Mother Earth/Father Doom: It Only Hurts For a Moment


The theory of an intelligent Earth has a name too, Gaia. What is the hypothesis of Gaia? Stated simply, the idea is that we may have discovered a living being bigger, more ancient, and more complex than anything from our wildest dreams. That being called Gaia, is the Earth. More precisely: that about one billion years after its formation our planet was occupied by a meta-life, which began an ongoing process of transforming this planet into its own substance.


All the life forms of the planet are part of Gaia. In a way analogous to the myriad different cell colonies which make up our organs and bodies, the life forms of earth in their diversity co-evolve and contribute interactively to produce and sustain the optimal conditions for the growth and prosperity not of themselves, but of the larger whole, Gaia. That the very makeup of the atmosphere, seas, and terrestrial crust is the result of radical interventions carried out by Gaia through the evolving diversity of living creatures.


Encountering the Earth from space, a witness would know immediately that the planet was alive. The atmosphere would give it away. The atmospheric compositions of our sister planets, Venus and Mars, are: 95-96 carbon dioxide, 3-4% nitrogen, with traces of oxygen, argon and methane. The earthís atmosphere at present is 79 nitrogen, 21 oxygen with traces of carbon dioxide, methane and argon.

The difference is Gaia, which transforms the outer layer of the planet into environments suitable to its further growth. For example, bacteria and photosynthetic algae began some2.8 billions of years ago extracting the carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen into the atmosphere, setting the stage for larger and more energetic creatures powered by combustion, including, ultimately, ourselves.


That is how James Lovelock discovered Gaia; from outer space. In the 1960's, during the space race, which followed the launching of Sputnik, he was asked by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and NASA to help design experiments to detect life on Mars. The Viking lander gathered and tested some Martian soil for life with no results. Lovelock had predicted as much, by analyzing the atmosphere of Mars: it is in a dead equilibrium.


By contrast, the atmosphere of Earth is in a "far from equilibrium" state- meaning that there was some other complex process going on which maintained such an unlikely balance. It occurred to him that if the Viking lander had landed on the frozen waste of Antarctica, it might not have found any trace of life on Earth either. But a sure giveaway would be a complete atmospheric analysis... which the Viking lander was not equipped to do. Lovelock's approach was not popular at NASA because NASA needed a good reason to land on Mars, and the best was to look for life. Viking found nothing on Mars, but Lovelock had seen the Earth from the perspective of an ET looking for evidence of life.


And he began thinking that what he was seeing was not so much a planet adorned with diverse life forms, but a planet transfigured and transformed by a self-evolving and self-regulating living system. By the nature of its activity it seemed to qualify as a living being. He named that being Gaia, after the Greek goddess, which drew the living world forth from Chaos.

"The name of the living planet, Gaia, is not a synonym for the biosphere-mat part of the Earth where living things are seen normally to exist. Still less is Gaia the same as the biota, which is simply the collection of all individual living organisms. The biota and the biosphere taken together form a part but not all of Gaia. Just as the shell is part of the snail, so the rocks, the air, and the oceans are part of Gaia. Gaia, as we shall see, has continuity with the past back to the origins of life, and in the future as long as life persists.


Gaia, as a total planetary being, has properties that are not necessarily discernable by just knowing individual species or populations of organisms living together... Specifically, the Gaia hypothesis says that the temperature, oxidation, state, acidity, and certain aspects of the rocks and waters are kept constant, and that this homeostasis is maintained by active feedback processes operated automatically and unconsciously by the biota."

Even the shifting of the tectonic plates, resulting in the changing shapes of the continents, may result from the massive limestone deposits left in the earth by bioforms eons ago. You may find it hard to swallow the notion that anything as large and apparently inanimate as the Earth is alive. Surely, you may say, the Earth is almost wholly rock, and nearly all incandescent with heat. The difficulty can be lessened if you let the image of a giant redwood tree enter your mind.

