Topsy-Turvy Twilight Zone

Things are feeling more and more like the Twilight Zone as the days go by. It's not particularly unpleasant, just peculiar. From what I've read, in comments on several blogs, it's affecting others too.

I'll explain.

I wrote recently about Pat Buchanan, how I preferred his views regarding the the US presidential race (sympathetic to Clinton) to those of most other TV pundits. I was quickly put right about Buchanan's background and history by husband and friends, and afterwards approached the subject with caution. Other conservative pundits and talkshow hosts such as Hannity and O'Reilly are persona non grata on the TV screen at Chez Twilight. I haven't had opportunity to sample their recent views on these matters, but comments around the net have led me to believe that they have been similarly sympathetic to the cause of Clinton supporters. This week I've read an article by none other than conservative journalist Ann Coulter, whose chart I perused in October 2007 (HERE) without much grace, I might add.

This week's article by Ms Coulter has appeared in various blogs around the internet - I picked it up at HillBuzz (4 June post). "Obama Was Selected, Not Elected" It's well worth reading, I promise.

I ignored the obvious sarcastic references to "our plucky Hillary" and the like and found what she had to say about the matter very informative and more or less in agreement with how things have appeared to me.

The author of blog HillBuzz adds a footnote to Coulter's article. Two extracts from the footnote below:

"Does the DNC realize the enormity of the fact lifelong, dyed in the wool Democrats are so alienated and disgusted by the treatment Hillary Clinton has received from both the DNC and the Obama campaign that we are not only reading Ann Coulter, but agreeing with her? Talk about unity and change -- and 1984 --
..........................But, really, ignore the snark in both this article and what we wrote: this is an enormous cultural phenonemon no one in the DNC understands ---- people who would NEVER be able to read more than the first sentence of anything Ann Coulter writes are not only laughing and cheering as they finish her column, they are sending it to all their Democratic friends. Something like this is a canary in the coal mine for the strength of support the DNC has from its traditional and natural base."

Canary singing in the Twilight Zone !

What is going on here? Are conservative writers and pundits hoping to ensnare Democratic voters who feel angry and disenchanted, let down by both party and media this election season ? Is it all a crafty ploy to lure disaffected voters to their side of the divide? Or are we, or some of us, living in a peculiar astrological atmosphere where left is right and up is down and nothing makes much sense any more?

What astro indicators would be the usual suspects in a case such as this? Neptune - for sure. I've blogged about Neptunitis on three occasions recently. Uranus may be connected, too. These two slow-movers are presently in what astrologers call mutual reception. They each lie in the other's domain, or planetary rulership. Neptune rules Pisces and lies in Aquarius. Uranus rules Aquarius and lies in Pisces. What is more they are in similar degrees of each sign at present 22 Pisces, 24 Aquarius which puts them in aspect known as semi-sextile (within around 30* of each other) . Most astrologers look on the semi-sextile as mildly harmonious. So as well as mutual reception blending and strengthening the two planets, there's this fairly close aspect to be considered.

Neptune - imagination, illusion, delusion, fog, deception
Uranus - rebellion, unexpected change, avant garde, invention.

That mixture could possibly represent a Twilight Zone effect, recognisable to some of us, depending upon our own natal chart positions. In my own natal chart the Sun and Jupiter lie semi-sextile in Aquarius/Pisces, so perhaps I'm receptive to the current mutual reception atmosphere.

I haven't yet decided how I'll vote in November (always supposing my citizenship debacle is done with in time to register to vote). I'm thinking of registering Independent however, after what I've witnessed over past months. I may be feeling topsy-turvy, but I still know how many beans make five. Registering Independent would be in tune with my Sun Aquarius anyway, independent to the bone!

Pat Buchanan

When I first started taking an interest in American politics my husband warned me about Pat Buchanan (and a few others often seen on TV shows offering political commentary). He is apparently well known for his conservative/Republican stances, all more or less opposite to my own.

It's been very strange lately to find that Pat Buchanan is one of very few voices I can listen to without wanting to hurl something at the TV screen. Perhaps he's pandering to the anti-Obama people in the audience, and in his own party by putting forward reasonable and fair opinions about Hillary Clinton, against the avidly pro-Obama mob on MSNBC. Some say that he's likely to turn smartly against Hillary Clinton, should she manage to achieve the Democratic nomination.

I prefer to think though (Pollyanna-ish) that he truly understands Clinton and her approach, even though he disagrees with her policies. The two work from a basically similar astrological base. Both have Sun in Scorpio, Mercury in Scorpio, Moon in Pisces (if times of birth are correct).

Buchanan was born on 2 November 1938 in Washington DC according to Wikipedia, but according to Astrotheme in Mount Vernon, New York. Astrotheme has his time of birth as 12.20 am. That time puts Moon just into Pisces, at 00 degrees, even if it's not correct, but later Moon would still lie in Pisces. Both have the same nodal axis, Taurus/Scorpio, but in reverse. Buchanan's South node is Taurus, which is Clinton's North node. I don't go along with some interpretations of the N. and S. Moon's nodes, but prefer to see them as just two more very sensitive points in any natal chart, bringing extra emphasis to transits or conjoined natal planets. Buchanan's ascendant is 22 Leo, and Clinton has Saturn at 21 Leo, close to midheaven, so there's emphasis there on the same Leo degree.

So, though cynics might say Pat Buchanan is being somewhat hypocritical, ready to turn immediately if Hillary Clinton were to be the Democratic nominee, I prefer to believe that he understands her better than the rest of 'em, feels empathy, is sincere and willing to give her a fair shot at the prize for which she's aiming.

Pat was in good form last night during post-primary discussions. Hillary Clinton's big 41 point victory didn't protect her from many snide remarks from the usual suspects insisting that "it doesn't change anything - it's the math". Pat stood firmly in her corner. He admits, however, that for her to win the nomination, as the math stands now would be very difficult - something unexpected has to happen. With Uranus in the picture, I'd say it's practically a certainty that something will.

PS: My tarot cards did behave themselves.(See Monday's blog)