history and philosophy of astrology

Do Not Associate Astrology With 2012

Over the past few years a well-meaning group of astrologers called the Cosmic Intelligence Agency has led a campaign to “make 2012 the year of astrology.”  Their goal is to use some of the hype surrounding predictions about the significance of the year 2012 to draw greater attention to astrology and the astrological community as a whole.   At one point they even went so far as to see if they could lobby the United Nations in order to officially designate 2012 as the year of astrology.

I would like to respectfully point out that this isn’t a very good idea, at least in my opinion.  Let me explain why.

Most of the hype surrounding 2012 hasn’t really been generated by astrologers, since astrologers weren’t the ones who originally designated 2012 as a significant year.  Rather, most of the claims surrounding 2012 have been made by writers associated with the New Age movement such as José Argüelles, John Major Jenkins, Carl Johan Calleman and Daniel Pinchbeck.

While it is true that the Mayan calendar ends in 2012, the Mayans themselves didn’t really say much about the significance of this event.  Additionally, there aren’t really any terribly unique astrological alignments that stand out in a way that makes that particular year seem incredibly significant on its own.  As a result of this lack of significant astrological alignments, there weren’t really any predictions about the importance of 2012 made by astrologers before the subject became popularized by the New Age writers mentioned above.  Virtually all claims by astrologers about the significance of 2012 have been made as a result of a preconceived notions that something important is supposed to happen that year because that is what the New Age writers have told people that the Mayans predicted.   So most contemporary predictions about 2012 by astrologers are attempts to justify why 2012 could be important from the perspective of contemporary astrological theory, trying to account for the preconceived notion rather than identifying something that stands out as astrologically significant in its own right.

So what’s the problem with this?  Well, if the predictions for 2012 didn’t really originate with the Mayans, and they didn’t really originate with contemporary astrologers either, then that means that they are mainly derived from a handful of New Age authors who have published a wide array of different speculations over the past few decades.  These authors have a variety of different agendas, and their predictions for 2012 range from the fantastic to the absurd.  The sheer number of different predictions about what will happen in 2012 means that many of them, if not all or most of them, will not pan out.  By “not pan out” I mean that once 2012 is over and we have moved into 2013 many of these predictions will have turned out to be flat out wrong.  This is where the problem lies.

My concern is that to whatever extent the Cosmic Intelligence Agency is successful in publicly associating astrology with 2012, to the same extent astrology will be seen to be discredited in the public eye once 2012 is over and many of the predictions about it are seen to have been false.  Instead of helping astrology, this campaign to promote the notion of some sort of connection between astrology and 2012 could actually end up doing great damage to the reputation of the subject.  And astrology is already in a rather precarious position from a societal standpoint, since the majority of people already think that it is disreputable to begin with, so it certainly doesn’t need any additional damage at this point in time.

Now, I realize that the intentions of those who wish to make this association between the two subjects are actually quite good, and they sincerely want to help promote astrology and put it in a positive light, and they think that this is a good way to go about doing that.  To those of you who hold this opinion I would just like you to consider the possibility that this could backfire.  Some of you may say that it is worth the risk, especially if you believe in some of the New Age hype surrounding the subject, but I personally do not.  This is not because I think that its too risky, but rather I don’t see any particularly good astrological reasons to place so much importance on 2012.   Most of the cycles that astrologers have pointed to recently as being astrologically significant during that time frame seem more indicative of much broader, long term types of developments that will take place over the course of years, decades and centuries.  I suspect that those who are expecting a defining moment in world history to take place on December 21, 2012 will find themselves to be deeply disappointed.

So, rather than attempting to associate astrology with 2012, I would suggest the exact opposite, that astrologers should actually go out of their way to disassociate astrology with 2012, and to distance the astrological community from what is sure to be quite a disappointment for many people.  There is nothing dishonest about this since, as I pointed out earlier, this fad didn’t originate within the astrological community, and its main proponents are not astrologers.  To be clear, this doesn’t mean that astrologers can’t look at various mundane astrological trends for next year or the years that follow and speculate about their potential significance for the world at large, but I just think that we should be much more careful about going out of our way to contribute to the 2012 hysteria and associating our practice with it.