The tree undoubtedly is alive, yet 99 of it is dead. The great tree is an ancient spire of dead wood, made of lignin and cellulose by the ancestors of the thin layer of living cells, which constitute its bark. How like the Earth, and more so when we realize that many of the atoms of the rocks far down into the magma were once part of the ancestral life of which we all have come. The root question of Gaia's critics, and a central point in his theory concerns the difference between a planetary environment, which might only be the aggregate result of myriad independent life forms co-evolving and sharing the same host, and one, which is ultimately created by life forms deployed, so to speak, to accomplish the purpose of the larger being. Is the idea of Gaia only a romantic and dramatized description of the terrestrial biosphere and its effects, or is there a planetary being, whose life cycle must be counted in the billions of years, which spawns these evolving life forms to suit the purpose of its being?


Do our kidney cells ask each other these sorts of questions? While your white blood cells thrive and reproduce, going about their business, they are indisputably serving the life of the larger body which you use, though whatever consciousness they experience in their realm is certainly far from that which you, the larger being, the whole, experience. Recent scientific work, such as in the field of complex systems, have begun to give us the impression that this opposition of terms, the larger caused by its constituents, or the constituents created by the larger, may be one of those oppositions which are the constructs of our own minds, and must be dropped if we are to understand the truth, which is neither the one nor the other, but more difficult to comprehend and more fascinating to behold.


Perhaps there is awareness appropriate at every level. Perhaps that is a property of life. And what might be the nature of its evolution, this planetary being called Gaia? Anthropocentrists to the last, we might assume that the production of the human species is a great step upward for Gaia, a sort of rapidly evolving brain tissue. Or that she prepares the earth as a cradle and crucible of consciousness evolving. Other analogies come to mind: are we part of her arsenal of interplanetary spores? And what might constitute a life cycle for such a being- might it be as strange as that of the slime mold? What stage would Gaia be in now? Is our species part of her maturity or an incubation period? Is Gaia herself somehow part of a larger living being, perhaps on a galactic scale? If so, how do the cells of this larger being remain in communication? Will we eventually be able to experience something of the awareness, which Gaia has?


Lovelock points out that Gaia, being ancient and resourceful enough to have carried out these successive changes of the planet in spite of asteroid collisions and other setbacks, is herself probably not endangered by the relatively momentary depredations of the human species, as it befouls and cripples the bio-dynamics of its environment. Rather, the danger is to the human race, not only from our own actions, but also by Gaia's reaction to them. He adds the caveat however, that the passage of a bullet is also momentary, but the damage nonetheless lethal, and that we are not in a position yet to say whether or not some sudden, human caused imbalance, at a critical juncture, might be catastrophic to Gaia. Lovelock first exposed his idea in his 1979 book, Gaia, a New Look at Life on Earth.


The science behind the hypothesis was still sketchy, and it provoked a storm of criticism. It also provoked a lot of research, and the resulting body of information has encouraged Lovelock to publish this second book, a more confident and complete exposition of the Gaia hypothesis. The Ages of Gaia is easily readable for the educated layperson, but includes plenty of scientific depth.


So, you can begin to see the dilemma facing the aliens. If this earth was indeed an entire living organism, then they were messing with powers beyond their comprehension, that could Ultimately result in their own demise. They could also see that the existing human beings they had created had started going nuts as they didn't have any natural balance to themselves, didn't know whom or what they were a part of.


So, the decision was made to destroy them all. And the Great Flood occurred. I want to take a few moments here and talk about that flood, as itís important to fully understand a couple of things. First, on every continent, in every tongue, in every race on earth, the story of the Great Flood has been told. Far from being a regional event it was is fact the last great cataclysm to affect this earth, and it still resides in our memories, is part of the mental/spiritual framework of who we are as a species. Second, the exact method of how this done, why it occurred, is not the subject of this book but I've provided a list of books for you to read if you're really interested in tins.


With the Earth itself being the Mother of human beings, who is the Father? For the answer we look to our ancient history again and find indeed that he has a name, and it is El. El is the name by which the supreme Canaanite deity is known. This is also a name by which God is called in the Old Testament - El, the God (Elohim) of Israel (el elohe yisrael: Gen. 33:20).


In most prose it occurs more often with an adjunct:

  • El Elyon (the most high God, Gen. 14:18)

  • El Shaddai (traditionally, God Almighty, Gen. 17:1)

  • El Hai (The living God, Josh. 3:10)

  • very commonly in the plural of majesty, Elohim

In Hebrew poetry El is much more frequent, where it stands quite often without any adjunct (Ps. 18:31, 33, 48; 68:21; Job 8:3). The word El is a generic name for "god" in Northwest Semitic (Hebrew and Ugaritic) and as such it is also used in the Old Testament for heathen deities or idols (Ex. 34:14; Ps. 81:10; Is. 44:10).


