Charles Darwin (Aquarian), The Key To Understanding Alinsky And The Rise Of The Modern Psychopath

The reason is Darwin.

As I promised and as so many of you are likely clamoring and excitedly waiting for, here is my follow up to my post on Saul Alinsky and how his philosophy is directly related to Darwin. Darwin, Like Alinsky is an Aquarius. I’ll be writing more about Aquarians in the coming days (Axl Rose and Greg Oden) so I am least insured that one person, my new friend, astrologer blogger extraordinaire, Twilight Starsong will have at least one comment. By the way, if you haven’t found her blog, I heartily encourage you to check it out. She updates daily and always has something interesting and entertaining to read as it relates to astrology. But back to the serious business of understanding why we humans casually abuse one another to the point of serial cruelty and wholesale exploitation.

In my post on Alinsky and his mind-snapping manifesto, Rules For Radicals it became clear to me that the fundamental basis of his work was eliminating the concept or morality completely from any aspect of “Rules.” Ironically, what might have originally moved Alinsky, probably started from a recognition that the world itself was fundamentally immoral, unjust, unfair and unequal. He saw this first hand in the stockyards and ghettos of Chicago, where livestock and hope was slaughtered on a daily basis and the rise of the capitalist state was claiming its first set of casualties in the rush of industrialization. So perhaps Alinsky thought that he would fight fire with fire. Since capitalism seemed to take no quarter, nor would he and his philosophy for the full and total takeover of such an “immoral” system. He was an Aquarian and as such, an agent of equality, however, Alinsky’s rules of engagement, in my mind were ultimately devoid of being able to deliver real change because at it’s center, it had no heart. Ironically, when we looked at his chart, it was nearly devoid of any planets in water signs. This to me signified a man that was all mind and matter with little room for such luxuries as emotion and feeling. This represents one of the key components of psychopathology–the inability to feel and thus create a synthetic emotional experience. In essence those that cannot feel craft a virtual facsimile that has all of the appearance of emotion, but exists solely as an access code to the human experience.

I did not know Alinsky personally, though I do know someone who studied under him and I have no doubt that he would have a very different point of view than I do, but from the basis of his works and the strategies that he not only championed but employed to create change, I can only surmise that there was a psychopathic quality to the man as it reads in “Rules.” Now before we say that this is a drastic observation on my part, I will say that Saul Alinsky is far from alone in his psychotpathology. In fact, the entire 20th Century is one, long rise of the psychopath into the realms of governance and business alike. There have been new studies by people like John Clarke, an Australian PHD with a degree in Criminology (the same as Alinsky btw) who have noted the emergence of the psychopath in the workplace, in his book, The Pocket Psycho (Random House). The workplace is not alone as the psychopathic type, amoral, with no guilt or conscience has also found a home in government as well. Anyone watching what has taken place over the last eight years in The U.S. will no doubt agree with the fact that Bush and his cabinet were clinical psychopaths without much social pretense of being anything other. Theirs was a naked and perverse flaunting of their own agenda regardless of the consequences to the current or future generations. For a quick look at some of the characteristics of of the psychopath, check out this piece on Clarke and his work at Rawstory.

So how did the psychopath rise to such heights in the 20th Century? It’s a complicated list of factors, but I will attempt to take one, sweeping, broad stroke, a shot across the bow of secular-humanism in my attempt to show how the social landscape provided the key element to fertilize the hatching of the modern psycho. It was our old friend, Charles Darwin.

Darwin was an Aquarius, born 2/12/09. His moon was in Capricorn, which lends to a very dispassionate view of emotions and relationships. Capricorn is heavily invested in hierarchies and from an emotional vantage point, we can view Darwin’s studies and work as a biological pyramid, where man sits atop dues to his evolutionary ascent, out of the muck and murk of the primordial swamps. Water plays a key role in Darwin’s application of science with five planets in water (three Scorpio, two Pisces), but his assessment that “we” are the crowning achievement of evolutionary mutation is fundamentally flawed on a number of levels.

