DID THE BREAKER ARRIVE?
Ana Karina Luna
I was watching POD SAVE AMERICA and heard a commentary that connected with my astrological understanding of the moment:
“We are facing an authoritarian movement in our country and when you fight an authoritarian movement the instinct is to defend democracy, but if we are always in the position of defending democratic institutions that most of the people in this country do not think are working for them, then it’s not going to work, and then we’re going to be the defenders of a broken system, and Donald Trump and his folks are going to be the ones who want to burn it down. We should, at least, be the party that doesn’t want to burn the system down, but wants to fix it and wants to reform it.”
Firstly, let’s unconfuse Astrology with horoscope. Astrology is an analytical field of research (similar to Psychoanalysis) that involves reading, studying, understanding and analyzing symbolic language and its patterns according to the cosmos movement — the horoscope is but one tool belonging to Astrology, so horoscope is just the reading of the sky of the moment, whether in a more superficial or more profound level, depending on how quick, detailed or subtle one wants to be. Therefore, Astrology is the process of reading a language and analyzing its content; forecasting possibilities could be accessed or not from this, like in any field. But the crucial idea is to deepen the knowledge of a moment in a timeline to understand all the forces at play there, allowing to better and more amply understand events, facts, interactions, and situations.
In the last years, Astrology, along with a few other areas of research, have been reading patterns that suggest the end of an era. It’s been noticed by astrologers that the type of sky alignment that exists now (between Neptune, Uranus and Pluto, and I should add Saturn and Jupiter, too) were never seen before.
Nowadays, Astrologers have at their disposal excellent technology that enables them to see sky movements way back in time and compare them to the respective historical facts in that moment. The work of someone who studies timelines (mundane/worldly and individual), that is, an Astrologer, has some similarities with that of a historian; only, in my opinion, with more depth and dimension, because a vaster array of symbols and archetypes are available. The astrologer, then, can benefit from that in order to see more complex relationships and meaning in any given event since these symbols and archetypes can bring more information to the analysis of mundane and individual life.
That’s why Astrology is sort of known as the psychology of the past. But I’d even say Astrology journeys through various disciplines, such as Psychology, Astronomy, History (memory), Philosophy, Linguistic, and probably more, depending on each astrologer, since, like code (programming) and Jazz, Astrology is an open system that welcomes new findings and meanings to itselfin a natural cycle of self-regulation resulted from daily use — and so basically, Astrology is a unique type of science (since the contributions of research is deeply ingrained in it), and especially because it admits the realms of the unconscious, and this, way before psychoanalysis.
Thus, nowadays, it’s possible to see what the sky looked like 2, 3, 4, maybe 10 thousand years ago. So far, what’s been viewed is that there hasn’t been an alignment of the current type in the sky (and above I mentioned merely the names of the main involved archetypes/planets) since around five thousand years ago, according to Uranian astrologer Gary Christen. Interestingly, that would be 3,000 BC, around the end of the Neolithic era, and when all major ancient civilizations — in Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus valley, and China — emerged, and along with them, the earliest true writing systems (Sumerian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs). Now we know that how, and how much, information can be spread can facilitate the growing of groups — from small tribes into larger groups? Curiously, the book “Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI” has showed up to us now. The Stone Age lasted 3.5 million years and it ended exactly around 4,000-2,000 BC, the possible time of a similar cradle-like sky alignment between Neptune, Uranus and Pluto. It seems, back then, we were changing our “tools”? From stone to written letters? So, the way things are setup in the sky in this moment indicates a change of era, a change of paradigm, a new human, a new earth, and definitely a whole new set of values. And it also might have something to do with new information systems coming. And for that, new forms of governing and organizing might be required?