The original generic term was 'ilum; dropping the mimation and the nominative case ending (u) becomes 'el in Hebrew. It was almost certainly an adjectival formation (intransitive participle) from the root "to be strong, powerful" ('wl), meaning "The Strong (or Powerful) One." In Canaanite paganism the el, par excellence, was the head of the pantheon. As the god, El was, in accordance with the general irrationality and moral grossness of Canaanite religion, a dim and shadowy figure, who, Philo says, had three wives, who were also his sisters, and who could readily step down from his eminence and become the hero of sordid escapades and crimes.


The Ugaritic poems add the crime of uncontrolled lust to his character and the description of his seduction of two unnamed women is the most sensuous in ANE literature (much of Ugaritic literature is R rated at best). Despite all this. El was considered the exalted "father of years" (abu shanima), the "father of man" (abu adami), and "father bull", that is, the progenitor of the gods, tacitly likened to a bull in the midst of a herd of cows.


Like Homer's Zeus, he was "the father of men and gods."

"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose... There were nephilim in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." Genesis 6:1-4

According to the Sumerian creation epic, El was the leader of the Nephilim, but who are they? Nephilim is often translated as "giants", a legitimate and appropriate interpretation, but one, which may be only partially accurate. A better definition might be,

  • "those who came down"

  • "those who descended"

  • "those who were cast down"

The Anunnaki of ancient Sumerian texts is similarly defined as "those who from heaven to earth came". Many researchers have all identified the Nephilim as the Anunnaki, more specifically, essentially the rank and file. Remember too that virtually all open-minded historical and theological scholars agree the Old Testament's book of Genesis was extracted from the older Sumerian records, if only because of the similarity in their Comparative Religions. The Enuma Elish, the Sumerian Epic of Creation, and Genesis have a variety of common elements. Stories of a Great Flood and Deluge, among other stories, are also common to both Sumerian and Biblical accounts.


An inevitable conclusion is that the Anunnaki were as real as Noah, Moses or Abraham. Laurence Gardner, a leading Sumerian researcher, has written:

"Every item of written and pictorial attestation confirms that the ancient Sumerians were absolutely sincere about the existence of the Anunnaki, and those such as Enki, Enlil, Nin-khursag and Inanna fulfilled earthly functions with designated community duties. They were patrons and founders; they were teachers and justices; they were technologists and kingmakers.


They were jointly and severally venerated as archons and masters, but they were certainly not idols of religious worship as the ritualistic gods of subsequent cultures became. In fact, the word which was eventually translated to become 'worship' was avod, which meant quite simply, 'work'. The Anunnaki presence may baffle historians, their language may confuse linguists and their advanced techniques may bewildered scientists, but to dismiss them is foolish. The Sumerians have themselves told us precisely who the Anunnaki were, and neither history nor science can prove otherwise."

The Sumerian records recorded in great detail the stories of the Anunnaki, and among these, that of Enki, Enlil, Ninki, manna Utu, Ningishzida, Marduk, and many others.


Chief among these stories was the continuing conflict between Enki and Enlil, the sons of the supreme god of the time, Anu, or El. Much of ancient human history, and the Biblical Genesis, can be explained as the militant differences between these two half- brothers, and how they affected the life of all sentient beings or Earth. But the Anunnaki were more than just a pair of squabbling half- brothers. They were the council of Gods and Goddesses, who periodically met to consider their future actions with respect to each other, and probably as a smaller, nondescript item on their agenda, the fate of mankind.


The Anunnaki, depending upon the context, were the Nephilim, the gods that Abraham's father, Terah, (according to the book of Joshua) was reputed to have served, the fallen angels, the lesser individuals of the race from which Anu, Enki, Enlil, Inanna and the other notables had sprung, and the "judges" over the question of life and death. They were in fact the bene haelohim, which translates as "the sons of the gods", or equally likely, "the sons of the goddesses." For example, from Psalm 82:

"Jehovah takes his stand at the Council of El to deliver judgment among the elohim."

"You too are gods, sons of El Elyon, all of you."