The only real hurdle here is that there is often quite a bit of overlap between astrologers and those who are into the New Age movement, and sometimes it is hard for people to distinguish between the two.  I would like to be very clear in pointing out that the astrological community and the New Age movement are not one and the same though.   Astrology has been around for far longer, and has been a part of more civilizations and cultures than have even existed in the brief period of time that the New Age movement has been around, and I dare say that astrology will still be here long after the New Age movement has become a relic of the past.  The hype surrounding 2012 belongs to the New Age movement, not to the astrological community.   It is one of the last great pieces of millenarian lore that is so typical of that movement, and perhaps even of some of the cultural fears that our society has shared collectively during this time around and just after the year 2000.   And like the Y2K phenomenon, 2012 is another trend that will come and go.  Let’s not allow astrology to become the victim of a passing cultural fad.


151 replies on “Do Not Associate Astrology With 2012”

The best commentary I’ve yet heard regarding 2012 came from a Mayan Elder through one astrologer I saw at a reading he gave several years ago here in Seattle. The astrologer is S.G. Vanel and he told a story of visiting with a Mayan Elder in the Yucatan. He’d asked the Elder, what does the year 2012 mean? The Elder replied, “You have a choice.”

Which is a very profound yet simple way to approach anything related to predicting the future. We always have a choice. We can either respond to the news with fear and emotional responses or we can be intelligent and reason our way to a better future. I think this is an important notion that not enough astrologers emphasize, we always have the choice in any matter, despite outward appearances.


It’s really a shame that you had to single out a particular astrologer in a mean-spirited attempt to discredit them. You could have easily written about the topic and expressed your concerns without this kind of distasteful personal attack.

Why did you feel the need to try and make another astrologer look bad? This post tells me much more about you than the astrologer you are trying lambast.

Astrologers who do this, who engage in personal attacks in order to “bolster” their own opinions, reveal instead their own small-mindedness. This kind of behavior does much more to discredit astrology — astrologers flinging mudballs at each other — than any 2012 celebration ever could.

All that you have accomplished here is discredit yourself.

Elaine Kalantarian


I addressed a campaign which is being promoted by an entire group of astrologers. Nowhere did I single anyone out, so I’m not sure what you are talking about. I have expressed my thoughts on 2012 already in two separate articles on this blog. In this particular article the issue that I wanted to raise was the specific campaign that is being promoted by a group of astrologers – a campaign which has been endorsed by a number of other astrological groups and organizations at this point. I’m simply raising concerns that I have about that campaign, and I don’t really see anything wrong with that.


You should be able to make a point without singling out and insulting another individual OR group. Aside from this being bad manners and unprofessional, your post violates the following section of NCGR’s Code of Ethics (Are you a member?) —

A.5 Responsibilities To Others

a) Astrologers respect the rights of others, including clients, students and colleagues, to hold values, attitudes and opinions different from their own.

Thanks for writing a very cogent and well-reasoned article about an epi-phenomenon which is creating a lot of smoke and little or no light qua itself. That there is NO major cyclical index which indicates Dec 2012 as any sort of change, choice, disaster or other event only points out the marketing value of sensationalist band-wagoning and how nice it is to jump on the most recent crowd cloud… a New Agey Fad.

There have been other fads: “psycho-astrology”, asteroids, fixed (i.e., broken and bubble-gum repaired) stars, the whole “karma” soup kitchen of recycled left-overs, dwarf planets, minor planets, centaurs and other dust-bunnies, even the traditional and horary fundamentalist-revivalist movements fall into this plethora of distractions, along with the abstract self-referential banal tautologies and niceties of “divinational” hermeneutics.

Would be nicer (more precise) if astrologists were to return to astronomy and learn that they are dealing with the +/- ~4.5 billion years of cycles, and the symmetries, of solar system physical major bodies, huge nameless collectives of gases and minerals, and attempt to find a form of cogent and coherent empirical measurement of ‘the place’ of the organic agglutinates which infest the third rock from the central star of the system within that temporal/material swill.

