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”

@ Ryhan… the Of*ckius debacle opened the door for me to sway my science professor father to finally open to listening to me about astrology (and not just glaze over)… this summer, he and his wife even asked me to look at a chart for them. I’m convinced that recognizing/’seeing’ astrology is like a lifting of a thin layer of the many spiritual veils… this spiritual growth aspect makes it very difficult (I’m actually thinking impossible) to ‘convert’/or ‘help to see’, everyone simultaneously who is going to be drawn to participate in an open online conversation. (think of biblical stories from the perspective that even a “perfect” soul like Jesus (hence we’d expect talent to get point across) couldn’t convert every ear that heard his words.

@ Elaine… your attempt to discredit Chris by the ads that happen to appear when you go to his page would be labeled “ad hominem”
(if you want to carry weight accusing Chris that he makes himself look bad… “poor” debate techniques might be a good thing to avoid)

also… from what I’ve seen, such ads are either scam spam or actually tailored to the computer cookies in the computer from which you are viewing the page, of course unless it is part of the page and an actual ad for something the person owning the page is selling… just sayin’

Chris… you had to go and post this w/ Merc. stationing and about to turn… seems like it opened up more subjects for review than you were expecting.

As it is turning out, despite my thought that you could have made your points w/o identifying any group, I think I’m going to thank you for forcing another subject to the surface.

As I see it, western astrology has “softened” too many astrologers to the idea that their work might actually get critiqued. I land on the side that believes that responsible discourse within a field doesn’t “weaken it”, as those perceiving what Chris did as an attack might try to say. “it is an art, so anything goes”… with another extreme trying to make it a science.
I land in the middle… it is an art based on a science.
The field (of astrology) needs players wearing cleats like the big boys (willing to take it to deeper levels, and not grow complacent w/ what we think we know)… as it stands, the field is mushy, too much water (emotion) mixed in w/ the earth (structure/Saturn… exalted in air/intellect and logic).

@ Evelyn… I’ve been confused about CIA (is it one, two or more)… I have to admit, I’m not comfortable w/ the “agent #” thing instead of showing the people behind the masks. (just a quirk that I’m inherently not impressed by “puppet people” online… it doesn’t make the content speak for itself more… I sense the person could be trying to “create” themselves to be something they might not be)
I think your response here is excellent and expressed well on the behalf of the other side of this “debate”. Knowing you are a part of it, I’ll look deeper.

Some of the comments brought to your article are both ridiculous and infantile.

Can someone tell me when disagreeing or even criticism of an opinion become the same as disrespect for the persons RIGHT to have that opinion? I have seen this thrown out too often as a “wet blanket” to in fact hinder or stop another person from their right to express their opinion.

If one is to enter any meaningful dialogue then their needs be two sides or more to an arguement.

If people cannot handle someone else expressing an opinion then they need to find something else to do with there lives than discuss philosophical opinions.

As far as I can see you have done nothing more than politely express your opinion and why. I happen to agree with your Right to have and express that opnion and since it is on your own web site if others don’t like it then in my opinion they can leave the site and dont read it.

If others out there are so immature that they cannot tolerate having their pet opinions challenged (not their right to have those opinions) then i hope they keep talking and show the rest of the grown up world just how small they really are.

Great article Chris. Totally agree.

So perhaps what needs to be said is “Please Do Not Presume to Speak for me.”

No group, no matter how many members, has a mandate to speak for all astrologers, much less for astrology. Speak for yourselves and for those who you can identify specifically as wanting you to speak for them.

Chris, I applaud your article – and the title. When one organization is saying to the world, basically, ‘DO associate astrology with 2012’ (and make it the year of astrology) it is, in all fairness, entirely appropriate for an opposing view to state, “Do NOT associate astrology with 2012” (and do not make it the year of astrology). A thing is what it is. It is disappointing that some folks want to call it something it isn’t, or repress responsible discourse. Mature coverage of an important topic requires names of sources, such as the ones that you identified. Otherwise it is juvenile hearsay bordering on gossip. Thanks for a great post.

Chris LaFond, if you spent any time navigating AstrologyThoughts it would be evident that it is a blog aggregator, it is not Elaine’s blog. Her site does not contain any ads.

