Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
 31 
 on: Dec 19, 2014, 07:59 AM 
Started by Rad - Last post by Rad

I feel no responsibility for rouble’s collapse, says Putin

Russian president offers few solid solutions during annual press conference, but promises economy will overcome crises

Shaun Walker in Moscow
The Guardian, Thursday 18 December 2014 18.19 GMT

Vladimir Putin has promised that Russia will weather the rouble crisis, adding that he feels no responsibility for the currency’s fall.

During his annual press conference on Thursday, the Russian president appeared to rule out drastic measures such as introducing capital controls or reshuffling the government. But he offered little in the way of solutions, instead suggesting it was inevitable that oil prices would recover soon, and with them the Russian economy.

The rouble, which fell to a record low of nearly 80 to the dollar on Tuesday before recovering on Wednesday, stayed reasonably stable at between 60 and 63 during the speech, suggesting the markets were neither horrified nor encouraged by Putin’s words.

The rouble began the year at 34 to the dollar, and while Putin began the session talking about record harvest levels and positive economic figures, it was not long before he was forced to acknowledge what was on every Russian’s mind.

“Our economy will overcome the current situation. How much time will be needed for that? Under the most unfavourable circumstances I think it will take about two years,” he said.

Putin denied that his government’s domestic policies and actions in Ukraine have been in any way responsible for the currency collapse.

Unsurprisingly, he also used the conference to rail against the west. Had Russia not annexed Crimea earlier this year, Putin said, the west would have found another reason to target his country, which he compared to a bear.

“Sometimes I wonder, maybe the bear should just sit quietly, munch on berries and honey rather than chasing after piglets, maybe then, they would leave it alone? But no, they wouldn’t, because they will always try to chain it up. And as soon as they chain it up, they will pull out its teeth and claws.”

By teeth and claws, Putin said he meant Russia’s nuclear weapons. The west was circling round to destroy Russia, so it could steal its natural resources, he continued. “Once they’ve taken out his claws and his teeth, then the bear is no longer necessary. He’ll become a stuffed animal.”

Putin covered everything from parking tickets to farmers’ pensions in the three-hour session, but the two key themes were foreign policy and the economy. There was much less of the minor regional issues that have often dominated previous conferences.

Putin was asked whether he felt bad for talking about a “fifth column” in society last year and about a renewed crackdown against the political opposition. He was asked if he was able to distinguish between opposition to his rule and being a traitor.

“It’s very difficult to answer that. I’m being honest. Because the border between opposition and fifth column is very difficult to place,” he said.

Quoting the 19th-century poet Mikhail Lermontov, who he described as a patriot who had also been in opposition to the tsarist authorities, Putin said the key difference was whether people supported their country in their hearts or were serving the interests of another country. Russia’s opposition and human rights community have often been accused of serving the interests of the west.

Although Putin went on for more than three hours, he did not come close to beating his record, set last year, when he took questions for four hours and 40 minutes.

He began the session looking somewhat out of sorts and with a persistent cough, but soon got into his stride, and appeared to be enjoying himself, dodging the tougher questions and making jokes about the friendlier ones. At one point, a regional journalist told him her aunt’s friend had wanted to know whether he had time for much of a love life since his divorce. Putin smirked, said hello to the aunt’s friend, and said that “everything is fine” in that department.

There was a chance for Putin’s favoured dark humour as well: when it was suggested to him that some of his close circle had, in private, blamed him for Russia’s economic position, the president cracked a broad smile and said: “Give me their names!” He brushed off the possibility of a “palace coup” by saying the elite had no palaces, so would be safe.
Key quotes from Putin’s speech

On fairness in geopolitics: “We have heard it even from high-level officials that it is unfair that the whole of Siberia, with its immense resources, belongs to Russia in its entirety. Why exactly is it unfair? So it is fair to snatch Texas from Mexico, but it is unfair that we are working on our own land – no, we have to share.”

