It all began in Orion on a planet of the Suriya star
If we depose that Princes Diana was a direct descendent of Jesus of Nazareth, it necessitates, General Atiku, that we posit a well-buttressed argument that she indeed was such. This, General, is not a profession that can be exhaustively elucidated upon in only one or two articles: maybe three, four, five, six, or even more. As such, I accordingly seek your permission, venerable General, that I do likewise.
I am mindful that you may find this elaborate approach a shade overdone and even somewhat pedantic, but I’ll trust to your patience and forbearance anyway. After all, patience is the companion of wisdom and you General constitute a remarkable repository of enormous reserves of both these traits. Not too long ago, General, relatively speaking, I served up a series titled The Jesus Papers. I would like to believe, General, that you followed it avidly and fervidly. Much of what I will say in relation to the “divinity” of Diana if you will, General, I did enunciate in The Jesus Papers, and to a larger extent in The Earth Chronicles.
If I am obliged to restate the same in the Lady Die context, General, it is only for the sake of that segment of the readership who came aboard the This Earth My Brother bandwagon much later and therefore missed out on the gem that was The Jesus Papers and the inceptual section of The Earth Chronicles narrative. Certainly General, I wouldn’t want them to find themselves in a position where they make neither head nor tail of the tale that is being woven before them.
HOLY GRAIL BEGINS WITH ORION
As a keen and voracious all-round reader General, I’m sure you will have come across the concept of the Holy Grail elsewhere other than my own writings. In the wider public domain, it first surfaced in a 1982 best-seller, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (sub-titled The Secret History of Christ and the Shocking Legacy of the Grail) by the trio of Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent, and Richard Leigh.
There were further cherries on the cake by another prolific mystery historian Laurence Gardner. These were Bloodline of The Holy Grail (sub-titled The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed), 1989; Genesis of the Grail Kings (sub-titled The Explosive Story of Genetic Cloning and the Ancient Bloodline of Jesus), 1999; and The Magdalene Legacy (sub-titled The Jesus and Mary Bloodline Conspiracy), 2005.
Barbara Theiring’s Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls (sub-titled Unlocking the Secrets of His Life Story), 1992, was further food for thought about who exactly the “Saviour” or “Messiah” was. But it was The Davinci Code, a 2003, blockbuster, fact-based fictional work that mainstreamed the subject of the Holy Grail into daily parlance, General. Never before, General, had Jesus’ mortality, as opposed to his divinity, so riveted the attention of a globalwide audience.
All the above works in varying degrees of depth traced the origins of the Holy Grail to either the Anunnaki (Gardner) or Jesus (Theiring and Lincoln & Co). But years before Lincoln & Co put pen to paper, General, Robert Morning Sky had gone much further: in his pocket-sized book titled Eden, Atlantis, and the UFO Myth, he traced the genesis of the Holy Grail to the Orion star system. How so General? And what anyway is this animal called the Holy Grail?
EARTH, A COLONY OF ORION
Over the course of time, the Holy Grail, General, has assumed any number of forms depending on who’s telling the story and the juncture in history he or she is specifically highlighting. In the main, it has been characterised as a cup, bow, dish, chalice, goblet, platter, or a stone invested with miraculous powers to heal all wounds, deliver eternal youth, and grant everlasting happiness. But all these, General, are little more than emblems of the real deal. For the fact of the matter, General, is that the Holy Grail is a genetic strain that goes all the way back to the Orion Queen, who resides in a cosmic location ranging from 243 to 1360 light years away.
Permit me at this juncture, General, to restate a cardinal point I adduced in The Earth Chronicles – that our planet Earth is not independent: it is a colony, de jure or de facto, of the Sirian-Orion star system. Earth is actually situated on the fringes of the broader Sirian-Orion Empire, the most expansive in the Milky Way Galaxy. The history of Earth, General, begins not here but in the Sirian-Orion star system and even further back in the Lyran star system as we amply demonstrated in The Earth Chronicles.
The term Orion derives from the ancient compound word Ori-An. Ori meant “Spirit”, that is, the Spirit of the Queen of Orion; “Holy”; or “Master Race”; and An stood for “Heaven”, that is, the cosmos. Thus Orion was the abode of the Holy Goddess. To the ancients, therefore, Heaven was not a spiritual realm of existence where First Source dwells, the way it is understood in modern-day religion: it was the home of the Mother Goddess primarily. The Mother Goddess was not a spiritual being: she was the Queen of Orion.
In the worlds the beings of Orion conquered, they were referred to as the Alla-An, Arra-An, Ari-An, or Aya-An (varying but related renditions of one of the Orion Queen’s multiple titles). All these forms of address meant “The Holy Ones of Heaven” or “The Divine of Heaven”. It is Ari-An/Alla-An which gives us the words Aryan and Alien, terms ancient Earthlings used for beings from the Orion star system primarily and all ETs in general. The Sumerians, the world’s best-known known civilisation of old, called it Uru-Anna, meaning “Crown of Heaven”.
