CHRISTIANITY VS ISLAM

It is possible to get some sort of chart for both Christianity and Islam by using the start dates for the Christian and Muslim Calendars respectively. (See Nick Campion's 'Book of World Horoscopes')

The Christian Calendar can be set up for 12am 1st Jan 0001 AD. (Click for larger image).



With Jupiter on the ASC opposite Mars in Aries on the DESC (‘open enemies’) square to the Sun, the expansive (Jupiter) and crusading (Mars) nature of Christianity seems to be clear. Islam has also spread widely, but it is not worldwide in the way that Christianity is.

The Muslim Calendar can be set up for July 16 622 AD at 6.45pm in Medina, Saudi Arabia: this is the traditional date of Mohammed’s arrival (at sunset) in Medina. These are both symbolic rather than literal charts, but so is the US Sibly chart! And astrology itself is symbolic.


Islam is much more identified with its place of origin, the Middle East, than is Christianity, and I think we can see this from its Sun in Cancer on the DESC conjunct Saturn: it is concerned to defend (Saturn) the homeland (Cancer) from its enemies (DESC). The Moon (Home) in the 7th House (enemies) seems to reinforce this point. With most of the chart in the 7th, opposition and enemies would seem to be central to Islam, it’s as though it wouldn’t know itself without them. Like an old friend of ours who also has Sun in Cancer and unaspected Mars in Virgo, George W Bush.

If you Progress the Christian Chart to 1095 AD, the date of the first Crusade to the Holy Land, you find Pluto stationary Retrograde. The Progressed Chart for 1271, the year of the final Crusade, has Pluto stationary Direct. So the Medieval Crusades involved a whole Progressed Pluto cycle for Christianity. If we fast forward to 11th Sept 2001, what do we find? Progressed Pluto stationary Direct! The start of a whole new cycle of aggression against Islam.


That this new cycle is not just a one-way process is confirmed by Progressing the Islamic Chart to 11th Sept 2001, and setting it for New York. What we find is progressed Pluto at 25.02 Aries, within 5 minutes of the MC at 24.57 Aries.

As I have written elsewhere, the War on Terror (using the 9/11 chart for its beginning) had a progressed New Moon in August 2007, heralding a major new phase in the conflict, whose nature will take time to become clear. The chart for Islam had a progressed New Moon 4 weeks earlier in July 2007, which is extraordinary, and confirms the point.


The Composite Chart for Islam and Christianity has Mars at 0.39 Cancer conjunct Saturn and Pluto in Cancer, which is about as heavy as it gets. Pluto will oppose this Mars by transit in Feb 2008, again indicative of a new phase in the conflict between the Christian West and Muslim Middle East.

When Benazir Bhutto was assassinated a few days ago, Mars was very close to this Christian-Muslim composite Mars, and so is descriptive of the tensions between the pro-western Bhutto and ther Pakistani Islamists that led to her murder.

As Pluto moves to oppose the composite Saturn and Pluto in the coming years, Uranus will also square them, at the same time as the Uranus-Pluto square transits the charts of most of the major western powers. This suggests that the development of the conflict between the west and the Muslim world will be an important part of the Uranus-Pluto square, which is the big astrological configuration coming our way. You never know, some sort of accommodation might eventually be reached, it might not be all doom and gloom.

Blair the Fundamentalist

There’s a series of programmes called ‘The Blair Years’ on TV at the moment, and I managed to catch part of one of them the other night. It was dealing with 9/11 and Iraq. What struck me was Blair’s position on it, after all this time and after he has left office. What we have, he convicted, is “a visceral struggle between what is right and what is wrong.”


Yes, he really does believe this. The man has learnt nothing from the war, all it has done is give birth to his latent fundamentalism. When there is a war, you have to look at it from both sides if you are going to make any sense of it. And it seems pretty obvious to me that the War on Terror is rooted in Arab resistance to western influence. It’s as simple as that. A bit like how many European tribes must have felt at the time of the Romans.

The West needs the Arab oil, and they’re going to make sure they have enough control and influence in the Middle East to safeguard their supplies. You can’t expect the West to behave otherwise. Nor can you expect the Arabs not to resent this influence in their homeland (for which they get nicely paid). This tension is going to continue for as long as we need their oil. Of course, it isn’t put like this by either side. America is ‘The Great Satan’, and the West is struggling against ‘Evil’.

If anything is ‘evil’, it is the fundamentalism you find on both sides that makes any sort of understanding of the situation impossible. If anything is ‘evil’, it is the way Bush and Blair see the ‘war’ as a battle of good versus evil, with themselves of course on the side of ‘good’.

It is hard to believe that Tony Blair is so foolish and superficial, so psychologically primitive. But he is, and we elected him 3 times to run the UK. Which doesn’t say much for we the British people, or for the American people who elected Bush twice.

Before the Iraq War, Tony Blair went to see the Pope to try to get his blessing. Yes, he really did do this. You couldn’t make something like this up, it is priceless comedy. It also makes it clear that Blair was unknowingly engaged on a medieval crusade against Islam. To the Pope’s credit (and I’m not inclined to give Popes much credit), he didn’t give his blessing.


It is gradually coming out that Blair was always much bigger on God than he let on. He was afraid, rightly, of being seen as a ‘nutter’. He has for some years been close to converting to Catholicism, the main barrier appearing to be political considerations.

Tony Blair was born 6 May 1953 at 6.10am in Edinburgh. He has Moon in 10th House Aquarius in a t-square with Sun in Taurus and Pluto in Leo. The challenge of Pluto is to find your own inner power, your own independent sense of confidence and strength. If you are unaware, if you are not up to this challenge, you will look for this sense of power and authority outside of yourself, and this is exactly what Blair has done with his religious certainty and crusade against ‘evil’. And through his need to be in a position of power. Unlike many leaders, he went straight from being PM to being a Middle East envoy on behalf of the major powers.

Aquarius at its worst can be rigidly ideological, which is where his Moon comes in, and we also see it in his Jupiter-Mars conjunction on the ASC. The fixity of his t-square doesn’t help either.

It was Neptune which liberated the fundamentalist within. Up until 9/11, Blair had been a bit timid as PM, trying to please everybody. After 9/11, and particularly in the run-up to the Iraq War, he became the opposite, he was going to do what he believed regardless of popularity. Neptune made its first exact crossing to his Moon a month before the Iraq War, and since then has squared his Sun and is now in the final stages of opposing his Pluto. As it was Neptune that was activating his chart, we can see what happened in terms of what he would have felt to be an Enlightenment, a waking up to his true mission of battling evil in the specific form of Islamic ‘terrorists’; from the outside, many of us would see Neptune as having created delusion and guru-inflation. As an astrologer, my job is to describe both sides rather than say which is ‘correct’. As an opinionated blogger, I have no doubt which is correct!

They say there is no-one so ‘ex’ as an ex-Prime Minister, and I was slightly taken aback when I realised that Tony Blair still has transits going on, that he is not in suspended animation. Neptune is still finishing with his t-square, and what it seems to be creating is this mad fundamentalist, reminiscent of his hero Margaret Thatcher after she had finished as PM.


Her time as PM was characterised by a series of major Pluto transits, and there were more to come in the 5 years following her demise. The same applies to Tony Blair, who will have Neptune squaring his Mars-Jupiter-ASC in 5-6 years time. It will probably mark his appointment as Archbishop, on his ascent towards the Papacy! At any rate, it would not surprise me if, like Thatcher, we see him becoming more rigid, more of a caricature of himself, over the coming years.

DID THE FOUNDING FATHERS USE ASTROLOGY?

The other day I wrote about the stars relating to the inauguration of the US President, which occurs every four years at 12pm on Jan 20th. From 1793 to 1933 (with the occasional exception), the date was 4th March. Diana Rosenberg wrote that she’s always reckoned changing the date was a mistake. Matthew the Astrologer commented that he’s always reckoned the Founding Fathers used more astrology than they were letting on, because they made the date a fixed thing.


