Still Equinoctially Inclined - Tracking Inequality

A question at Quora on Saturday had me shuffling through my archives to discover what I was doing 5 years ago from that day (22 September). In 2013, 22 September must have been a Sunday, I hadn't written a post, so I couldn't answer the question, as asked. However, on Saturday 21st September I'd posted a lengthy screed which brought forth some interesting comments. As we're still in equinoctial territory, I'm going to add, here, a summary of that 2013 post and some of the comments, because on re-reading I found it all quite interesting - perhaps another stray passing reader will, also. I'll add a link to the full 2013 post + comments lower down. This a longer post than usual, so will cover the whole of mid-week.


Thoughts at Equinox - Who Laid the Tracks?
(Summarised version).

The USA's version of "middle class" is different from the UK's version. Here in the USA the middle class seems to refer to anyone not living in actual poverty, but not of the 1% of elite bankers, financiers, corporate CEOs, "celebs", multimillionaires and billionaires. In the UK, middle class is understood to relate to the professions: doctors, lawyers, professors, scientists - that sort of thing. Ordinary folk, tradespeople, craftsmen, office workers, factory workers, store assistants etc. are the working class. Bearing that difference in mind, I recntly read an article by Edward McClelland at Salon website.

RIP, the middle class: 1946-2013
The 1 percent hollowed out the middle class and our industrial base. And Washington just let it happen

Snip

For the majority of human history – and in the majority of countries today – there have been only two classes: aristocracy and peasantry. It’s an order in which the many toil for subsistence wages to provide luxuries for the few. Twentieth century America temporarily escaped this stratification, but now, as statistics on economic inequality demonstrate, we’re slipping back in that direction.

At this time of equinox, and balance in the natural world, doesn't it seem peculiar that any kind of equinox or balance has never, ever existed for humans - anywhere on Earth? Balance, even partial balance, of the distribution of wealth and bounty of planet earth?

We, in the west at least, have moved in cycles of vicious feudalism/slavery, to a much milder disguised form of the same, back to a variation of the more intense form, under a different name.

Why is this? Why does it have to be like this? Karl Marx and others throughout history must have asked the question and tried to answer it. Their solutions didn't take, anymore than it would be feasible to try stopping a toy train on circular track and causing it to take a different route where no tracks existed.

But who laid those tracks in the first place? The elite (for want of a better description of the planet's early rulers). How did they become rulers, and capable of doing this? Why did they think it was the right thing to do?

If astrology works at all, it has to be something inherent in humans due to our physical position in our solar system. Our very nature must drive us along these already laid tracks, and divides us very unequally into rulers and ruled. I wonder where it says that in planetary language? Is it due to the Sun's rule over life itself? That could explain the need for leaders - a ruler: king, emperor, president, whatever, but it doesn't explain why things are, and have always been, so unbalanced; or when efforts to bring about even minor adjustments are made, results are short-lived at best. We soon veer back to the same old tracks. The part of DNA relating to greed for wealth and control must be fairly rare but very, very powerful.

That little lot spewed, unbidden, right off the top of my head and could well be utter rubbish. I needed to let off some steam.


Some interesting points made by commenters

From "mike"

mike said...

I suspect it's the "survival of the fittest" part of our DNA. We humans have become domesticated and "civilized", but our primal DNA still rules. Seems that all animals have a physically superior alpha-type that aggressively asserts fiefdom over the lesser.

With "civilization" has come the ability to compete with our brain rather than brawn. The ability to out-smart, cheat, lie, steal, and out-maneuver rivals pays dividends and allows an individual to amass superior resources, hence a social dominance. An honest and clever individual will easily succumb to a dishonest and clever individual...particularly when the underlings judge the dispute. Underlings are easily swayed by manipulation and deceit. Just look at how politics are played...it only matters what doubt can be instilled in the public's opinion of an honest individual. Truth does not matter with a manipulated public.

With every group of people, there is always a need for several individuals to assert themselves and vie for leadership. I have seen this need for superiority and desire for leadership at every job I've ever had and within every group I've been a member. We humans and most animals assemble ourselves in a hierarchy.

You said, "The part of DNA relating to greed for wealth and control must be fairly rare but very, very powerful." I think this is a very COMMON attribute of humans. There are leaders and there are followers.

It's ironic that the powerful usually feel superior and condescending toward the followers and lesser individuals. The followers and lesser individuals usually feel contentious and resentful of the powerful. Yet, one begets the other.

Recent findings regarding the neanderthals indicates they were a much more peaceful species than us sapiens. So, maybe the sapiens' DNA is particularly tainted.