The Anunnaki have also been equated with the "Watchers" (who are also mentioned in the books of Daniel and Jubilees), i.e. "Behold a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven." Daniel 4:13


According to Zecharia Sitchin, and his interpretation of ancient Sumerian texts, the Anunnaki were extraterrestrial (a.k.a. "angels"?), who were an extremely long-lived race, potentially living as long as 500,000 years.


Laurence Gardner reduces this to more on the order of 50,000 years and notes specifically that the Anunnaki were not immortal. He points out that no records are currently extant which relate to their natural deaths, but the violent deaths of Apsu, Tiamat, Mummu, and Dumu-zi are provided in some detail. (Sitchin and Gardner also disagree on the date of the Great Deluge/Flood; Sitchin assuming a time frame of 11,000 BCE, while Gardner assumes one of 4,000 BCE) Sitchin's book, The 12th Planet, published in 1976 was the first modern volume to begin to describe the Anunnaki, their arrival on Earth supposedly some 485,000 years ago, and from where they had come - a planet called Nibiru.


Sitchin believes Nibiru to be in an orbit about our sun, but in a strongly elliptical orbit which requires 3,600 Earth years to make a complete orbit. Nibiru's perihelion (closest point of approach to the Sun) is thought to be within the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, at a distance from the Sun of approximately 2.75 A.U. (an A.U. being the distance from the Sun to the Earth).


(The Annals of Earth include a detailed description of how Nibiru created the asteroid belt by destroying a planet, Tiamat, is roughly the same orbit, and which created the Earth in the aftermath, the Earth being a remnant of the greater, destroyed planet.)


Nibiru is not known to modem astronomy primarily due to the extreme elliptical nature of its orbit and the fact its aphelion (furthest point in the planet's orbit from the Sun) is more than eight times the distance from the Sun to the planet Pluto (the latter being some 40 A.U. away, and thus the former, some 32 ( A.U. distant). Furthermore, Nibiru may be now far out in deep space and unlikely to be detected. (Or close by, e.g. Planet X.)


While Sitchin and Gardner may disagree with the extent of the long lives of the Anunnaki, it is clear that these gods and goddesses, barring accidents or "Anunnaki-cide" lived a very long time. It has also been theorized that because of their long lives, they do not quite move in "the fast lane" ó at least to the extent humans do. This could be fundamentally important in that, quite possibly the human life span, while enormously brief as compared to the Anunnaki gods and goddesses, might nevertheless be compensated by the humans possessing the ability to achieve a great deal in a relatively short time.


The creativity of a shortened and thus highly motivated lifespan is likely to be enormously greater than that of a god or semi-god resting or their laurels. This may also relate to the idea of why the gods and goddesses of the Anunnaki even bother with mankind. Humans may, or the one hand, act as workers to accomplish the Anunnakiís agenda, but an accelerated creativity may be well worth the trouble for the Anunnaki to manage a crew as motley as the human race. But the connection between humans and the Anunnaki is much more profound than that of masters and slaves.


All the evidence strongly advocates the concept that Adam and Eve and their ancestors, cousins, and what-have-you were created by genetic engineering and mixing the DNA of Anunnaki with that of Homo erectus, the reigning progenitor of man at the time. Fundamentally, this was because the Anunnaki needed someone to work the mines in search of gold, as we talked about before. The most fundamental question with respect to the Anunnaki is whether or not they're still on Earth!


Sitchin has pointed out that he never said they left (and there is no evidence that they did). There was, however, an apparently fundamental Anunnaki policy shift circa 600 BCE wherein the overt, day-to-day interference in human affairs by the Anunnaki disappeared. There is also the scenario encapsulated in Richard Wagner's classic opera The Ring of the Nibelung, which included Night Falls on the Gods and the Entrance of the Gods Into Valhalla -titles which are suggestive of possible changes in status of the Anunnaki.


Finally, there is evidence to suggest that this state of affairs may be temporary, and may be scheduled to end with the end of the Mayan Calendar on or about 2012 AD. From mankind's point of view, the dysfunctional nature of the Anunnaki family, and the continuing rivalry of Enki and Enlil, may still be ongoing and having enormous effects on the quality of our physical, emotional, mental and spiritual lives. It's a very important question, and one that needs to be answered by each of us. And the reason is simple, they tried to kill us!


Back to Index