I reckon they could both be right.

The star that rules a day, the Heliacal Rising Star, is the one that is last to rise over the eastern horizon before the Sun rises.

For the 4th of March in Washington, the Heliacal Rising Star is entirely appropriate: Deneb Algedi – the Ancient Law Giver, which is to be found in the tail of the constellation Capricornus. Bernadette Brady says: “Deneb Algedi is linked to the symbolism of the law-giving, justice orientated ancient god who is trying to civilise his people. Therefore, matters of justice are a theme of your life, and you are a person who is trying, in some way, to use wisdom and knowledge to protect and help the people around you.” Yes, there is a good case that they were using astrology!

Then we move on to 1933, and those foolish people who no longer consulted the heavens. And what do we find for 12pm Jan 20 every four years? Menkar conjunct the ASC - one of the most difficult stars, that makes the President vulnerable to the worst of the collective. And the Heliacal Rising Star is Acumen: ‘Suffering at the hands of others; subject to rumours.’ “Aculeus and Acumen are the tail of Scorpio, the sting, and are linked to attacks, not only physical, but also mental, verbal or spiritual. Acumen leans towards the small, irritating attacks that can slowly weaken you. So with Acumen in such an important position on the day of your birth, you will feel that your life-path may be filled with attacks or hindrance. It is therefore imperative that you learn to overcome obstacles on your path, whether placed there by yourself or others.”


I think Acumen accurately describes what it’s like being a leader in a modern democracy. You are constantly subject to attack through an up-to-the-minute media that reaches everyone’s home. Indeed it is seen as a healthy part of the democratic process that the leader is constantly under such attack. And you are ‘weak’ if you can’t handle it. Which means having a skin so thick that there isn’t much room left for a brain.

OF PRESIDENTS and SEA MONSTERS

The President of the USA is inaugurated on the same day and at the same time every 4 years, giving certain enduring qualities to the institution that are possible to analyse astrologically. The date and time are 20 Jan at 12pm in Washington DC. There are occasional exceptions, and before 1937 the date was the 4th March.


This consistency of time and date gives almost the same Angles and Sun for every inauguration. The fixed Sun (c.1 Aquarius) and ASC (c.14 Taurus) suggest the stability and endurance of the institution. Aquarius indicates the democratically-elected nature of the job, that the President is not there as a tyrant but as someone who ideally works with all the different groupings of people and interests. America is known for its wealth, which it does not have by accident, and Taurus Rising shows the importance of the President managing the economy well, perhaps also a need to express (ASC) his polices in economic, even materialistic terms. And the Capricorn MC shows that the President is there to achieve something and to leave a legacy. (Hence e.g. the Presidential libraries).

This consistency in the chart means we can also bring some of the stars into the equation. The strongest stars are those which are found on an Angle, and in this case, since the 1949 election, the star Menkar has been conjunct the ASC (using a 1 degree orb).

So more than any other star, Menkar describes the modern US Presidency. It is the brightest star in the constellation Cetus, the Whale. In ancient times, whales were not eco-friendly super-intelligent beings, but human-eating monsters from the depths. The Babylonians referred to this area of the sky as "the chaos of the deep". It is known as one of the most difficult stars to live with, because it makes you so open to the unconscious depths, to collective forces.

Menkar, or Alpha Cetus, is in the nose or jaw of the whale

All leaders tend to be an expression of the fears, desires and aspirations of the people, but Menkar here suggests that in post-war America this sort of identification has been unusually close. Positively, this can be a leader who is aware of, tuned into the collective but not unconsciously identified with it, and able to move it in a creative direction. An example of this is perhaps Roosevelt, who managed to get the economy out of the Great Depression and win two major wars with the country coming out thriving, as well as lay the groundwork for a really intelligent and successful reconstruction of Germany and Japan (cf Bush and Iraq). Menkar was just out of its 1 degree orb during this period, but you could argue that it was actually very active, with the wideness of the orb providing the possibility for self-awareness in a President, allowing him to be aware of and creatively use the collective forces.

The other possibilities with Menkar are that the President becomes an expression of the worst of the collective, or is a victim to it. Since 1949, the orb of Menkar to the Presidential Ascendant has been narrowing, and around 2041 it will be exact. You could argue that the narrower the gap, the more likely it is that Presidents will manifest the negative potential of Menkar.


And I think we have seen that with both Clinton and Bush, both of whom interestingly have an outer planet on their ASC – Clinton has Neptune and Bush has Pluto – making them personally open to collective forces, for better or for worse. Clinton, via the Monica Lewinsky scandal, became a victim of the collective, of the right wing Republican mentality that could not stand him. But he was also able to use his connection to the collective more positively, so that he became known as ‘The first black President.’ Whereas Bush’s connection seems more one-sidedly negative, through his appeal to the rednecks and his ability to whip up the fears and prejudices of the collective to serve his own purposes.

With Menkar closing in over the next 34 years, it is possible that we will see much more of these types of President, who are tuned into the collective and become either victims of it or who manipulate it. It will probably be a good thing, therefore, if the Presidents are not personally too open to the collective, if they do not have Neptune or Pluto Rising, for example. With the Uranus-Pluto square just around the corner, and with the forces for change gathering pace in the world, and with all the insecurity that brings, these are the sort of times we are most likely to see the collective rising up from the deep like the sea monster of old, and electing leaders that suit its purposes.

CHIRON and SUPERHEROES

A few days ago, Top Ten Sources flagged up an interview with the British astrologer Dennis Elwell that is well worth reading.

Here is what he had to say about Chiron:

“On the subject of Chiron, it is as significant as any planet, but I do not go along with the 'woundedness' interpretation. Mention Chiron in a lecture, and you can see the little thought balloons go up over the audience's heads - 'Ah yes, the wounded healer.' But when you are dealing with Chiron in practical work it is better to remember that his mythological namesake conducted a school for heroes. In Cosmic Loom, back in 1987, I described Chiron as 'a provocative planet that quite enjoys giving things a stir, but which above all gives the audacity to attempt.' As old Chiron trains us up towards accomplishments we never thought we could achieve, we need to be able to take the dare, to have an irreverent disrespect for the wise ones who say this or that can't be done. Chiron's style borders on cocky impudence, but perhaps its basic function is to persuade us that nothing is impossible.

The provocative side of Chiron is apt to show itself strongly in combination with Mars. Hitler was born with these bodies in close parallel, as well as septile. There are a lot of quintiles in his chart - the signature of an effective will - and the quintile between Chiron and Mercury is relevant to how he talked his way to power.”

Last year I looked up the date of first publication for the superheroes Superman, Spiderman and The Incredible Hulk. What I found was that they all had Jupiter-Chiron aspects. Jupiter I interpreted as their superpowers, and Chiron as the incurable wound that each of them had that brought about their powers: Superman was torn from his planet and his family as a baby, and The Hulk and Spiderman had both been subject to radiation. So Elwell’s take on Chiron enriches this symbolism, even though he doesn’t accept the ‘wound’ interpretation. (Batman does not have a Chiron-Jupiter aspect, but nor does he have superpowers).

It can also be quixotic: George ‘Top Gun’ Bush has a Jupiter-Chiron conjunction. He had ‘the audacity to attempt’ when it came to Iraq, but it was foolish, and the initial victory he prided himself on had been a turkey shoot.

I emailed Dennis Elwell about his article, and in his reply he included the comments: “Like Bush, Sylvester Stallone was born with a Jupiter Chiron conjunction, Christopher Reeve had a sesquare. In Arnold Schwarzenegger's chart they are in the fifth house, exactly 15 degrees apart. I think all 15 degree contacts are valid, but of course the orbs vary greatly.

As you know I am a bit sceptical about the woundedness of the mythical Chiron playing out in astrology. Every planet has its own wounds.”