Well written, Chris.

To Elaine: Chris does not single out any one astrologer, nor does he insult anyone. He mentions who says what, and respectfully says “I disagree.” That does not violate any code of ethics. The rule you quote, as a matter of fact, supports Chris’ right to disagree with the others. As far as I can tell, the rule you quote does *not* say: “and if you disagree, you are not allowed to say so.” If a code of ethics said (or meant) that, it would itself be worthless, and in fact, unethical.

Hi Chris, most respectfully I believe you may not fully understand the motivation behind the CIA’s spearheading of this project. You would be hard pressed to find a more committed, serious, informed, hard-working and knowledgeable group of astrologers anywhere, (or less flaky I might add). I am proud to be one of their “agents”. Of course you are completely entitled to your opinion, but it will be really unfortunate if this turns into yet another of those situations where dissension, misunderstanding and spinning of the intellectual wheels leads absolutely nowhere and ultimately adds zero to the field of astrology. I believe that everyone involved in the CIA would welcome an open discussion on your concerns, why not approach them directly and instigate a constructive dialog? That would really make interesting reading. Making a public criticism on any hardworking and enthusiastic organization without any prior direct communication will inevitably stir up defenses and make the productive sharing of different opinions all the more difficult. I for one am ever saddened by the in house bickering that so easily flares amongst astrologers, so my vote is for some mature enlivening straightforward communication instead of the painfully tedious back-biting that we may currently have in store for us over this difference of opinion. Every single one of us always has more to learn ….

Hi Evelyn,

I certainly don’t question how serious, committed, informed or hardworking anyone associated with the Cosmic Intelligence Agency is, nor do I doubt that their motivations are sincere and positive. I noticed on Twitter and Facebook that the official response from you guys seems to be that I misunderstand your intentions regarding this campaign. I don’t think that there is any misunderstanding though. I do understand your intentions, and I think that they are good. The point that I’m raising is that I’m concerned about what the potential outcome of this campaign will be, regardless of what your intentions are. Sometimes things turn out quite differently than what we intend. My concern is that, regardless of whatever you intentions are, if you are successful in associating astrology with 2012, then in the public eye you will have associated it with a lot of weird stuff that is ultimately going to make the astrological community look bad in retrospect. I’m not saying that that is what your intention is, but I am saying that I think that that will be one of the unfortunate side effects of your campaign.

Over the past few years you guys have engaged in a very public and prominent campaign in order to associate astrology with 2012. I don’t see any reason why a discussion about how advisable that campaign is shouldn’t take place publicly as well.


Right below your masthead were posted the following Google Ads:

Free Psychic Reading – Ask I Question, Free! Be Amazed. Love, Money, Relationships

and, this one’s especially good:

Make Him Addicted to You – Just Say This To Make Him Fall Madly in Love With You.

It’s okay to have these ads on your website? Don’t they run counter to your “concerns” about astrology’s reputation?

As Chris points out, there are no major astrological “events” happening in 2012 that are tied to the Mayan calendar issues, and that are not parts of even longer, slowly-changing cycles.

But on top of it, as serious and sincere as those in the CIA may be about this, there will be a lot of nut-jobs out there (and in fact, already are) making all sorts of predictions about what will happen. By marrying 2012 to astrology, the public will assume that all of astrology and these nut jobs are tied together, which clearly (to us) isn’t the case.

Elaine – you have a point to a degree. However, as a reader of this blog, I am intelligent enough to understand that just because Chris has chosen to allow Google to advertise on his page, that doesn’t mean that I should assume that Chris supports all of the services and products that they advertise. This is why, as a blogger myself, I have not (so far) allowed advertising on my page, even though it might make me a few cents; but I have no control over what those ads may be. But I have no quarrel with those who do (after all, those who try to make a living by being astrologers have to use many different resources).

This would be akin to watching a liberal-leaning TV show and seeing a commercial ad for a conservative in the middle of it. I am smart enough to understand that the show itself may not promote what is in the commercial ad.