On a new Berlin wall: “Didn’t they tell us after the fall of the Berlin Wall that Nato would not expand eastwards? However, the expansion started immediately. There were two waves of expansion. Is that not a wall? True, it is a virtual wall, but it was coming up. What about the anti-missile defence system next to our borders? Is that not a wall?”

On the western response to the Sochi Olympics: “Let me remind you about the preparations for the 2014 Olympics, our inspiration and enthusiasm to organise a festive event, not only for Russian sports fans, but for sports fans all over the world. However, and this is an evident truth, unprecedented and clearly orchestrated attempts were made to discredit our efforts to organise and host the Olympics. This is an undeniable fact! Who needs to do so and for what reason?”

On his love life: “One of my friends in Europe, a big boss, asked me recently: “Listen, do you have love in your life?” I said: “What do you mean?” He said: “Do you love anyone?” I said: “Oh, yes.” He asked if anybody loved me back, and I said: “Yes.” He obviously thought I’d become an animal. He said: “Thank God” and raised a vodka to me. So everything is fine, don’t worry.”

*************

Everything’s fine, says Putin in press conference – including my love life

A classic example of the Russian leader’s annual conference: just don’t mention the rouble or military involvement in Ukraine
 
Shaun Walker in Moscow
theguardian.com, Thursday 18 December 2014 20.39 GMT   
   
With flirtatious questions about his love life, noir wisecracks, earthy animal metaphors and forceful anti-western rhetoric, on the surface this was a classic Vladimir Putin press conference. The Russian president puts on the marathon performance annually, assembling more than 1,000 journalists to hold forth on everything from geopolitics to parking tickets.

But this year was nevertheless somewhat different. If Russia’s annexation of Crimea and intervention in east Ukraine earlier in the year only served to boost Putin’s ratings among the populace, the dramatic slide of the rouble in recent weeks has raised the spectre of previous Russian crises and undermined the main tenet of his 15-year rule over the world’s largest country: stabilnost (stability).

Putin, who opened by reeling off a number of positive economic indicators including the year’s “record harvest”, could not ignore the elephant in the room for long, but he brushed off the crisis as something that would pass. Indeed, it was not even fair to call it a crisis, he said, despite the rouble having lost around half of its value against the dollar and the euro since the beginning of the year.

“Our economy will overcome the current situation,” said Putin. “How much time will be needed for that? Under the most unfavourable circumstances, I think it will take about two years.”

The rouble, which started the year at 34 to the dollar, fell to a record low of nearly 80 on Tuesday before recovering on Wednesday, staying reasonably stable at between 60 and 63 to the dollar during Putin’s speech. This suggested the markets were neither horrified – nor hugely encouraged – by Putin’s words.

On the one hand, Putin is likely to have reassured them that drastic measures are not around the corner: there was no talk of capital controls, no hints that heads would roll in the government or at the central bank, as some had feared.

But at the same time, there was very little by way of concrete solutions. Essentially, the message was that Russia would wait for the oil price to go back up and then everything would be all right. Putin denied that the government’s own domestic policies and actions in Ukraine have been in any way responsible for the currency collapse.

Although the president went on for more than three hours, he did not come close to beating his record, set last year, when he took questions for four hours and 40 minutes. He began the session looking somewhat out of sorts and with a persistent cough, but soon got into his stride, and appeared to be enjoying himself, dodging the tougher questions and making jokes about the friendlier ones.

There were a number of combative questions during the session, most notably from a Ukrainian journalist who demanded Putin justify the “punitive operation” he had launched in east Ukraine.

“As the commander in chief of the army, what have you said to the families of dead Russian officers and soldiers,” asked the journalist, taking the rare opportunity to ask Putin in public about the Russian military intervention in east Ukraine that the Kremlin has denied ever happened.

But the format of the annual press conference means there is no chance for dialogue or follow-up questions. Events in east Ukraine “really are a punitive operation, but one carried out by the Kiev authorities, and not vice versa,” said Putin. On the issue of serving Russian soldiers and military equipment crossing the border, he simply dodged the question.

Unsurprisingly, Putin also used the conference to rail at the west. He said if Russia had not annexed Crimea, the west would have found another reason to target Russia, comparing the country to a bear.