AND

ELWELL, CHIRON AND SUPERHEROES

A few days ago, Top Ten Sources flagged up an interview with the British astrologer Dennis Elwell that is well worth reading.

Here is what he had to say about Chiron:

“On the subject of Chiron, it is as significant as any planet, but I do not go along with the 'woundedness' interpretation. Mention Chiron in a lecture, and you can see the little thought balloons go up over the audience's heads - 'Ah yes, the wounded healer.' But when you are dealing with Chiron in practical work it is better to remember that his mythological namesake conducted a school for heroes. In Cosmic Loom, back in 1987, I described Chiron as 'a provocative planet that quite enjoys giving things a stir, but which above all gives the audacity to attempt.' As old Chiron trains us up towards accomplishments we never thought we could achieve, we need to be able to take the dare, to have an irreverent disrespect for the wise ones who say this or that can't be done. Chiron's style borders on cocky impudence, but perhaps its basic function is to persuade us that nothing is impossible.

The provocative side of Chiron is apt to show itself strongly in combination with Mars. Hitler was born with these bodies in close parallel, as well as septile. There are a lot of quintiles in his chart - the signature of an effective will - and the quintile between Chiron and Mercury is relevant to how he talked his way to power.”

Last year I looked up the date of first publication for the superheroes Superman, Spiderman and The Incredible Hulk. What I found was that they all had Jupiter-Chiron aspects. Jupiter I interpreted as their superpowers, and Chiron as the incurable wound that each of them had that brought about their powers: Superman was torn from his planet and his family as a baby, and The Hulk and Spiderman had both been subject to radiation. So Elwell’s take on Chiron enriches this symbolism, even though he doesn’t accept the ‘wound’ interpretation. (Batman does not have a Chiron-Jupiter aspect, but nor does he have superpowers).

It can also be quixotic: George ‘Top Gun’ Bush has a Jupiter-Chiron conjunction. He had ‘the audacity to attempt’ when it came to Iraq, but it was foolish, and the initial victory he prided himself on had been a turkey shoot.

I emailed Dennis Elwell about his article, and in his reply he included the comments: “Like Bush, Sylvester Stallone was born with a Jupiter Chiron conjunction, Christopher Reeve had a sesquare. In Arnold Schwarzenegger's chart they are in the fifth house, exactly 15 degrees apart. I think all 15 degree contacts are valid, but of course the orbs vary greatly.

As you know I am a bit sceptical about the woundedness of the mythical Chiron playing out in astrology. Every planet has its own wounds.”

BEHOLD THE PROPHET!

From an essay by Tom Wolfe called ‘Sorry, but Your Soul Just Died’:

“The story I have to tell,” wrote Nietzsche, “is the history of the next two centuries.” He predicted (in Ecce Homo) that the 20th century would be a century of “wars such as have never happened on earth”, wars catastrophic beyond imagining. And why? Because human beings would no longer have a god to turn to, to absolve them of their guilt… The blind and re-assuring faith they formerly poured into their belief in God, said Nietzsche, they would now pour into a belief in barbaric nationalistic brotherhoods: “If the doctrines… of the lack of any cardinal distinction between man and animal, doctrines I consider true but deadly” – he says in an allusion to Darwinism in Untimely Meditations – “are hurled into the people for another generation... then nobody should be surprised when… brotherhoods with the aim of the robbery and exploitation of the non-brothers… will appear in the arena of the future.”


Nietzsche said that mankind would limp on through the 20th century “on the mere pittance” of the old decaying God-based moral codes. But then, in the twenty-first, would come a period more dreadful than the great wars, a time of the “total eclipse of all values” (in The Will to Power). This would also be a frantic period of “revaluation”, in which people would try to find new systems of values to replace the osteoporotic skeletons of the old. But you will fail, he warned, because you cannot believe in moral codes without simultaneously believing in a god who points at you with his fearsome forefinger and says “Thou shalt” or “Thou shalt not.”

Why should we bother ourselves with a dire prediction that seems so far-fetched as “the total eclipse of all values”? Because of man’s track record, I should think. After all, in Europe, in the peaceful decade of the 1880s, it must have seemed even more far-fetched to predict the world wars of the 20th century and the barbaric brotherhoods of Nazism and Communism. Ecce vates! Ecce vates! Behold the prophet! How much more proof can one demand of a man’s powers of prediction?"

--------------------------------------------------

Nietzsche was born Oct 15 1844. He had Moon in Sag, which is philosophically inclined, and said to be found in many teachers. He had Sun in Libra opposite to Pluto in Aries. Oppositions often engage us with the world, we find one end of it ‘out there’; in Nietzsche’s case, it was a new vision (Aries) that would transform the collective (Pluto). He also had Mercury in Libra conjunct Mars, opposite Uranus in Aries, so again we have the new vision after the death of God, expressed with force (Mars) and original insight (Uranus).

One qualification on Mr Wolfe’s analysis: he suggests we can’t have a moral code without an external authority, without a god who points the finger. I think this is actually true on a collective level, for people by and large inherit their values and ethics from their families and from the society around them, their sense of authority is external. We can see this in the vulnerability of the collective to fashion, to advertising, to cries of war from the government, to witch-hunts created by the popular press. But it is not true for the minority who claw their way out of the received wisdoms and find it within themselves to stand alone, who can live without the unconscious sense of solidarity with the herd-mind. This sounds terribly patronising, but I don’t mean it to be, it’s just how things are.

ASTROLOGY AND SCIENCE

It seems to me that astrology and science pull in opposite directions, they describe very different types of truth. So that any attempt to ‘prove’ the truth of astrology by statistical means is misguided.

Scientific truth is always generalised, it goes from the particular to the universal: it sees the universe as a machine in which certain sets of conditions always give rise to certain results. A particular event is of significance only inasmuch as it is an example of a general law.

But a human being cannot be reduced to a mere instance of a general law, a human being is particular and individual and ultimately unknowable. To the extent that science tries to reduce people to generalities, it is a de-humanising influence. This occurs particularly when science is in the hands of people who have the irrational, unprovable superstition that reality is ultimately scientific and ‘rational’, and that everything must be seen in scientific terms.

For science, the Eureka! moment is when you realise a general law like E=mc2. For an astrologer, the Eureka! moment is generally when you make an individual’s chart work for them, when you are able to put into words that person’s unique and particular way of living out the symbols in their chart.

Of course astrology also deals in general ‘laws’, like the nature of the 12 signs. It also moves from the particular to the universal, but in a very different way. Astrology doesn’t try to ‘reduce’ people to the signs. It is more the nature of artistic truth. A novelist will create characters, based to some extent on his/her observations of real people. If this is done well, the characters will seem real to us, and we will feel something is being said about people in general. But that general truth is arrived at through the depth with which the individual has been observed. The individual is central, yet also mysteriously connects us to a wider truth – but not one that can be proved statistically. This would be absurd, because the novelist deals as much in felt/intuited/experienced truth, that gives us a sense of human nature, as he/she does in truth that can be put into words: and even then, how do you couch those words in scientific terms?

It is the same with the signs of the zodiac. Some artistic genius saw the underlying patterning of human nature that the signs describe. But the essence of the signs is more about having a feeling for the type of character being described than about words. It’s like can you reduce your mother to the things you might say to describe her?

Astrology is also divinatory truth. It is about making connections between apparently unconnected events – i.e. the planets and ourselves – and realising what one has to say about the other. How can that possibly be scientific?

It is the same sort of truth as when an unusual event in nature occurs, and you feel there is a particular message in it for you. Like when you see, for example, a bird of prey doing something it doesn’t usually do, and you go away and think about it, and eventually the meaning dawns on you. In the same way, the universe at the moment you were born has a particular message for you about your soul, and the astrologer’s art is to help you read that message. Scientifically, this makes no sense at all.

Astrology is a higher form of knowledge than Science, because Astrology can understand and accept scientific truth, it can be incorporated within its body of knowledge. But Science has no way of understanding Astrology, the truth of which does not lie within its narrow method.

