanna-Ishtar, and Nergal. Marduk and his son and heir Nabu stayed, and so did Sin and his heir Utu-Shamash. Seemingly, each faction of the Anunnaki ensured that they were represented by one major god, Marduk on the part of the Enkites, and Sin on the part of the Enlilites.
Upon leaving Harran, Sin first settled in the broader Sinai region (before he proceeded to South America), on the shores of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Eilat. He lived there with his spouse Ningal and his principal aide Nusku. The Ugarit texts describe Sin at this stage as a “retired god” who resided “near the clefts of two seas”. You will now come to understand why the Sinai Peninsula is named after him and why Nakhal, the ancient capital of the entire Sinai Province, is named after his wife Ningal.
That Marduk and Sin were the main gods calling the shots as the astrological Age of Aries wound down is evidenced by Nabunaid, the last King of the Neo-Babylonian Empire who reigned from 555 to 539 BC, having been chosen by Sin at his cult centre of Harran (in a deal between Adda-Guppi and Sin whereby the former promised to restore the Ehulhul, Sin’s destroyed temple in Harran, renew the worship of Sin and Ningal, and declare Sin monotheism as a state religion) needing the consent of Marduk as well as the celestial confirmation by Nibiru, which was known as Marduk to the Babylonians (Nabunaid, a throne name, derived from Marduk’s heir Nabu).
Once Nabunaid had been enthroned and the Ehulhul Temple was rebuilt (this was some time post 555 BC, about 60 years since Sin was last seen in public), Sin made a sudden and dramatic return to the public domain when accompanied by Ningal and Nusku he arrived to commission the temple.
“Sin, lord of gods and goddesses, residing in the heavens, has come down from the heavens — in full view of Nabunaid, King of Babylon,” Adda-Guppi, who had been under the impression Sin had returned to Nibiru when he had simply retreated to South America, inscribed on a stela. From that point on, Sin was never heard of. Where did he go? WELL, HE RETURNED TO NIBIRU, WHERE A SPECIAL TREAT AWAITED HIM AND WHICH TOOK HIM BY SURPRISE. But more on that in a forthcoming article.
NABUNAID PLANTS SEED OF ISLAM
Nabunaid and his high priestess mother Adda-Guppi had undertaken to make Sin the pre-eminent god on the planet. This they did their utmost to make a reality of. Sadly, it was at the expense of the equally influential Babylonian god Marduk and that got Nabunaid in real hot water. Nabunaid devoted his energies to the resuscitation of Ur, Sin’s Sumerian time cult centre, to the absolute neglect and marginalisation of Babylon.
A raft of accusations against him by the Babylonian populace included civil matters (“law and order are not promulgated by him”), neglect of the economy (“the farmers are corrupted,” “the traders’ roads are blocked”), lack of public safety (“nobles are killed”), and religious sacrilege, which was the most heinous of all his sins.
In a bid to diminish the stature of Marduk as a god, Nabunaid ordered that the Akitu festival, during which the near-death, resurrection, exile, and final triumph of Marduk were reenacted, not be celebrated any more. In furtherance of the same antagonistic stand against Marduk, Nabunaid committed what would become known as the “desolation sacrilege”. He had an idolatrous image, which was flanked by two “guardians” in the form of a “Deluge demon” and a “Wild Bull”, placed in the Esagil, Marduk’s temple, all in the name of his god sin.
Says a tablet known as Nabunaid and the Clergy of Babylon and which can be found in the British Museum: “He made an image of a god which nobody had seen before in the land. He placed it in the temple, raised it upon a pedestal. He called it by the name of Nannar. With lapis lazuli he adorned it, crowned it with a tiara in the shape of an eclipsed moon, made for its hand the gesture of a demon.”
The Babylonian clergy were not amused. They demanded that Nabunaid step down as King and since they had quite a sway on the national populace, Nabunaid simply had to play ball. But he struck up a compromise deal with them, whereby he would go into exile for at least ten years, leaving his son Belshazzar as regent.
The place Nabunaid chose for his self-imposed banishment was Taima, a caravan centre in now northwestern Saudi Arabia. Among his entourage were the Jews, who had been part of the Jewish population who had been deported to Babylon in the days of Nebuchadnezzar. Nabunaid in due course established six other settlements for his followers. A thousand years later, five of these towns were listed as Jewish towns. One of these towns was the famous Medina, where Muhammad founded Islam. Medina did not begin as an Arab settlement folks: it was originally a Jewish settlement.
In Nabunaid’s new fiefdom, only one god was worshipped as “God Most High”. This was Nannar-Sin. He was referred to as El, a term that would later morph into Allah, Islam’s god. Sin was known as the “Moon God” as traditionally the moon had been his celestial counterpart. To this day, if you visit any mosque, you will see moon crescent symbology occupying pride of place. Every mosque is flanked by minarets imitative of multistage rockets ready to be launched.
None of the worshippers pause to wonder as to why a worship centre should be punctuated by rocket and moon imagery. But even if they were to pose questions to that effect, no one would be candid enough to tell them that the moon imagery represents Nannar-Sin and the rocket imagery is evocative of Sin’s heir Utu-Shamash, who was the god of the shems, as rockets were called in Sumerian. “My Father and I are one” Jesus said. So are Sin and Shamash as encapsulated in the mosque-setting imagery.
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’!