“Sometimes I wonder, maybe the bear should just sit quietly, munch on berries and honey rather than chasing after piglets, maybe then, they would leave it alone? But no, they wouldn’t, because they will always try to chain it up. And as soon as they chain it up, they will pull out its teeth and claws.”

By teeth and claws, Putin said he meant Russia’s nuclear weapons. The west was circling round to destroy Russia, said Putin, so it could steal its natural resources.

“Once they’ve taken out his claws and his teeth, then the bear is no longer necessary. He’ll become a stuffed animal.”

Putin covered everything from the traffic police to farmers’ pensions in the three-hour session, but the two key themes were foreign policy and the economy, and there was much less of the minor regional issues that have often dominated the conferences in the past.

Nevertheless, there were surreal moments, such as when a man from the town of Kirov grabbed the microphone to complain that major supermarkets such as the French chain Auchan were refusing to stock the locally made brand of kvas, a fermented bread drink.

“I don’t want to offend Coca Cola,” said Putin, in support. “But we have our own traditional drinks.”

Within hours Auchan announced it would invite the kvas company to submit a tender to supply its product, now it had the leader’s blessing.

At one point, a regional journalist told Putin her aunt’s friend had requested her to ask him if he had time for much of a love life since his divorce. Putin smirked, said hello to the aunt’s friend, and said that “everything is fine” in that department.

The combative questions from Russia’s embattled liberal journalists were mainly about the newly toxic atmosphere in Russian society, and whether Putin felt guilty for talking about a “fifth column”, which heralded a renewed crackdown against the political opposition. Was he able to distinguish between opposition to his rule and being a traitor?

“It’s very difficult to answer that. I’m being honest. Because the border is very subtle. It’s difficult, I think, to give a scientific definition of where opposition ends and “fifth column” begins.

Quoting the poet Mikhail Lermontov, who Putin said was a patriot who had also been in opposition to the Tsarist authorities, the president said the key difference was whether people supported their country in their hearts or were serving the interests of another country. Russia’s opposition and human rights community have often been accused of serving the interests of the west.

Overall, the press conference was an attempt by Putin to portray business as usual. The take-home message for ordinary Russians was that the economic woes are a minor blip, and even if they are not, it is the west to blame for hounding Russia, and not Russia’s actions on the international stage that have caused the isolation.

If the economy continues to worsen, the Kremlin will be looking closely for signs of either a split in the elites or Putin’s popular support eroding, but the message on Thursday was that Putin himself is not worrying about either eventuality.

When it was suggested to him that some of his close circle have privately blamed him personally for Russia’s economic position, Putin cracked a broad smile and said, with his usual dark humour: “Give me their names!”

When asked if there might be a danger at some point of a palace coup in the future, he again smiled.

“Calm down. We don’t have any palaces. So there can’t be a palace coup.”

 32 
 on: Dec 19, 2014, 07:53 AM 
Started by Rad - Last post by Rad

Jail Russian activist Alexei Navalny for 10 years - prosecutors

Lawyers ask judge in Moscow to convict and sentence leader of anti-government protests and his brother for alleged fraud

Agencies in Moscow
The Guardian, Friday 19 December 2014 12.12 GMT   

Russian prosecutors have demanded that the opposition activist Alexei Navalny be imprisoned for a total of 10 years on allegations of fraud.

In their closing arguments in a Moscow court on Friday, prosecutors asked a judge to convict Navalny, who led anti-government protests in 2012, and imprison him for nine years, with an additional year added because of a prior conviction. They asked that his brother Oleg be jailed for eight years.

Both men have said they are innocent of the charges and have dismissed them as part of a Kremlin campaign to stifle dissent.

The pair are accused of stealing from two firms, including an affiliate of the French cosmetics company Yves Rocher, between 2008 and 2012.

In a previous trial in 2013, Navalny was charged with embezzling 16m roubles from a state-owned timber firm and sentenced to prison, but he was released the next day after thousands protested in Moscow. Currently under house arrest, Navalny is serving a suspended five-year jail term for the timber conviction, which Kremlin critics also call a sham.