ALBERT ELLIS

I’ve just read two obituaries of a guy called Albert Ellis who I hadn't heard of, but who was, apparently, ‘the grandfather of cognitive-behavioural therapies’. He was voted by the American Psychological Association to be the second most influential psychotherapist of the 20th century after Carl Rogers, and ahead of Freud.

“Freud was full of horseshit,” he liked to say, while Freud’s central concept of neurosis was “just a high-class word for whining.”


He used to run Friday night workshops which became legendary. “Let me tell you why people are always making you so angry,” he informed a troubled young woman in 2005 (when aged 91), “Because they’re screwed up! They’re out of their fucking minds! We’re all out of our fucking minds!”

This mantra, which he repeated regularly, was behind his 'Rational emotive behaviour therapy (REBT)'. Its starting point was that we have negative emotional reactions not to events themselves, but to our beliefs about them. He rejected Freud’s focus on unpicking a patient’s childhood experiences. Instead, he advocated identifying and modifying these “irrational beliefs”, which usually take the form of a hidden demand that reality should be different than it is.

“There are three musts that hold us back,” he wrote. “I must do well. You must treat me well. And the world must be easy.” We upset ourselves with the grandiose requirement that we should perform perfectly, and that others should be nice to us. But in fact we are imperfect: we fail, in love and work, all the time. And other people, often enough, “act like jerks.”

This approach led him to emphasise short-term treatment, aimed at changing one’s way of thinking, here and now. “As I see it, psychoanalysis gives clients a cop-out,” he said, “ They don’t have to change their ways or their philosophies; they get to talk about themselves for 10 years, blaming their parents and waiting for magic-bullet insights.”


Early glimmers of REBT could be seen in a nerve-racking experiment Ellis conducted as a teenager, with himself as the subject. As a 19 year-old, he was painfully shy around women. So during a month of visits to the Bronx Botanical Garden, he sat on a bench and spoke to every woman he saw. His 130 attempts at conversation did not lead to true love, but that was beside the point. He had proved to himself that rejection, though unpleasant, was not unbearable: there was no need to “awfulise” it. “Nobody vomited and ran away,” he wrote. “Nobody called the cops.”

The experience led directly to the “shame-attacking exercises” he later prescribed to his patients. “Stop somebody on the street,” he advised, “and say ‘I just got out of the loony bin. What month is it?’ And learn not to feel ashamed when they look in horror at you, and think you’re off your rocker, which they think you are. But you’re really not. You’re being very much saner than they are.”

In his final years, the Directors of his Institute threw him out and stopped paying for his accommodation and medical care. He took them to court last year and won, and ended up back at the institute. True to the principles of REBT, he insisted that the contretemps hadn’t upset him: there was no point, after all, in demanding that the whole universe fall in line with his wishes. The other board members, he said, were “ fucked-up, fallible human beings, just like everyone else.”

He probably was one-sidedly rational. I found this quote by him: "Witness, for example, the fervent testimonials that innumerable people keep giving for cults, superstitions, and hoaxes like astrology, shamanism, psychic surgery, fortune telling, channeling, witchcraft, communications from ghosts, satanism, and demonism."

Mind you, I don't necessarily think people are being unreasonable if they think astrology is nonsense. There's no reason why it should work, which makes it all the more wondrous that it does. And you can't write off people's opinions just because they haven't tested astrology: so many ideas and theories come our way, astrology is just one of them, and we have to be able to form opinions about things. Like whether we really are ruled by aliens, or whether the moon is hollow (as I was knowingly informed once). I don't think a belief in astrology is any less strange.

Back to Albert Ellis. He was born 27 Sept 1913 (no time). His chart has a powerful signature: a Cardinal t-square involving the Sun, Jupiter and a Mars-Pluto conjunction. I know someone else with a Cardinal t-square involving these planets, and this person is not pleasant! Always starting fights and plotting, and never getting anywhere.

But if you can live it, it's very powerful and creative. Ellis had Sun in Libra (relationship to other people) in a t-square with Jupiter in Capricorn (structured philosophy) and Mars-Pluto in Cancer (tough love! - or transformative care for others that goes to the root of the matter.) That Sun square Pluto demanded of him that he become authentically powerful (hence the experiment in the park aged just 19 - apparently he eventually became very good at picking up women), and with Mars involved as well, he was tough enough to stand up to the hostility of the psychotherapeutic establishment to his ideas. This tough, combative power, so necessary to his life, also led to an enduring criticism: that his tone could make him sound as though he was urging people who, for example, were severely depressed, simply to pull their socks up.

He had another side: Venus in Virgo conjunct the Moon and sextile to Pluto. So under the abrasiveness was a real sensitivity, insight and care. Venus is about how we relate to others (Don't expect others to be perfect! he would say with Venus in Virgo), and his natal placement was at 1.15 Virgo. It is an important planet for a therapist, and appropriate that he should have died on 24th July under a Venus Return, with Venus stationing at 2.41 Virgo.

THE UK 1801 CHART

It’s often not possible to have a final answer as to the correct chart for a country, and there may be more than one valid chart that describes different aspects of the nation. For the USA, one of the classic cases is that of the 2nd July vs 4th July charts: the first being that of the legal declaration of independence, and therefore describing the first working of an independent US government; the second being the public declaration of independence, which therefore relates more to the country as a whole and its ideals. Both charts can be seen to work in their own way.

The UK has a number of charts as well. For example, for the monarchy, we can use the 1066 chart for the coronation of William I, or the 1801 chart for the proclamation of George III as the first king of the United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland.

For the country itself, the two most recent charts are for 1801 and 1922. In 1801 Britain became united with Ireland, and in 1922 the South of Ireland seceded. So was the 1922 event just a re-organisation of the UK, or was it a whole new incarnation, which therefore gives us the most recent chart for the UK? You can take your pick.

For now, I’m going to look at some aspects of the 1801 chart, based on the Act of Union between Britain and Ireland which came into effect at 00.00 hours on 1st Jan 1801.


What is immediately noticeable is just how Cardinal this chart is: Sun, Moon and Angles are all Cardinal. This gives a nation that likes to act, to take initiative and to be in control, a very good chart for the successful empire-building that was going on at the time and subsequently. And an unaspected Pluto in Pisces. Unaspected planets aren’t that easy to interpret, but Britain did build the largest empire in world history: an unrestrained Pluto (power and riches)? And Britain ruled the seas: Pluto in Pisces. Jupiter (expansion) in the 10th (world stage) also helps, as does Moon in Cancer in the 10th - at home on the world stage.

Uranus Rising: the individualistic, even eccentric Englishman, and the country that never quite fits in with the European Union. This is also partly due to the UK’s allegiance to the US, its outsized offspring. The UK has Moon at 19 Cancer and MC at 9 Cancer, so it feels at home on the world stage with the US, which has Sun at 13 Cancer, on the UK Moon-MC midpoint.


Libra Rising: the British sense of fair play. Britain is also known for treachery (‘perfidious Albion’, say the French), but the British don’t see this. Maybe it’s the unaspected Pluto again.

This Pluto was Direct by Progression from 1755 to 1957. This corresponds pretty well with the rise of what was called the second British Empire, after the loss of the American colonies, but including the acquisition of India and much of Africa, South East Asia and other territories, so that by 1921 it included a quarter of the world’s population. Prog Pluto began to slow down to go retrograde during World War II, and in the years after the war most of the Empire was dismantled. Prog Pluto has been Direct since 1957, as Britain has built a new, albeit diminished power-base in the world.


The Sun, Moon and Angles run from 7 to 19 degrees of the Cardinal Signs, and the last 2 transits of Pluto to these points have proved very significant politically. The first of these sweeps of Pluto through these points was from 1919 to 1931, and this was a period of rising power for the Labour movement, firstly through industrial action in search of better conditions, which resulted in the General Strike of 1926; this failed, but then the first proper Labour government was elected in 1929, and lasted until 1935 (they had been briefly in power, as a small minority government, in 1924).