By reading the actual content of the blog itself, I assume that Chris does not buy into a lot of what these ads are selling. And if someone comes to his page and follows the ads without reading his posts, then they probably would not have appreciated the posts in the first place.

But this is not the same as taking up the issue of an intelligent group of people, with apparently good intentions (rather than a bunch of commercial ads) and countering their point with an intelligent one of your own.

Chris La Fond,

Anything that is included on a website reflects on the author/site owner, esp these seamy Google Ads. Not only is Mr. Brennen allowing these ads to appear on his website, and as a result associating himself with this, he is making money from them.

Elaine: I’m sorry that you can’t figure out the difference. I certainly can.

Completely agree with Brennan, Lafond and Smerillo. Good article.

However well intentioned the CIA is in promoting astrology, deliberately tying astrology to what will probably be the biggest millenarianist upset/non-event ever can only turn out badly. The only way a campaign for astrology in connection with the 2012 fad would be helpful is if that campaign was to explicitly DISASSOCIATE astrology from 2012 in the public eye. Even bringing up the topic in such a public way probably isn’t helpful though unless we need a response to the media singling out astrologers on this issue or something, which for now they are not. What if all Christian religions had staked their reputations on the Rapture prophecy just a little while back? That as well as the 2012 fad are classic cases of millenarianism, let’s avoid the easily avoidable trap and move on.

Elaine: Google has control over what ads appear. What ads do appear are based on related search results to the topic of the page. The fact that sometimes ads appear on an astrology site that have to do with psychics or relationships have more to do with what the public thinks about when it thinks about astrology than what astrology actually is. The campaign of CIA, if successful, would likely bring about even more unseemly kinds of ads due to public perceptions of astrology being related to 2012.

As a client of astrologers who has a sun conjunct uranus I find the title of this blog most unappealing ! Its annoying and even more annoying is the fact that I am a client of an astrologer from Cosmic Intelligence Agency and I have been very happy with their consultation.
I have been to various astrologers over the past 20 years and it would be so BORING to just stick with one world view of the art.

Elaine: I see that your own blog pages cycle through ads for the Brazilian Butt Lift, California Psychics, and a particular Ford dealership, so based on your logic I have to assume that you fully support all of those businesses, some of which, by your own criticisms, seem to be scams.


You say that “I have been to various astrologers over the past 20 years and it would be so BORING to just stick with one world view of the art.”

In fact, the CIA efforts would make all astrology look as if it’s tied to ONE world view of the art. This is exactly what Chris is saying we shouldn’t do.

Nowhere in this post does he criticize anyone *as an astrologer*. He says specifically that this is a door that we, as astrologers, should not open to others who might steal the focus from what astrology really has to say about 2012 (not much), and allow New-Agers (mostly non-astrologers) to dictate what the public THINKS about astrology.

I think some people here are confusing criticism of CIA’s strategy with their ability or dedication as astrologers, which if you fully read the article, you would know that is not the case.

I really wish that people would read carefully the things that they respond to or criticize. So far, the criticisms of this original post are all for things that the post does not actually say.

Again, this just makes Chris’ point more strongly – if astrologers and clients of real astrologers are confusing what he is saying here, which is pretty clear, how much more will the public, which knows almost nothing about real astrology, confuse what New Agers are saying about astrology and 2012?

My point is not that there shouldn’t be a public discussion, (I would be most interested in following one on this topic myself), it is that direct and open minded communications are the only ones with any chance of being constructive. Saying “do not”, when a group of your peers most certainly is “doing so” is not going to foster anything but conflict … wouldn’t you yourself react the same way?

No-one likes being shot at from left field, and far better to have a direct dialog than to foster even more polarization than there already is in astrology. It’s the internal fracturing that I personally consider far more destructive to our “image” than what anyone “out there” thinks.

I’m a Scot and ever cognizant that we were never through all of history able to vanquish our oppressors (the English) because the different clans were far too busy fighting amongst themselves … whenever we even got close to the border we were already worn out and depleted from attacking each others. I think we astrologers are a little too much the same way.

