New Planet Forum

Quaoar discovery image
New Planet Forum
Quaoar discovery image

[ Back to the listing ] [ Post Reply ] [ Search ]

Posted By: Luis on: 09/26/2008 13:34:58 ET
Subject: RE: Sedna as both the rejector and the rejected

Message Detail:
Based upon appearance and I have a whole collection of Libra images, Ghandhi does have Libra somewhere in his chart because he has the Libra forehead.

He's Libra by Sun sign. ^^

Libra Rising, for instance, gives Scorpio rising (based on his Vedic astrology birth data). I don't know if he has a Libran forehead but he does have other traits that do appear Scorpian (prominent nose, outgoing ears, small eyes...)

Now much of what I write about Spain comes from a Spanish Civil War Book, written by a Communist not a Conservative. I know what I am talking about Luis.

I have lived my early years under Franco's boot and my parents past-time is arguing about the civil war. I also know what I am talking about.

In Spain, it was the Fascists that allied with the other Far-Right forces, not the other way around and were marginalised as a result.

Yes to the first part of the sentence not to the rest: the resulting regime was archetypically fascist. And it was not other "far-right forces" it was specially the main conservative party which provided the support for the fascists (they converted into pure fascism, with the only peculiarity of being much more religiously fanatic than in other similar regimes).

It is better historically to see Spain as a non-Fascist Authoritarian country supported by Fascists against Communism, than to see it as a Fascist country.

It may "better" for you but it is not the truth. Franco's Spain was a 100% fascist and fundamentalist regime.

The error you make is not seeing Fascism as a world-wide movement with spin-offs in almost every country, but seeing it as simply the various traditional Right-Wing Authoritarian forces who while supporting Fascism, were not the core Fascist movement.

You are right that I can hardly make any difference between them but even if we get nitty-picky, we can argue if Pinochet or Khomeini were fascists but for the case of Francoism there is not the slightest doubt: it was a regime directly copied from Mussolini's Italy in almost everything: single party and union, "national-socialist" economy (state protected capitalism with strong importance of the public sector), hysterical nationalism, hypermilitarism, brutal repression...

You really have no idea! I don't know only from books: I know from direct and mostly indirect experience (Franco died when I was only 7, so I know about it mostly from my elders). Part of my family is fascist and proud of it. In fact my grandfather had to flee Italy after WWII because he and specially his brother were too involved with fascism. He had previously come as volunteer and married a local fascist (my grandmother). But I laso know the stories of the many who never knew their grandfather because they happen to be killed by the fascists after the coup. Almost anyone left-leaning was. And I know the stories of teen agers killed for a mere bravado too. I know how was that murderous fascist regime. There are still statues of Franco around there and the Falange icons were for more than a decade left in public protection apartment buildings.

The single party was called Falange Espaņola Tradicionalista y de las J.O.N.S. and all in that name except the "traditionalista" adjective (added to include the Carlists, some of them actually) was exactly the name that J.A. Primo de Rivera had given to his small party before the war. Maybe many people in it had no Falangist background but just conservative but it was the very same Fascist party.

And there was a reason for it: the conservatives had no combat squads, the fascists did: they provided most of the death squads early on that were very important in consolidating the coup.

It was pure fascism. If it survived it was because it did not enter WWII (they feared naval attacks by the British, specially in the Canary Islands - and anyhow they owed the Brits way too much). They were pragmatic and Ike finally gave them their reward for it.

3. No the same cannot be said of Hitler Luis, because Sedna is in a far better position visa vi Sun and Ascendant.

Gandhi's Sedna is in opposition to the Sun, trine NN, quincux Mercury and sextile Ceres. Planets aspecting the NN are most important IMO, specially when analyzing someone's "destiny".

4. I find your slavish disregard for actual reality in the favour of irelavant myths to be sickening. That is honesty how I feel. Sheer and naked irrationality is not really easy to respect.

I am not disreagrding anyhting but I do think that myths can be relevant, because the names of planets are not just random, the same that it is not the time and circumstances of their discovery, etc. You can check that easily in the classical discoveries of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, each one in a sense marking an era with their characteristics (Uranus' discovery presides over a revolutionary and republican period, Neptune over romanticism and nationalism - and another less dramatic revolutionary period, Pluto's over both WWs, the bolshevik revolution, fascism, nuclear power...).

Legends must treated with due care but they do not need to be irrelevant. I agree anyhow that a reality check is necesary, of course.

5. The reason I deny what you say, is that I have found no basis for your claim that Sedna and sacrifice have any connection.

Hopefully you are right. But does not the cases of Hitler and Gandhi, each in a totall different way show that it may be the case? Hitler sacrificed almost full nations, while Gandhi fought via self-sacrifice. And I would not think this is defined by Eris transiting, right? Maybe there's some other explanation though.