But that’s really besides the point, all this back-biting about advertising which has nothing to do with either Chris’ post or the original complaint that spurred on this discussion. I think that if you (in this case, the CIA) have a web presence, it is fair game to be “called out” for whatever, there is no reason why someone would have to approach you privately to discuss one’s differences, especially if they are philosophical in nature, and especially if they’re about Astrological Public Relations. It’s not like a dissatisfied customer who tweets her complaints before privately approaching a business to resolve her problem. This is presumably about astrology professionals who have differences with regards to our PR problem.

One must be thick-skinned to own a “brand” on the web. My feelings get hurt too, but I’ve accepted that not everyone is going to love my approach.

“Chris LaFond, if you spent any time navigating AstrologyThoughts it would be evident that it is a blog aggregator, it is not Elaine’s blog. Her site does not contain any ads.”

Yes, but it appears to be one that you have to sign up to be added to intentionally.

My point was simply that the accusation being made was somewhat ironic given that the person leveling it could very clearly be seen as engaging in the same behavior, either actively or passively. The original accusation was one that drew the conversation away from the post here and into the arena of an ad hominem argument.

“AstrologyThoughts launched with listings of a number of well-known blogs that were not invited.”

Well then my apologies to Elaine for that assumption. I am sure now that she knows that her professional name is being associated with ads that she doesn’t support, she’ll be removing her site from their listing, since she feels so strongly about the issue.

“yes there is hype about 2012 and as a result the public already associates 2012 with astrology.” -Michelle Proctor. I disagree with this statement, just had to say.

The reason I say that is because, as far as I am aware, the public associates “2012” with the Mayans and maybe their calendar, but not with Astrology.  In fact it seems that many haven’t even considered how our calendars originated. The only reason the two topics are side by side in the book stores is because they’re both sorted under new age.  I don’t think I know anyone who *already* associates 2012 with Astrology.      

If this isn’t a Mercury retrograde in Virgo experience, I don’t know what is. I think this whole thing is another example of how polarized the energy is right now and it kinda makes me sad.
Chris, I can see your point and I thank you for making it and maybe none of us should care what anyone else thinks about the science of astrology because we know it works no matter which system we use. After seeing this reaction to your blog I’m wondering what zodicial releasing leveland sub level you’re in. It would be an interesting topic.
And to the CIA, I have enjoyed many of your postings and I wish you the best. Now lets all go take advantage of the last few days of Neptune in Pisces have a glass of wine…..

Chris Brennan is right. There is no significant astrological reason to make 2012 the “Year of Astrology”, and several good ones not to (Mars and Venus retrograde for starters).

Anyway, why do we need a year of astrology? The vast majority of the world’s population believes more or less firmly in astrology. It’s only the intelligentsia of the West that is hostile to astrology. And who really cares about them..? They are or should be smart enough to make up their own minds — and a year of astrology will simply disgust them. Believe me. Or do concerned astrologers think that we deserve massive research grants, government subsidy and so on. Next thing we’ll have to have pieces of paper allowing us to practice. Like doctors, or lawyers. Ugh. Not for this little black duck.

And as for the New Age or any other kind of millenarianism, milestones do come and go, associated with hysteria of various sorts, but rarely do the predicted horrors come with them (except for a miniscule minority of suicidal fanatics). For example, Krishnamurti who nearly destroyed the TS when he declined the honour of being the next world saviour, and more recently the Y2K fiasco and this year Harold Camping’s Rapture on May 21. And I am not hostile to Calleman or anyone else (I have published a number of Carl’s Mayan Calendar articles on Astrology on the Web, BTW, for anyone interested, do read The Saga of the Exiles, by Julian May, a long but enthralling science fiction series with significant emphasis on 2012. Maybe that’s where it all came from hahaha.

Astrology does not point to a massive quantum change in 2012. If there is one, then we are already undergoing it, thanks to the cosmic dance of the celestials, beginning with Saturn into Virgo and Pluto into Capricorn in 2007. It’s a mistake to set yourself up for a fall. Write better astrology and point it to real events in the real world, and we will all do better from it.

HI Chris! this is a very well-written and informative and insightful article.

Thanks for posting your thoughts in such a precise, clear fashion so that all could understand that life will actually continue beyond 2012! 🙂

You are doing GREAT work. Keep it up.