Orion, General, is the most significant constellation both astronomically and historically with respect to Earth. Orion has had the most impact and influence on Earth exopolitically as ancient records attest. Only Sirius is second in this regard. Orion is one of the largest constellations in the cosmic expanse. It has more than 300 stars. Its brightest stars are Rigel and Betelguese, whose civilisations have featured prominently in Earth’s cosmic history. The other significant stars are Mintaka, Alnilam, and Alnitak. These constitute what is known as Orion’s Belt. It is Mintaka, General, to which the shaft of the Giza Pyramid’s Queen’s Chamber is astronomically aligned.
If you do read the Bible at least from time to time, you will be aware, General, that Orion is directly mentioned in the Bible three times – in JOB 9:9 (“He [God] is the maker of the Bear and Orion”), JOB 38:31 (“Can you loosen Orion`s belt?”), and AMOS 5:8 (“He [God] who made the Pleiades and Orion”). In the gospels, the three stars on Orion’s Belt have been allegorised as the Three Wise Men who presented special gifts to baby Jesus. Ancients called the Orion Belt stars as the Three Kings.
The symbology in the Jesus story of the Star from the East (Sirius) and the Three Wise Men (the three stars studding Orion’s belt) is a veiled message that Jesus had both Sirius and Orion origins. But he was not unique in that way, General: we all have genes of beings from Sirius and Orion.
A SPECIES KNOWN AS KHEBS
The first planet to develop life by way of evolution in the Orion star system General has at times been referred to as the Green World because green is the colour that is generally associated with Reptoids inasmuch as the baseline colour of the worker class of the Reptoid world, the mainstream class, is green. The insect genotype that was the first to dominate its species on the Green World looked like a dragonfly. It also had traits and characteristics of a bee. If it arose on Earth, we would call it a dragonfly-bee. In the ancient records, however, it is referred to as a Kheb.
The Khebs laid their eggs in the ponds. The newly-born Khebs looked like microscopic scorpions, with tiny stingers on their tails and tiny pincer claws on their forelegs. The moment they were born, General, the Khebs went to war – with each other. They fought for territory straight from birth and they killed straight from birth – very much in keeping with Reptilian humanoids we’re familiar with here on our planet.
In time, the Khebs left the watery ambience to dwell on dry land but up in the trees. Here, another transformation took place. The Khebs no longer looked like a dragonfly-bee but like a mantis. By then, their outer skins had hardened into a tough shell. How did the Khebs reproduce, General? For ages, they produced asexually, that is, without the involvement of a male Kheb. This was not by choice: the male species had not appeared at this stage. Evolution is such that female creatures appear first. Male creatures follow at a later stage. These are millions of years we’re talking about General.
KHEB INSECTS BECOME REPTILES
At long last, General, a genetic mutation in the Kheb females caused Kheb males to come into existence. The Kheb species was now able to reproduce sexually. In other words, the Khebs were capable of producing either sexually or asexually depending on their preference or environmental factors such as climate for instance. Remember, General, the Khebs had part-characteristics of bees and bees even in our day produce either way, sexually or asexually. When the eggs are fertilised by male seed (sexual reproduction), they will always produce a female.
When they are not fertilised by male seed (asexual reproduction), they will always produce a male. This is what was happening to the Khebs as well. However, for the Kheb females to produce sexually, General, it necessitated a certain transformation in their internal organs. This change was necessary to permit conception. Before the advent of male Khebs, female Khebs routinely survived on the nectar of plants or the flesh of other insect species. Now they needed to feed on the blood of other creatures. The female Khebs had become vampires, like what malevolent Reptoids (humanoids [beings who look like us] who evolved from a reptile) are today.
As time went by, in billions of years, the Khebs, General, became large, flying reptiles. At this stage, the male Khebs had “bony plates all over their bodies and arms and legs, much like the dinosaurs of Earth in the long ago prehistoric eras. They had a ridge of short plates with semi-sharp edges, that began near their forehead, trailed back and over their skull and down their backs, gradually tapering down on their short slender tail” (like a Tokoloshe, or sprite in English.). All the while, the Khebs retained the ability to fly.
At some stage, the Kheb reptiles began to branch into several related species. Some specialised as lizards, others as dinosaurs and still others as snakes. It was the latter species, the snake strain, that proliferated on the Green World, General. Even among the snake species, there were branches. Here on Earth, we have more than 3000 snake species. The Green world must have had a similar number of serpent strains too.
KHEB REPTILES BECOME HUMANOIDS
In the course of evolution, General, genetic instructions were such that the Kheb males were physically smaller than the Kheb females. This indeed is true of the overwhelming majority of reptiles: females are typically larger than males. It is only among mammals and birds that males are predominantly larger than females. But there was one major development with the Kheb females on the Green World that was particularly significant, General. A glitch in their physiology rendered them poisonous.