By the way, it is not Astrology which makes things happen. Astrology is a language, and the astrologer merely reads it and from that, analyses possible narratives. How events happen is free of any one person’s control. Thus, they happen according to the free will of each one, and the collective, including events in the non-human dimensions. But, through the alignments in the sky we can see certain potential for certain narratives. That can be helpful with forecasting, direction, preparations, obviously, but especially is helpful to acquire deeper knowledge about a situation or a person. It doesn’t mean wrong analysis cannot happen. But it is not only Astrology that uses reading, analysis and conclusion as a tool, virtually every other discipline does that too, and rights and wrongs happen there too (all types of science, medicine, law, religions, etc.). Only, Astrology deals with quantum physics and that still being massively unknown, it seems Astrology doesn’t have an explanation for how it functions.
And talking about alignments, a curious fact: the journalist Kristen Welker, from Meet the Press, referred a few times to the recent elections result as a realignment (Trump’s victory).
That said, Astrology has been saying that if we are in a time of the dying of an era and the birthing of a new one then, there is a transition that involves the crashing of an outdated system in order for another one to be built. In blunt words: the breaking of a system, the killing of it. The problem is, the system — like any system — is rigid: it tends to want to stay as is.
This is, then, in a way, a moment of death. And deaths are no easy crossings. Yes, I know, we want the new, we want the better, we want the improvements, but we always forget that something needs to perish to open space for the upcoming new thing. Most of the time, as humans — and specially as occidental humans — we are unable to see when a disgraceful event could be a piece of the necessary crumbling in a process that is similar to the Phoenix experience.
“Let’s not romanticize it: true growth is a process of destruction.”
– Nata Sin
Some will say: oh, you’re being romantic. Or: oh, please, not again with the whole theme of death-as-good and rebirth-as-better. Well, I will leave your thoughts for your own reflection, as this, so far, is the only method through which I’ve seen things changing or transforming, in my observations, and I’m obviously not the only one. This is ancestral wisdom. Even a butterfly knows.
Having that in mind, that’s why I found the above podcast commentary quite interesting.
What he says made sense to me: is it possible that we are defending a system (democracy) that has been, in its core, rotten?
That is: is what we are defending worth keeping? It has been said many times that our democracy is not really a democracy — and I know a lot of us have thought about it, no news here. Therefore, if it’s not true democracy that we live in, if it has become a jumbled system, where its main values have been played upon, inverted, corrupted and then painted over as a good working thing — and to help with that we’ve been taught to always respond “but there is no other better system”, which acts as an impediment and a defense to the creation of new systems — then… have we ever pondered that, if the system doesn’t allow for new creations, perhaps it might really need to be broken down, to “self-destroy”? (I say self-destroy because... who votes? The population itself). Have you thought of this possibility? That if we want to get ahead, to truly improve, to have a better system, the old system might need to be broken down? That is, if we admit as acceptable the narrative that a new era wants to arrive.
One interesting astrological pattern of this new era’s narrative seems to be that the current system cannot be recovered. The (astrological and visible) patterns of destruction are glaring — but keep in mind that it doesn’t have to mean total destruction, but destruction of something, or things, or destruction of a type of world vision, for the birth of a new paradigm.
There are indications (again, astrological and visible) that the current system is fractured: it snapped, it cracked like a crystal wine glass or a glass window. We have been holding this “window” in place with duct tape, and the crystal wine glass has been holding itself together with nothing other than itself, but its structure has been compromised. Now it’s feeble in its rigidity. It’s a matter of time till it truly shatters. We know there is no fixing for broken glass, it can’t be improved; eventually, it has to be replaced.
As a witch (and artist), I will hang my neck out and allow myself a crazy thought: could it be that, in a sense, as a villain, or as a “force of nature” (I hate to say it), Trump (and not Kamala) is on the verge of breaking what needs to be broken?
He’s been, for a while, already breaking all that is sacred to us. Or so it feels, right?
So, back to the commentary, I only disagree with the last part of it: no, I don’t even believe democracy can be reformed or fixed. Not this one. Not any in the world. Maybe because it has been built with too many values we couldn’t uphold: we know we live in a hypocritical civilization; we don’t always do as we say — and that’s why we need to have constitutions, because if we don’t…
There is no wide-spread ethic yet in the world, generally speaking, and the totality of our words are not worth much. How can we have a democracy that is ethical if we are not there yet?* And how to build one? How do we know when a thing needs to be built from scratch or still can be mended?
