Thursday, June 7, 2012



This is my last Rollan's Censored Issues Blog notice here on Blogger where I have had difficulties since the new format which I don't fancy. I have just started a new site McCleary's Alternatives

Its first feature is Cannibal Skies, Zombie Apocalypse. Thanks for coming here and enjoy going there.

Friday, June 1, 2012



I can honestly say that the latest suspicion to arise in Norway’s trial of mass murderer Anders Breivik, namely that he is a repressed gay, is one I had recently arrived at myself and intended to write about here and shall finally say something about. Not however before a few words about why I haven’t written this before.

First, I have been obsessed with finishing my extended essay Solomon’s Tantric Song: Questions of Spiritual Sexuality, which hopefully should be out later in June – someone is working on the cover right now. Second, there were a few others things like forecasts and assessments of current events that I thought might be more important to deal with than any Breivik article. Third, I have had trouble with Blogger itself. When they changed format around the time I obtained a new computer, I put a tick in a box to cancel one article and it wiped out a whole years worth of Blogs including what I had forecast/speculated about Israel this year. I was able to get someone to retrieve one or two of the more important articles which I may put up again, but it’s dreadful. There’s no restore function for errors as in the earlier Blogger system, no way of contacting Blogger itself which merely refers you to a Forum where I found some others were complaining helplessly about my own problem. The net is not really a free zone, we are in the hands of a controlling few, alas.


 So to be brief as possible on Breivik and other complex matters…..I admit to be a bit fascinated by both Breivik and the Norway I regrettably haven’t visited – I’ve only made it to Denmark and Sweden more for family connections than tourism - though I’ve gathered it shares much feeling and value with those nations without being quite so secular (the scenery makes for a bit of nature mysticism if nothing else!). But the Scandinavian mindset seems minimally able to recognize or manage evil on the grand scale. It assumes everybody is good or can easily be made good (vide its ultra-liberal penal system), which isn’t necessarily the case. It certainly isn’t a particularly Christian view.

The latter would posit major evil is assisted and promoted by actual forces of evil, even guiding, possessing spirits as was almost certainly the case with the Florida cannibal of recent news who was growling like a dog as he chewed his victim’s body. Surely more than insanity and drugs were here. Just as there was when, high on drugs, Breivik performed his massacre with voices in his head (angelic?) telling him he shouldn’t do what he was doing. But even if angels were speaking to him he went ahead – because he too buys into Scandinavian ideas of natural goodness. In his disturbed mind he is a good man doing good for his nation even though (as revealed by a documentary here on the massacre) a mid European associate with somewhat similar political views still reported recoiling in horror as though hearing the devil when Breivik rang him with some ideas and intentions.


Jung famously perceived the principle of compensation at work in lives and societies. If you blind yourself to evil Scandinavian style then you risk producing monsters. And in a perverse, negative way Breivik is the prophet or symbol he perceives himself as being. Arguably he is unconsciously compensating things in Scandinavian society, including a poor management of an inherited violence. The Vikings, were particularly violent and “adventurous”. Scandinavians have now gone to the opposite extreme, making criminal issues out of spanking a child and, at least in Sweden, erecting what Julian Assange calls a society that is the Saudi Arabia of radical feminism. While many of us would question precisely that, it does seem the feminism may be getting out of control. Recently there have been calls to address and refer to all children as “hen”, (it), rather than any defined sex. Again one sees unconscious male rage rising against this. Breivik himself has said against the rearing he received at the hands of his mother, "I do not approve of the super-liberal, matriarchal upbringing as it completely lacked discipline and has contributed to feminising me to a certain degree.". (Even while writing this article the intolerably gruesome news from Sweden is that a man suspecting his wife of an affair has cut off her lips and eaten them. Sex and love are not necessarily the sweetness and light some imagine up there in "liberal", permissive Scandinavia!).

The fact is one cannot turn the descendants of Vikings, once the terror of Europe, into domestic pussy cats and lapdogs by modern law in a generation or two. There must be new ways of canalizing and rendering conscious various unconscious masculine ideas and archetypes. Scandinavia doesn’t have enough of these and the women themselves unconsciously resent the situation despite the rationalizations of their animus function – it’s notorious that despite the feminism so many go to the Mediterranean and further abroad looking for gringos (when they do it’s called their rightful sexual liberation, marriage being widely despised in Scandinavia as “possession”) and often prefer settling down with machismo men to living with their own tamed but privately misogynist males. And some descendants of the Vikings do seem just tamed or weak. Take Breivik’s father….