The next sweep of Pluto through these points was from 1974 to 1980, and again we see the same power struggle going on. In 1974 the miners managed to oust the Conservatives from power through strike action, and the years that followed were ones in which there was a lot of industrial unrest and strike action, in which Britain was seen as ‘the sick man of Europe’. In 1979 Margaret Thatcher was elected to power, and there was a sea-change in British politics (just as there had been in 1930, at the end of the previous series of Pluto transits). Rightly or wrongly, Thatcher broke the power of the unions and got Britain back on the road to economic health.

You could see these 2 periods as struggles between left and right wings of politics, with first the left gaining power and setting in motion a much more compassionate society, that resulted after the war in the creation of the welfare state. But Labour did not have a good economic record, and eventually a corrective in the other direction was needed, which Thatcher provided.

There is another of these Pluto periods coming up, between 2011 and 2018, as Pluto moves from 7 to 19 Capricorn. It is not clear to me what this struggle might be about, as the old imbalances are no longer there. We no longer have the old polarity of the Tories trashing the public services, or Labour trashing the economy. This has been Blair’s great achievement, to manage both the economy and the public services fairly well at the same time. And there is no sign of this changing.

So this next Pluto series of transits may not be about a struggle between political polarities. But there is no shortage of wider issues to be faced: environmental degradation, energy resources, nuclear proliferation – all of these are becoming pressing, they are global issues, and furthermore Pluto (and Uranus) will also be impacting on the charts of the major powers. If there is a political struggle, it may be about which party can deal most effectively with these problems.

GORDON BROWN’S CHAOS

Gordon Brown, the UK PM, has Sun, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Node in 12th House Pisces, as well as Mercury in the 12th. A substantial part of this man is hidden from view (12th) and it is chaotic, indolent, imaginative, creative, profoundly connected to the collective desires etc etc. But we don’t get to see this side, and never did in all his 10 years as Chancellor – apart from, perhaps, the odd flash via his concern for Africa.


What we do see is this unusually controlled, responsible accountant, which he is particularly playing up (successfully) at the moment, but it is not an act, it’s his comfort zone, and has been for years. Gordon, where are you?

This may sound like pop psychology, but being leader of the country, and being so connected to the collective, I think his missing 12th House gets projected outwards, it gets played out around him in major national events. This has been happening since the moment he became PM. All these events that he can’t control are his own suppressed 12th House Pisces.

There has been a remarkable run of uncontrollable national events in the mere 6 weeks since he has been PM. Within 2 days of him starting the job, there was a series of attempted terrorist attacks. Then we have had endless and unprecedented flooding in the UK (particularly appropriate for 12th House Pisces). And in the last 24 hours there has been a confirmed outbreak of Foot and Mouth disease: when this last happened, it spun out of control very quickly and became a national crisis.

At least it's cheaper for him than paying a dominatrix.

It is a strange set of coincidences, and I think it is psychologically fascinating. Chill out, Gordon! Stop "trying your utmost" as you put it.

OUR NEW GILDED AGE

There is a seagull in Aberdeen that once a day swoops into the local branch of W.H.Smith (as you do), pinches a packet of Doritos off the shelf, flies out with them and eats them. If the shop is busy, he waits until it’s quiet so that he can get a clear run at his target. What sign do you think this bird is? Gemini with Aries Rising? Hatched soon after dawn last summer, with Venus in Taurus opposite Jupiter?

At least animals don’t pretend they’re not materialistic. I was saying in yesterday's blog how in certain circles it’s seen as perfectly normal for women to chase after blokes because they are rich, and to marry them mainly for that reason. They are seen as having made a good catch. This is the general approving opinion, but you’re not allowed to say it. You’re supposed also to think that the couple got married purely because they are in love. People have these contradictory attitudes in their heads, and they’re not aware they are contradictory, because they lead unexamined lives. When I turned 40, my father said to me, “You know, there’s still time to go out and make £100 million!” I said, “And what then?” This threw him for a moment, because having £100 million is such a self-evident virtue, then he said, a bit blusteringly, “Well, the world of women will open up to you!” This is a man whose present wife once announced in his presence (quoting someone else) that the only thing a wife can’t delegate is the bedroom.

I’m not going to pretend I don’t like money, but it isn’t a source of meaning for me. With Scorpio-Taurus Nodes, however, it has been a long struggle to get a balanced view of the material realm, and not to feel defensive about not being materialistic. The challenge of Scorpio is to move away from the false sources of power – money, status etc – and to find real power within, that can’t be taken away. It seems to me that money is a big deal for most people, even if they’re not materialistic. I don’t mean a big deal from the point of view of getting hold of enough, but all the psychological issues around it. We are in the 8th House here.

And we are living in an age in which there are a lot of extremely rich people, what the New York Times called ‘America’s New Gilded Age’, a reference to the period before World War I, when “powerful enterprises, dominated by men who grew immensely rich, ushered in the industrialisation of the United States.” With Pluto (riches) coming to the end of its time in Sagittarius (expansion, excess), it is perhaps not surprising that we are in such an age again.

I haven’t got anything per se against people dedicating their lives to becoming rich. If that’s what turns them on, then who am I to try and stop them? Obviously the way they go about it has to be contained, because such people can be extremely ruthless. What also needs containing is the parading of these people as superior, as possessing more virtue than ordinary people, when often they’ve just got a big hole of inadequacy in them that they’re desperately trying to fill.

Many CEOs now get vast salaries, and as one chief executive said: “Obscene salaries send the wrong message through a company. The message is that all brilliance emanates from the top; that the worker on the floor of the store or the factory is insignificant.”

Such CEOs argue that though their incomes are very large, it only reflects a small share of the corporate value created on their watch. In reply, Paul Volcker, a former Federal Reserve Board Chairman, says “I don’t see a relationship between the extremes of income now and the performance of the economy…The market did not go up because businessmen got so much smarter.” He added that the 1950s and 1960s “were very good economic times and no one was making what they are now.”

It doesn’t necessarily seem wrong to me that someone who has trained for a highly skilled job and who works long hours should earn more, but what is happening now is out of all proportion, it really is Pluto in Sagittarius at its worst, bloated and arrogant and out of touch with reality. Pluto in Capricorn would classically correct this, Capricorn has a sense that there should be a proportional relationship between what you do and what you earn. So there may be a corrective coming. On the other hand, Capricorn is also big business, so it might get worse.

PRINCE WILLIAM AND HIS LOVE-LIFE

First of all, many thanks to Melody and Lynn for posting their blogs here while I was away. I've enjoyed reading them. I was camping for a few days at an organic farm on Bodmin Moor. The weather was crap, as it has been in England all summer. It's something to do with El Nino. But I did manage to read Tom Wolfe's novel "I am Charlotte Simmons", about a very bright country hick from the mountains of North Carolina, who goes to a posh university and who begins to flunk her grades, because she finds another way of being seen as 'special': dating one of the basketball stars. It starts off with her being terribly disapproving of sex and alcohol, and you think she might be starting on some sort of deeper journey of liberation, but no, it turns out that underneath it all this moralising country hick is just as shallow as all the people she once disapproved of.

Which brings me on to the subject of Prince William and Kate Middleton. These two split up 3 months ago and now they are back together again. As I argued in an earlier blog, I think Miss Middleton is on the make - like Charlotte and her basketball star - but I don't think she's aware of it for a moment, and nor is Prince William, bless him; and the media, for once, seem to think it would be going a step too far to say that Miss Middleton's motives are anything less than pure. I don't hold this against Miss Middleton, because there are thousands like her, and in certain backgrounds (like my own), this is seen as perfectly normal, even desirable behaviour.

One look at Prince William's transits, however, tells me there there is no way this relationship is going to last, not at his age.