Sincerely, Toni

The vast majority of my friends are astrology sceptics, and they’re always teasing me about 2012 asking me when the world’s ending. They certainly associate 2012 with both astrology and a whole basketload of New Age prophecies, and put them all into the same wastepaper basket labelled “fruitloopery”.

The whole recent debacle when major news companies (and not just the tabloids) jeered about “astrology being wrong” because someone has “just discovered” (despite a book on the same theme having been written decades ago) that the Sun goes through the constellation of Ophiuchus, and completely ignoring all the facts, or bothering to actually ask an astrologer for their opinion, has made me rather wary of how we promote astrology in the media.

If the popular media were prepared to engage in a discussion about astrology that would be great – but their track record shows that they’re not interested in doing that. They want snappy headlines about how astrology is “proved” to be wrong, based on ludicrous strawman arguments. I’m expecting the tabloid press to have prepared their headline for 22 December 2012 already: “ASTROLOGERS SCREW IT UP – AGAIN!”.

I think Chris is right to be wary of astrology in general being associated with they hype surrounding 2012, because we effectively have no right of reply to the media soundbites. After the Ophiuchus affair I had clients – and know other astrologers who had the same issue – phoning me up worried that their sign had changed because of this “new” discovery and that their chart was wrong. I really like Ryhan’s idea of making 2013 the Year of Astrology. What a great opportunity after the “end of the world” hype for December 2012 to point out that the fascination with 2012 shows that we do have a thirst to understand and give meaning to cycles of time, and that’s what astrology does.

First of all, lumping Jenkins in with those others is not really fair or accurate at all. He is not “new age” but rather a real scholar and so far as I know his take on the sun passing through the great rift in the Milky Way is simply: “Cosmic Mother Gives Birth to The First God.” Hardly millenarism.

Also, since the Mayan calendar is not based on a 1,000 year cycle is it really accurate to call the hype around 2012 millenarism? I suppose what you mean is that some groups have seemingly appropriated the mayan calendar for millenarist type purposes.

In any event, saying that astrologers should isolate themselves from this is in many ways just the opposite of millenarism. Healthy boundaries are neither too rigid nor too open. Therefore, like Ophiucus, this could be an opportunity for astrologers to educate the public about what is really going on.

In my view, with the Uranus-Pluto squares coming down and beginning what Tarnas calls an “Epoch of Revolution” there could easily be in fact some enormous social transformation coming. This may feel to some people something like the end of the World. They will need help understanding what is going on. A re-frame is one of the most powerful counseling tools I have ever used. Rather than hiding or distancing ourselves from galactic alignments and off-ecliptic constellations, if we are worth our salt we should be able to show people more appropriate ways to frame these phenomena.

Good points, Gary, but attempts by astrologers to educate the public with regard to Ophiuchus were rather drowned out by sensationalist headlines.

Educating the public about wider issues, and how great cycles like the Uranus/Pluto squares might play out in terms of social transformation, would be a great thing to do. But the 2012 hype in the media at the moment isn’t about long-term cycles, it’s about 21 December 2012. By getting tied up with that, I fear that a lot of the general public and media will take little soundbites from all the hype out of context and end up with a totally fallacious new urban myth of “you astrologers said the world was going to end, and it didn’t”. I’m not disparaging New Agers, either, and would probably classify myself as one. But it’s not New Agers, scholars or astrologers who are whipping up the idea that 2012 is the end of the world, it’s an ill-informed media, and half-baked posts on social networks repeating and distorting half-truths that they’ve heard elsewhere – just like the Ophiuchus debacle.

So 2013 could be a great year for promoting astrology, to say that the world didn’t end, and we never claimed it would, but here’s what astrologers *are* saying about these cycles. I just think if we try to promote that message in 2012, we won’t be heard above all the clamour and the end of the world obsession about one particular date in the Mayan calendar – an obsession fired up by a media that prefers exciting headlines over sensible discussion, I should add, and not by astrologers.

Contrary to Caton’s inaccurate hagiographic description of John Major Jenkins as “a real scholar” one would do well to read the following:

The chap is nothing more than a autodidact charlatan.

He does not even understand that axial precession is an optical illusion!

More junk & piffle.