Relates Robert Morning Sky: “Something happened to the female Khebs that did not happen to the males. The changes in their bodies that produced the hormones necessary for the production of offspring also produced a fluid that was acidic and highly poisonous to other creatures! The Kheb Reptilian females could protect themselves and their nests by spitting natural venom into the eyes and faces of their victims. A stream of hot acidic fluid that struck the face of an enemy could cause nerve-numbing paralysis or blindness.
If there was an open wound or the venom entered the gullet of the victim, death was almost always certain. And woe be to any enemy that felt the fangs of the female Kheb.” The Kheb females were resultantly much more feared than the Kheb males, General. In time, General, the Khebs became the most dominant life form on the Green World. It were the Khebs who became the first humanoid species to evolve on the Green World.
And just as we Earthlings have lost much of the features and traits of the animal from which we evolved, an ape-like creature, the Khebs also lost a great deal of the very distinct Reptilian and insect features of their ancestors. They no longer had scales, for example, and could no longer fly. But unlike us, they were smooth through and through: they didn’t have a single strand of hair on their bodies because they evolved from a hairless insect strain which metamorphosed into a hairless serpentine creature (it explains, General, why Enki, the great Anunnaki scientist who genetically engineered mankind into existence from Anunnaki and Ape Man genes [see The Earth Chronicles series] and whose primordial ancestry was Kheb, is always bald-headed and without a beard in every ancient depiction of him that take the form of a statue).
In terms of skin texture, the Kheb race were very much like the Ebens of planet Serpo, who also evolved from a serpentine creature (see Zeta Series). These first Reptoids to emerge on the Green World, General, were known as the Surbah. Surbah is a compound word, with Sur standing for “majestic” and Bah meaning “being”. Surbah therefore meant “Royal Race”. It is the term Surbah which gives us the Sanskrit word sarpha; the Latin word serpens; and the English word serpent.
The serpent race, General, was the first to arise, by way of evolution, in the 9th Passageway of the Milky Way Galaxy, arguably the most lucrative trade route in the cosmos. Let me underline this most pertinent of points General: originally, the term serpent did not mean snake at all. It had a very noble meaning – “Majestic Race”. The snake connotation arose as a slur on that race by the Sirians, the beings of the Sirius star system, just because the Surbah evolved from a snake-like creature. In sum, General, the Surbah evolved from a dragon-fly bee insect to a mantis to a large flying reptile to a snake-like creature to a humanoid.
THE SURIYA STAR
The Surbah, as the first fully sentient beings to evolve on the Green World, were very spiritual General. This is the trend with evolution everywhere in this universe. Why is it like this? Because the first souls to incarnate did so cloaked in predominantly female energy although as spirits they are genderless. That’s why all life begins with females everywhere in the universe. We all know that females are comparatively tender-hearted than males (albeit more gullible than males because they generally think with their emotions than intellect).
They are in fact more spiritual, more affectionate, and way kinder than males. Females are also known to have a facility for communicating with the spirit world. It explains, General, why most psychics are women and the shamans of old were initially women. In the primordial age of the Surbah, life in this counterfeit universe (which was designed by Lucifer) was very much akin to that of the real Heaven, General. It was a kind of Paradise. The ancients referred to this age as the Dar-Ek-Uye, meaning the “Primeval Holy Age of the Universe”.
Sadly, the historical particulars of this age are not fully chronicled by cosmic historians; only its general tenor and tempo. The relevant history that cascaded down to our Solar System begins in the Omakh, the “Age of the Divine Mother”. This was the Age of the Orion Queen. It was the age of Ari-An beings, as the ancients referred to the Orion civilisation. Now, the ancients, General, did not refer to the Orion constellation as such.
They called it the Shagari Stars, meaning “Fires That Drift” (shagari being a compound word made up of asa [fiery] + gar [to drift or fly]). Of course we know that stars, also called suns, are fiery at least theoretically and are not stationary: they too drift in their own orbits carrying along their planets with them, just as planets drift in their own orbits carrying along their satellites (moons) with them.
The Shagari cosmic region had numerous stars. From the viewpoint of our planet, astronomers today designate at least 300 as the constellation’s “notable” stars, that is, those that can be detected from this distance by virtue of their more pronounced degree of luminosity. However, only ten of the Shagari Stars had planets, and of these ten only seven were the most consequential.
One of the seven most important stars was known as the Suriya star, meaning “Star of the Divine One” (Suriya being a compound word made up of sur [majestic] + Aya [divine or holy]). In the Omakh age, the “Divine One” was the Orion (Shagari) Queen. It was on one of the planets of the Suriya star, in the Shagari star system and in the Peshmeten – the 9th Passage Way of the Milky Way Galaxy – that the Serpent race arose, first as the holy Surbah, and over time as the degenerate Ari-An beings, General.
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’!