Prosecutor Nadezhda Ignatova told the court the 10-year term would cover those charges and the earlier conviction.

“The guilt of the defendant has been fully proven,” she said.

Navalny, a western-educated anti-corruption blogger, sighed after the prosecutor spoke and said: “At least it’s easy to count.”

***************

‘Putin is destroying Russia. Why base his regime on corruption?’ asks Navalny

Russia’s opposition leader and anti-corruption campaigner, held under house arrest, says president is using war to stay in power

Shaun Walker in Moscow
The Guardian, Friday 17 October 2014 18.04 BST          

High in a dilapidated Soviet-era tower block miles from the centre of Moscow, the door opens to a small, tidy flat. It belongs to Alexei Navalny, once touted as the most potent threat to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, to emerge in Russia in recent years.

Since February, the politician and activist has been under house arrest. A voracious social-media user with a talent for 140-character attacks on the Kremlin, the 38-year-old is banned from using the telephone or internet, though his wife can use them. He can only leave the confines of his flat when a police van drives him to hearings of his latest court case.

In a recent relaxation of the terms of his arrest, he is now allowed to speak to people other than his relatives, meaning that for the first time in six months, his colleagues and friends can visit him. He is also able to receive journalists, and the Guardian is the first of the international press to see him since his house arrest began.

Dressed in a blue T-shirt and jeans, he pads barefoot through the small flat into the kitchen, where his wife, Yulia, pours tea. A tagging bracelet around his ankle ensures that if he leaves the flat, the police will be alerted immediately.

“I’m really sick of sitting at home,” he says, with a wry smile. In the corner of the living room is a cross trainer, the only way he can get exercise. “But I’ve had experience of real arrest for up to 15 days several times, and it’s much easier to put up with house arrest when you understand what the alternative is.”

Navalny was the great hope of the wave of street protests that shook Moscow in 2011-2012, with many opposition-minded Russians confidently predicting he would become the next president of Russia.

Those protests petered out after a vicious crackdown saw court cases against its leaders and some ordinary protesters, but Navalny is still the most worrying opposition figure for the Kremlin. Some uneasy liberals point to his nationalist streak and see in him a charismatic but dangerous demagogue.

What is clear is that he is able to win support among voters: despite smears on state television and little access to any normal type of campaigning, he managed to win 27% of the vote in last autumn’s Moscow mayoral elections.

Since then, a lot has happened, notably the annexation of Crimea and the fighting in east Ukraine. A summit in Milan on Friday attended by Putin, Ukraine’s president, Petro Poroshenko, and other European leaders including the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, failed to reinforce the faltering ceasefire.

Despite the fact that many Russian nationalists support the separatists in east Ukraine, Navalny feels Putin has laid the groundwork for his regime’s eventual collapse.

“There’s a lot of commentary now that Putin has shown he’s not about money, and about enriching his businessmen buddies, but he has decided to build a great nation, a great Russia or to resurrect the Soviet Union,” says Navalny, who first became known for his anti-corruption investigations, unveiling the secret mansions and foreign accounts of Putin cronies and government officials. “I think in reality it’s all much more simple. Putin has resorted to the method that various leaders have used for centuries: using war or military actions to solve internal problems and boost ratings. That happens even in democratic countries – look at Bill Clinton in Yugoslavia.”

Unlike most of the liberal opposition, who have never found a common language with ordinary Russians, there was always a sense in the Kremlin that Navalny could be dangerous; a fear that his nationalism and charisma could appeal not only to the Moscow hipsters, but equally to the provincial masses, tired of seeing rampant corruption blight the country’s governance.

Those in power have long been split about how to deal with the troublesome campaigner; some believe he should be locked up, others think he should be free but closely monitored. For a while in 2013, it looked as if an allegation of embezzling funds from a timber company in the city of Kirov would put him in prison; but he was released after a surprise about-face, given a suspended sentence, and allowed to run in Moscow’s mayoral elections.