There are and have been cultures where leadership did not equate to power, except for collective decision making. Many of the more primitive tribes (hunter-gather) on Earth today, of which there aren't many remaining...most are in S.America's rainforest, and the original Native American tribes did not possess the knowledge of wealth and ownership...they did know rival-tribal warfare, though.

I responded
mike ~ The "survival of the fittest" accounts for part of the story, as it relates to the masses, I agree. Any group of ordinary people does tend to eventually form some kind of hierarchical pattern.
Native Americans had tribal chiefs, as I suppose do other early tribal groups elsewhere in the world.

Perhaps the king/emperor-rulers/peasants pattern has to be just an extension and perhaps, in some ways, a corruption of that innate hierarchical pattern of ours.....maybe dictated by the planets.....maybe not.

Ideally the leaders should protect the followers. In the past there was some of this going on. Now, not so much....in fact not at all. The pattern has been corrupted.

I like your last point - that homo sapiens DNA come have become somehow tainted; neanderthals, derided as they usually are, could have, if they had survived, aeons later might have brought us to a better place.




"LB" said, quoting from Ronald Wright, A Short History of Progress :

"Civilization is an experiment, a very recent way of life in the human career, and it has a habit of walking into what I am calling progress traps. A small village on good land beside a river is a good idea; but when the village grows into a city and paves over the good land, it becomes a bad idea. While prevention might have been easy, a cure may be impossible: a city isn't easily moved. This human inability to foresee -- or to watch out for -- long-range consequences may be inherent to our kind, shaped by the millions of years when we lived from hand to mouth by hunting and gathering. It may also be little more than a mix of inertia, greed, and foolishness encouraged by the shape of the social pyramid. The concentration of power at the top of large-scale societies gives the elite a vested interest in the status quo; they continue to prosper in darkening times long after the environment and general populace begin to suffer. (109)"

LB - I think mike makes some good points about some (not all) of society's more successful leaders and the ways in which we're easily manipulated, at least initially. Whether it's politics, business, medicine, church, or even within our chosen spiritual or social-groups, studies have suggested people lacking conscience (those with sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies) are more likely to hold positions of power.

Which isn't to let those of us who are led completely off the hook. Sometimes, though not always, there's a choice involved. We often most admire those self-made men and women (frequently ruthless) who've risen to the top, holding them up as shining examples of self-sufficiency and what it takes to make it in our world.

Or, we readily mistake charm for character and/or place a higher value on quick fixes that promise us MORE of something -more convenience, more power, more money, more success, more happiness, more immediate gratification- and in the process lose sight of a longer range vision that includes truth, personal integrity and compassion, a vision that honors our connectedness by including and caring for *all* members of society - especially the "least among us". Nothing worthwhile is ever gained without restraint and sacrifice, words we seldom like to hear.

I responded
LB ~ You wrote studies have suggested people lacking conscience (those with sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies) are more likely to hold positions of power.

This has to be the crux of what I see as a corruption of the old straight-forward leader/follower pattern. Maybe the occasionally sociopathic tendency found in humans is what defines homo sapiens as against neanderthals, maybe that was the "gift" sapiens gave us.

As you say, those being led bear some blame for allowing corruption to spread, by being naive, lazy or manipulated by brain-wash.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a time-lapse-type movie of history from the very first leader/king we know of, to discover how he came to be king or leader, and follow through all of history until now, in a chosen group of countries - those which would best illustrate how it all developed. Massive, impossible job, though, delving too far back into mists of time to be in any way accurate.



From "Juno"
A good friend of mine (much older and wiser, in his mid 60's now) said back in the 90's when NAFTA passed, "They are not satisfied - not until they destroy the middle class." He has referring to the corporate elite and the politicians that colluded with them. My friend, an old Labour type, saw teh beginning of the end when the Soviet Union collapsed, because the U.S. no longer had to present an alternate economic model. Marx may have promised a worker's paradise, but here in the U.S. we actually had it.

I responded
Yes, I've come to understand from my husband that "things were not always like this here". Which means, logically, that things will not always remain as they are now , because we do move in cycles.

Let's hope that we're experiencing a relatively short cycle which could end with another collapse somewhere, somehow (I hope it will not be our own collapse, but....)


LINK TO ORIGINAL POST & COMMENTS.

“Equality may perhaps be a right, but no power on earth can turn it into a fact.”
― Honoré de Balzac

“If human equality is to be for ever averted — if the High, as we have called them, are to keep their places permanently — then the prevailing mental condition must be controlled insanity.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Music Monday ~ Freddy Fender

Here's a singer, oft forgotten (but not by me). His birthday would have been today, 4 June. From first hearing him sing "Before the Next Teardrop Falls" many long years ago, I've loved his style.