Lorenzo dello Smerillo


I agree that Jenkins is much more scholarly and down to earth than other Mayan calender popularizes, such as Pinchbeck for example, however he perhaps more than anyone else is using a standard New Age tool for predicting the beginning of the New Age, and that is precession. The Mayans probably arrived at the 2012 date by Venus retrograde periods, but that doesn’t give 2012 theorists much to go off of in predicting what will happen or why that year is significant, so this is where the theorists try to introduce precession.

The problem is that it is not clear that the Mayans were aware of precession, and this is a point of contention amongst Mayan scholars, with the usual conclusion being that it is possible but unlikely that they were aware of it. The west didn’t really even stumble onto it until the 2nd century BCE, and that was almost 2,000 years after the Mesopotamians first started recording astral omens. This is partially where some of the millenarianism comes in, since one way that that can be defined is by the belief that world history is divided up into neat 1,000 year periods of history, or in the case of precession it is usually 2,000 year periods for each astrological “age.” Campion has identified the use of precession as a millenarian tool for the New Age movement many times in his works, especially within the context of the Age of Aquarius doctrine.

Jenkins and others have simply appropriated that doctrine and started trying to associate it with the Mayans, in order to give some greater explanation for why 2012 is an important date, since the Mayans themselves were largely silent on the matter. In the article you linked to he even ends it by concluding that we are entering “a new World Age,” and elsewhere he uses language that is very similar to what people have said about the Age of Aquarius in order to describe the significance of the impending transition. By doing this he ends up conflating what is essentially the New Age doctrine of the Age of Aquarius with the Mayan calendar, although if you watch him in interviews you will notice that he is careful to point out the discrepancy, and acknowledges how the precession argument has an orb of at least half a century, so in it of itself it does not specifically point to 2012 as being significant, but rather it is more of a long-term period of transformation as the solstices slowly drift over those areas.

I agree with Rob Tillett, do we even need, or want a “year of astrology”? I believe Astrology would only be reduced, as the Mayans have recently been reduced to the 2012 *prophecies*.

Healthy individuals and groups can and should debate substantial matters like this one. It’s too easy to say that this is some Mercury retrograde issue. It’s something worth discussing that will only serve astrology if we can let our defenses down long enough to recognize that there are many ways to engage the general public. I think Chris did this in an appropriate manner. I appreciate the CIA but don’t see why disagreeing with their plan is disrespectful to them or destructive to astrology. We are not a fundamentalist organization that requires total agreement among its members nor prohibits public debate about our differences. The NCGR Code of Ethics mentioned above can equally be applied to Chris’ right to express his beliefs.

First, I agree that astrologers should make it clear that pairing us with 2012 is a conflation. Thank you for attempting to clarify that, Chris. Your effort at tackling this (obviously) contentious issue is appreciated.

However, in regard to what our strategy should be-

A vinegary distance from popular concerns is not particularly useful. As I believe Gary was pointing out, there is an opportunity in the midst of this mess.

In that I think that writing a new mission statement for astrology/astrologers as a whole is fruitless, I will instead offer my own strategy, with an invitation to borrow or steal any portion people deem to be worthy of such.

Hijack the widespread discussions of cyclical change. Astrology’s capacity to assess the pace, topics and timing of historical change is remarkable, and I believe that all we have to do is flex a little mundane muscle in order to sidetrack a portion of the 2012 audience.


PS I met and had an excellent discussion with John Major Jenkins after a talk he gave a few years ago. He prefaced that talk by telling the audience that the world is not going to end, nor is that a part of any prophecy. He then segued into a very responsible and well researched discussion of what the Mayan calender actually suggests. It was more anti-inflammatory than a bottle of ibuprofen. He may not be correct on all counts, but he is sincerely committed to working from existing materials and providing a responsible account. Calling him a “charlatan” is just not appropriate.

Hi All,

Bruce Scofield will be speaking on the 2012 topic at UAC at an NCGR pre-conference lecture.

Let’s remember people, please, that modern and classical astrology have no intersection with the Mayan calendar. Nor does our modern calendar. If you want to talk about calendars, I can do that.

I also think it might have been ill-considered to try to associate astrology with 2012 for obvious PR reasons. However, it wasn’t my decision.

I suppose one would better spend one’s time surveying the Mundane Track at UAC – where I will be speaking on practical, historically verified mundane techniques, not on flummery.

