Slave Species of god

by Michael Tellinger

  The world is filled with incredible mysteries from distant prehistoric times when man was supposed to be a wandering nomad, living in caves and struggling to survive. Then suddenly after the Great Flood of around 11,000 BC, he emerged from the caves with instant knowledge of many things, praying to a number of ever-present gods who seemed to be active all over the world. There are hundreds more examples of other civilisations in Africa, Asia, Japan, Australia and other islands scattered around the world, which also miraculously received great knowledge from some mysterious place sometime shortly after the Great Flood.

  What we need to establish is the realistic probability that all this knowledge just suddenly came to primitive humans without some sort of assistance from a more advanced power. The ancient scripts of the Sumerians provide us with thousands of snippets of ‘tough-to-argue-against’ evidence that such intervention actually occurred. All we have to do is remove it from the realms of ‘mythology’ where it has been positioned by ignorant historians, and accept that those were times that we cannot possibly comprehend today. We can hardly understand how a man like Hitler could marshal up so much support to take on the whole world in our own lifetime and exterminate millions of people. If it was not for the visual evidence, and if we had to rely on oral tales of the events from only 65 years ago, we would find it hard to believe. Mind you, there are people who still do not want to believe the whole Second World War saga with its extermination of the Jews, even in the face of all the evidence we have. It is therefore not surprising that we find it difficult to accept written evidence from thousands of years ago, which meticulously outlines the steps of Humankind on Earth.

  One of the most compelling examples of interaction between gods and humans is the story of Egypt. Archaeologists, historians and other scholars have speculated for the past 200 years as to the origins of the great knowledge of the Egyptians. The truth is that their entire culture stems directly from the Sumerians with all their major gods, and they inherited virtually everything from the Sumerians, except their writing. We learn from the tablets that the Anunnaki divided the world into a number of regions and appointed various family members to take care of their own regions, with explicit instructions to teach the ‘earthlings’ the art of civilisation. In a strange twist of fate they needed the earthling's help after the flood, to make the Earth habitable again. Anu instructed them to “rebuild the cities where they stood before” the flood. They were to appoint kings and priests to each city through which they would communicate their instructions to the people. They taught them to make bricks, to build extravagant buildings, how to calculate, introduced wheeled chariots, laid down laws and a judicial system and much more.

  Nowhere was the interaction between gods and kings as pronounced as in ancient Egypt. The firstborn son of Enki was Marduk. He was appointed as the god of Egypt, where he was worshipped as ‘Ra - The Bright One’ and later ‘Amun -The Invisible or Absent’ god. Enki was known as ‘Ptah -The Developer’ and Ningishzidda was worshipped as ‘Tehuti -The Divine Measurer’. But Marduk was rebellious from the word go and started to introduce a whole new way of doing things. He introduced a count of 10 instead of 60, he divided the year into 12 months, and had temples built everywhere in his honour. He orchestrated the building of a great temple for Anu and Enki, and he was instrumental in dictating the Book of the Dead to instruct Pharaohs and Kings on what to do if they wanted to be taken up to ‘heaven’ by him after death. It explained how to reach the ‘Duat’ or ‘Place of Celestial Boats’. Although Marduk proclaimed his supremacy over all other gods, causing much unhappiness among the other Anunnaki, he was not endowed with knowledge of eternal life by his father Enki. “Then all manner of knowledge, except that of dead reviving to Ra he gave” - is said about Enki in the tablets. But Marduk (Ra) constantly made those claims to the Pharaohs and priests of Egypt, laying down a strict set of rules and rituals they had to perform to reach the eternal afterlife in the heavens. What he was referring to was life on planet Nibiru. Another compelling entry by Marduk in The Book of Enki, which outlines his deception of the Pharaohs was: “Let the kings of my region of Neteru offspring be, to Nibiru in an afterlife journey.” Neteru was the name used for the Anunnaki observers who were supposed to keep an eye on the region. Marduk/Ra decreed that the kings appointed to rule over Egypt had to be offspring from Anunnaki and Earthlings, to make them superior to mere Earthlings. Once again this explains why so many of the Pharaohs believed that they were actually gods themselves. But it was that kind of relationship between gods and mortals, and the power of ‘eternal life’ being usurped by Marduk, and his encouragement of the kings to obey him and follow him into the afterlife, which led to the many murals in Egyptian tombs depicting dramatic scenes of their journey to the land of eternal life. These depictions have amazed historians for centuries while searching for the real meaning behind them. Travelling in a ‘Boat of Heaven’ across the skies to eternal life and immortality. Over and over, historians have tried to explain these images as dramatised depictions of the Egyptian religion. But it was much more real than that. It now becomes very clear where the Egyptians got those ideas from. It was a cunning manipulative Anunnaki god, who was promised the command of the planet, now demanding his rightful place on the ladder of importance among the gods from Nibiru.

  PYRAMIDS OF GIZA

  From left to right: Menkaure, Khafre and Khufu or Great Pyramid. Notice the two smaller queen’s pyramids in the foreground. The Great Pyramid is the only one remaining wonder of the ancient Seven Wonders of the World.