First off, it creates the aforementioned hierarchy which seemingly places us above all other life forms. This critical assumption has contributed to the view that we are apart from nature and not of it, even though Darwin concludes that we are a product of natural selection, we distance ourselves as we assume the role of the specie prima. But it is wrong and has led us down the path of ecological destruction and if anything, has disconnected us from our natural roots. It’s no wonder that the Darwin has been championed from the halls of science to philosophy and business–there is “seemingly” no inherent morality in the natural world order. There is only domination and survival, where only the strongest and fittest are the ones allowed to pro-create and evolve. This is antithetical to the other, creation based model. Because if one buys into creationism, then they also get a fully prescribed set of beliefs along with their lifetime membership. In those beliefs are volumes of dogma and morality, codes of ethics and behavior, laws apart from nature, commandments, the rule of God. Can you see the ultimate contradiction between the two?

When Darwinism is at the center of scientific and social belief systems, frivolities like morality are discarded for the rational and logical, but in that void between us and the primates exists a space where anything goes, that if it indeed is the strong that survives, then who determines strength and it’s application of? Surely it’s not God. For the Darwinists, there is no God and as such, morality and codes of conduct are merely antiquated modalities. Can you begin to see the connection between Alinsky and Darwin?

Darwin as I had mentioned previous had five planets in water, including his Mercury in Pisces, not the best place for a scientist aiming to be objective. His Mercury in Pisces no doubt made him aware of the ocean as a source of life and we all know how Darwin saw us evolving out of that aqueous and fertile sea of DNA and diversity. Evolutionists have made the ocean/blood connection as a core principle of their findings and even John F. Kennedy championed a similar view;

At a dinner for the America’s Cup yacht crews in Newport, USA, put on by the Australian Ambassador on September 14, 1962, the then US President John F. Kennedy said: ‘‘I really don’t know why it is that all of us are so committed to the sea, except I think it’s because in addition to the fact that the sea changes, and the light changes, and ships change, it’s because we all came from the sea. And it is an interesting biological fact that all of us have, in our veins, the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean, and therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears. We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back to the sea—whether it is to sail or to watch it—we are going back from whence we came.”

Very poetic but very wrong. Chlorine, sodium and selenium levels are decidedly different in the human body than the ocean. There is no doubt that we share similar elements, but the degree that they are shared is vast enough to suggest that we might not have originated from the ocean after all. Was Darwin with an overabundance of water in his chart willing to put too much emphasis on the sea/land creation/evolution? His Jupiter was also in Pisces and it lends even more of an emphasis of water to his chart and the overall level of water playing a primary role in our primordial ascent. Jupiter is often associated with vision, abundance and creation, a second sun in our solar system, it’s where we expand in our charts, where if we have the courage to follow possibility, we will be rewarded, usually in the sign that cohabits Jupiter. For Darwin, it was Pisces and all of it’s oceanic possibilities.

His Saturn was in Sagittarius and this placement important for Darwin and Darwinism in general. Sag represents higher learning, colleges and universities. When it is paired with Capricorn there is either a rejection of traditional ideas or traditional institutions themselves will find the ideas objectionable. The social landscape that Darwin launched his ideas into was still fairly religious and in some ways superstitious. It was the first modern system to attack traditional religious beliefs using science as the metric in order to do so. Here see Cap/Sag in full display, manifested in the war between belief and pragmatism. At the dawn of the 21st century, I think we can safely surmise who won. Science, the mechanistic model of the universe passed down through Newton, Kant, Descartes, Locke, Hobbs and Darwin determine most of our social interactions, with a lingering cloud of Christian doctrine, quickly dissipating in the light of reason, faintly informing the increasingly nebulous codes of our morality. You might be thinking that I’m advocating some form of intelligent design or creationism. Well you’re wrong.

When I was a young man, I was fascinated by what many would call the mock-science of Erik Van Daniken, author of the controversial, Chariots Of The Gods. While a number of Van Daniken’s claims have been shot down by “respected scientists” there have been other researchers that have done a great deal of work in the field of human evolution, the intercession of alien species, the seeding of the planet and sealing us off from the multi-dimensional nature of our reality.

Tomorrow, beyond Darwin and replacing religious morality with cosmic accountability.