As a European astrologer I must confess I am unable to understand what all the fuss is about. 2012 !! Humbug…
The hype – Frankenstein’s monster – has been created. Now if the CIA are able to control and manipulate the hype to advantage – let them try. However to imagine that this could have a negative impact on astrology or on astrologers – is to my mind a serious case of wishful thinking. If only ….. Astrology will be ridiculed by those who will ridicule it – with or without a case of 2012 – while those who understand our noble art will be moved neither way.

[…] 2012… een getal waar astrologen moeilijk omheen kunnen – of een hype waar we collectief afstand van moeten nemen? In astrologie kringen – zeker in de VS – is er een grote discussie gaande momenteel over juist dit onderwerp. De CIA (the Cosmic Intelligence Agency) heeft 2012 uitgeroepen tot het jaar van de astrologie en heeft zelfs geprobeerd via de Verenigde Naties dit ook officieel voor elkaar te krijgen. Echter, dit initiatief van de CIA heeft veel kritiek gekregen, o.a. van Chris Brennan – die op zijn website een oproep geplaatst heeft: “Do not associate astrology with 2012“. […]

Hi Chris,

Excellent article! My astrology clients have asked me about 2012 and I have told them that the 2012 predictions have no astrological basis; rather, that there are aspects and configurations that are part of a longer cycle that goes beyond 2012, such as the Uranus-Pluto square.

I agreed that most of the predictions are generated by the New Age community and have nothing to do with astrology, and that it is harmful to the public perception of the subject. Unfortunately, I find many astrologers confusing New Age precepts with astrological concepts.

I have been an astrologer for 34 years and have seen how the New Age miindset has co-opted astrology in a misguided attempt to legitimize their own concepts.

Again, an excellent article!

Lorenzo – retrograde is also an optical illusion, and yet it is generally accepted as having meaning/effect! I don’t side with any faction here, particularly as have never even heard of THIS CIA…I’m just pointing out that that argument about Calleman seems a bit hypocritical in the light of astrology in general. Also – Chris LaFond – either all ads on people’s websites are therefore associated with them, or none of them are – re the arguments about both Elaine and Chris’s websites. I don’t see a lot of difference on this subject between the two and have no judgements on them, but if you do have judgements, try to be consistent and fair.

“Also – Chris LaFond – either all ads on people’s websites are therefore associated with them, or none of them are – re the arguments about both Elaine and Chris’s websites. I don’t see a lot of difference on this subject between the two and have no judgements on them, but if you do have judgements, try to be consistent and fair.”

I was pointing out this exact same thing. Chris was accused based on the ads on his website. I was pointing out that the accuser could be held guilty of the same thing using that same standard, which is, in my opinion, a bogus standard.

All i have to say is… Amen. before you know it, everyone’s going to be associating astrology with new age movements such as “the secret”, in addition to all of that other “woo-woo” ~psychic~.. excuse my language, but crap. Thanks for bringing this topic to the surface, Chris.

I totally agree with you.
Excellent article!
And though you may disagree with others, you have expressed yourself in a very polite and gentle way.

“The support for this campaign far outweighs the negativity circulating at the moment…” – recent post on CIA facebook page. After hearing the comments made here I’m not so sure about that. ? Seems they plan to carry on with the campaign in spite of good reason not to.

Great article Chris and thanks Dharmaruci for pointing it out. The intention indeed is good and I have noticed it can lead to debate – clients asking what’s all this about 2012? But I totally agree it opens up yet another topic we need to spend far too much time firefighting, as I see with much hope that astrologers are no longer taking things lying down- hurrah! (see Wikipedia debates). Astrology has nothing much to say about 2012 except of course for Pluto Uranus which has happened before. Even less about December. It could backfire. Thanks Chris for putting it so eloquently.

As a long-time astrologer, I’ve been very surprised to see the increasing vigorous and strident attempts to justify, defend, and legitimize astrology. Why is this necessary? The clients or students who are interested in the subject will seek out readings and take courses. Those who aren’t interested won’t bother or will maintain their belief that it is useless. So what? It doesn’t need to affect our practice and, to me, it is a gross waste of my time trying to convince or convert the disbelievers.

I think Chris’ reminder to refrain from associating astrology with the 2012 madness is timely and needed to be said, as many astrologers today have been linking New Age concepts with the subject.