His good showing there clearly spooked some of those in power. A second court case, based on claims that Navalny and his brother defrauded a Russian subsidiary of the French chain Yves Rocher, began. In February he was put under house arrest, and the case has been rumbling on since.

The strategy for now seems to be to shut him up without causing too much of a scandal. To a large extent, it has worked. There has been little outcry over the fact that he is under house arrest – after all, he is not in jail – but at the same time, working on his anti-corruption investigations has become impossible and he has largely disappeared from public discourse.

With everything else happening in Russia, even the hearings of the second court case receive just a fraction of attention that the Kirov case received. Navalny says about 30 prosecution witnesses have been called so far, and “all of them ended up testifying in our favour – it’s stupid and completely absurd.”
Navalny with his wife, Yulia, in Moscow after his release from jail in Kirov in 2013. He was imprisoned for embezzlement but unexpectedly released. Navalny with his wife, Yulia, in Moscow after he was unexpectedly released from jail in Kirov in 2013. Photograph: Dmitry Lovetsky/AP

He puts the strange zigzagging in the case down to the fact that nobody lower down in the system knows what to do with him.

“Obviously it will be a guilty verdict, but what the sentence will be can only be decided by one man, and that man has a lot of stuff on his plate besides me at the moment. He’s fighting a war against Obama, against the west, against God knows what else.”

The authorities continue to keep Navalny on his toes, and there is always the threat of new criminal cases. Sometimes the charges appear so flimsy they veer into the realm of the absurd. Over the summer, his flat was raided by investigators who seized a picture. The picture had been drawn by a street artist in the town of Vladimir, and been on display on a public wall. Someone pilfered it, and gave it to Navalny as a present.

“The artist has given interviews everywhere saying he never sells his art, that he doesn’t care that it was taken, that he doesn’t want there to be a court case, but they just ignore him – the case exists. From the case materials we can see that FSB [security services] generals are working on the case. They have six top investigators working on it!” Employees of Navalny’s anti-corruption foundation have been questioned, searches carried out, computers and telephones seized.

Indeed, Navalny is such a toxic figure in Russia that any association with him can lead to trouble. In the Kirov court case, a former business partner was hauled into the dock alongside the politician; his brother Oleg is also on trial in the current case.

“That’s one of the most unpleasant parts of my work, because everything that happens around me is basically one giant court case, which spreads out to engulf the people that are close to me,” he says.

It was hinted at several times that he would be better off leaving the country, but he decided to stay. Is he really more use to the opposition cause under house arrest, or potentially in jail, than he would be from abroad?

“Why should I leave? I have not committed any crime. You can agree or disagree with my political position but it’s absolutely legal. And along with me, 90% of Russians think corruption is high, and 80% of Russians think we should bring criminal cases against corrupt officials. It’s also an important matter of trust. If I want people to trust me, then I have to share the risks with them and stay here. How can I call on them to take part in protests and so on if they are risking things and I am not?”

He says it is pointless to make predictions either about his own fate or about how much longer Putin will be in power. Navalny has set up a political party, although it is not able to contest elections, and says he still harbours ambitions that one day he will be actively involved in politics, “including fighting for the top job”.

As for how Putin will finally end up leaving the Kremlin – through a split in the elite, a violent revolution or a democratic transition – Navalny believes one thing is for certain: “In Russia, it will not be elections that provide a change of government.”
Navalny in his own words

On Mikhail Khodorkovsky, formerly owner of Yukos, Russia’s biggest oil company, who was jailed in 2003, released in 2013 and now lives abroad:

“Perhaps if he had stayed an oligarch, I would have had a lot of points of dispute with him, particularly on the rights of minority shareholders, which I worked on as a lawyer. Yukos was famous for various corporate battles. But that was 10 years ago, and discussing it is pointless. I don’t see any position that Khodorkovsky has now that I don’t share.”