Prince William: 21 June 1982 21:03 London UK

Prince William is currently going through the biggest period of change of his life so far. Pluto is currently conjoining his ASC at 27 Sag, and over the next few years will oppose his Sun and Moon in early Cancer. He is becoming a very different person, the Prince William of his adult years who we have yet to encounter. Not many relationships begun at a young age can withstand this sort of change: it is time to move on. More than this, William's Sun and Moon are in the 7th House of Relationships, so the Pluto transit will be particularly transforming this area of his life; and his Venus is at 25 Taurus, which Neptune will be squaring over the next couple of years - again transforming his love-life.

What is noticeable about William's chart is the degree to which relationships are going to define his life: Sun and Moon in the 7th, and a strongly aspected Venus, being closely conjunct Chiron and in a yod with Pluto and Neptune/ASC. Also, with Sun and Moon opposite Neptune, as well as Neptune Rising, it may be hard for him to find a full sense of himself outside of a strong relationship. This may be to some extent a weakness, but it may also be just how he is built. This may be why he is currently back with Kate: it is helping give him back his sense of who he is.

There is a LOT going on for william in the area of relationships, and it is going to be fascinating watching it unfold over the coming years. It is not quite so common for men to be defined by their relationships, but it looks like William will be. As was his mother, Princess Diana, who had Venus one degree off William's at 24 Taurus. And, interestingly, as was his great-great uncle, Edward VIII (Duke of Windsor), who in 1936 abdicated the throne for an American divorcee, Wallis Simpson: he had Venus at 23 Taurus (unaspected, so it was hard to integrate into the rest of his life), and Sun at 2.20 Cancer, bang on Prince William's Sun-Moon midpoint.

Duke of Windsor: 23/6/1894 21.55 London UK

In terms of major aspects to planets, Prince William's Venus merely makes a wide, out-of-sign opposition to Uranus, so again it is not unlike the Duke of Windsor's unaspected Venus. And they both have star quality. The Duke of Windsor as a young man made royalty sexy, and so does William (Prince Charles may be guilty of many things, but not this particular sin!)

With Sun and Moon in conservative, family oriented Cancer, Prince William feels at home in the circumscribed life of the Royal Family (an institution which the playwright David Hare once described as "a very expensive way of being cruel to a small group of people.")

And what might this yod to Venus mean? With outer planets at the base of the yod, I think that one meaning is that Prince William's love life is fated to be circumscribed by the demands of the collective. The conjunction of Venus to Chiron suggests that he will experience this as wounding, and for him there will be resonances of his mother's marriage (Diana's Venus being conjunct William's), and the unbridgeable gap between his parents. What Diana did not understand was that her marriage took place in order to meet a collective need, as royal marriages have always done, and it is therefore naive to expect personal fulfillment, but by the same token perfectly acceptable to have lovers.

Prince William does not have the chart of a rebel, although with his weak Venus-Uranus opposition, he may wriggle a bit against the sort of marriage expected of him. With Aquarius Rising, and Mars in Aries square to his Sun, the Duke of Windsor had a lot more rebellion in him. But being so family oriented, and marriage oriented (7th House Sun and Moon), the traditional type of royal marriage may be very painful for William.

With Neptune Rising in Sag, Jupiter on the Midheaven, and his mother's Venus, we will all come to love William. He will be able to live comfortably within the tradition he has grown up in - not necessarily a sin! - and will be very focussed on his wife and family. But with Venus conjunct Chiron, there may be a secret heartache of not being free to marry who he wanted. At the same time, being so Cancerian, he will really try to make his family work.

Pluto in Sag and Harry Potter's Journey

In 1990 I became fascinated with druidry and neopagan ritual after reading Marion Zimmer's amazing book The Mists of Avalon, and searched high and low for information on magic and witchcraft. During those pre-internet days, it was difficult to find what I was looking for. I happened on a women's workshop taking place at the beach where I met a real witch and began studying with her. I had been playing with the tarot for years, and of course I was a professional astrologer by that time, but I fell in love with ritual and sympathetic magic.

The new age bookstore that I frequented in North Carolina where I live was very limited on the subject, but a book called Drawing Down the Moon had a resource guide that provided newsletters and other publications with source material for my new quest. Just a few years later (Uranus/Neptune conjunction in 1992-94), internet chatrooms on America Online and elsewhere began to provide an infinite amount of knowledge on all kinds of magic, witchraft, and paganism.

Pluto entered Sagittarius in 1995, transforming (Pluto) the realm of publishing and information (Sagittarius), a process which included taking underground realms of power and magic (Pluto) and spreading them to the masses via the media (Sagittarius). Today, any teenager can buy a pentagram, a cauldron and a scrying mirror. The popularity of the Harry Potter book and film series began under the passage of Pluto through Sagittarius which began in 1995 and concludes this year.

The first Harry Potter book was published on June 26, 1997 with Pluto traveling retrograde through the early degrees of Sagittarius (3 degrees, to be exact). The outer planets are also called transpersonal planets because they download a new awareness into the mass consciousness that is the harbinger that transforms the realm over which the new sign rules. Pluto, being the planet of death, endings, rebirth and the occult, is the natural ruler of Magick. Pluto experiences involve the use of fundamental energies of creation and destruction in order to provide transformative experiences, and harnessing these energies is the role of all magickal practices.

Aside from the obvious connotations of magic, Plutonian themes of death, darkness, rejection, despair, abandonment and power prevail in the Harry Potter books. JK Rowling says, "My books are largely about death. They open with the death of Harry's parents. There is Voldemort's obsession with conquering death and his quest for immortality at any price, the goal of anyone with magic. I so understand why Voldemort wants to conquer death. We're all frightened of it." True, but this is not a subject typically found in children's books.

The Harry Potter series has taken these Plutonian themes and truly brought them into the mainstream through a variety of media Sagittarius) including books, film, board games, computer games, audio boooks and even, in a fiesta of Sagittarian entertainment, a theme park. It's only fitting that the last Harry Potter book, in which the death of our hero may occur, enters the mainstream consciousness just as Pluto leaves Sagittarius for Capricorn. Children who have grown up reading Harry Potter are now entering their adult life (Capricorn) - the first generation to have grown up with an understanding of magic.

THE SATURN-MC RULER CYCLE

I was a bit slow off the mark with my last blog 'The President’s Mars is Missing', because I didn’t spot that George Bush’s Mars rules his Aries MC. What I had spotted was that the cycle of Saturn transits to his natal Mars corresponded to major shifts in his career – from the conjunction in 1978, and his first attempt to enter Congress, right through to the next (2008) conjunction, and the crumbling of his Presidency. But I hadn’t connected it with his MC, which is basic to chart analysis, nor did I particularly connect it with the nature of Saturn itself, which is to advance one’s career. And part of me goes “Well a real astrologer, who had diplomas etc, wouldn’t have missed that!” On the other hand, if I gave my blogging the time it really needs, I would hardly blog!

Looking at it now, the cycle of Saturn transits to GWB’s Mars is a textbook case.

Saturn is the natural ruler of the MC, so the cycle of his transits to the actual ruler of the MC are bound to be interesting, reflecting the development of our career-path. You can’t really do this with any of the other Angles, because their natural rulers – Mars/ASC, Moon/IC and Venus/DESC – are fast-moving planets, so their transits tend to be triggers rather than transformative.

I looked at this cycle with my own chart and it worked very well. I did it with my Virgo rising chart, where Mercury rules the Gemini MC. Trouble is, I also have another chart with Libra Rising and Capricorn MC, and the Saturn transits also worked well, but they would, because it is the Saturn cycle itself.

A couple of months ago I asked my blog readers to comment if they thought I had Virgo or Libra Rising, and I had loads of people saying I’m Virgo, and just one who said I’m Libra Rising. Which was fairly convincing. Then I asked my astrobabble group in Glastonbury, and to a person they were convinced I am Libra Rising. But they only know me as a person, rather than the real me who is to be found in print! So the jury is still out, though I’m favouring Virgo.

