Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:15:20 -0600
Subject: [Centaurs] George Galloway
b. 16 August 1954
<<Galloway, 48, was suspended from the party in May following an interview with Abu Dhabi television on March 28 - eight days into the war - in which he accused Blair and his war duo USA President George Bush of invading Iraq "like wolves". He consistently spoke out at anti-war rallies throughout the last year, and is still seen today as a leading British voice against the occupation of Iraq.>>
All positions are precession-corrected.
natal Sun (12h U.T.) = 23,05 Leo
natal TL66 = 24,06 Aquarius
natal Pluto = 24,38 Leo
tr. BU48/Alastor 28 March 2003 = 23,40 Leo
tr. GB10 = 14,57 Libra
tr. Mars = 14,16 Capricorn
tr. Mercury 13,26 Aries
natal lunar Node = 14,11 Capricorn
On May 6, he was suspended from the Labour Party:
Black Moon = 23,54 Taurus (12h)
BU48 = 23,16 Leo
Sun = 14,53 Taurus
TL66 = 15,08 Taurus
(this aspect recapitulates the natal Sun/TL66)
He was expelled from the party October 29, 2003:
tr. Sun = 4,58 SCorpio
natal GB10 = 5,00 Taurus
natal Pylenor = 4,51 Leo
To summarize, we have:
1-) Sun opposes TL66 at birth, conjunct Pluto. When he is suspended from the Party, what he opposes at birth (opposition) is now ruling (conjunction) in the outside world; what is divided or ambivalent from birth, is united or integrated. TL66 "rules" and "glorifies" the meaning of his ideological life struggle (the birth opposition).
2-) The war with Iraq happens under the transit of BU48 over his Sun/Pluto conjunction. In other words, his strong opposition to the war is indicated by BU48/Alastor triggering his radical Sun/Pluto/TL66 at birth, he actually incarnated (conjunction) the pervasive atmosphere of the peace demonstrations of February 15th, which had BU48 in opposition to the Sun.
3-) His expulsion from the party dramatizes a critical or painful (and typical) Pylenor "rejection" and circus, and illuminates (opposition) the "latent power" of 2002GB10. This centaur (GB10) is also a key to his declarations during the March 28 interview, and is also very prominent in the case of Kilroy-Silk:
2003 article Sun = 15,56 Aries
2003 article GB10 = 14,21 Libra
birth Venus = 14,44 Aries
birth GB10 = 16,42 Aries
When I saw this involvement of Kilroy-Silk(*) natal Venus being activated by his article, both (birth and article) under the signature of GB10, and particularly, the article being an incarnation (Sun/Venus) of his most personal values, I felt: he is probably a racist. This feeling found clear confirmation in my mind after I read the article itself.
(*) Robert Kilroy-Silk, b. May 19 1942. Reference to the article "We Owe Arabs Nothing":
We are told by some of the more hysterical critics of the war on terror that "it is destroying the Arab world". So? Should we be worried about that? Shouldn't the destruction of the despotic, barbarous and corrupt Arab states and their replacement by democratic governments be a war aim? After all, the Arab countries are not exactly shining examples of civilisation, are they?
Few of them make much contribution to the welfare of the rest of the world. Indeed, apart from oil which was discovered, is produced and is paid for by the West what do they contribute? Can you think of anything? Anything really useful? Anything really valuable? Something we really need, could not do without? No, nor can I. Indeed, the Arab countries put together export less than Finland. We're told that the Arabs loathe us. Really? For liberating the Iraqis? For subsidising the lifestyles of people in Egypt and Jordan, to name but two, for giving them vast amounts of aid? For providing them with science, medicine, technology and all the other benefits of the West? They should go down on their knees and thank God for the munificence of the United States.
What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11 and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders? That we admire them for the cold-blooded killings in Mombasa, Yemen and elsewhere? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, women repressors? I don't think the Arab states should start a debate about what is really loathsome.
But why, in any case, should we be concerned that they feel angry and loathe us? The Arab world has not exactly earned our respect, has it? Iran is a vile, terrorist-supporting regime part of the axis of evil. So is the Saddam Hussein -supporting Syria. So is Libya. Indeed, most of them chant support for Saddam. That is to say they support an evil dictator who has gassed hundreds of thousands of their fellow Arabs and tortured and murdered thousands more. How can they do this and expect our respect? Why do they imagine that only they can feel anger, call people loathsome? It is the equivalent of all the European nations coming out in support of Hitler the moment he was attacked by the US, because he was European, despite the fact that he was attempting to exterminate the Jews and Arabs.
Moreover, the people who claim we are loathsome are currently threatening our civilian populations with chemical and biological weapons. They are promising to let suicide bombers loose in Western and American cities. They are trying to terrorise us, disrupt our lives. And then they expect us to be careful of their sensibilities? We have thousands of asylum seekers from Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries living happily in this country on social security. This shows what their own people think of the Arab regimes, doesn't it? There is not one single British asylum seeker in any Arab country. That says it all about which country deserves the epithet loathsome.
