Oscar Trial

I watched the Oscar Pistorius trial trial today. It seems strange that Barry Roux seeks to disprove the claim by Security that they initiated phone contact with Pistorius, by examining records of phone calls INITIATED by Oscar's phone and then triumphantly declaring that they show that Oscar, and not Security, initiated the contact! In my view, he can only prove who between Oscar and Security initiated the contact, by examining the phones of both Security and Oscar, specifically for MUTUAL contact.

Examining the phone of ONE side does not give the true picture at all! Gerry Nel shouldn't have let Roux get away with that one.

Kalanga predates both Shona and Sumerian/Coptic/Setswana languages.

The Kalanga word for “dog” is “mbnga”. Kalanga pronunciation can be tricky. I believe that if the pronunciation is strictly followed, the word could also be written “pknga”. Recall that ancient Kalanga followed the Nguni (Zulu) language format. In ancient Kalanga it would therefore have been “i-mbnga” or “i-pknga”.  We have shown that the suffix “nga” meaning “resemble” was appended to words to indicate the similarity between the concerned objects and some Anunnaki-related objects; e.g. “chimanga” meaning “maize cob”, which resembles “chima”, meaning “Anunnaki rocket”.

And so, the Kalanga word “i-pknga”, meaning “dog” unpacks to two words “i-kpe”, and the word “nga” appended to it. The word “i-kpe” is the name of the ancient Egyptian god Annubis. The Kalanga word for “dog” therefore translates to the phrase “like Annubis”.

The Shona language word for “dog”, however is “mbwa”. It carries no “nga” within it, therefore it can hardly be said to indicate any likeness to anything, certainly not to the Anunnaki god Annubis. This is irrefutable proof, if one was ever needed, that Kalanga language predates Shona language, and that therefore Shona is derived from Kalanga, and not the other way around.

The same goes for Setswana language, which is a version of Sumerian and Coptic. You see, the Anunnaki created us on LOVE. The Kalanga infinitive form of the verb for “TO LOVE” is “KU DA”. The first human was “ADA-MU”; the word for “SATAN” is derived from “SA-DANA”, meaning “NOT TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER”. Ningishzidda’s name EADA (correctly a Kalanga word “i-Ada”) attests to the “LOVE” that our creators wanted us to follow. Ma-Nshakazhogwe’s name was “MADENE”. Her Setswana name was “MERIT-NIHT” which we are told means “LOVED BY NIHT”; most likely “Moratwa-i-Niht”. Of course we now know her as Mary (“MERI-!”) – Mother of Jesus!

When Marduk returned to Egypt (i-Gi-Puta) after he and his followers had their memories wiped out (re-programmed) while trying to construct the Tower of Babel, his followers no longer spoke Kalanga, but Setswana. He was now an absolute despot called “Ra” and he changed the Kalanga word “DA” meaning “(to) LOVE” to “Ra-DA” (Rata). Everything now revolved around Ra. Poor Ningishzidda (his younger brother) was banished to South America, where I believe there will be very little influence, if any, of Setswana language. That is how Egypt became Coptic/Tswana, and that is why the Israelites (Isi Ra, El/Illui) rejected him in favour of either Enlil or the Illui. According to some researchers, Ra ended up being kicked out of Egypt and of earth by the very same lizards who had re-programmed his followers at Babylon! So Setswana/Sumerian/Coptic originate from the reprogramming that was carried out to stop Ra from building a space port at Babylon. In other words Kalanga language predates Sumerian/Coptic/Setswana language.

Are our religions constitutional?

I recall reading what amounted to an altercation between Mr Iqbal Ebrahim (for Islam) and a Christian adherent whose name I no longer remember. 

The Christian was basically opposed to the practice by Supermarkets and others whereby meat products sold in the supermarkets are by default – halaal. He claimed that it was wrong for Christian customers to be forced to eat meat that had been dedicated to “false gods”. 

In response, Mr Ebrahim was indignant. How dare anybody call Almighty Allah, a false god.

Religious differences tend to become religious conflicts if swept under the carpet. For this reason I will, in due course, address the issue of Halaal foods in supermarkets. For now, I want us to establish a baseline – compliance with our country’s constitution.

I am told by those who understand constitutional language that our country’s constitution guarantees us, its inhabitants, freedom of religion and freedom of association. Any of my countrymen or women is free to want to associate with me, and I am free NOT to want to associate with them. That is freedom. I am free, at any time to worship any god, including the Devil. I am free to convert from Christianity to Islam and vice versa.

Now my question to both Mr Ebrahim and the Christian adherent mentioned earlier is this: Looking closely at your religion, would you say that it upholds the spirit of our constitution, particularly with regard to the freedom to convert to or away, from said religion?

I sincerely hope that both gentlemen will answer my question, somewhere, somehow.