Since Adapa, GeneralÂ Â Atiku, was an Enkite, the Enlilites wanted a genetic stake in the emerging bloodline. The two clans therefore held a meeting to decide on this critical matter. What the Enlilites proposed was that Adapa must marry an Enlilite to even the scores. This was a moot point as Enki had already chosen a spouse for Adapa.
This was Titi, Enkiâ€™s daughter with the other Earthling woman. Enki wanted the bloodline to be unilaterally Enkite but the Enlilites were adamant that an Enlilite had to factor into the equation given Enkiâ€™s standing as the principal son of the Orion Queen, the Milky Way Galaxyâ€™s most pre-eminent personage. When a neutral Ninmah was asked to break the ice, she suggested that in order to content either party, Adapa should marry two women: Titi and another woman who had Enlilite blood in her even if that would entail relaxing the cosmic clause that forbade cross-racial marriages. Albeit, Titi would be the junior wife whereas this other woman would be the senior spouse.
Following a very heated debate which involved the input of Adapa himself, it was a deal: Adapa, General,Â was to take a woman with Enlilite blood as his senior wife. And the woman chosen in this regard was Lilitu. Lilitu was related to both Enki and Enlil: she was the daughter ofÂ Nergal, Enkiâ€™s son, and his wife Ereshkigal, Enlilâ€™s granddaughter. Initially, Lilitu was not happy. Being a full Anunnaki and therefore a â€œgoddessâ€, she thought Adapa, a half-human, half-Anunnaki, or â€œdemigodâ€, was beneath her notwithstanding his incandescent virtues and qualities. She made it clear that the man she would have loved to marry was Enki himself, who she had always admired since childhood. However, she was finally prevailed upon and reluctantly agreed to be Adapaâ€™s main spouse.
Since Lilitu was geneologically senior to Titi-Eve, the book of Genesisâ€™s other Eve, it meant the heir to Adapa would come from her as per the Anunnaki monarchical merit, which ran through the female line as opposed to the male line. Such a scenario, General,Â proved to be a perpetual nightmare to Titi-Eve, who would have loved her own son with Adapa to be the heir. Now, whereas Adapaâ€™s marital relationship to Titi-Eve was a joyous one, that with Lilitu was hell. Lilitu was wayward and insubordinate as a wife. Not only did she defy Adapa at will but was reluctant to give him a heir. In the Adapa household, the workers were in dread of her. She was always screaming and swearing at them, calling them all sorts of demeaning names. This mean streak in her largely stemmed from Enlilite genes than the typically beneficent Enkite genes. The â€œwicked queenâ€ Jezebel pales in comparison with Lilitu.
ENKI IMPREGNATES DAUGHTER-IN-LAW
Although Titi-Eve was aware that being a second-fiddle wife her son would never inherit, she wasnâ€™t resigned to such a fate, which was forcefully decreed on her. She was determined to upend it by foul or crook. She was sworn that her son must be heir come what may. But exactly how was that to be attained, General? Having pondered the matter over, Titi-Eve and her Earthling mother came up with a most ingenious strategy. This strategy revolved around her own father/father-in-law Enki. Titi-Eve reckoned that if she were to sleep with Enki and produce a son, that son would take precedence over Lilituâ€™s in the succession stakes if Lilitu happened to bear girls only or if she stood by her volition not to give Adapa a child at all.
Titi-Eve was a stunning beauty and Enki was hopelessly weak where women were concerned. It therefore goes without saying that sexual relations between the two were a natural. It did not take long for Titi-Eve to become pregnant. The pregnancy was an interesting one. Titi-Eve gave birth to two boys who were fraternal and not identical twins. Furthermore, the twins had distinctly different skin tones and other features. The boy who arrived first was much lighter than the second one. Naturally, Adapa, who was no dupe, knew something was amiss. He asked Zidda, Enkiâ€™s genius son, to conduct a DNA test on the two boys.
Zidda, General,Â found that whereas the younger one was Adapaâ€™s son, the older one was not. Adapa straight-off confronted his wife and she was quick to own up: the older son was Enkiâ€™s. What had happened was that when Titi-Eve ovulated, she produced two eggs. During the three days the eggs were in her tubes, she slept with both Adapa and Enki in succession. The two eggs were therefore fertilised by two sperm cells coming from two different men, something that happens only once in a million times. Titi-Eveâ€™s plea to her husband was that she did so for purely political reasons: she wanted a son who would inherit after him all other things being equal. Since Adapa had the tender virtues of his father Enki, he did not begrudge his wife but simply made bygones be bygones.
CAIN WAS ENKIâ€™S SON; ABEL ADAPAâ€™S
As per the culture of the day, General, it was Titi-Eve who reserved the right to name the kids. The older twin she named Ka-En, meaning â€œOne begotten of the Lordâ€. This is the biblical Cain. He was so named because his biological father was Lord Enki. The Bible itself actually attests to that. GENESIS 4:1 as properly translated in the King James corpus quotes Eve as exclaiming of baby Cain that, â€œI have gotten a man from the Lordâ€, that is, she had given birth to a son fathered by Enki. The Midrash, a Jewish traditional commentary on the Bible, also emphasises the point that Cain was the son of Enki and not Adapa/Adam.