PLUTO IN LEO VS PLUTO IN CAPRICORN

I had been wondering in Thursday's posting (Celebrity Reality-Check) if the Paris Hilton affair etc might be part of Pluto’s entry into Capricorn, as well as part of the Saturn-Neptune opposition, but now I think perhaps not. It has more to do with Saturn in Leo, restraints (Saturn) on royalty/celebrity (Leo), opposite Neptune (excess, fantasies).

Capricorn and Leo are both about the Father archetype, and therefore both about leadership, but in different ways. I think that Leo is more about the leader who stands for something, who is archetypal royalty that connects us to the Source of life; whereas Capricorn is more about the leader who rules wisely within the limits of what is possible. Celebrities don’t usually govern us (though some make the transition), they are just there, rightly or wrongly, to fill our need for archetypal royalty. So it is a Leo issue rather than a Capricorn one.

When Pluto entered Leo in 1938/39, the western world was dominated by several major historical figures – Hitler, Roosevelt, Mussolini, Stalin, Churchill (a year later). This is what we remember about this era: the leaders themselves, which is very much a Leo thing. Churchill, for example, was in many ways not very Capricorn, not very good at actually running things, though he had people who were. He had plenty of ideas about military strategy, but the generals had to do their best to keep his hands off, because his ideas weren’t always very practical. But his ability to lead the nation, to stand for something and draw the nation behind that, was superb. His leadership strength was Leo. As was Hitler’s. His actual running of the Reich was apparently quite chaotic, but he could certainly stand for something, something Divine even, or what was felt to be Divine. Mussolini was a Leo anyway, so no more need to be said. Perhaps in wartime this emphasis in needed, and hence Pluto was in Leo during this period.

A good leader needs some of this Leo quality, which is why the next UK leader, Gordon Brown, the Invisible Man who is good with the books, won’t be a good leader, despite his Capricorn-leadership qualities. (He has Moon in Leo, but its conjunction to Pluto seems to make it hidden and manipulative, rather than empowering and shining). Margaret Thatcher, who has Saturn Rising and Moon in Leo, had both. I think at heart she was a bookkeeper, and a much needed one, but she also managed to stand for something, while on the birth of her first grandchild she famously announced “We are a grandmother.” It was Ronald Reagan’s criticism of his successor, George Bush Snr, that he didn’t stand for anything, even though he had the Capricorn sense not to go for regime change in Iraq. Unlike his son, who is all Leo and no Capricorn as a leader.

The last time Pluto was in Capricorn was from 1762-1778, and the most notable leadership event during that period was the American Revolution and the creation of a new and very well thought through system of government, and the world’s first full democracy (kind of). (Note the French Revolution took place later under Pluto in Aquarius). Yes, the American Revolution has its hallowed leaders (Leo). But the real achievement was this new type of government.

So with Pluto coming into Capricorn, although we will of course continue to have well-recognised leaders, I think there will be more of an emphasis on good government, of ruling within the limits that are there. This is the nature of Saturn/Capricorn: it involves an initiation into life through the world, through embracing its limitations and learning to function through them, so that our dreams become real and contribute to society.

And more than anything, the limitation now is the earth herself, our leaders functioning within the limits of what the earth has to offer. This is something we have forgotten how to do and forgotten is necessary. Limits, we feel, are to be transcended through new technology. So Pluto in Capricorn is coming at just the right time, as the environmental issue becomes politically mainstream. What we now need are leaders who know about Capricorn rulership, who know about functioning within limits, and not just because of the environmental issue, but also (in the west) because we no longer have the world to ourselves - China and India are also coming on board in a big way, and with huge populations.

BLAIR'S 'LIE'

I have always found Tony Blair’s exaggeration of the case for the Iraq War to be thought-provoking. This has been the main cause of the British public’s loss of trust in him. Blair made the case for war around the central assertion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The Intelligence Services had been tentative about the possibility of Saddam having WMD, and in relaying this to Parliament, Blair converted this tentative conclusion into a certainty. This, to many people, constituted a lie over a very serious matter, hence the loss of trust. That happened 4 years ago, and since then I’ve regularly turned Blair’s ‘lie’ over in my mind. On the face of it, it is a lie, and a big one. On the other hand, politicians habitually say one thing and mean another, and their fellow MPs all know the language, they know what is really being said and what the speaker’s real intentions are, and the speaker knows they know this. In this context, what is ordinarily a lie is not so. So it’s not necessarily a simple matter. The way the system works is adversarial. We have an Opposition, and this is a good thing, and we have a ‘free press’, which again is a good thing, for between them they help keep the government accountable. But they habitually give the worst possible interpretation of anything the government might do, and twist the meaning of anything they might say. In this context, it is not a simple matter for a member of the government to speak the truth. In the case of Iraq, a clear motive for the government was that of staying ‘onside’ with America. All British governments have wanted to do this (and Blair recently actually stated the importance of being ‘in’ with the US: it opens lots of doors, he said). Harold Wilson wasn’t prepared to go as far as Blair, for he refused to join the US in Vietnam; and Margaret Thatcher was known for not giving Reagan an easy time of it, despite the closeness of their relationship. So we can criticise Blair for being too subservient, but not necessarily for the basic intention of staying onside with America. But he couldn’t say this. If he had given this as a reason for going to war, he would have found himself out of office. It would have been too humiliating for the country, even though everyone knew that was what was going on. So he had to give another reason for going to war, for which he has subsequently been hounded by the public but not, interestingly, by Parliament, for they know and accept the game. I have been watching Andrew Marr’s ‘A History of Modern Britain’, and last night’s episode included the Suez Crisis of 1956, when Marr said (very topically) that Britain went to war on the basis of a lie. Nasser of Egypt had nationalised the Suez Canal, and Britain wanted to claim back its control of the canal. To do this they cooked up a plot with the French and Israelis whereby the Israelis would find a pretext for attacking Egypt, and the French and British would join in to support them. In those days you didn’t have a vote in Parliament about going to war, and the war's failure, under American pressure, led to the resignation of Eden, the Prime Minister. The crisis made clear that Britain was no longer a major player in the world. Eden had a Sun-Neptune conjunction in Gemini, and at the time of the war, Mars in Pisces was squaring this conjunction: a war (Mars) based on deception (Neptune). In the run-up to Iraq, Tony Blair had transiting Neptune conjoining his Moon, so again we have the element of Neptunian deception; as for the ‘war’ bit, Blair has Mars Rising, so he’s in his element anyway. But for the record, Mars in Capricorn was a few weeks off joining his Capricorn MC. The point here is that in constructing a pretext for war, Tony Blair wasn’t doing anything new. It’s just that it was no longer politically acceptable to do so, which I think is a good thing. It is one of the outcomes of Pluto’s passage through Sagittarius, a sign that values honesty and truth: this, I think, is the cultural and political significance of Blair’s ‘Lie’. The trouble is, it wasn’t just ‘A Convenient Untruth’ (to paraphrase Gore). Blair seemed entirely convinced that Saddam had these weapons and was an imminent threat. I dislike, but kind of understand, why politicians lie in the ordinary sense. What makes me scratch my head is how Blair convinced himself that the pretext was the reality. And why he had this trusting and appreciative relationship with Bush. They are part of the same package, I think. I recently saw Lord Kinnock, a previous Labour leader, also failing to understand Blair’s relationship with Bush. So while I very reluctantly accept that politicians often have to say one thing and mean another, and that this was probably an inevitable part of going to war with Iraq (and that DOESN’T mean I agree with the real reasons for that war), I still don’t understand why Blair brought such a flimsy pretext before Parliament (he didn’t have to) and persuaded himself to believe in it. It was asking for trouble. It was wilfully self-destructive. I tend to think that what we’re looking at it not so much a moral issue, but some sort of psycho-pathology in Blair which he is blind to, and which I for one don’t yet understand. But it has the character of religious extremism: the passionate certainty under the influence of a higher authority (the will of God, as manifest through the person of both himself and the more powerful Bush). And for Blair, I suggest that loyalty to this authority transcended ordinary political loyalties. It also seemed to blind him, as religion often does, to ordinary considerations of truth. I think people are right not to trust Blair over this issue. But not because he ‘lied’ in the sense of being deliberately deceptive. He can’t be trusted because to some extent he is a mole, a foreign agent, whose loyalties lie, in the last resort, not with his country but with what he imagines to be ‘God’.