The only reason we should not associate 2012 and astrology is astrology’s limitation to reflect things like frequency change, consciousness level etc. But given that the planet IS changing (and it’s a shame if someone can’t see it) and moving towards the next dimension, astrology could be a great tool in these beautiful times that we are about to experience.

Well done and well said Stravros. The voice of the reasonable, open-minded astrologer without an agenda or ego-issue, and speaking for those who can see the whole picture AS that – whole and inclusive, with roots in the same soil.

Stavros, do you feel this consciousness shift is a subtle, gradual change reflected by outer planet cycles whose effects will become evident over the coming years and decades? If so, it’s worthwhile to discuss how astrology works with this, but no specific reason to make 2012 the Year of Astrology rather than, say, 2013 or 2014. On the other hand, if you believe there will be a major defining moment in 2012 that indicates this change, as astrologers we’d need to show what astrological features show this. If one believes that the change of cycle in the Mayan calendar is the defining moment, that’s a perfectly valid belief, but not one that has any direct relationship to Western astrology.

Well I should imagine, perhaps incorrectly, that in the decimal counting system, ’12’ will forever follow ’11’. But that that is meaningfully significant is a matter of profoundly moot coincidence. And perhaps the rather aethereal connection between astrology and folksy numbology falls into the same category.

Venus transits– whereinat the solar satellite called ‘venus’ is seen from the earth to cross over the visible disque of the sun are an event which can only be seen with special filters, telescopes and/or shadow boxes. One would have to have some greater powers of misguided imagination to assume that the primitive Mayans had such, unless of course, were they not to have been aided by alien space creatures which had descended upon the earth from the Pleiades.

Venus transits occur at 243 year intervalls; with a sub-series at 129.5years and general intervall between the series of 121.5 year and 105.5 years, as can be seen from the following table of their occurrences:

7 dec 1631 –8 yrs– 7 dec 1639
6 jun 1761 –8 yrs– 3 jun 1769
9 dec 1874 –8 yrs– 6 dec 1882
8 jun 2004–8 yrs– 6 jun 2011
11dec 2117–8 yrs– 6 dec 2125
11 jun 2247–8 yrs– 9 jun 2255

That the orbit of ‘venus’ is slightly off the ecliptic, means that a ‘venus’ transit can only occur when it is aligned with its nodes, as they cross the ecliptic, and this occurs at regular intervalls as shewn above. Otherwise the small dot which is seen (‘venus’) to cross the disque of the sun will not be seen to cross the disque of the sun, i.e., there is no venus transit.

The last singleton of venus transit occurred in AD 60/68. Since then, beginning in AD 303 there have been drifting double pairs of venus transits, a pattern which will exhaust itself in AD 3948/3956. Drifting refers to the location over the apparent disque of the sun of the venus transit dot as seen from earth. There are about 30 such transit pairs between AD 60/68 and the final date. The exact single transit on the south venus node occurred in 3837 BC (-3836 AY). The next exact single venus transit is in AD 6872. Thus the periodicity of single passages spans a period of from 3837 BC to AD 6872 or of 10.708 years; whilst the period of double pairs of venus transits extends from AD 303 to AD 3713 or 3410 years. And before then it repeated, and after that it will repeat, presumably.

It is well-known amongst all astronomers –and perhaps intuited amongst some of the more intelligent astrologers– that there is a mathematical relationship in the periodicity of the earth and venus revolutions about the sun: 8 solar revolutions of venus are roughly 5 solar revolutions of the earth, with a difference of 1.57%. Thus the solar revolution periods of the earth and venus are (with a divergence of 0.46%) approximately equal to the the number 1.618034, known as phi, or the “golden number” ratio 3:2.

It is further known that the ratio of solar revolution of venus to the revolutions of the moon is 5*phi, with a divergence of 1.66%. And it is further known that one solar revolution of saturn is equal to 48 solar revolutions of venus, with a divergence of 0.24%. And finally it is known that one solar revolution of mars is equal to three solar revolution of venus with a divergence of 1.87%.

Such demonstrates the nullity of the “rarity” of the venus transit in AD 2012.