However, Sedna people aren't particularly tolerant either, because the other side of the Sedna coin is the Rejector.

Rebel.

Sedna is different from Uranus

I think Sedna is more akin to Mars and Pluto actually. Red: Sedna is red, very red!

But I also think that rebellion is more directly linked to Mars than Uranus.

Sedna on the other hand is deep and rather quiet. It doesn't really care whether the individual is actually able to rebel, to assert themselves socially. Because it disregards the social, it doesn't care if the person is really able to get their own way or not.

Mars neither. Mars is not social, it's a fighter instead. Rebellion is essentially anti-social. It does not need to be egoistic but it is not a socializing attitude. Submissive people socialize better (they are not percieved as a threat), though surely the best is something in between.

What Sedna values is simply the ability to freely reject what you are told to expect, to disregard all impediments to Truth, to reveal what is hidden and which society itself does not wish to see about itself.

Rebellion, dissidence, free thought.

Oh how I truly hate Mythology here! Uranus is the controversial social actor, always has been in Astrology (not in mythology) because that is what Uranus actually does.

The mythology of Uranus is limited. It presides over astronomy and astrology and that relates to:

1. Its role as god of sky
2. An obscure Greek legend where Uranus is the name of the first king of Atlanteans (instead of Atlas) and he invents astronomy.

In this last sense I assimilate Uranus with Atlas, both as founder of mythological Atlantis and as sustainer of the skies (Herakles and the Hesperides). All these legends associate Uranus directly with the sky, astronomy and astrology.

It is not all about Uranus but, if you consider the complex dialectical nature of the sky and its meterological phenomenons (the water bearer, Aquarius), you can reach eventually to what Uranus actually is beyond astronomy and rain... just follow Ariadne's thread ("mythos" in Greek) and you'll get out of the Labyrinth hopefully.

Eris represents fundermentally the influence of society itself. The dominant social ideas.

I disagree: Uranus does (and regarding ideas also Neptune). Eris is the social actor possibly, Uranus is the pillar of society (fixed, cardinal... you know). What happens with Uranus is that it symbolizes where the dialectics of society meet (hence the parliament simil) and that strongly affects the self, the free will. Uranus dominated people therefore may well feel the imperative of getting associated and support the goals of such association, which may be or not revolutionary. They may be more or less fighters/rebels but that should depend more on other elements like the influence of Mars, the Sun, Moon and rising signs, etc.

Eris is more the one who uses, manipulates or leads in the social sphere, IMO. I think it is directly related to Libra and in my experience Librans are excellent social dynamizers (Aquarians not so much) but not so good pillars of society (Aquarians are instead). They are anyhow more interested in being supported by their social network than in supporting it. That's the difference between Aqua and Libra and between Uranus and Eris, IMO.

Anyhow this discussion is too complex to reach anywhere. We would need to discuss intensely for some time to reach to an agreement. Let's agree to disagree.

Think of Eris as the essentially 'cool' planet, the planet that governs what is 'In' and what is 'Out', in Politics and elsewhere.

Sedna is the essentially 'uncool' planet, the planet that governs whatever defies Eris, what Eris rejects, what it defines itself against. The rejects, the scapegoats, the marginal.

Well, astronomically speaking both are very much outliers. Eris is "the queen" of the Scattered Disk, which is like the odd outskirts of the KB.

Anyhow I don't see one opposing the other, sincerely. Eris relates more to Pluto, the other KBOs and even Ceres to me. Sedna for me is an explorer or a courier and relates best with comets. Sedna is in any case the one that reaches out beyond the KB and the SD, telling us (still mysteriously) of a third area in the Solar System and ourselves.

I am (and you are probably too) familiar with the astronomy-based concept that the asteroideal belt represents the border between the personal (inner) planets and the transpersonal (outer) ones. The KB is a second belt and Pluto and Eris are its "monarchs" (if anyone is). But there is more (yet ill known) Solar System beyond the KB and Sedna embodies whatever is out there. I feel unable to describe it as of yet but it must be trans-transpersonal if that means anything.

And Sedna must be cool anyhow: from its position it should colder than Eris (physically speaking) and both myth and astronomy relate her to the coldest "depths" of our reality. True that she is red too.

Sedna is the conformist,

Does she? You claim to be Sednan, you claim to be a commie... how conformist is that?

The Fascists and the Communists do represent precisely that, the radical change of the social order and the forces fighting to defend it.

I'd say the other way around: communism=change, fascism=conservatism to the extreme.

Sedna doesn't ever really conjunct Eris to my knowing. This is because that would be a contradictary thing...

They must at some point (if we ignore declination, as, unlike Sedna, Eris does not know where the plane of the ecliptic is). What I do not know is when. But as Eris moves a lot faster than Sedna (that's not saying much, ok), they must meet at the same zodiacal degree, minute and second at some point. Eris will catch Sedna at some time and must have catched up with it before.

