HANG ON TO YOUR HATS!
Uranus Goes Forward In Early December: The Conflict Escalates!
by Michael Lutin
16 november 2011
Hang on to your hats, wigs and eyelashes, you’re going to be having some truly hot flashes. This place is about to blow!
You want to talk turbulence? Somewhere around the ninth of December, the planet Uranus moves forward at the very beginning degree of the sign of Aries. This all started back in spring of 2010, but now comes the big moment. It can be fun, provided you’re not standing too close to the fan.
In astrology Uranus in Aries symbolizes the desperate (and often angry and violent) struggle of the Individual to assert his or her own personal rights, and to demand an accounting on the part of a System under which that person lives. It is the bursting bomb of energy that is released when people believe they are being ignored, mistreated, battered and otherwise stepped on.
This is not just Aries. On some level everybody feels it. People become filled with a zeal to overthrow what they consider to be a corrupt regime They are fed up , so Buddy, watch out. They will spit right in the boss’s eye, walk out on jobs and responsibilities and marriages or any other commitment they see as threatening their honor, integrity or sense of personal liberty.
That would all be lovely and fine. We would all just have to duck when we throw dishes at each other until we all calm down and the storm is over. This time, however, it won’t be.
This planetary event is heralding the escalation of worldwide unrest, mainly due to the formation of a seriously tense configuration with Pluto in the sign of Capricorn.
The result in early December: More open confrontations: The more intense the protests, the harsher the crackdowns, even to a point where not even the police but the military must be brought in to restore order..
Why should this be?
These new “revolutionaries” get the notion that a Plutocratic “elite,” are plotting, manipulating and secretly intending to erode and undermine the freedom of expression as well as destroy any semblance of a democratic process. This would be replaced by a tyrannical Father-Knows-Best regime of highly placed financial “demons” whose goal it is to dominate masses and wipes out their individual freedoms, while centralizing the wealth even further.
On the other hand, this so-called “cabal”, made up of world government, corporate and financial leaders, if it exists, believes that the entire world is in a state of near collapse. It is, therefore, necessary for the sophisticated and powerful to step in and seize control ---of whole countries if need be, in order to avert the catastrophic chaos that will inevitably result if harsh measures are not immediately taken.
They can both get pretty crazy, but who’s crazier? It’s actually all oddly amusing, this battle between naivete and cynicism, mainly because here’s the head-banging kicker:
Giving everybody the benefit of the doubt that they are all not merely stark, raving out of their gourds, who is the more naive and who is the more cynical?
Is the individual battling against the onslaught of encroaching fascism simply stubbornly naive, faced with a world where competition has become more dog-eat-dog than ever and survival demands control on the part of the financially sophisticated? Is it merely the paranoid lack of faith in government?
Or is it the rich, corporate “elite” who have come to believe that because the common people lack the ability to understand the complexities of the ever changing modern world, they, the sophisticated financially savvy “elite” must seize a tight grip on a humanity whose economic stability lies on the edge of utter collapse?
Are the people finally waking up to the fact that an artificially constructed crisis is being clandestinely fabricated simply to dominate them completely and take away all their remaining money?
Or has modern society come to an inevitable point of evolution where nationalist, economic and social disintegration is a natural outgrowth of a shrinking world that demands powerful centralized government on strictly an economic level?
Who is the more naive and who is the more cynical?