Calendars are arteficial measurement tables. Most are based on the soli-lunar-earth cycles. Their zero-years are entirely arbitrary and counts made from such, in one claendar system such as the Julio-Gregorian (BC/AD) which give imaginary significance to some year, such as 2012, based on folksy numbology techniques, are pure nonsense. The fatical Mayan year 2012 was never know to the Maya as “2012” (as they were totally unaware of the Julio-Gregorian calendar– as were most Europeans until after AD 1000). One does not find such numbology techniques applied to the year 1433/34 AH (the Mohammadean claendar), nor the Jewish calendar, nor the Chinese, etc., etc., etc., which correspond tot he Gregorian date AD 2012. Thus the inferences about the number ’12’ as somehow ‘significant’ are pure piffle.

Furthermore ’12’ is only used in astrological machinations as it is a convenient factor of 360 and 60, the numerical basis of Mesopotamian mathematics. Twelve is indeed the AVERAGE number of full/new moons in the time span of one solar “year” on earth, and that is why it entered into the calendar computations, as a convenient AVERAGE of the numjber of fixed, normal or measuring stars on the ecliptic and by which the path and timing of the moon’s motion was measured; as such it was introduced into Mesopotamian astronomy and later adapted (and widely misunderstood) by Hellenistic astrologists. This gave rise to the use of 12 signs, and a later extrapolation from that of 12 houses, from which nonsense astrology has not recovered in more than 2000 years, although the game might have been reformed and seen for what silliness it is during one of the recent 13th sign controversies– but that, due to the entrenched dogmatism of astrologists’ faith, was not to be.

The permutations, short and long counts of the primitive Maya calendar are just as insignificant and arbitrary, and therefore just as non-astrological as any other calendar system.

To cite the fact of the beginning of another uranos/pluto cyclic amplitude of the 4th harmonic in the year 2012 is not meaningful. Such occur at regular intervalls over their 127 year full synodic cycle.

One might as well declare a “Year of the Yucca” rather than a “Year of Astrology”.


Janet wrote:
August 4, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Lorenzo – retrograde is also an optical illusion, and yet it is generally accepted as having meaning/effect!


This is one of those instances when astrologers would do well to get their collective noses out of the ephemeris and look at the astronomical phenomena for what they are. Mercury is “retrograde” between the points of its maximum elongation, when this is in the east it is an evening star, setting after the sun; it then moves to its closest approach to the earth, and its orbital path is between the earth and the sun, at which period it appears to be ‘retrograde’ until it reaches its greatest western elongation and is seen as a morning star, rising before the sun.

This means that it is not “going backwards” but intensifying its combination with the sun and earth, most when it reaches its inferior conjunction with the sun. Were it not for its proximity to the earth, the moon would be perceived to have the same “retrograde” motion, with Mercury and Venus these perceptions, and the significance erroneously derived from them, are more correctly to be seen as a “new Mercury phase” to borrow terminology from the lunar cycle.

The most cogent explanation of this little phenomenon I have seen is that by Richard Nolle, available at:

He writes,

“The reality of course is that Mercury never stops in its orbit, and never moves backward: this is only how the relative motions of Earth and Mercury around the Sun cause Mercury to move through our night sky.
Mercury retrograde is the cycle when everything goes wrong, to hear some astrologers tell it. The truth is not so simple-minded. All things Mercurial are crucial during the intersolar Mercury phase; infrastructure, commerce, information, communication and transport being prime examples. Absent careful investigation and planning, and conscientious follow-through, all such things are apt to go off track during these cycles. Mercury’s intersolar (Max) phase is a time for focus, concentration, planning, follow-through and communication – all the qualities of the active and involved mind, in short. In case you haven’t noticed, most people are not especially alert and focused most of the time. When this kind of sleepwalking runs into Mercury’s intersolar cycle, with its focus on mental acuity, it doesn’t take long for things to go awry.

I’m confident that fear of the different (Mercury apparently moving backwards in the sky) gave rise to the paranoia about Mercury retrograde. This paranoia was fed down through the generations by the fact that most people are more or less, to use Gurdjieff’s term, sleepwalking most of the time. Comes a time when real awareness and focus is called for, those sleepwalkers run into a virtual (sometimes literal) buzz saw. If you’re sharp and focused and alert, you can avoid a certain amount of this mess. In fact, you can even prosper by concentrating on tasks that center on thought, planning and communication. But you’ll still have to dodge all the chaos created by the people who are sleepwalking. It’s like driving in city traffic full of bozos who are texting behind the wheel . . .”

sic transit stultitiam astrologicorum!