No sooner had news of the massacre got out than this undiplomatic sounding one time diplomat to England and France was condemning his son saying it would have been better he had never been born. But perhaps it would have been better if he himself hadn’t been born!?  By the  time Breivik Jnr was one year old the parents were divorced, and outside of some visits to France Breivik saw his father but little. In fairness to Breivik Snr he is said to have petitioned for custody of his son but was refused – expect the laws of Scandinavia to favour women. (Julian Assange does have some reason to tremble). Number one problem with this murderer, long seen as kindly by friends at school, a protector against bullying, is almost certainly he has lacked proper male/paternal influence. He is a case of Vaterhunger, another victim of the Scandinavian free and easy lifestyles which flee any difficulty in relation - the women too readily walk out of Nora’s doll’s house and the men who don’t want to argue, let them go. When Breivik didn’t manage well in life he just returned to his disliked mother’s not his father’s home  living like a hermit remote from the world. Alienated friends suspected homosexual problems in the withdrawal – they felt he had always been a bit effeminate and obsessed with his looks (the gay painted pony type?) and he hadn’t been notable for girlfriends.


Whatever his orientation Breivik is also the text book case of the eccentric Aquarius(b.13th Feb,1979 in London) except that he isn’t just eccentric. He is forward looking and, in his way, Utopian like Aquarians, thinking and speaking in terms of how he will be seen in the future and how history and attitudes will unfold. Unfortunately there’s a bit of method in his madness as there usually is with Aquarians. There was plenty of madness in the likes of Tom Paine, much derided in his own lifetime, but he did see ahead clearly enough on some things including the welfare state. Another Aquarian Francis Bacon well and truly saw the future, his New Atlantis inspired ideas foundational for America. Jules Verne dreamed many details of history in advance.  James Joyce anticipated literary trends. 

All this can be helpful, but the trouble is Aquarians are too often rigid fanatics for what it is they decide is or should be – an all time prime example is North Korea’s recently deceased Kim Il-Jong of North Korea who reduced a whole nation to a state of almost unparalleled destitution and repression for its own supposed good while he indulged himself.  Aquarians, ruled by different, revolutionary, Uranus are also open to anything and this will often mean they incline like the Emperor Hadrian or Ellen DeGeneres to being gay. And we know that as a group gays are trend makers even more than trend followers.


So we have two questions. Is Breivik tapping into any real future and is he gay? As the second question is slightly easier than the first I’ll cover it first. As said there's been talk of using makeup, vanity lack of girlfriends etc. This of course isn't conclusive - Latin men can prove quite vain. What about the birth pattern?  Strictly speaking we need the birth time that no one appears to possess to analyse for gayness, but there are suggestive factors as things stand. Homosexuality falls under the Uranus that “rules” Aquarius though among straights it could just make for surprising behavior or proneness to accidents. But many gays do have Breivik’s Mars square Uranus affliction. It’s what makes for the in-your-face conduct and more reckless and kinky kind of sex of some gays. The massacre was Breivik’s “orgy” of violence under Mars/Uranus. But it’s also an aspect which assisted his technical knowhow to do it, Mars/Uranus people are technical round sex the type that uses kinky sex instruments but the rifle with which he had almost a personal relationship was enough for Breivik. Overall It would however be more helpful to know if Brievik’s moon is in aspect to Uranus (which it could be on his birthday if we knew the time) as this is a surer sign of homosexuality and an associated will to separate from women.

Breivik’s Mars opposite Black Moon Lilith is a strong warning of the already erratic disposition to violence turning potentially demonic at the same time as it could issue from some kind of Viking resentment towards angry feminist womanhood. Yet his cold and conventional Venus in Capricorn could work against wanting to come out gay and/or to experience same sex love as any aspect of his protest. A problem is that on the one hand the loose conjunction of Breivik’s Sun with Mars renders him keen to be rather conventionally male and belongs with his known interest in sports (to help him keep nicely in shape apparently!). But his disharmonious moon in Virgo and other factors could incline him to something more feminine or effeminate. We must also recall that Uranus itself when  as in his case dominant can incline to the sexual extreme whether that will mean striking androgyny or a marked masculinity. So Breivik could swing either way as he appears to have done.