* At the end of this essay I placed a few fonts and citations. One of them is an interview where the philosopher Marilena Chauí is asked, as a last question: “Have we been living in a democracy?” She answers no because a political democracy would require a democratic society, which, she says, we don’t yet have —, curious is that she answers to this in an apologetical manner, afraid that people might think she is being pessimistic. If even a philosopher is uncomfortable with this thorny subject, so that informs us that talking about our failing democracies is a taboo. Especially because we’ve deposited many dreams in it, so we repeat to ourselves “do not criticize it because there is nothing better yet”. It seems the moment to reckon with it has arrived and we are having trouble seeing something very real, though painful. And that’s why I wrote this.
If you are finding this text too horrible to digest, let me say, in case you haven’t noticed yet: my intention is not one to spread fear or doom, much the contrary. An astrologer I admire, Luludy, says that Astrology can counsel and he who has been counseled is in the know. And to counsel might mean to propose another angle (as psychoanalysis well know): what if there is some sense in the election’s result?, although it might not feel that way. Bold statement, I know. Bear with me with the daringness and through the clichés. But what if one cannot see well because one is looking too much just to the surface of the event? Complex processes, especially collective ones, have milestones that are not always clear. Weirdly, the current astrological sky shows something similar to a birth canal, intense as this image might be — labor involves pain from the mother’s point of view, but what we often forget to visualize is the experience of the child who’s coming through: a tight dark channel in which nowhere says “life at the other side”. We feel like the child right now, but we miss we’re also the mother. We’re both, and for the next 2 to 3 years, but especially for 2025, we’re giving birth and being born concurrently. (Especially for the U.S., which is living through its Pluto return, there is a whole destruction and rebirth theme going on, one that involves Pluto, the planet that destroys what it does not serve anymore in order for something else to be built or birthed in its place.)
Currently, the patterns that astrologers see point to times where toxic, damaging, non-wholly and broken systems are to be shattered to the ground, especially systems that call themselves “democratic” without authentically being it — specially everything that involves lying, like corruption and hypocrisy, seem to be targeted — one of our most obvious proofs of our inauthentic democracies is that most people hardly have a voice (thus our constant feeling of impotence and revolt and disgust with such corrupt systems), at the same time, money, big corporations and top power without limits are “the voice” playing in the background as a democratic melody.
Think about it: isn’t it what’s been unveiled now and already for a while? All the mud and absurdity of what we have been watching lately, and that has slowly been reaching a high fever for some years. Various types of half-fake democracies reveling themselves. All over the world. Do we agree these are our realities?
If it’s true that the current reality needs to be collapsed, and that this currently reality is this so called “post capitalism” (or whatever type may be of capitalism or materialism over which our flaky democracies have been built), so much so that what we’ve been living in is a monarchy-empire (not a democracy) of profit, greed and money, of which we are the subjects, and maybe here and there somebody lets us be pseudo-kings for a day, or for five minutes; and if these democracies work in a fashion where they can convince everybody that they work just fine, but… in their guts, hell is all broken lose, as many members of our societies know because they live it daily; then, I might have to have a glass of wine later so I can be properly assisted in coming to the conclusion that, perhaps, the above podcast commentary has more to it than even the maker of it might have intended. Would it be that this pseudo-democracy is what needs to be cracked?
In light of that — and after the first sip of my red Portuguese wine, and after thanking the goddess I live in a piece of the matrix where I can have a bottle like that in the house — yes, we might need somebody like Trump to trash it out.
(Pause.)
(A needed positive thought: focus on the following: afterwards, or simultaneously, we ourselves will build something new. Then, yes, maybe it’s stage time for another Kamala?)
If this narrative is or could be true — and it doesn’t have to be, it’s just an analysis, a reading, it’s just a silly witch talk — so, now, right now, somebody needs to do the dirty job — and truly, who wants it?