Perhaps it's the 7% Iberian Peninsula discovered in my DNA that seems to draws me to anything Spanish-ish - or Portuguese-ish; I love Brazilian music also. I was immediately entranced by New Mexico, after my first visit there, and many more followed. I was in love with Tenerife in the Canary Islands (Spanish background). I also love Italian music and styles and flavours, and had suspected some Italian in my DNA, but nothing specific to Italy showed up. It appears, though, that "Iberian Peninsula" covers a lot of other ground in DNA land - even including Irish/Celtic strains. DNA land is a very strange land.

Anyway....from: https://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Freddy_Fender

Freddy Fender (June 4, 1937 – October 14, 2006), born Baldemar Garza Huerta in San Benito, Texas, United States, was an American Tejano country and rock and roll musician, known for his work as a solo artist and in the groups Los Super Seven and the Texas Tornados. He is best known for his 1975 hits "Before the Next Teardrop Falls" and the subsequent remake of his own "Wasted Days and Wasted Nights".

Early years
By age 10, had his first radio appearance on Harlingen's KGBS-AM radio station, where he sang a current hit "Paloma Querida", on KGBT in Harlingen, Texas.
In January 1954, at the age of 16, Fender quit school and started a three-year hitch in the United States Marine Corps.

Remembering Freddy, on his birthday:

Investigating DNA

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
― Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

Husband and I, some weeks ago, submitted our saliva samples to one of the several outfits specialising in providing DNA testing for genealogical reasons. We chose autosomal testing, it's not as expensive as some other tests, and good enough, as an experiment.

It so happened that the chosen outfit, unknown to me at the time of ordering, turned out to be based in Houston, Texas. Our order was submitted just as that horrific hurricane started knocking hell out of Houston. I eventually received confirmation that our "kits" had been safely received and the company was out of the direct line of devastation. Some 4 or 5 weeks later our result "kits" of data arrived online.

What I really would like from my own results is to be able to break down a few "brick walls" in my family tree, caused by illegitimate births or iffy data. I'm now knee-deep in data! Most of it isn't truly relevant, or particularly helpful in the quest mentioned. Of course, information available is limited by the number, and spread, of people who apply for the testing. Computers can spew out only what has first been put in! The long list of possible "cousins", one of the services provided gives no matches, for me, closer than possible links, several times removed, from around 4 or 5 generations back - impossible to recognise, unless a recognised surname has survived, passed on to the website.

I'm still wading in the shallows. The simplest part of the trail to sort out, for a beginner, is general ethnicity. What I have discovered, so far, is my spread of ethnicity. This is culled from known DNA ethnicity definitions. Data from the company we used, cross checked by uploading my raw data to GEDmatch, indicates that I'm proven, according to Family Tree DNA test, to be 95% European which includes 84% British Isles, 7% Iberian, 4% Finland, along with 4% West-Middle East, and some bits and bobs, trace elements probably serving as what the experts call "noise". GEDmatch has my ethnicity sorted under slightly different headings, but comes out broadly similar, and breaks down the British Isles element to specify DNA elements that match known patterns originating in Orkney, Kent, Cornwall, among others. That, rather neatly, brings together the north, south-east and south-west of England, which is a very near match for my four grandparents' original family locations.

So far, I'm finding this DNA testing experiment is something akin to Sun sign astrology - there's a whisper of truth to be had, and a reasonable amount of entertainment value.

From my research in past years, at Ancestry.com, I'd already discovered that my (known) direct ancestors, as far back as the 16th century, were all English, though from different areas of England. There are, though, 2 grandparents whose fathers remain unknown, due to birth out of wedlock; also another great-grandparent's place of birth remains unknown, but was likely to have been within the British Isles. The 2 completely unknowns were fairly unlikely to have been other than British - but I can't be certain of that.

Because DNA definitions stretch back 1 to 2 thousand years, British people would expect to factor in a good deal of of DNA "mongrelism". Bloodlines from Vikings (Scandinavia, inc. Finland), German strains (Saxon), Mediterranean strains (Roman armies culled from many lands), French, including arrivals from 1066 after the Norman/French took over and brought along boatloads of hangers-on. The Iberian 7% in my DNA is a little strange, but as "Iberian" can include, as well as Spain and Portugal, parts of France and North Africa, I guess it could well be my extra dose of "mongrelism"...or, perhaps one of my unknowns was a wandering Spanish sailor - or Spanish gypsy/Romani "gitano" ? I'll never know.