A few people have criticized the title, both here and elsewhere. It would have been more accurate to call the article “Why astrologers shouldn’t try to associate astrology with 2012” or “Why I don’t think associating astrology and 2012 is a good idea,” but I ended up calling it “Do not associate astrology with 2012” simply for the sake of being concise, because I wanted it all to fit on one line in the header. I had hoped that people would be able to see past the title, since the emphasis of the article is simply me expressing my opinion on why I don’t think that such a campaign is a good idea. Nowhere do I make any personal attacks on anyone from the Cosmic Intelligence Agency, either in their character or practice. Nonetheless, I’m sorry if anyone was offended by the article.

I think Chris’s tone in the article was pretty fair. If you want a direct communication, you have to be clear about what your position is, so Chris states in the title: “Do Not Associate Astrology with 2012”. How else should he have stated that? Is there even a point to putting kid gloves on it? This post raises good points intelligently and civilly and is nowhere near “pissing inside the tent”.

I think what brings astrology down aside from internal disagreements is its associations with things that are not astrological, like the 2012 fad and other New Age things. Then again, I’m English. lol.

I don’t get it. Why would any serious astrologer want to make 2012 the “year of Astrology”? I already tell people there is no association between these predictions and Astrology. I do not know one person who seriously believes in the stuff out there on 2012, in fact it has become a big joke. I agree this would do no good for the reputation of Astrology. Thank you Chris.

I read with interest all the comments on 2012. I did some investigations into the supposed Mayan Calendar and long count, late last year and found that nothing really stacked up. It seemed to me the Mayans used the Venus cycle and looked at her risings, disappearence and appearences to mark out their cultural festivals, but I am probably wrong,as there are many experts out there who have obviously studied the Mayan culture and calendars and understand their language and symbols.

As we all know, Venus has an amazing overall cycle of 243 years. For further information on this cycle, I would suggest you read Wolfgang Held, Eclipses 2005-2017 ISBN 0-86315-478-6. There is also a wealth of information on Mayan predictions contained in the following- (I must stress I have not yet had time to read the various articles as I have only just downloaded them) but the above may help settle some of the dust.
To my mind, there appears nothing special with Venus’s movements in December 2012. But what a terrific marketing ploy. There are loads of books published on the dire warnings of 2012 so someone is doing very well out if it. But is it astrology?
I agree with Chris and others, that to align astrology with doom and gloom predictions may not be helpful to our wonderful subject in the long run.

I agree with you Chris…the 2012 hoopla is even being quoted from the pulpit as churches have a deep investment in the end of the world scenario.

In fact, instead of associating astrology and its re-emergence into society with 2012, we should be focusing on a date that actually matters to us. In my recent work “Elemental Wave Chronicles” I studied the Jupiter-Saturn Great Conjunction cycle over a 5000 year period (250 conjunctions) and found that there are these amazing Elemental Waves, and in 2020 the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn at the 1st degree of Aquarius marks the beginning of the pure Air Sign Wave for the next 200 years. In the past, these Air Waves have corresponded to intellectual revitalizations like the Hellenistic Greek Period, Gupta India, the Sumerian Renaissance, the actual Renaissance, and now what I am dubbing the Global Renaissance.

So if we need a date to associate a real and potent astrological cycle with, 2020 marks the beginning of the Pure Air Wave (no more earth sign conjunctions) marking a definite transition from the Industrial Revolution into the Intellectual Revolution.

Thanks Chris for writing this. I do love Evelyn’s post about having a dynamic discussion on the subject too!

The only way a campaign like this could be useful is if it aggressively made the point that the outlandish predictions about 2012 have nothing to do with astrology. However, like the Ophiuchus debacle showed, no one really cares what astrologers think about their own area of study. Realistically it seems that no one would hear the real message and the Mayan Calendar/2012 predictions are so ingrained into the public consciousness that tacking astrology onto it will only equate them as one conglomerate failure.