On Putin’s reaction to Ukraine:

“Out of nowhere, without any warning, boom: suddenly a genuine, anti-criminal revolution. This was a terrible blow for Putin, a hundred times more painful that the Georgian events, than [former president Mikheil] Saakashvili and his anti-corruption reforms. He cannot allow this in Ukraine. So I think one of his strategic goals in the coming years will be to do absolutely everything to undermine the Ukrainian state, to ensure that no reforms work, so that everything ends in failure.”

On the consequences of Russian actions in Ukraine:

“Putin likes to speak about the ‘Russian world’ but he is actually making it smaller. In Belarus, they sing anti-Putin songs at football stadiums; in Ukraine they simply hate us. In Ukraine now, there are no politicians who don’t have extreme anti-Russian positions. Being anti-Russian is the key to success now in Ukraine, and that’s our fault.”

On what he would ask Putin

“I would be interested to understand his motivations, particularly on Ukraine. Because he is destroying our country. It will all collapse, and surely he can’t not understand that it’s all going to collapse.

“If he wants to be an authoritarian leader, then that’s one thing. But why doesn’t he want to be a Russian Lee Kuan Yew? Why does he want to base his authoritarian regime on corruption? There are other ways of doing it.”

On finding the ‘Putin account’:

“I think there are probably a number of numbered accounts in Swiss banks where money is kept that Putin considers his personal money. But in the main it is all kept by nominal holders, like [head of Russian Railways Vladimir] Yakunin or the Rotenbergs [two billionaire brothers, who are childhood friends of Putin]. The money is communal.

“If intelligence services really wanted to find Putin’s money there would be ways of doing so, but all we can do is work with open sources and the information we get from insiders. We can’t show up at a Swiss bank and seize documents or analyse transfers. Corruption in Russia is so open that even we can find a huge amount. But to find Putin’s accounts, that’s beyond our capabilities.”

On how he spends his time under house arrest

“I’m reading a huge number of books; basically doing what everyone dreams of doing but never has time for. I’m watching the ‘250 best films ever’ one by one. All this American nonsense like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, and other old films.”

 33 
 on: Dec 19, 2014, 04:56 AM 
Started by Rad - Last post by Skywalker
Hi Rad,

Thanks for posting this. I thought gases in general would correlate to Neptune, why is Methane connected to Scorpio?

If I recall correctly, JWG said that life on Earth was seeded from Mars. Do you know who/what seeded life here?

Thank you

All the best

 34 
 on: Dec 19, 2014, 04:43 AM 
Started by Linda - Last post by Skywalker
Hi All,

There are also dispositors by House, in the case of this chart it seems one of the key planets to look at is Venus which is in it´s own house, which rules Pluto which is also in its own house. Venus is also conjunct the North Node of the Moon.

On Astro.com you can see the dispositor graphs under: Extended horoscopes/ Methods/Pullen Astrolog

Below I will attach the one for Jen´s chart.

Great thread Linda, Cat and everyone else!

All the best

 35 
 on: Dec 19, 2014, 03:59 AM 
Started by Linda - Last post by Linda
Hi Katherine,

FINAL DISPOSITOR

[Correction:  There is no final dispositor in Jen's chart because there is no planet ruled by its own sign.  For this reason, I deleted my last post.  Thanks for drawing attention to this, Katherine.]

The final dispositor is a planet in its own sign (eg Moon in Cancer, Mars in Aries, Jupiter in Sagittarius) that all the rest of the planets in the chart can be traced back to.  The final dispositor is important because it has complete autonomy, and its power is magnified.

If there are 2 or more planets in their own signs, then there is no final dispositor in the chart.  

In the case of 3 planets dispositing each other - example, Mercury in Sagittarius ruled by Jupiter in Capricorn ruled by Saturn in Virgo - this could be called a rulership loop.

All rulership trees in Jen's chart end in the mutual reception between Mercury in Leo and Sun in Virgo.  When a condition such as this exists, there can be no final dispositor.

We will be asking the EA question:  

What is the evolutionary necessity of having Mercury Leo 7th and Sun Virgo 7th in mutual reception?

Thanks for spotting the Mutual Reception, Katherine!