George Galloway, the member of parliament for Baghdad Central, as his tormentors describe him, called the British and American troops "wolves" and called for the Arab countries to rise up and fight them and to cut off oil from the combatants. Later he called upon British troops to refuse to obey "illegal orders". He has, predictably, been vilified. His comments have been termed a disgrace, disgusting, outrageous and so on.
He has been called a loony, naive, gullible and a traitor. There have been demands that George's constituency party should deselect him, that his constituents should not vote for him at the next general election, and that he should be deported to Iraq. No one, as yet, has demanded that he be put in the stocks or burnt at the stake, though no doubt this will come.
But why all the fuss? Why is everyone getting into such an excitable lather over the predictable remarks of a no-mark?
Who with any sense cares an Iraqi dinar for what dear George thinks? Like Clare Short, George is a licensed court jester. He acts the buffoon while she's the straight part of the act, though she exaggerates her sanctimonious seriousness.
Neither are taken seriously. Both are totally discredited laughing stocks that add to the variety of political life. At least George is open, honest and sincere. (Robert Kilroy-Silk in The Express on Sunday [London], January 4, 2004)
I don't know anything about GB10. The involvement of Galloway, who Kilroy-Silk mentions explicitly in the article, shows the same GB10 signature but acting in the opposite direction, dramatizing how 2 people can respond very differently to the same energy. K-S has GB10 imbued into his personal value system (his natal Venus), while Galloway seems to be fighting and denouncing it, and ultimately GB10 was the force or circumstances behind (opposition) his expulsion from the Labour Party.
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 04:07:52 -0600
Subject: [Centaurs] "We Owe Arabs Nothing", 2
The fact that Galloway is mentioned by Kilroy-Silk in his article, may help us bring out something significant. They may or may not know each other personally, they may or may not treat each other with respect when confronted personally, but it is very clear and dramatic that, ideologically, Kilroy-Silk doesn't feel any respect for him, simply by looking at what he wrote in the article:
He says that his position on the war "has been termed" <<a disgrace, disgusting, outrageous and so on>>, and that he as a person "has been labelled" <<a loony, naive, gullible and a traitor>>.
By using passive mode, he gives the impression of being detached from these labels, but then he says:
<<But why all the fuss? Why is everyone getting into such an excitable lather over the predictable remarks of a no-mark?... Who with any sense cares an Iraqi dinar for what dear George thinks? ... George is a licensed court jester. He acts the buffoon... <<[he is not] taken seriously. [he is] totally discredited laughing stock...>>
From what Kilroy-Silk writes, it is obvious that George Galloway incarnates something that he hates very much, something for which he doesn't feel any respect whatsoever. In this, he is no different than mots people in the world with respect to political positions. I myself think exactly the same thing, with the same words, about Tony Blair, for example.
There are very strong connections here that I don't want to let go unnoticed. I will use sidereal positions to make the comparisons. All times are 12h GMT:
Kilroy-Smith: May 19, 1942
Galloway: August 16, 1954
2003 article: April 6, 2003
2004 article: January 4, 2004
Here is a confirmation of the original article date:
<<On the margin of his article, he says that Iraqis use their children as human shields. He adds that while Iraqis, Palestinians, Algerians, and Yemenis force their children to sacrifice themselves through suicide bombings that kill other children and civilians, Americans risk their lives to save one soldier; Jessica Lynch.
<<All the above is erroneous, untrue, and hideously racist. The reader must have noticed that Kilroy-Silk talks about the "epic" of saving Lynch, although what has been confirmed is that the Iraqis returned her to the Americans, after treating her.
<<The reason for this mistake is that Kilroy-Silk published his hideous article "Are we Loathsome? Shame on them" for the first time on 6 April 2003, and republished it on January 4, under the title "We Owe Arabs Nothing." When I read the first paragraph last Sunday, I remembered reading this gruesome talk before. I went back to my files, searched for two days, until I found the same article in the same newspaper, but with a different caricature. I do not understand how this article was not noticed by people the first time, and triggered all this chaos when it was republished.>>
I.- NOTES ABOUT 2002GB10
First, we note the Sun/GB10 opposition of the article in 2003:
2003 article GB10 = 20,24 Virgo
2003 article Sun = 21,30 Pisces
This makes GB10 more powerful and significant than any other of the centaurs. From this, we know that Kilroy-Smith's article is strongly related to GB10.
When we check this against his birth planets, the connection becomes very sharp:
K-S natal Venus = 20,48 Pisces
K-S natal GB10 = 22,46 Pisces
K-S natal Mars = 20,16 Gemini
The article's Sun incarnates his natal Venus/GB10 conjunction (square Mars), falling on its midpoint and making it stronger and focal. The way he feels about the people he mentions in the article can be traced to his natal exact Venus/Mars square "cracked" by GB10 from birth. When he wrote and published the article in 2003, GB10 was at the opposite point, confirming its tight control over the matter. This, I think, means that his very stupid and ignorant ranting against Arabs (whether you call this "racism" or not is your choice) and passionate spitting at George Galloway is an expression of his natal Venus.