The younger son Titi-Eve named as Aba-El, meaning, â€œHe whose father is of the Lordâ€. This is the biblical Abel. Why was he so named? Well, the person who was â€œof the Lordâ€ in this regard was Adapa. Remember, Adapa did have Anunnaki blood in him as he was the son of Enki but he was not Anunnaki himself. Although the term â€œElâ€ (â€œIluâ€ in Sumerian) referred to the Anunnaki pantheon as a whole, in the context of Abel it referred to Enki. Enkiâ€™s other epithet was Sama-El, meaning â€œLord of Sumerâ€, that is, Sumeria, or Eridu in particular. Thus paraphrased, the name Abel meant â€œa son of the son of Enkiâ€. The name Abel was thus a tribute to Adapa, who was the son of Enki. This indeed was fitting as Adapa was Abelâ€™s father.
In Genesis, Cain and Abel are presented as brothers. In the Sumerian chronicles, the source material for much of the Genesis story, they are set down as twins. Why did the Genesis writers choose to mis-characterise the relationship between the two siblings? Venturing a definitive answer to such a question is not easy as the whole gimmick is actually absurd considering that Abel, who was killed by his brother, did not have to be politically dissociated from the â€œwickedâ€ Cain. He had no heirs who had to keep a wide berth from the taint of Cain.
What is apparent, nonetheless, is that the Genesis writers were not comfortable with associating Jewish posterity with Cain. And this had nothing to do with the fratricide against Abel. It all had to do, General, with the fact that Cain was an Enkite, the son of Enki, who was branded and vilified as the evil Serpent by the Enlilites. On the other hand, the Genesis writers, the Levites, were Jewish, Enlilâ€™s chosen people. As such, any relationship with the infamous Enkite Cain had to be avoided like the plague. You cannot be Enlilâ€™s people and openly admit your roots are in fact predominantly Enkite.
Yet however hard the Jews tried to steer clear of the â€œstainâ€ of Cain, General, they just could not cleanly dodge the connection. They were stuck with him come rain or shine. Why? Because Cain did succeed to Adapaâ€™s throne as a true-blue bloodline. He was a leading light of the Holy Grail, the dynastic ruling line that here on Earth stretched all the way from Adapa to Jesus Christ and well beyond. So to have totally sidestepped him would have rendered all the Jewish kings who followed after him, including David and Solomon, counterfeit.
Note, General,Â that although Genesis does highlight the killing of Abel by his brother Cain, it does not demonise or blacklist him as such. The only people who do so are the prejudiced pulpit men. The fact of the matter is that Genesis actually exalts Cain even after the murder of his brother. The notion that Cain was cursed by â€œGodâ€ and bore the brunt of that curse forever is purely a figment of the pulpit menâ€™s laughable imagination. It belongs to the refuse bin, to put it mildly.
THE FARMER VS. THE PASTORALIST
It was decided by the Anunnaki, General, that Cain was to specialise in arable farming, whereas Abel was to specialise in pastoral agricultural. On what basis, General,Â was the specialisation decided? Why was Cain allotted farming and Abel shepherding? The Bible is silent on this, as if it was an arbitrary decision, but the more ancient records do intimate a raison dâ€™Ãªtre. In Anunnaki modus vivendi, everything had to be symbolically apt. It had to sync energetically, if you know what I mean General. When you were a â€œtiller of the land,â€ like Cain was, it meant you had dominion over that land. As the heir to Adapa, Cain was Earthâ€™s King-in-waiting. Thus he had dominion over Earth.
Thatâ€™s the reason he was allotted a responsibility that dovetailed with land ownership. It explains why according to Sumerian records, Cainâ€™s role was not restricted to farming. He also had responsibility over laying down and maintaining infrastructure. It was Cain who built dams, roads, and canals. Whereas Cain was to set up his grain and horticultural farm around the Eridu within the broader Edin (Eden in the Bible), Abelâ€™s animal domestication activities were to be conducted at the foot of the Cedar Mountains in todayâ€™s Lebanon.
There, at the mountain summit, Ninurta, Enlil-Jehovahâ€™s firstborn son,Â had set up for him a â€œCreation Chamberâ€ along the lines of Enkiâ€™s Bit Shimti facility in East Africa. Also called the â€œHouse of Fashioningâ€, the Creation Chamber was used to genetically engineer for-meat animals such as sheep, goats, and cattle as well as to improve strains over time through periodic genetic tinkering. A few years later, the two had settled into their occupational rhythms and were ready to present the first fruits of their labour to Enlil, Earthâ€™s Chief Executive. It seemed Abel the shepherd had worked harder than his older brother the ploughman. Consequently, Abel met his production target and Cain fell considerably short.