Linda


 36 
 on: Dec 19, 2014, 01:29 AM 
Started by Linda - Last post by Katherine
FINAL DISPOSITOR

Hi Linda,
Thanks for your response.  
I am questioning my understandings based on your methods. I am not looking for errors, and hope I am not coming across that way. I just don't understand how Mercury by itself is the final dispositor.  

Here's how the Final Dispositor is found:  For each planet, we begin with the natural ruler of its sign.  Example: Venus in Virgo - the natural ruler of Virgo is Mercury - Mercury in the chart is found in Leo - the natural ruler of Leo is the Sun - the Sun in the chart is found in Virgo - the natural ruler of Virgo is Mercury - and here we stop.  Mercury is the Final Dispositor because it is found at the end of each circuit (see below).

So, in most of these pathways you’ve listed Mercury twice… And you could list the Sun twice (though you didn’t) Mercury, Sun, and on and on ad infinitum.  This is the mutual reception, this is what I mean by a circuit, a loop.
See how the two examples differ? The first, Pluto in Libra, double-dips Mercury. The second, SN in Pisces does not double-dip the Sun.
I am curious why?

 
Pluto in Libra - Libra ruled by Venus in Virgo - Virgo ruled by Mercury in Leo - Leo ruled by Sun in Virgo - Virgo ruled by Mercury in Leo
SN in Pisces - Pisces ruled by Neptune in Sag - Neptune Sag ruled by Jupiter in Leo - Leo ruled by Sun in Virgo - Virgo ruled by Mercury in Leo

My understanding of a final dispositor is that it is a planet ruled by it’s own sign.  (If this condition isn’t met then there is no actual final dispositor, but sometimes there can be cases of reception.)  

I did find that JWG section in the glossary, but thanks for posting it here for reference.  So, there are the situations of a single final dispositor, >1 separate final dispositors, and final dispositors in mutual or multiple reception. The utmost point upstream, it can sway, or call downwind, everything below it—to what extent I don’t know because I am not well versed in traditional western astrology.  So, the ‘bottom-line’ is less of the deep Pluto vasana, that I think of in EA as a true bottom-line, but more of a thread, an undercurrent.

Linda, I feel uncomfortable possibly leading others astray.

Rad, hi, could you speak to this?

Thank you both,

God bless,

Katherine

 37 
 on: Dec 18, 2014, 07:48 PM 
Started by Linda - Last post by Linda
T H A N K   Y O U !



To everyone who has participated in Jen's volunteer thread so far!


Your commitment is very much appreciated!


Kiss




 38 
 on: Dec 18, 2014, 06:20 PM 
Started by Linda - Last post by Katherine
FINAL DISPOSITOR


Not only is the Resolution North Node ruled by Mercury but Mercury is also the Final Dispositor of the chart. In EA, we always ask "Why?" Why is Mercury so important? Mercury Leo 7th facilitates the process of recovering the skipped steps.


Hi Linda, and Moderators,
When the Sun is in Virgo and Mercury is in Leo i.e. in mutual reception, why would Mercury considered to be the final dispositor?
It is not a single point, but a circuit. I have some ideas as to WHY it is that a Soul would create this kind of a condition for itself...but better to ask than to confuse others with my guesswork.*

Thank you!

God bless,

Katherine

*snowshoes

 39 
 on: Dec 18, 2014, 04:51 PM 
Started by Linda - Last post by Jen
Hello Dawn Cerice,

Uranus opposed Vesta


Quote
Uranus opposed Vesta
Your need for freedom and unhampered exploration seems to run contrary to the spiritual ideals you hold dear, and a dichotomy exists within your psyche over traditional, cherished beliefs and the free expression of individuality. Sexuality may be a core issue, with ideas of sacrifice and celibacy facing off with the need for radical freedom. You could easily become a fanatic, either strongly opposing any commitment to spiritual traditions or conversely being over-zealous in your attempts to convert others to your way of thinking. Intellect and devotion may be polarized in your psychological makeup as are freedom and commitment. It is very advisable to find a working compromise, otherwise this dynamic is likely to be projected into an oppositional relationship, creating much tension
.