Enter George Galloway:
Galloway natal GB10 = 10,53 Aries (sidereal)
Sun, expelled from his Party = 10,51 Libra
(see yesterday's post on him)
II.- NOTES ABOUT THE BLACK MOON
Galloway natal Black Moon = 21,24 Virgo
This Black Moon connection is expressed in the words used by K-S to refer to him in the article:
disgrace, disgusting, outrageous
loony, naive, gullible, traitor
a licensed court jester
totally discredited laughing stock
From this, it becomes clear that Galloway incarnates his shadow, that K-S doesn't want to acknowledge Galloway's integrity as a person or as a thinker, that he thinks his political ideas are garbage. The same thing he thinks about Arabs, all expressed very succinctly and clearly in the same article. After the re-publication Jan 4th "by mistake of his secretary", when pressed to apologize, he has expressed regret and has apologized for *the effect* his words have had, but he has never said "I was an idiot", or "I was wrong". He has never apologized for his ideas and feelings.
Kilroy-Smith's article of 2003 was published under a Black Moon/TL66 conjunction:
2003 article Black Moon = 19,36 Aries
2003 article TL66 = 20,05 Aries
This is the "TL66 MIDDLE-EAST AXIS", established since the foundation of (1) the United Nations and (2) Islam. The transit of TL66 is relatively slow, but the Black Moon moves very fast, so it is remarkable to find it aligned with that axis. The article in question is one of the best expressions, in my opinion, of the racism and prejudice against Islam that prevails in developed countries, mirrored through the United Nations Security Council and the creation of Israel. Here, with the involvement of the Black Moon, the stupid and hypocritical "demonization" of Islam for which Bush and Blair are responsible (something impressively and unequivocally represented astrologically by TL66) can be seen clearly.
George Galloway, born with a Sun/TL66 opposition (conjunct Pluto) incarnates the confrontation with the ideological power of TL66.
III. NOTES ABOUT PYLENOR:
We saw yesterday that George Galloway was expelled from his Party when the Sun was squaring his natal Pylenor:
natal GB10 = 10,53 Aries
natal Pylenor = 10,34 Cancer
tr. Sun expulsion = 10,51 Libra
Kilroy-Smith was born under a triple Pylenor/Black Moon/Jupiter conjunction:
Black Moon = 1,54 Gemini (sidereal)
Pylenor = 1,31 Gemini
Jupiter = 1,12 Gemini
Mercury, article re-published 2004 = 1,49 Sagittarius, rx.
III. NOTES ON VARUNA
We saw that the original 2003 article was published under a Sun/GB10 opposition that linked it directly to the author's personal and intimate values (Venus) and contradictions (Mars). But nobody created a stir about it until it was re-published (by mistake?) 2 weeks ago. This second publication happened under an exact Sun/Varuna opposition:
2004 article Sun = 18,40 Sagittarius
2004 article Varuna = 18,47 Gemini
Therefore, if GB10 marked Kilroy-Smith's way of thinking and feeling about Arabs, Varuna marks the larger social and political controversy that came after the second publication, which we can say goes "beyond him", and --as has been commented in the forum-- dramatizes the values and attitudes of contemporary British society (the "political correctness", the fundamentalism, etc.).
The above opposition in the 2004 article touches a very significant point in the chart of Islam:
Black Moon of Islam = 18,58 Pisces
The square with the Black Moon axis brings to the foreground the "wretched" masses of Islamic people, their poverty and abuse, their unending suffering in the hands of their leaders, of Israel, and of the members of the U.N. Security Council who since the end of the Ottoman Empire have "played God" with them.
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 05:02:58 -0600
Subject: [Centaurs] "We Owe Arabs Nothing": Varuna
I kept thinking about the timing, "since the end of the Ottoman Empire". It would probably be fair to say that this "playing God" with other (poor, weak) nations goes back a lot longer, and is really part of any imperial or colonial ideology. It can be seen, as was noted before, in the attitude of Spain in the 16th and 17th centuries, but also the Portuguese, the Germans, the French, the British, the Russians, the Chinese, Japanese, etc.
So Varuna refers to the attitude of superiority, to the attitude of the powerful with respect to the weak (or viceversa?), and is constituent of every act of colonization or conquest. There are other transneptunians involved in this colonization, so Varuna refers to only one aspect of it, the "legal" aspect, the sanction that justifies it before God, the sense of moral superiority, deeply ingrained in a culture, the assumption that "we have the right" because it is "the good", or "the just", because "we are better than them".
This is shown, as Diana Shaw suggested, in the fact that what "History" says depends on who writes it.
The article of Robert Kilroy-Smith (2004), in a few paragraphs expressed with ingenuity, objectifies Varuna to the world, it tells us what Varuna is about at the mundane level.
We can put it like this: GB10 represents what is explicit in it: his racial prejudice against Islamic countries, while Varuna represents what is implicit instead of explicit, behind everything he wrote: his sense of moral superiority, his "judgment from above". GB10 is working at the personal level, Varuna reflects the prevailing attitudes and feelings of his culture and times.