  The pyramids of Giza have perplexed historians and archaeologists alike, making all kinds of pronouncements about the origins of the pyramids. The popular opinion is that the great pyramid was built by King Khufu (Cheops) of the 4thDynasty, during his reign some 2,589 years BC. This has been contradicted by many scholars over the years, who claim that Khufu was merely a ‘user’ of the pyramid, that the pyramids of Giza already existed by the time he took the throne. Any inscriptions that may have been found in or on the pyramid were made long after it was completed. There are so many inconsistencies in the story of the building of the pyramids by the Pharaohs, that it keeps attracting new theories. If the pyramids of Giza were built by Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure, as is claimed by historians, the progression seems back to front. Would it not make more sense that the latter kings would have wanted to show their supremacy? In that case the first pyramid would have been the smallest, followed by the larger one, eventually ending with biggest one, the Great Pyramid. This is a simple principle of progression that the Egyptians understood much better than we do today. There are many arguments raised by writers, like Graham Hancock in his book Fingerprints of the Gods, that go a long way to establishing that the pyramids were built long before the Egyptian Civilisation came into existence. They certainly were not built to be tombs for kings. It seems to follow that the early Egyptians would have been highly impressed by these giant monuments of their gods, and they tried to imitate them. The later pyramids became great tributes to their gods of which they were very proud, but the results were not always that successful. It is clear that all the imitation pyramids built by the Egyptian Pharaohs, were much smaller, did not possess the complex passages of the Great Pyramid, and often collapsed. They obviously did not have the knowledge of the Anunnaki who were the original builders of the Giza pyramids. The latter kings could never match the size and the angles of the original structure.

  Once again, the Sumerian texts give us a very different version of the pyramids' origins, and again these seem to make much more practical sense than any of the more popularised ‘fairytale’ versions. It was the talented Ningishzidda who the Egyptians worshipped as ‘The Divine Measurer’ who planned, measured, modelled, and perfectly built the three pyramids of Giza. His reason was far more pressing than a giant tomb to be buried in. The Book of Enki describes it very vividly. But before he built the final thing, he first made a smaller scale prototype.

  “The rising ang
les of four smooth sides with this he perfected. Next to it a larger peak he placed, its sides to Earth's four corners he set; By the Anunnaki, with their tools of power, were its stones cut and erected. Beside it, in a precise location, the peak that was its twin he placed; With galleries and chambers for pulsating crystals he designed it.”

  They called the erections “Ekur – House Which Like a Mountain Is”. What becomes quite clear from this short extract, is that the pyramids had a far more important role to play in the lives of the Anunnaki. The flood had wiped out their space port, landing places, measurements, beacons and other support structures that they had developed for regular take-off and landing with their space craft. The two pyramids were new indestructible beacons with specific chambers for “pulsating crystals” to help point out the landing places when approaching from space. They would not allow another flood to upset their base on Earth. The pharaohs who followed took inspiration from these great structures and started to imitate them with less success. Engineers have pointed out that there are very definite differences in the knowledge that went into building the Great Pyramids, and the many other smaller imitations that followed. Clearly, the kings and pharaohs did not possess the knowledge of the more evolved Ningishzidda. The pyramids also proved the supremacy of the gods to the Egyptians, who worshipped them fanatically.

  So far we have learnt that ancient civilisations sprang up all over the world shortly after the Great Flood of around 11,000 BC. They all showed remarkable knowledge and understanding virtually overnight, which could only have happened if there was some form of intervention from the Anunnaki gods who ruled the world and explored every corner in search of gold. The ‘primitive worker’ was serving his purpose well, but now the humans who survived the flood had a more crucial function to perform than just to dig for gold. They had to provide for the growing population on a planet where much of the arable land was destroyed. The ‘slave species’ had been promoted to ‘provider’, and for the first time the Anunnaki conceded that they were dependent on their slaves. In these dramatic translations we stumble upon the only two common denominators that can be traced all the way to the birth of Humankind. Our obsession with gold and slavery.

  CHAPTER 11

  Wrath of god

  I was watching a documentary on Alexander the Great, when I started wondering why he was so admired by his followers, and what made him so ‘Great’. Is it the number of empires and kingships he overthrew, or the number of cities which fell under his sieges, or the number of people who supported him in his quest to invade the whole world? Is it possible that he was more feared than admired? It seems that he is even more admired today by historians and the general populace than he was in 333 BC. He is referred to in encyclopaedias as the conqueror of the Persian Empire and probably the world's greatest military leader of all time. He has inspired many novels and movies which have used him as a role model for the personification of a man's man, strong and steadfast, determined, reaching for the impossible and succeeding in the face of insurmountable odds. Basically, he personifies the kind of story book hero that does not exist on Earth today. A deep thinker, strategist and great leader of men. In a short space of twelve years, Alexander conquered virtually all of the known world as he marched his army of 40,000 men from west to east; invading cities and villages one by one, often killing all the men, women and children, or saving the women and children but selling them into slavery. He plundered the wealth of the cities, royal treasuries and took all their booty. After overpowering the cities, he often burnt them to the ground.