8. Sedna is a planet. Planets are neither male nor female.

C'mon! Tell that to Mars and Venus...

Sedna has nothing particularly to do with Feminism, Eris does.

Then why the transit of Sedna (not of Eris) through Aries (new beginning, pioneering, fight) is what best fits with Feminism as struggle?

I am Sednan and I am feminist (true that I am also Erisian), you are Sednan and as communist you must be feminist... wake up!

It is the conjunction of Eris/Sedna and the near conjunction in fact that is at work here.

I agree that the transit of Eris though Aries also helped: Eris, the social actor, helped to materialize the changes that Sedna had been struggling for.

That clash was represented on a world-wide scale by Liberalism/Socialism VS Fascism. The former fortunately won.

I strongly suggest you to read Heinz Dieterich's "The Winners", where it's just made evident that, if the USA intervened against Japan, it did only because it feared that the "Anglosphere" would otherwise be in disadvantage re. the Nazi Empire in economical self-sufficiency. Dieterich is a Marxist, worry not.

There was never the struggle you mention. Hitler was pitted against the USSR and communism in general but he would have gladly avoided any coflict with the Entente and the USA if allowed. He just wanted to conquer Russia and make it "the India of Germany". For long the "liberals" supported him and other fascists more or less openly and more or less determinedly. Even when at war, there was no real major effort by the West against Hitler, all the weight of the conflict fell on the USSR. They basically landed in Normandy in the last minute, so to say, just to prevent Stalin from capturing all Europe. The Nazis surrendered to them without almost fight after that (while resisting the bolsheviks all they could). Stalin spent all the war asking the Western allies to open a "second front", which was only done in the last moment, precisely when it did not favor the USSR anymore.

I am not a Conservative, for from it. I am actually a Communist!

Seems I was wrong in that, compay.

Now regardless of whether Abortion is Right or Wrong, it certainly involves exclusion

Abortion may carry other problems (mainly psycho-emotional for the woman implied) but does not exclude anyone. From the skin inside it is me who rules.

If you don't want to abort (always a last resort) you are free to choose. I thought you were a tory partly because you seem to agree that "freedom is slavery" (and mostly because of some rather conservative readings of history).

I am pro-life: I am in favor of aborting women's lifes. Don't get me wrong. The so-called pro-lifers are just a bunch of Khomeinist patriarchal totalitarians who believe they have the right to impose their personal path onto others. They are fascist totalitarians.

Nobody excludes them: they have the personal right to live their lifes the way they want (see how I am pro-life). The only thing excluded is their self-appointed "right" (privilege) to dictate their preferences upon others.

Society need exclusion to protect the rights and interests of it's members by restricting membership.

Only for that that is clearly and strongly anti-social (murder, rape, discrimination, insolidarity) and anti-freedom (zero tolerance for intolerants). Society should not realy restrict membership, much less our modern globalized society, but it can and probably must restrict harmful behaviour against both community and individual people.

If we started giving human rights to Ants, so killing an Ant was the same as killing a human, then we can see why the exclusion (Sedna) of Ants from Society (Eris) is a good thing.

You are going too metaphysical. Ants are not excluded just from our society, they are excluded from Humankind (and even broader categories such as primates, mammals and even vertebrates). Our society, is human. Even if bonobos ae nearly human, we cannot easily expect them to behave in accordance to human ethics or laws - much less ants.

Take a look at the rationale of Abortion and you will see why this was.

Feminism is not obviously just about abortion. It is about human rights for all people regardless of gender.

Now materially speaking, all Fetuses are as human as you are

A cancer is also human in that hyper-broad sense you are using. In most countries anyhow, abortion is primarily allowed in the embryo state (first months, before the thing even has not human but even animal shape at all). It seems a most reasonable compromise for me. You can only argue against that if you claim that the embryo is a person, which obviously it is not, or, in other words: if you want to control other people's lifes from outside.

You still look conservative to me. I am communist (autonomist, with clear anarchist tendencies) but we are not speaking the same language: you speak in Thatcher's dialect.

Anyhow, I don't think this issue of abortion is really important. Astrologically speaking the "soul" is defined at birth.

View Parent Message
Follow ups:



Message Search
Keyword Search
Enter keyword(s) you want to search for seperated by a space.

Match Case?
Match ALL Keywords
Match ANY Keyword
Name Search
Type in a full or partial name






Thank you for visiting my website. Please understand that I am now retired and am no longer seeing clients. If it happens that you are looking for an astrologer, please click here for some suggestions on how to go about the process.



  Home Karmic Astrology Downloads Ephemeris New planets
   Reiki Computer Reports Links Site map    Site Search   


Other pages to explore on this website:
This day in history Horoscope links Past Life Survey Free  Readings
Fiction Quote of the Day Miscellaneous Mercury Retrograde





Program by: Expert Solutions Network