I know, I know, it all sounds cliché. Let it sound. Ignore my bad writing. Just, for a second, indulge this line of thought. Zero in this possible timeline.
Obviously, I am not here to minimally defend Trump. May the goddess save me from that. But as a writer, I well know villains exist in every story, and if they don’t, that’s usually not a good story; it’s not real, it’s not credible. And a writer needs to know how to use them, what to do with a villain. Evidently, Trump is not doing this out of good intentions, as an anti-hero. Or maybe he is, but I don’t infer he’s conscious, because the job requires unconsciousness, for obvious reasons — since it’s hard to destroy something while also having true good intentions towards it — and as proved in the proverb “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. (If it builds hell, it ain’t good intentions, right? The proverb just reveals that people are commonly unconscious of their true intentions).
Unconscious or superficial “good intentions” can often be a great tool to build hell, and as crazy as it sounds — assuming that all symbolism in the sky is here being correctly read and analyzed —, could it be that through the destructive nature of this fake-tanned old white male a system can finally be destroyed? (Oh the irony, the patriarch banging patriarchy himself.)
(Oh, these bizarre jobs... what villains are for.)
Yes, Kamala would try to reform it or fix it, but... what if that’s not what’s necessary at this day and age?
Any serious astrologer today can see numerous coinciding patterns indicating that this current human system cannot be improved nor fixed. It is collapsing (for another is already being built simultaneously). It’s a leap. A jump to another level. The old system needs to be exhausted. Flattened. (The word that constantly shows up is shattered). How will this happen? There are many ways, and it cannot be controlled, because it’s life; it can only be watched as it plays in real time.
Again, the witch in me wants to speak: she learned that nothing happens “by mistake”, simply because the universe, creation, the cosmos is amoral (neither moral, nor immoral), as it is good Astrology. As it is good jazz. As it is good art. As it is good poetry. What is, is; cliché as hell as it sounds. In fact, this way of thinking has its own area of study: Phenomenology tells us that what is informs us more closely of the real narrative behind it, moment by moment. By looking clearly and lucidly at what is, we can have a good sense of what’s going on. If we are lucky to be clear and lucid.
In a past post, I said that, to me, Kamala was an acting-Kali — or so I thought — herself to act the wreckage and breakage of capitalism, materialism, big corps, patriarchy and this unfortunate corrupt and lying system we’ve created in this long human trajectory. I might have gotten the protagonist wrong, but Astrology, so far, still gets the deed. Watching from here and from now, after these elections result, it all makes so much sense: it couldn’t be her doing the dirty job — if I am allowed to be at awe once more: oh, the utter irony… could it be that he who built it, will destroy it?
The crossing of this portal won’t be so pretty — unless you’re a bit scorpionic — and much grief and deception, and even a dark awe will ensue. But keep in mind this crossing will be accompanied by progressive relief for not only truth’s ways of working are similar to that of a plunger (a plunger brings relief, though it is not often that clean of a job to do), but also because beyond this portal, astrological patterns show deeply creative and innovative upcoming times, like our own type of a timely Renaissance. But guess what? If all this witch’s talk is true, it’s not Kamala who will act as Kali!
Let’s wait and see what type of a (day)break will inaugurate itself when (if) the 20th of January arrives to be.
Maceió, Brasil, 7 November 2024.
...
A FEW OTHER CITATIONS (that align with the idea of a system not working):
MARILENA CHAUÍ, PHILOSOPHER, IN AN INTERVIEW (TV Brasil):
Q: The Right has been selling itself as revolutionary and the Left as reformist, can you comment on this?