The best thing to do would probably be to do this campaign the year after, we could call it: “2013: The Year of Astrology (We Told You So…)”

The best thing to do would probably be to do this campaign the year after, we could call it: “2013: The Year of Astrology (We Told You So…)”

This gets my vote!

It would be nice if those who are criticizing would quote EXACTLY what they are criticizing and accusing Chris of saying. I think that if they read the post again, they wouldn’t be able to find anywhere where he insults, demeans, degrades, or disparages any other astrologer. He points out, very respectfully, that he disagrees with a strategy employed by the astrologers of the CIA. Now, maybe Evelyn’s request that he engage them more directly is a valid one – I’ll leave that to Chris and Evelyn – but all the other criticisms here are of things that aren’t actually in the post.

Nowhere does Chris say that the astrologers of CIA are not good astrologers, and that their services are not worthy (Vicky). Nowhere does he say that any particular astrologer is less-than-professional. What he DOES say is that most of the claims surrounding 2012 are made by four particular people. If you look at the websites and Wikipedia entries for those people NOWHERE does the word “astrology” appear.

So I don’t get how anything in the original post criticizes astrologers.

Thanks for your well-balanced article Chris.

I’ll skip the frick and frack regarding this or that astrological group’s feeling targeted (or insulted) — though I will say, quickly, that I didn’t experience your essay to be slanted or derisive — you used a deft touch in broaching the subject and then made your observations without hyperbole.

What DID make me uncomfortable was the suggestion that as an astrological journalist you should be censoring yourself. We need good writers who will step outside of the tacit party line that anything to do with astrology, the New Age or New Thought, should always be generated from a puppy pile of ‘feel goodness’ and soft analysis. That lack of inquiry and discrimination does more to damage astrology’s reputation than any sort of public misreading of a one-time ‘event.’

In closing, the fact that your article provoked a response like that of Lorenzo dello Smerillo’s (above) was doubly worth your effort. I enjoyed his point of view tremendously. Mainly, because, of course, I agree with it.

Cheers to you!


After wading through the dump of comments that ending up in my email box following my anecdotal comment to this post, it occurs to me that I may be inadvertently misrepresenting myself and the people I mentioned simply by being concise. I should add that before his remarks at his book reading many years ago, Mr. Vanel specified that he found little significant about the December 2012 date and during his visit in the Yucatan, the Mayan Elder he spoke with had requested he dispel rumors surrounding the end of the Mayan calendar. They both insisted there is nothing specifically significant about it.

Since then, many people come out publicly against the idea, people who have investigated Mayan culture and astronomy with academic credentials, not simply “mayanists” who are enthusiastic about Mayan culture and history. I can name Anthony Aveni and Kenneth Johnson, off the top of my head, although there are others. Even the writers mentioned in the original post, who helped conflate the notion, disagree to the extent that the calendar end date has specific meaning. Some don’t even bother to speculate beyond the idea that it is significant to them.

Finally I am myself at odds with the notion that the year 2012 must be linked to astrology. Still, I’m not sure that making rules for or against an idea is really the best way to clear up the confusion. Debate is healthy and I for one will continue to read this blog, whether I agree with what you have to say, Chris, or not.


It’s only backstabbing if you assume the wrong groups of people to assign the pronouns to. The “we” in We Told You So isn’t astrologers who disagree with the CIA’s campaign and that “you” isn’t the CIA and others. The “we” is astrologers and the “you”is the general public and the people who have cashed in on the 2012 hype.

Chris: good article, clear, fair and honest.

Frederick: absolutely right and possibly more relevant than even you think.

Keep doing what you’re doing.



Of course you have aright to express your opinion, I suppose some do it diffidently than others. I do think however that it does come across as quite harsh and very much against the motivations of the C*I*A. Our motivations and intentions are about promoting Astrology in a positive light, and because of all the New Age connotations and end of the world doom and gloom scenarios we can help to validate our tool as part of a rapidly changing world.

As you know as opposed to the NEW AGE, astrology has been with us for a lot longer, and can we not indeed group together to celebrate such a rich and dare I say evolving practice.