SATURN-NEPTUNE & PARENTAL FANTASIES

Last Wednesday, Lynn at astrodynamics did an interesting blog on the health of John F Kennedy. Not being familiar with his chart, what stayed in my mind was his Saturn-Neptune conjunction on the Midheaven. As Lynn put it, “Saturn [is] right on the MC where it reflects the pressure of his father (Saturn) pushing him into public life (MC). And in Cancer no less, demonstrating that his public life was part of the family dynamic and not just an individual ambition.”

I have heard it suggested elsewhere that left to himself, Kennedy’s natural leaning would have been to become something like an academic, and that it was mainly family expectation that pushed him into politics. The dreams (Neptune) of the father (Saturn) and family (Cancer). Or even the unreal (Neptune) expectations of the father (Saturn).

John F Kennedy 29 May 1917 15.00 Brookline MA

He had no fire planets in his chart, and an unaspected Sun and unaspected Pluto! You would expect to find Fire – a sense of vision, direction, leadership – in a President (like Bush’s Leo Rising or Clinton’s Leo Sun). Unaspected planets can manifest in various ways – they can, for example, be apparently absent, or they can take over (like Hitler’s unaspected Neptune-Pluto conjunction, which made him the undiscerning voice of the German Unconscious.) In the case of JFK, we could speculate that in manifesting his Saturn-Neptune, he never found his real individual destiny (unaspected Sun), and that Pluto, again unaspected, and the only planet in a fire house (the 9th), was able to manifest as a raw drive for power, independently of his personal needs and wishes. No wonder he had health problems! Maybe, even, no wonder he died young.

I have been struck lately, through personal experience, by the extent to which members of an ambitious family can subsume their own identities in the collective consciousness of the family, leading lives that are the same down to ridiculous details, and espousing identical, unexamined values. It is no different to the dynamics within a religious cult. It gives psychological security, but it is also based on fear, which the worldly success can mask, for to question such a family’s values inevitably leads to ostracism, to what would be experienced as psychological annihilation. And such families usually have one or two members who suffer this fate.

Back to Saturn-Neptune. It is interesting that Kennedy didn’t just carry the dreams of his father, he also carried the dreams of a nation, the Cancer nation to which he belonged. He was built for this, as we can see from his chart. And he wasn’t just the victim of family pressure: the Saturn-Neptune-MC is also HIS Saturn-Neptune-MC, he had a propensity to carry the unreal expectations of others (‘Camelot’) at the expense of his personal destiny (unaspected Sun).

Tony Blair also has a Saturn-Neptune conjunction (opposite Mercury and Venus in Aries) and he too has been the carrier of the dreams of the collective, and the original expectations of him were way beyond what a human could deliver. Saturn-Neptune can raise you to god-like status, and if you don’t die young (which many of them do), you are likely to eventually encounter a huge backlash as people feel let down. This happened to Blair over Iraq, and would almost certainly have happened to JFK had he lived: archetypal patterns have an inevitability about them. It is interesting that David Cameron was elected leader of the Conservative Party under a Saturn-Neptune opposition, because he is seen by many as the Tories’ answer to Blair, the young saviour of the Party (who will inevitably let them down in the end.)

The Dalai Lama was born under a Saturn-Neptune opposition, and his life from the word go has been devoted to living out the dream/fantasy which his religious tradition (Saturn in the 9th) and the Tibetan people have of him: the god-king. It is amazing he has done so well on it, as this level of expectation would twist most of us right out of shape. Maybe those who brought him up knew what they were doing. I think the Tibetan tradition does have a lot of good stuff in it, but it is also an organised religion, and prone to exactly the same weaknesses as other religions.

Venus Williams, the former world number one women’s tennis player, was born under a Mars/Saturn-Neptune square, and her and her younger sister are well-known for being the products of their father’s ambition. Mars gives the sporting drive and ability, but it is interesting that her reign at the top has been short-lived and erratic, and she is known for pursuing other interests: this suggests to me that Venus has been breaking away from the dream (Neptune) of her father (Saturn).

On 22 May this year, twins were born to a 60-year old woman in New Jersey. I read this in a blog by a lady named Out the Comet's Ass. Now I don’t want to rush in and judge, and only time will tell how wise it is to have kids at such an age. But the astrology doesn’t look entirely promising. The twins have no earth planets (though they do have earth ASC and MC), suggesting there may be a problem about their connection to the earth and to nature, but which their Angles (which are doorways, rather than part of us, unlike the planets) will require them to develop. This interpretation is backed up by a Moon-Saturn conjunction in 12th House Leo, opposite Neptune and Chiron. At worst, this indicates that they are the product of the damaged fantasy (Neptune/Chiron) of a self-centred (Leo) unconscious (12th) Mother (Moon/Saturn). This is a harsh thing to say, but there may well be an element of truth in it. And again we have Saturn-Neptune, the dreams, even fantasies, of the parent, which these twins will be carrying - they'll have to live up to being 'miracle babies', or something like that.

I think it’s natural for parents to have hopes and dreams for their kids, even unrealistic ones, dreams that perhaps compensate for what they haven’t managed to achieve. If you’ve built up a business, you’re probably going to want one of your kids to join it and build it further – and at the same time, you may be jealous of their youth and success, and you may try to undermine them. We’re a bundle of contradictions, with feet of clay (Saturn) and dreaming of the stars (Neptune).

When I was young I was at the receiving end of some pretty powerful and unconscious parental fantasies which, with the Saturn-Neptune opposition currently hitting my Sun-Chiron, I’m doing a further stage of untangling. It can take decades! But I’m not kidding myself that I can decide not to have my own set of fantasies for my 6 year old. I can try to minimise them by being fulfilled in my own life, but beyond that it’s probably just a matter of finding out in 35 years what those fantasies were when he presents me with the bill for his therapist. (Joke)

As always, it’s good to have a bit of myth around these things so we can see the universal pattern that we fit into. In their book ‘The Mythic Journey’, Liz Greene and Juliet Sharman-Burke begin with the myth of Thetis and Achilles, which they subtitle ‘Great Expectations’ – “How parents expect nothing less than everything from their children”.

“Thetis was the great goddess of the sea and ruled over all that moved in its depths. But it was time she married, and Zeus, king of the gods, had received a prophecy that, if Thetis married a god, she would bear a son who would be greater than Zeus himself. Worried about losing his position, Zeus espoused the sea-goddess to a mortal man called Peleus. This mixed marriage was not unsuccessful, and the two settled down relatively comfortably – although Peleus sometimes resented his wife’s supernatural powers, and Thetis sometimes felt she had married beneath her station.

In time, Thetis bore a son, whom she called Achilles. Because he was fathered by a mortal, he was a mortal child, allotted his time on earth by the Fates, as are all mortal beings. But Thetis was not content with this prospect. Being immortal herself, she did not wish to remain eternally young while watching her son grow old and die. So she secretly carried the newborn child to the River Styx, in whose waters lay the gift of immortality. She held the child by one heel and dipped him in the waters, believing thereby that she had made him immortal. But the heel by which she held him remained untouched by the waters of the Styx, and therefore Achilles was vulnerable through this one place.

When he reached adulthood and fought in the Trojan War, Achilles received his death wound through an arrow in the heel. Although Achilles achieved great glory and was remembered forever, Thetis could not cheat the Fates, nor turn that which was human into the stuff of the gods.”