A: “I have no doubt that the Brazilian Left and the left around the world have become reformist, managing the ruins of capitalism; and the fact that the politics we knew no longer exist, it has to be reinvented. And politics, in the case of the Left, was based on the notion of social class and economic production. So, the loss of this reference requires the Left to think everything over again, something that, at the moment, it is not doing. Now, the Right is "revolutionary" in the sense that it has appropriated all the technological change and transformed this technological change into its instrument. But how did it do this? It did this in several ways: managing the war, for example. But among other things, it did this through the so-called digital party, and through Fake News. And what is Fake News? From a public and political point of view, it is what the philosopher Theodor Adorno called cynicism. What is cynicism? Cynicism is the deliberation to lie, where lying is not something that happens unintentionally. It is the deliberation of lying and making lying the way of governing. So, the way of exercising power, that is what Fake News is. Fake News is cynicism taken to its extreme. So, you can’t consider the Right to be revolutionary, then, just because it produces and appropriates these new technologies. It is not revolutionary because the way it appropriates them is through cynicism, it is through the deliberation of producing hate speech, war speech, and the speech of lies. So, you can say: it is technologically advanced and the Left has not kept up with that. I agree with you. But the Right has appropriated an instrument that was produced by itself. So, the technological mutation is produced by the Right for its own service, and all the work of the Left would be to undo that. And since the Left is in a reformist position, it does not undo that, it tries to fix it, but there is no fixing.”
Font: https://youtu.be/qIiBXRG4JAw?si=y1j0kYpRoKhFoYuI&t=1858 (turn on auto-translate subtitles)
...
JON STEWART ON “TRUMP’S WIN AND WHAT’S NEXT” w/ Heather Cox Richardson (The Weekly Show):
ABOUT “A BAD ECONOMY” AS A JUSTIFICATION (for the results):
“They created an emotional reality, but there is a hint of it in there, and that’s this: we look objectively at the markers for the economy in terms of GDP or wages or infrastructure, investment and all those things as being the envy of the world. Our country right now is thriving in a way that other countries are not. But if in your house you’re still struggling, is there a sense that maybe the system that we’re selling to people no longer feels valid to them? In other words, if we look at our economic system and say this is thriving, but people don’t feel it, do they start to begin to say: ‘well maybe the system itself isn’t delivering in a way that we need’, so then, when you [Dems] say this is to protect the system, they think: ‘why would I protect something that’s not delivering for me?’, even when it’s working properly.”
Font: https://youtu.be/D7cKOaBdFWo?si=aJqoegt0V0o1lqVm&t=500
...
IS THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM WORKING FOR EVERYBODY?
“You’ve hit upon the absolute crux of everything that this election spoke about [...] which is a feeling that the American democracy is no longer responsive to the needs of its people. To me, that, then, means that Donald Trump is a symptom of a much deeper corruption in the democratic system that needs to be addressed because if it is not, we will forever be more vulnerable to these types of demagogues or this type of disruption. So, then, the question becomes: can you make a system for 320 million people?, by the way, a diverse group of people, and those lines of class gender and race will always be present. I think the Republicans have decided: I think I’m going to try and pick off class coalitions to get us to our finish line, but when you look at that how do you, then, create a system where democracy seems more resilient and responsive and agile and not as vulnerable to that?”
Font: https://youtu.be/D7cKOaBdFWo?si=0ibqohhr46RMPZ6G&t=1776
...
USING THE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM TO DELIVER UNDEMOCRATIC SOLUTIONS:
(Or: is democracy still viable if it’s used to deliver lies? Heather Cox Richardson believes people who voted for Trump thought they were voting for democratic principles. The Fake News about “a bad economy” also fits here.
“In 2016, I really felt like that was a gut punch, in a way, because it felt like such a fait accompli that the Democrats were going to win, you were going to feel good about it, there were things that maybe you weren’t going to like policy-wise, but you felt good, so it felt like an anomaly [when Dems lost]. This now feels different because it is a democratic victory. We were prepared for all scenarios and each one of those scenarios it was: how is Donald Trump going to finagle his way back?, how is he going to use undemocratic principles?, what measure of intimidation and underhanded shenaniganry will this man use to worm his way back into the Oval Office? And it turned out he used our electoral system as it is designed. And in that moment, I thought, well, f***, I’m not sure we have a team of lawyers for that.”
Font: https://youtu.be/D7cKOaBdFWo?si=Waz0bV9v5PXjOcs0&t=42