found at http://members.wizzards.net/~magyan/Uranus_Aspects.html

I see the above as a rather "lower order "manifestation in adulthood, but the general base theme is expressed well. I believe that some of this may have surfaced in adolescence? This would give you the necessary polarity to say, "this is where I am not going again..." As an adult, you may have moved away from expressing this through any type of physical promiscuity, but I believe I am seeing this polarity or oppositional force described in the struggle with your familial relationships. Vesta dedication, Uranus Separation. I am guessing, through this train of thought, that this is something that must be worked through spiritually, based on Neptune's skipped steps.


I have tried to see how these archetypes have manifested for myself and cannot see it. I have never committed to any spiritual or religious practices but I have never opposed them either. I was in my first committed relationship from age 15 and was very good and played house for the years that it lasted. I was then only single for a short period of time before meeting my first husband. I have dressed provocatively but that is as far as promiscuity is involved and I’m not sure if that is more to do with the Moon Uranus in Scorpio? How else can this manifest?



Additionally, I am wondering if you have siblings and how they have impacted your path... please forgive if you have already made mention, I missed it. Being led by both Chiron & Vesta in the 3rd, as may be obvious, additionally a 4th house Gemini can indicate siblings in the home.


I do have 3 younger sisters. The eldest of them close to my age and the other two many years younger so I have had more of a mother/sister relationship to them. I am not sure how they have impacted my path. The relationship I have to my closest sister is one where I guide her (secretly) while she believes that she is the one with all the knowledge of how life is and should be. We are opposites in many ways. She believes in University studies, corporate media and brand names. But on a core level we share the same values.

Thank you!
Jen

 40 
 on: Dec 18, 2014, 11:23 AM 
Started by Linda - Last post by dawncerise
Dear Jen,

Thank you for replying to my question of Vesta and its focus through Uranus...
I am sorry I was not more succinct.

I have retrieved this for some indication of the energies that can manifest through this configuration. This from Bob Marks may help:

Quote
Uranus opposed Vesta
Your need for freedom and unhampered exploration seems to run contrary to the spiritual ideals you hold dear, and a dichotomy exists within your psyche over traditional, cherished beliefs and the free expression of individuality. Sexuality may be a core issue, with ideas of sacrifice and celibacy facing off with the need for radical freedom. You could easily become a fanatic, either strongly opposing any commitment to spiritual traditions or conversely being over-zealous in your attempts to convert others to your way of thinking. Intellect and devotion may be polarized in your psychological makeup as are freedom and commitment. It is very advisable to find a working compromise, otherwise this dynamic is likely to be projected into an oppositional relationship, creating much tension
.

found at http://members.wizzards.net/~magyan/Uranus_Aspects.html

I see the above as a rather "lower order "manifestation in adulthood, but the general base theme is expressed well. I believe that some of this may have surfaced in adolescence? This would give you the necessary polarity to say, "this is where I am not going again..." As an adult, you may have moved away from expressing this through any type of physical promiscuity, but I believe I am seeing this polarity or oppositional force described in the struggle with your familial relationships. Vesta dedication, Uranus Separation. I am guessing, through this train of thought, that this is something that must be worked through spiritually, based on Neptune's skipped steps.

Additionally, I am wondering if you have siblings and how they have impacted your path... please forgive if you have already made mention, I missed it. Being led by both Chiron & Vesta in the 3rd, as may be obvious, additionally a 4th house Gemini can indicate siblings in the home.

With Uranus ruling your Ascendant, I see the Vesta/Uranus focused yod playing out physically & in your environment... I hope all of this helps you to determine what has occurred in your life along these themes.

I will tell you I really see this energy, which could be very difficult as a child, transforming into a sincere dedication (Vesta) to sending out a message (3rd) of a new & inspired form of spirituality (Uranus 9th) exactly as you were saying. I believe you must write & speak & share your ideas.

Thank you,
Dawn Cerise

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
Video