Abel was therefore highly extolled by Enlil whereas Cain, though commended too for his efforts, was censured and told in no uncertain terms that he had to produce more grain to meet his production quota. A highly combustible man, Cain was wroth. And not only that: he was rancorous. He had a lump in his throat. For to him, it was not simply about being out-produced by his younger brother. Over and above that, General,Â it was about the threat Abel now posed to Cainâ€™sÂ prospects for inheriting after Adapa, a fact even savants of ancient history seem wholly ignorant of.
THE TWINS GIVEN SPECIALISED ROLES
In Genesis, General, weâ€™re told that Cain moved to kill his brother out of sheer jealous, that he was envious that God had embraced Abelâ€™s offering whereas his had been rejected. The Sumerian records on the other hand say Cainâ€™s offering was accepted too though frowned upon. And it was not only envy that drove Cain to get rid of his brother, it turns out: dynastic politics were central to the whole intrigue, General.
At the time, Lilitu, Adapaâ€™s highly conceited, seniormost Anunnaki wife, had left him, preferring instead to be a mistress of his father Enki. Enki, who had an Achilles penis, had eagerly obliged and had produced two children with her. They were Luluwa, also known as Awah, and Alimath, both of whom daughters. Although the two girls were genetically senior to Cain, they were female and so they posed no obstacle to Cain as heir to Adapaâ€™s throne. That left Abel as the only contender.
Now, although the two brothersâ€™ main theatres of operation were miles apart, General, they had small holdings somewhere in the Edin which adjoined each other. Cainâ€™s was a beautiful meadow bristling with green pastures and Abelâ€™s was a hay-stacked area within which flocks roamed about. One day when both Cain and Abel were at Edin, Cain received a report from his workers that Abelâ€™s men were trespassing on his pastures as they drove the flocks to the canals. Cain decided this was the time to pounce.
He made a beeline for Abelâ€™s fields and angrily confronted him for the highly provocative encroachment, demanding that he withdraw his flocks forthwith. A slanging match ensued, with each making a case for the instrumentality of his role in catering to the needs of the Anunnaki. â€œI am the one who abundance brings, who the Anunnaki satiates, who gives strength to the heroes, who wool for their clothing provides!â€ Abel boasted. Cain shot back thus: â€œIt is I who the plains luxuriates, who furrows with grains makes heavy, in whose fields birds multiply, in whose canals fish become abundant: sustaining bread by me is produced, with fish and fowl the Anunnaki’s diet I variate!â€
As they altercated, a fist fight ensued and picking up a stone, Cain bashed his brother hard on the head and Abel fell limply to the ground. His workers immediately gathered around him and frantically tried mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Meanwhile, a message was radioed to the Shuruppak health facility and a chopper was on its way over to airlift a comatose Abel. Zidda was also sent for so that he could possibly do his â€œmedical magicâ€ in case all efforts at restoring Abelâ€™s life proved futile. Sadly, Abel had suffered substantial and irreparable brain damage and there was nothing that could be done to bring him back to life.
CAIN SLAPPED AN EXILE SENTENCE
Due process of law was followed,Â General, and Cain was brought before the Anunnaki tribunal to face trial.Â The judgement panel sat at Sippar, Utu-Shamashâ€™s cult city. It was a seven-man bench, namely Enlil, his wife Ninlil, Ninurta, and Nannar-Sin of Enlilâ€™s Lineage; Ninmah; and Enki, his wife Damkina, and Marduk from the Enkite clan. After deliberations that went on for days, judgement was passed. First, a curse was pronounced on Cain by Enlil in his capacity as Earthâ€™s Chief Executive for spilling the blood of his sibling. The sentence was banishment from the Edin. Cain was to go into exile and only be eligible to return after seven generations counting from Adapa.
The number seven here is significant, General. First and foremost, it was both the number of planet Earth counting from Pluto and therefore the number of Enlil himself as head of the planet. Secondarily, it alluded to the number of people who presided over Cainâ€™s case. When Cain was given a chance to comment on his sentence as per the juridical procedure, he bemoaned the harshness of the punishment. He wondered aloud to the panel thus: what if during his wanderings somebody who wanted to avenge Abelâ€™s death stalked him and struck him dead? Furthermore, did his banishment to the ends of the Earth mean he had also lost the right to inherit after Adapa?
The first concern was addressed by Enlil. Enlil told him he need not worry as anybody who would so much as lay a finger on him during his peregrinations would receive seven times the punishment Cain had received. That effectively amounted to capital punishment. The second question was addressed by Enki. Enki told his son that the right of succession did not have to be warranted: it was a right of primogeniture. One was born with it. Therefore, Cain would remain heir to Adapa for as long as he, Cain, was alive. In the event that Adapa passed on, Cainâ€™s son would ascend to the throne. In order to make it plain to everybody who encountered Cain anywhere that he was a King-in-waiting, Enki rose from his judgement seat and made his way into Cainâ€™s dock. Then he made a declaration in relation to what would later become known as the Mark of Cain. Exactly what was this, 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’!