 Hat-tip HERE

My known ancestors were sons and daughters of the soil, agricultural labourers and domestic servants, with a few exceptions (a tailor way, way back; a parish clerk; a miller and a tradesman). My grandparents' offspring, though, found their metaphorical feet were able to take them well away from the soil. Still, I retain much respect for my agricultural worker kin in past eras.

"Whoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country, than the whole race of politicians put together." (Jonathan Swift)

Farm work might be considered by some to be a fairly cushy job: working outdoors, often unsupervised. It was, for certain, preferable to life in the coal mines, cotton mills or steelworks, back then. Farm work had its benefits and customs....about which, more tomorrow.

Drive-by Astrology ~ Francis Crick

Today, a bit of what I like to call "drive-by astrology". More often than not "drive-by" is used in connection with shootings. I put the term to use in a more peaceful context. Whenever I come across an individual whose natal chart proves, on first sight, to be an excellent fit for the person I perceive, I post the chart with very brief reasons why it fits its owner so clearly. I hope this will provide a chance to see astrology working "before our very eyes" !

Drive-by subject: Francis Crick (8 June 1916 – 28 July 2004). Oh look - today is the centenary of his birth! He was an English biologist and neuroscientist who became one of the most important contributors to understanding DNA when he co-discovered its helical structure in 1953. He was also the one to coin the term "central dogma" in reference to how genetic information flows from DNA to RNA to protein.

I'm a numbskull regarding science, so will simply direct any interested reader to the Wikipedia page on Crick, and to a tribute piece, Remembering the bold and brilliant Francis Crick by Gary Robbins in the San Diego Union-Tribune.


I shall simply take a look at his natal chart. No time of birth is known, so chart is set for 12 noon on 8 June 1916, Northampton, UK. Crick was actually born in a tiny village, Weston Favell, near Northampton, chart is set for Northampton - nearest my software can manage.

From Gary Robbins' piece linked above:

Crick is remembered as a bold, brilliant, boisterous, bigger-than-life figure who expanded beyond genetics to search for a biological basis for human consciousness.

Wikipedia (linked above)

Crick was often described as very talkative, with Watson – in The Double Helix – implying lack of modesty. His personality combined with his scientific accomplishments produced many opportunities for Crick to stimulate reactions from others, both inside and outside the scientific world, which was the centre of his intellectual and professional life. Crick spoke rapidly, and rather loudly, and had an infectious and reverberating laugh, and a lively sense of humour. One colleague from the Salk Institute described him as "a brainstorming intellectual powerhouse with a mischievous smile.... Francis was never mean-spirited, just incisive. He detected microscopic flaws in logic. In a room full of smart scientists, Francis continually reearned his position as the heavyweight champ."

Airy Gemini Sun conjunct Mercury: an excellent start for mental acuity, here linked by harmonious trine to Uranus in its own sign of rulership, airy inventive Aquarius, seals the deal. Astrologers would not be in the least surprised to find that a person with this combination would have some manner of mental brilliance, more than likely connected to something new and futuristic (via Uranus). Saturn, the planet said to be connected to things scientific/mathematical/structured, was in Cancer, conjunct Venus and in semi-sextile to Sun/Mercury. Some interpret semi-sextiles as unhelpful, I don't. Though Cancer and Gemini are not seen as particularly compatible as signs go, I interpret this link as indication of the direction this man's brilliance would likely take : into science.

Crick's natal Moon would have been somewhere in Virgo, whatever his time of birth. Virgo is a sign known for meticulous attention to detail, and that attribute is essential in scientific pursuits. Virgo Moon could quite likely have been in helpful sextile to Saturn.

Crick's boisterous personality, loud laughter and general geniality is, I think, nicely represented by boisterous cheerful Jupiter in impetuous Aries.

WHY GRANDPARENTS COUNT (OFTEN) MORE

GUEST POST BY GIAN PAUL

For children, and with respect to one's parents or grand-parents we will always be that, the better part of the "old ones" are the grand-parents, most of the time anyway. Astrology gives some answers for that, tentatively at least. Also, I must say beforehand, that my comments are due to an often tense relationship I have had with my father. But knowing that this is not a big exception and quite often also happens to others, father and son or mother and daughter, this post may be helpful to someone else, rather than just being of "astrological interest".

At the boarding school I attended there was a truly genial teacher of natural sciences. He had a strange head, very conical, which earned him the nick-name of Dr. Pot (Topf in German). Had he lived longer (he died shortly after our class had graduated), he would have been proud to discover that about one third of his pupils became either chemists, physicists or medical doctors.