As to the future, just as I see Breivik as being an unconscious representative of a repressed, politically incorrect but in context not unmeaningful anti-feminism, so he represents awkward unconscious compensation towards something. This is the  excessive, secularist, half, or post-Christian rationalism which simply can’t and won’t accept certain core truths. Breivik is mis-expressing and of course wrongly responding to certain contemporary ideas. Yet he may still in his way be ahead of his time, Uranian style, in recognizing problems not yet to be properly assimilated and enunciated. It is not necessarily the mere “illusion” that politically correct, liberal thought would make it out to be, to insist that a problem exists in the West with such as immigration and multiculturalism. Nor is it necessarily wrong to speak of them as entailing an “invasion” or at any rate some kind of conflict. Repress even the expression words like “conflict” as discriminatory and you court troubles of which Breivki is merely the harbinger. 

Sadly, Breivik’s talk of conflict arguably perceives, Aquarian style ahead of time, what eventually the complacent may be forced too late to realize – there really is a challenge to be addressed by more than appeasement. Indeed, since it seems Christians are on the way to become the new persecuted refugees, the West would not be unjustified if it debarred Muslim immigration just to make room for the massive influx of all those Christians and others the Muslims don’t want near them and which the West is duty bound to be concerned  with if it honestly believes in its own human rights philosophies. 

The influx of immigrants to the West (six million Muslims now dwell in France alone and around 3 million Turks in Germany) is inevitably controversial. It’s hardly racist to ask questions considering the entire population of New Zealand is only around 3 million and the Irish Republic 4 million! We are finally compelled to ask can and should nations be distinct or total hybrids or entirely new entities all but defined by their immigrants who with their higher birth rates will soon rise in proportion to the population? A quarter of all Breivik’s Oslo is a ghetto of immigrants whether Muslim or other, and if and when an immigrant attacks the native (as had happened to Breivik and people he knew and as has happened in Sweden’s Malmo with a major crime problems it hardly dares mention), one can almost rely on police to downplay or even ignore the offence lest the truth appear discriminatory, “racist”, fascist or extreme. So justice is not done and obvious truth unspoken in the interests of a convenience calling itself tolerance.  

This toleration is a mere rationalist, secularist parody of Christian values. The open door to such large numbers of people bids fair to become like the uprooting and (dis)placing of entire nations, nations which, besides, wouldn’t themselves reckon to adopt westerners on the same scale and certainly not tolerate their ways even as a small minority. The persecution of Christians in especially (though not uniquely) Muslim nations is now well nigh ubiquitous from Pakistan to Sudan, and is a scandal of such proportions that a frightened and/or indifferent media doesn’t deal with preferring to espouse the more trendy theme of denied gay or women’s rights. Aid pours into Afghanistan but churches mustn’t be allowed there, Christians are threatened with death, gays mustn’t exist etc. In Europe Britain now has towns with some schools having seventy to eighty per cent overseas pupils to the point English pupils scarcely have identity in their own land and English is not spoken around them. This isn’t a true and enriching multiculturalism, it’s merely a social inefficiency occasioned by the policies of purblind leaders who don’t themselves live in or near the new ghettos.

Worse, at least among some sections of Muslim immigrants, namely the more radicalized which I don’t suggest most are but who can dominate the moderates who fear them, there is hardly such a thing as immigration. Instead, it can equate to virtual colonization (A mosque built belongs to the commonwealth of Islam for ever – the principle has been a ground for raging disputes in Hindu India). The moment is merely awaited when their own values, assisted by higher population growth, can be imposed on the host nation, the process regarded as a religious cum political duty. Meanwhile it can get protested anything great or small barring the way to “acceptance” of these values is “prejudice”. This differs from the outlook and contribution of most other immigrants to anywhere, but again political correctness and the equality fetish must not be allowed to privilege or prefer one group over another. Again, this is the merest parody of Christian agape, one that parasitically and decadently draws upon its legacy.


 The irrational hope of the rationalist secularists from which Breivik so embarrassingly separates himself - even to improperly labelling himself a fundamentalist Christian - is that assimilation must and will take place. People will unlearn their past or they will at least learn toleration in diversity. Where is the evidence? It can happen second and third generation immigrants prove more extreme, are more atavistic, more alienated than those first landed (witness the recent Marseilles shootings) and in Egypt once one of the more liberal Muslim nations now wants Christians expelled and/or accorded  second class citizenship. Reason, from which so much is expected in the West, is only ever an adjunct, a correction, a justification to deeper currents of life more unconscious and which are the theatre of religious beliefs, (or unbeliefs and we know how even unbeliefs as of Stalinism can produce their own irrationalism).