This is our purpose, with the inevitable attention that 2012 brings and like any media frenzy that pounces on us to answer questions about what it all means, we can have a response and our own astrological insights about what it means. As many of you here say nothing big happens Astrologically in 2012, many of us see the Uranus and Pluto first exact square as quite significant and a Venus Transit too. With Venus we also had the transit in 2004, but this won;t happen again for another 120 years. These are significant to our western astrology and we have our own tool that we use to look at the changes and shifts upon us.

From our perspective it is about informing and even calming down the hysteria of the New Age not feeding it as you say, but articulating what it is Astrologers do as we work with a symbolic and unique language that is our own and misunderstood by most.

It is unfortunate that the timing for this has come now, as just in the next few weeks we have the next stage of the Campaign getting ready a letter that articulates further our purpose behind this whole idea.

Also a number 12 year won’t be happening for another 100 years. Do you think that 12 is significant for Astrologers?

I would say that in the end this is all about Astrologers sticking together, we are inspired by the same stars, although we interpret in a myriad of different ways, this is a Celebration more than anything Chris, and as you work with disassociating Astrology with the New Age 2012, we will work to find a clear and intelligent voice for Astrology within these crazy and uncertain times. In the end we are pretty much doing the same thing.

Your opinion that the 2012 phenomena will brand Astrology further the wrong way, we (and not just us) see it as an opportunity to clarify and enhance what it is we all do.

Good luck to you.

Hi Chris

The core basic intention of the CIA is to participate with where the ‘collective mind’ is at, as a way of working with the concept of the Anima Mundi, or World Soul. We respond to what arises ‘in the field’ so to speak, whether it’s 2012 or something else.

Yes, there is hype about 2012 and as a result the public already associates 2012 with astrology. Given this has already happened, instead of spreading more hype our intention is to widen and expand perceptions of astrology and to show how the deeper cycles of time operate. We are hoping to encourage people away from fear-based doom and gloom beliefs about 2012 and stuck ideas of astrology toward a wonder in the cosmos and the diversity of astrology. We are doing the opposite of ‘going out of our way to contribute to the 2012 hysteria’.

Sadly, it is true that there will be a lot more media hype about 2012 that will misrepresent astrology. It will be a challenge not to be misrepresented by the media, but we are up for the challenge! The campaign is a risk in that regard but we think it’s a risk worth taking. When 2012 is over we will keep responding to and participating with whatever next captures the public fascination, and will continue to challenge old misperceptions of astrology in the media.

I don’t want to get into a tit-for-tat here, and this will be my last post on the matter, but if a website is all about you, then essentially it is your website. And if it has ads, then those ads are associated with you.

Julija and Michelle,

I fully support your basic goal of trying to clear up misconceptions about 2012, and trying to get rid of the hysteria surrounding it, and I will be right there along side you in that endeavor. I should point out that I did not mean to imply that your group will be contributing to that hysteria, and I should have worded that sentence differently since that wasn’t the exact meaning that I meant to convey. Now that I understand how that came off I can see why some of the responses here have been so negative.

So, let me clarify. My main concern here is that the message that most people will get from your campaign is simply that there is a connection between the astrological community and the phenomenon surrounding 2012, and ultimately I don’t think that that is a good message to convey. Even if you try really hard to clarify some of the stuff surrounding 2012 and put astrology in a more positive light, I think that the main effect that your campaign will have is making people associate astrologers and the astrological community with some of the more negative manifestations of the 2012 phenomenon. I get that this is not your intention, but I strongly suspect that this will be the unintended side effect of the campaign.

Michelle indicated that you are aware of this risk, but that you think that it is a risk worth taking. Ultimately I think that this is the main point which we will have to agree to disagree on, and others who are following this discussion will have to consider how they feel about that point as well.