  Those who obeyed him were rewarded with unspoken treasures, while those who resisted him were brutally murdered. Prisoners of war were either released or murdered, all depending on his mood on that particular day. The global population at this time was estimated to be around 100 million and much of this eventually fell under the rule of Alexander the Great. This great leader of men was also known to have killed his father Philip II, a number of members of his army who disagreed with his judgment and even his close friend and confidant whose advice conflicted with that of the great Alexander. This man went so far as to declare himself a ‘god’, believing that he was above mere mortals and the son of the great Zeus, god of gods.

  Where does this potential for violence, oppression and punishment come from? Are we merely imitating something or someone from days gone by? Someone who was instrumental in controlling the formative years after our creation? If you look at the history of Humankind all the way back to the days of Adam, Cain and Abel, it is one long horrific tale of betrayal, murder, warfare, oppression, rape and pillage, jealousy, envy, greed and continuous unspeakable horror inflicted by man on his fellow man. But the passage of time has a strange way of smoothing out the terrible truths of the past. Time has the ability to somehow legitimise the horrors committed in days gone by. History books have a tendency to glorify some of the acts of past leaders, when in reality they should be condemned by latter generations. Alexander was just one such ‘great’ warring hero of the distant past. There were many others and most of them are revered as great historical leaders, forever imprinted in our memories. In truth, they were just insatiable, power-hungry thugs who used their influence and wealth to accumulate more and more.

  Attila the Hun is another great leader of the past who is described somewhat differently by historians. Why is that? Because he did not have an empire before he started to invade and rule other kingdoms? Because his tribe was described as nomadic? He was just doing what all the other kings were doing, expanding his territory by force. This is how a historian by the name of Rit Nosotro writes about Attila.

  “Attila the Hun has been known as a ruthless barbarian, fierce and uncivilised. The devastation that he delivered to his enemies and the terror that he instilled in them during his lifetime caused him to become known as ‘The Scourge of God’. While most people see Attila as being just a ferocious warrior, the more obscure side of him shows us that he was also a great king, possessing great leadership abilities and management skills. Attila the Hun was born in approximately 406 AD to the ruling Hun family, his uncle being the king. Although we do not know much about Attila's childhood other than that he was taught to ride a horse, shoot a bow, and fight in hand-to-hand combat at a very young age. By his late teens, he was leading the Huns in merciless battle against their enemies, the Visigoths. He pillaged numerous towns causing utter devastation. No one could match him in battle, and by his thirties, he was the Huns' leading commander.

  Before Attila's time, the Huns were a nomadic, barbarian race. They came from Asia and first reached the outskirts of the Roman Empire in the late 4th century. The Huns conquered the barbarian Ostrogoths and drove back the Visigoths. The Eastern Roman Empire was threatened by these vicious Huns until 418 when Rome and the Huns negotiated peace terms. To secure peace, important persons, such as the young Attila, were exchanged as hostages between the Romans and the Huns. During Attila's two years in Rome, he was awed by the grandeur of the Empire. Upon his return home, he vowed to someday go back to Rome not as a hostage, but as a conqueror.”

  Why is Attila seen as a ruthless barbarian, while Alexander was ‘great’, and the Romans were imperial and ‘civilised’? It almost feels as if we are legitimising their individual rights to conquer others, based on their socio-economic status. Because Alexander was the king of a wealthy empire he was allowed to invade and destroy. But because Attila was the leader of a lowly group of bandits, he should not possess such privileges. So what makes us in the 21stcentury so captivated by these warring heroes of the past? Do we not have heroes like this in the modern world? Or how long do we have to wait for some of the more recent potential candidates for ‘great military leader’ status, to be so recognised and decorated? Alexander conquered the world in the name of Macedonia, while Julius Caesar conquered the world some 300 years later in the name of the Roman Empire. The war stories go on. But still they are ‘great’ leaders of the past. Just recently we had a great military le
ader who tried to conquer the world and in the process got very close to doing so. He had the full fanatical support of his people just like Alexander did; his followers all believed that they should conquer the world; he was admired by them as a great leader of men; a great strategist and someone they would follow to the end of the world in battle. He mobilised his well-trained and well-equipped army, killing many in the name of his empire, he wiped out cities and villages as part of his expansion plan, he occupied new lands and countries, declaring them part of the new empire. He looted wealth and riches as part of his victories and depending on his mood, he would eliminate anyone who stood in his way, even his close friends and allies. The kind of man which history books often praise as a ‘great leader of men’.

  But this great leader was Adolf Hitler, and our history books have not been as kind to him as they have been to Alexander and to the Romans. So what is the difference between Adolf Hitler, Alexander, Atilla the Hun and Julius Caesar? How much time will need to pass before historians start to include Hitler in the same revered group of great military leaders of the past? Or is it the visual reminder of the horrors of war that will exclude Hitler from this ‘great’ group of leaders? It certainly feels that time does soften the blow while the more recent dictators were captured on film which blows the romantic perception of war in an instant.