The success of eventual integration and/or the workability of multiculturalism despite the signs is the one generalization political correct secularism allows itself. Otherwise it can draw or allow no generalizations. While Rome burns it dithers with the UN and the committee that demands ever more statistics and sociological surveys and proofs. It denies the man of action, which the likes of Breivik think of themselves as being, any meaningful role or voice. It denies the obvious and commonsensical. It is unnatural, and unhealthy an invitation to the outburst. If the West could have generalized from history and culture it would for example never have wasted its time and been so long deceived by the behavior of Assad in Syria. The West and its liberals if they were at all aware and able to generalize should have anticipated the so-called Arab Spring would more likely engender conservatism and desperate upheaval than democracy. Stubborn pride alone prevents these interest groups from admitting their miscalculations and the obvious truth.

Sometimes regretfully one must just speak the language of conflict and accept its burden, something which amid his many illusions Breivik does, though of course we should not pick up a gun with him either. But one cannot trivialize or romanticize or rationalize away major ideological and religious conflicts with all the barnacles  of their prejudices in the style of the Norwegian girl who, with the almost childish innocence of her nation in the face of evil, concluded the docu on Breivik admitting she loved the variety of interests and colour multiculturalism brings to her country. Much more is involved than the variety of restaurants and cultural spectacles, in fact so much more that it’s  almost selfish to talk that way. And until one faces the backlog of social and political irresponsibility governing many current policies, nations risk producing and half deserve the monster that Breivik, once supposedly quite kindly, has become.

 It would be tragic if Norway and the West couldn’t learn a few lessons from the Breivik fiasco but I fear it will ill now get explained away, secularist style, as an accident of repressed homosexuality when it is far more, including a perverse prophetic warning of sorts it would unwise not to heed.


Making up for lost Blogger time and keeping to a theme somewhat, everyone either has been or should be reading Simon Montefiore’s book and the have read it persons now include Bill Clinton and David Cameron, the latter oddly admitting to do it backwards. While still writing Solomon’s Tantric Song, I have joined this very wide reading audience for a deserved bestseller that covers a three thousand year panorama of what is often pure horror. The account has sometimes appalled me and sometimes had me in stitches but I feel I have learned a few things along the way and it somewhat colours the above reflections. I can’t take the side of the Crusaders with Breivik, but I can’t go in the opposite direction and take the side of Saladin et al. Even this supposedly generous man like most rulers throughout history has been glamourized and he crucified and tortured people when it suited him. He was only rarely forgiving and mild. The rulers of the Middle East seem mostly to have been Herods for murder, tyranny, torture and lies and among the Muslims they seem to have rejoined the cause of jihad in most generations even if they were personally the grossest decadents. Today’s Puritanism is almost a novel phenomenon.


Mentioning Jerusalem leads me naturally to the point that Blogger also lost me an article I had put out on prospects for Israel. I am not going to try to reconstruct its details but just in case and for the sake of it I shall put its core astrological observation on record.

 I observed that there were reasons to suppose Israel might strike Iran in late June or in July, and that, whether it did or not, that would probably be the easiest time for it to engage in such dangerous and controversial ventures. Key for this impression is that the lunation of late June hits degree exact on Israel’s natal Irani. At the same time, this lunation is opposite Israel’s Jupiter and trine its Mars. More could be said but doesn’t need to be so, as this formula covers what’s most essential. It’s a pity that Iran can’t realize Israel is not going to be wiped off any maps as failure to recognize this is likely to cause it and just about everyone lots of trouble sooner or later; but sooner might mean relatively soon. Few things are absolutely guaranteed in astrology (fate is rarely absolute) but there are guidelines and strong probabilities.

The other place to watch is what this month’s lunar eclipse might trigger for New Zealand. I don’t know what is the right best chart of New Zealand but a widely used 1907 ones is seriously afflicted by the eclipse. I mentioned in the erased material of last year that some would-be Anglican prophet of Maori origins alleged he was shown Wellington would be destroyed. He didn’t know in what year, but when it happened it would be in June, he said. Only recently there have been more shakings around Christchurch, so it looks like Wellington might be at some risk at this time.