"Dr. Topf" is mentioned here because he presented an intriguing idea, but also added that there was no proof for that, and that he hoped that one of his students may prove it one day. He said that the human being was built on 48 chromosomes etc. In his view, as every human has 4 grand-parents, most probably each of them was contributing with 12 chromosomes. In a democratic world that is, an interesting detail, he gave. I do not know if science today has been able to corroborate "Dr Topf's" assumption.



It actually is not even so important (except for science maybe). What struck me then, was that my all-dominating, controlling father was not the only one who had contributed to my existence, and neither my mother who was exceedingly obedient to him, as at least I was thinking then, at the "revolting age of puberty". I clearly preferred all my grand parents over my parents and to discover a biological explanation for that was very satisfactory.

Besides "Dr. Topf's" scientific (although not proven) theory, there was circumstantial evidence for such preferences. Not only were the grand parents much more patient and rarely criticized us (I have a brother), but they took us more seriously and listened to us. But, and that was some consolation, my parents were not different from other parents, I rapidly found out from several of my classmates. Parents lack objectivity with respect to their immediate offspring. Or patience. Today I realize in all objectivity, that the grand parents, for having more life experience, have an advantage. They also usually see their grand children in more favorable circumstances than just day-to-day. At Christmas, birthdays and during other often special circumstances. But in fact my relationship was much better with my grand parents. And "Dr. Topf" gave the reason and I believe this somewhat "defused" the problems I had with my father.

Unfortunately I never attempted to have a conversation about this with my parents or one of my grand fathers, especially one of them who had a scientific mind. It might have helped to further clear the "generational conflicts" from which I suffered and which were really stupid, creating permanent tensions, especially with my father.

Later on, when I got involved with astrology, I tried to find out about any links a natal horoscope may offer to one's parents and grand parents. As usually happens, I started with myself and others in my family. What I rapidly discovered, also extending my observation to people outside the family, is that a child very often has, if not the same Sun-sign as one of his grand-parents, so his/her Ascendant often turns out to be of the Sun-sign of one of his grand-parents.

My Ascendant is Sagittarius, both my parents were sun-sign Sagittarius. In that sense I am a direct product of my parents. So I had to look further for the reasons for my sun-sign, Aries. Three(!)of my grand parents were Aries. My parent's respective Ascendants were Libra for my mother, Scorpio for my (quite dictatorial) father. The one grand parent who was not Aries, was a Virgo, my maternal grandmother. I was very close to her - and happen to have Moon in Virgo. This, for me, was an important corroboration of the value of astrology (which I then was still contemplating with some skepticism).




My brother, a Leo, has Ascendant in Virgo (same as the sun-sign of the grand mother just mentioned). Two of my three cousins are sun-sign Leos. I suspect that one of my 4 grand parents must have had Ascendant in Leo. But could not investigate as I do not have their hour of birth. But my brother's and 2 of 3 cousins' sun-sign in Leo points the way for that being probable. (Most likely, a grand parent's sun-sign reappears in one or several of his/her grand children's Ascendant or sun-sign. Or vice-versa).

As time went by, I met people who had doubts about their birth hour or could not find it at all, especially in Brazil. Lula, the outgoing president here, e.g. even has two dates of birth: one for the day his mother says he was born, another for the day his father went (as Lula said himself on donkey's back) to the next town to register the birth of his first son. Did he indicate the day of birth, if he remembered that, or the day he arrived in town and his son was registered? That Lula is a Scorpio appears certain (judging by his character), but exactly on which day in October or November 1945 he was born, nobody knows.

For most of the cases where I proceeded to "rectify" a horoscope (a technique used when the birth hour of somebody is uncertain or totally unknown and presenting quite a job, but rewarding), I inquired about the sun-signs of the grand parents of the person concerned. And, without having "kept statistics" for that, it often helped to confirm my findings when the Ascendants were in doubt.

This may sound like a lot of technicalities for non-astrologers, but isn't this blog designed to explain and to help finding out what's on Twilight's (and her reader's) Ecliptic? What happens to people in their childhood often leaves an imprint for life. And given a child's dependence on adults, parents and grand parents play a decisive role in many cases.

The further one investigates, the more many things appear to be connected. With respect to one's parents, one may be well advised to take into account what Dr. Topf's "thing with a democratic distribution of chromosomes" may mean in practice: More access for children to their grand parents. But that needs intelligent behavior and understanding by the parents. If grand parents are mostly used as a "dumping-ground" for children when needed, it creates the wrong premises. Parents should beware of the sensitivities involved. On all sides.

The position defended here is mostly the one of children. However, the interests of parents are not being neglected by recognizing the important role grand parents can play. Children have a great deal of "genetical sensitivity" which over time, as they grow up, may disappear. But it probably is something much more fundamental than imagined and astrology appears to have some explanation for that.