And… YET, one finds on the Cosmic Intelligence Agency site the following uncritical and rather strange article, a run-on collage of “New Age” misconceptions:

“In 2012, two magnificent eclipses will shadow our Earth, one in May across Hong Kong, Tokyo, and across the Pacific Ocean into the western United States; and the other in November directly over Cairns, Australia. Astrologically, they both connect with very significant stars to which the ancients gave much spiritual credence. These two eclipses both precede the end of the Mayan Calendar that is said to end on 21 December 2012 and, according to John Major Jenkins, an alignment of the Solstice Sun with the Milky Way culminates a World Age”.1

This would seem to be playing to the wolves who would see astrology as piffle.

There are no planetary cyclic amplitudes which occur on the fatal date espoused by the Mayan enthusiasts, whilst there are two fourth harmonic amplitudes of UR-PL, which continue until 2015, seven in all. And, no, that is not symbolic. Nor is 2012, nor is 12: piffle!

Lorenzo dello Smerillo

The UN Defintion “Since 1959 the UN has designated International years in order to draw attention to major issues and to encourage international action to address concerns which have global importance and ramifications.”

The actual designated theme for 2012 “International Year of Cooperatives” :- promote cooperatives and raise awareness of their contribution to social and economic development and promote the formation and growth of cooperatives

An alternative direction for this dialogue would be to actively participate towards the decalred UN theme for 2012 instead of this pointless mutual self destruction that only undermines the general view of astrology.

Grow up!

Ophiucus is rightly pointed out as our last “teacher.” We were not ready for a community reaction back then, the headlines were over the top, and without cease! The public seems fascinated by astrology, or in their parlance, “predictions.”

It might have been an opportunity had we only seen it coming!!! But, but we’re astrologers! (Explain that to the public.)

With Ophiucus, it was a problem. But here in 2012, we have the concrete prediction, none of this wobbly scientist-files-Ophiucus story.

… Who are we today? By your suggestion we are timid and frankly too incompetent to hold a conversation with the public on a grand scale. It seems we are concerned that won’t be able to deliver the impossible, and thus remain relegated to the very back row of credibility. We suffer! and worse, go the poor house for the love of astrology. (Been there done that hated it)

My challenge: we roll the dice a little and discuss the current trends, and make it meaningful, and more importantly help our reader, help our client to also find meaning. Is that not our job? If our audience is a little more in harmony, a little more aware of what’s coming down the pike, doesn’t that properly set the stage for the public? Isn’t it in our best interest to better enable our readership to get their Bearings upon this rocky shoal? We do have something to report for 2012. It’s not what the Maya may have been dreaming, but our own message.

Don’t we have a moral obligation to indeed identify with what Social Proof (2012) has handed to every astrologer alive on a veritable silver platter? We have an opportunity.

We might better take a dance step forward into the challenge, not the reverse. If the community of astrologers can (YES!) create a strategy that makes any sense it will be to take our capacities but add a clever layer of communicating, not to become a cheezy seller of souvenirs, but to reach out in a meaningful and substantial way (clearly with each one of us in our own fashion) to help co-create the future. This instead of waiting passively at the edge while the dance goes on without us. People really do want to know how your service can benefit them.

How we respond as a group is what matters. How seriously we can adhere, as a team, to a public message will underscore our success in 2012. The set-up been handed to us without obligation. And yes, we can make asses of ourselves if we follow the same route as the gold-diggers who prey on the fears of people. Can’t we make something positive of it? Something to benefit humanity? Ourselves? I would be surprised if the answer was in the negative. That’s what I stand for, anyway!!

(I have reduced my response which was too long to post here)

I really hope this doesn’t happen, this 2012 year of astrology idea…It scares me to think of it.

I say if a group of astrologers wants to proudly celebrate the continued relevance and acceptance of astrology during these magnificent times of a general shifting of consciousness which some of us can feel and which “2012” as an archetype generally encapsulates, then I say good for them! And if one does not wish to participate, then I say great! I don’t feel an obligation as an astrologer to participate in any one perspective, and there are many out there. Astrology is an ancient and solid discipline that needs not fear public opinion nor try too hard to control “the image”, but instead I think we should all just focus on making sure we are doing what we resonate with to the best of our ability. No need to put anyone else down.